What Do We Think About Climate Change

[BillyDoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rooyt3ptNco

[Jimbo1490]

Billy
It's not a question of what I think, but of what the evidence shows. Clearly, there's no alarming warming trend from any of the graphs I showed you. Also, it was substantially warmer than today only few centuries back and by all accounts (it was during recorded history, after all!) every thing was just fine.
Ditto for the "highest CO2 level in XXX thousand years, blah blah, blah"; it's all bunk and that's exactly what the evidence shows, regardless of what you or I think.

As clear as the lack of an 'alarming' warming trend is your status as a "True Believer"; one for whom evidence is unimportant. You stated at one point that you wanted to get away from the "guilt by association" type of arguments. Here's what you said verbatim: "Jimbo, I agree with you totally that "guilt by association" is not an argument, just as "who said it" is not an argument."

Then you turn around two thread pages later and dismiss anything coming from the Heartland Institute, an example of "guilt by association".

The you summarily dismiss the writings of Dr William Gray, because his skeptical stance is well-known, and example of using "who said it" as a valid argument point.

It's no wonder the warmer side of the argument appeals to you; I'm sure you find a kindred spirit with such hypocrites. Maybe you can get up on a soapbox and preach the coming "Global Climate Disaster", then jump on a big plane and fly out for a ski trip. That would make your hypocrisy complete

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

From Dr. Lindzen at MIT, on the subject of feedbacks, among others:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ

Jimbo

[Tcubed]

I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

IMHO

[Jimbo1490]

Then put your money where your mouth is and show me this 'forest' of yours!



Jimbo

BillyDoc, I've put myself in some "hot water" on a couple of threads in the process of sticking up for our country, so I think it would be cool if people from around the world thought we were, at least, somewhat educated in America and were awake during science class. - Whaddaya say, dude? Jimbo knows his ****, and if you don't know what scientific method is, could you just lay low for awhile? Thx - Mark

[Tcubed]

Jim, i am not in the mood for an argument, but i think that a lot of energy gets wasted debating the details when the basics are important enough, and obvious enough to warrant appropriate actions without debate.

See my above post #2323 for a basic outlook.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone could disagree with such fundamentals.

But if you do , or if you see a flaw then please specify which part exactly and what are the reasons why those statements are in error.

***

Mark, how about sticking up for your planet instead of just for your country?

T.T.T. I was awake during science class but Jimbo is much better oriented to refute your generalities on a scientific basis. I believe, but am unwilling to demonstrate, that he has already addressed every angle that could possibly arise.
Now, from a sociopolitical perspective, I have to respond to your use of the word "greed".
Here we go! Martin Luther conceptualized that worldly work was a duty and diligent work was a sign of grace.
This formed a gulf from Catholicism, which was more concerned with "good works". Look at a world map of religