- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nice to see the NY Times doubling down on global warming
Posted on 2/9/14 at 1:20 pm to udtiger
Posted on 2/9/14 at 1:20 pm to udtiger
quote:
This is a very simple issue. In order to know how much of an influence an input can be on a system, you have to know the state of that system without that input.
You have presumed the state of the system without that input is a "equilibrium" state.
That is incorrect.
I can't answer a question based on faulty assumptions, sorry.
1
Posted on 2/9/14 at 1:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Obviously the information you linked has limited relevance to solar effects over time
What does even mean? It answers the question:
"So how much of the global warming is natural, how much is solar variation and how much is man made?"
So what's your beef exactly?
quote:
Would you be kind enough to link our best available science establishing solar impact in W/m2 @ 50K-yrs BP, 150K-yrs BP, 250K-yrs BP, 350K-yrs BP versus 100K-yrs BP, 200K-yrs BP, 300K-yrs BP, 400K-yrs BP?
No. You're an educated man, you can find it on your own. Stop wasting my time.
quote:
That would be very helpful.
No it wouldn't.
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 2/9/14 at 1:47 pm to NC_Tigah
I dont need to address any of your evidence, its always wrong.
you posted an article in this thread alone that espoused the stupidity of 'global cooling', ehh wrong. that right there shot any credibility you have.
you think the oceans and their vast complex chemistry of mulitple carbon sinks behaves like a coke can in the summer with respect to C02 concentrations, wrong again.
you use debunked sources, and continue to defend them, when an entire faculty of phd's from HIS OWN UNIVERSITY disavow him...I cant stress how embarrassing that is for Easterbrook and if you continue to use him...you, sorry I cant be any clearer here.
I cant post graphs too
these are called trend lines. so much for global cooling.
oh and heres one that shows lag response by the climate to volcanic eruptions
you posted an article in this thread alone that espoused the stupidity of 'global cooling', ehh wrong. that right there shot any credibility you have.
you think the oceans and their vast complex chemistry of mulitple carbon sinks behaves like a coke can in the summer with respect to C02 concentrations, wrong again.
you use debunked sources, and continue to defend them, when an entire faculty of phd's from HIS OWN UNIVERSITY disavow him...I cant stress how embarrassing that is for Easterbrook and if you continue to use him...you, sorry I cant be any clearer here.
I cant post graphs too
these are called trend lines. so much for global cooling.
oh and heres one that shows lag response by the climate to volcanic eruptions
Posted on 2/9/14 at 2:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
What does even mean?
It answers the question:
"So how much of the global warming is natural, how much is solar variation and how much is man made?"
So what's your beef exactly?
Would you be kind enough to link our best available science establishing solar impact in W/m2 @ 50K-yrs BP, 150K-yrs BP, 250K-yrs BP, 350K-yrs BP versus 100K-yrs BP, 200K-yrs BP, 300K-yrs BP, 400K-yrs BP?
That would be very helpful.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 2:40 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Of course you don't.
I dont need to address any of your evidence
quote:Cruiserhog, the funny thing about science is Facts speak for themselves.
its always wrong
So we'll go at this once again, just to bring the point home.
Was Easterbrook correct in stating that in comparison to our present-day climate, the GISP2 series demonstrates multiple warmer past points?
Yes or No ?
Posted on 2/9/14 at 3:00 pm to NC_Tigah
Yep it does. clearly regional temperatures in Greenland were indeed warmer in the past many times than now.
but then...
you have poeple that come back and do a better study
Title
Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP
Authors
Johnsen, S. J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J. P., Clausen, H. B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A. E. and White, J. (2001), Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. J. Quaternary Sci., 16: 299–307. doi: 10.1002/jqs.622
Author Information
1
The Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven, Germany
3
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS 1572, CEA Saclay, Orme des Merisiers 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France
4
Science Institute, University of Iceland, Dunhaga 3, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland
5
Institute of Alpine and Arctic Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
*Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract
Oxygen isotope variations spanning the last glacial cycle and the Holocene derived from ice-core records for six sites in Greenland (Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP) show strong similarities. This suggests that the dominant influence on oxygen isotope variations reflected in the ice-sheet records was regional climatic change. Differences in detail between the records probably reflect the effects of basal deformation in the ice as well as geographical gradients in atmospheric isotope ratios. Palaeotemperature estimates have been obtained from the records using three approaches: (i) inferences based on the measured relationship between mean annual d18O of snow and of mean annual surface temperature over Greenland; (ii) modelled inversion of the borehole temperature profile constrained either by the dated isotopic profile, or (iii) by using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. The third of these approaches was adopted to reconstruct Holocene temperature variations for the Dye 3 and GRIP temperature profiles, which yields remarkably compatible results. A new record of Holocene isotope variations obtained from the NorthGRIP ice-core matches the GRIP short-term isotope record, and also shows similar long-term trends to the Dye-3 and GRIP inverted temperature data. The NorthGRIP isotope record reflects: (i) a generally stronger isotopic signal than is found in the GRIP record; (ii) several short-lived temperature fluctuations during the first 1500 yr of the Holocene; (iii) a marked cold event at ca. 8.2 ka (the ‘8.2 ka event’); (iv) optimum temperatures for the Holocene between ca. 8.6 and 4.3 ka, a signal that is 0.6‰ stronger than for the GRIP profile; (v) a clear signal for the Little Ice Age; and (vi) a clear signal of climate warming during the last century. These data suggest that the NorthGRIP stable isotope record responded in a sensitive manner to temperature fluctuations during the Holocene. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
you can read the paper at your leisure
but then...
you have poeple that come back and do a better study
Title
Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP
Authors
Johnsen, S. J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J. P., Clausen, H. B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A. E. and White, J. (2001), Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. J. Quaternary Sci., 16: 299–307. doi: 10.1002/jqs.622
Author Information
1
The Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven, Germany
3
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS 1572, CEA Saclay, Orme des Merisiers 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France
4
Science Institute, University of Iceland, Dunhaga 3, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland
5
Institute of Alpine and Arctic Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
*Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract
Oxygen isotope variations spanning the last glacial cycle and the Holocene derived from ice-core records for six sites in Greenland (Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP) show strong similarities. This suggests that the dominant influence on oxygen isotope variations reflected in the ice-sheet records was regional climatic change. Differences in detail between the records probably reflect the effects of basal deformation in the ice as well as geographical gradients in atmospheric isotope ratios. Palaeotemperature estimates have been obtained from the records using three approaches: (i) inferences based on the measured relationship between mean annual d18O of snow and of mean annual surface temperature over Greenland; (ii) modelled inversion of the borehole temperature profile constrained either by the dated isotopic profile, or (iii) by using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. The third of these approaches was adopted to reconstruct Holocene temperature variations for the Dye 3 and GRIP temperature profiles, which yields remarkably compatible results. A new record of Holocene isotope variations obtained from the NorthGRIP ice-core matches the GRIP short-term isotope record, and also shows similar long-term trends to the Dye-3 and GRIP inverted temperature data. The NorthGRIP isotope record reflects: (i) a generally stronger isotopic signal than is found in the GRIP record; (ii) several short-lived temperature fluctuations during the first 1500 yr of the Holocene; (iii) a marked cold event at ca. 8.2 ka (the ‘8.2 ka event’); (iv) optimum temperatures for the Holocene between ca. 8.6 and 4.3 ka, a signal that is 0.6‰ stronger than for the GRIP profile; (v) a clear signal for the Little Ice Age; and (vi) a clear signal of climate warming during the last century. These data suggest that the NorthGRIP stable isotope record responded in a sensitive manner to temperature fluctuations during the Holocene. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
you can read the paper at your leisure
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 2/9/14 at 3:07 pm to Cruiserhog
Well, you laid this one to rest, CH. But it'll come back in zombie form. 
Posted on 2/9/14 at 3:24 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:So Easterbrook pointed out the IPCC report was in error.quote:Yep it does. clearly regional temperatures in Greenland were indeed warmer in the past many times than now.
Was Easterbrook correct in stating that in comparison to our present-day climate, the GISP2 series demonstrates multiple warmer past points?
Yes or No ?
but then...
you have poeple that come back and do a better study
quote:What is it relative to Easterbrook's observation that you feel the NGRIP data series shows?
There just isn’t any nice way to say this—it’s is an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia. As a reviewer of the IPCC report, I called this to their attention, so they cannot have been unaware of it. For example, more than 20 periods of warming in the past five centuries can be found in the Greenland GISP2 ice core
Posted on 2/9/14 at 5:13 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Come on Spidy, Cruiser appears out of his depth.
SpidermanTUba
At least give the board solar forcing (W/m2) data correspondent to the Vostok temperature peaks and troughs. Come on Spidy.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 5:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That would be very helpful.
I doubt it.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 6:14 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
You have presumed the state of the system without that input is a "equilibrium" state.
That is incorrect.
I can't answer a question based on faulty assumptions, sorry
What a gutless fricking cop-out.
You'll cite and link countless "studies" which you believe buttress your argument, but you can't answer a simple fricking question.
What is "x"?
Until you can answer that, feel free to shut the frick up.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:15 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
Nice to see the NY Times doubling down on global warming The 'answer' for the man-made AGW believers is SYSTEMATIC CONTROL of man's actions. Herding cats, essentially. And control in ways that will necessarily affect ECONOMIC GROWTH to a far greater degree than it will the Earth's temperature. It'll take a hundred years of systematic action to reverse any temp rise trend, even if it could. But a radical slow down/virtual crash of a highly dependent World Economy...could happen almost overnight. Such an economic collapse would result in a calamitous disruption of the delivery system of basic goods and services, resulting in God only know what manner of societal desperation, anarchy and political upheaval. And it won't take a hundred years...more like the time it takes for a human to die of drinking bad water. Of course, when the population die off happens, then the whole man-made AGW issue...becomes MOOT. Problem solved. So, what are the ODDS of economic collapse? A hell of a lot higher if the AGW policies/mechanisms are employed. Does anyone see a 'black helicopter' scenario in this theory? Reduction of population...by doing the 'right' thing...both Progressive wet dreams. Strap in. It won't be Earth's temperature that kicks our arse. Unless it's from a n-bomb exchange.
........and they accuse liberals of doomsday thinking. That sounds like one of my 500 word essays I wrote in high school about why I should not be late for class.
Mr. Tuba man, I don't know why you bother. There's little in the way of cogent reasoning here. The fine art of , "if you're so smart then you tell me" because I have no fricking idea. You have the patience of Job, my man! Good luck........
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:20 pm to Creoleshmuck
quote:
Mr. Tuba man, I don't know why you bother. There's little in the way of cogent reasoning here. The fine art of , "if you're so smart then you tell me" because I have no fricking idea. You have the patience of Job, my man! Good luck........
Alter much?
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:24 pm to udtiger
I have so many accounts, I've lost track of them!:)
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:31 pm to Cruiserhog
OK, I just got off the floor from doing this
Because I hadnt read this thread, until after I posted a link to where the warmists had finally admitted (AFTER 13 YEARS) that the Earth has actually been cooling since 2001. And get this, due to Pacific winds. Yes for 14 years the winds have blown all that extra Co2, well, somewhere
But the warmists didnt know that report was about to be released and they tirelessly been beating that dead horse all the while the truth was being held from them
Because I hadnt read this thread, until after I posted a link to where the warmists had finally admitted (AFTER 13 YEARS) that the Earth has actually been cooling since 2001. And get this, due to Pacific winds. Yes for 14 years the winds have blown all that extra Co2, well, somewhere
But the warmists didnt know that report was about to be released and they tirelessly been beating that dead horse all the while the truth was being held from them
quote:
That has cooled the average global temperature by as much as 0.2 degree Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) since 2001. Scientists have been trying to find out why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas emissions have surged to a record.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
For example, more than 20 periods of warming in the past five centuries can be found in the Greenland GISP2 ice core
For fricks sake I just found out this Easterbrook works for the Heartland Institute. That right there ends any doubt this guy is a shill for big oil.
Easterbrook vs Ipcc data
one of many Easterbrook destructions
Figure 1: Easterbrook's two global temperature projections A (green) and B (blue) vs. the IPCC TAR simple model projection tuned to seven global climate models for emissions scenario A2 (the closest scenario to reality thus far) (red) and observed global surface temperature change (the average of NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4) (black).
ver the first decade or two of the 21st Century, the IPCC projected close to 0.2°C surface warming per decade. Thus we were very curious to find out where Easterbrook had obtained the information that led him to assert that the IPCC had predicted a 1°C increase over the first decade of the century (see minute 6 in the video and the lower right panel in Figure 4 below). Easterbrook's depiction of the IPCC projection is quite unlike the report's actual model projections (Figure 2).
A Skeptical Science contributor contacted Easterbrook to inquire as to the source of his depiction of the IPCC projections. Easterbrook responded that he had obtained them from the IPCC website, but that the data must have been subsequently altered or removed, because he could no longer find it.
more from this article
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this presentation is the degree of misinformation and distortion of reality associated with it. Any climate scientist can immediately tell you that the IPCC projected approximately 0.2°C global surface warming over the first decade of the century - certainly nowhere near 1°C. Yet nobody at Easterbrook's presentation spoke up to correct the glaring mistake, which was central to his entire talk. There were few climate scientists present at the Heartland conference, but the fact that nobody caught or corrected Easterbrook's error speaks volumes about the lack of climate expertise and/or lack of interest in getting the facts right amongst the conference attendees
Additionally, Easterbrook should never have made this error to begin with. The caption of the IPCC figure he used was clear and explicit that it depicted model simulations responding to only the greenhouse gas forcing. Even if the graphic in question depicted responses to the total global radiative forcing, to cherrypick a single model run and ignore the fact that it displays an anomalous spike in 2011 reveals exceptionally poor data analysis on Easterbrook's part.
There's more graphs if you want the actual data presented by Easterbrook at the Heartland Conference vs the Ipcc but I think Ive
discredited Easterbrook enough today.
Have a nice evening Tigah, I always learn something arguing with you.
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 2/9/14 at 8:54 pm to Cruiserhog
Maybe you missed this
And these guys are associated with the IPCC. Wanna discredit them?
quote:
That has cooled the average global temperature by as much as 0.2 degree Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) since 2001.
And these guys are associated with the IPCC. Wanna discredit them?
Posted on 2/9/14 at 9:53 pm to League Champs
quote:
League Champs
I did miss it. Perhaps you could link it. because I have no idea who or what your source is or to what data set review you are referring to.
if its the new paper suggesting a doubling of tradewind velocities cooling the pacific ocean have lessened warming over the past few years, why discredit that? Its completely logical and the climate model simulations in that paper meshed well with the observed slower than expected rise in temps in global AIR temperatures.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:20 pm to Cruiserhog
I'm not going to type the whole thing, but heres the post with many links
LINK
Basically, Earth is now cooling. Been that way since 2001. Guesses that its due to an increase in trade winds. Asked why trade winds increased in 2001? They dont know
LINK
Basically, Earth is now cooling. Been that way since 2001. Guesses that its due to an increase in trade winds. Asked why trade winds increased in 2001? They dont know
Posted on 2/10/14 at 2:42 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
So Easterbrook pointed out the IPCC report was in error.
What is it relative to Easterbrook's observation that you feel the NGRIP data series shows?
quote:Here's the deal. I don't care if the guy works for Sesame Street. Science is about fact, not funding source, not publication source, not political correctness, not "consensus", just fact. That is the wonderful thing about science.
For fricks sake I just found out this Easterbrook works for the Heartland Institute. That right there ends any doubt this guy is a shill for big oil.
Easterbrook vs Ipcc data
I had never heard of Easterbrook prior to this thread. His IPCC critique came up when I googled the OP. As far as I knew the guy may have been (may still be) a moonbat loon. So I read what he had to say about the IPCC report, then I verified the IPCC had actually said it. After that, as you begrudgingly attest, the FACTS speak for themselves.
Easterbrook was right. The IPCC was wrong.
But the fact he notified the IPCC of its errors, and those remain uncorrected, indicates more than simple scientific error. It indicates willful deceit by the IPCC. Willful deceit is something no scientist should tolerate. EVER! Yet folks here are doing just that. I don't get it.
Now we see some guy claiming Easterbrook misquoted the IPCC in a lecture. Easterbrook supposedly claimed IPCC projections of a 1°C temperature increase over a decade. Maybe he did. After reading a couple of other false narratives (including a few by the truffle farmer) directed at Easterbrook though, I am skeptical. Does not mean Easterbrook didn't make a mistake. But the critiques of Easterbrook read more like 7th grade badgirl school gossip than science. That is a problem.
The IPCC is claiming temperatures will rise 4°C over the next century. A claim like that deserves healthy skepticism even from folks who otherwise believe in AGW.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News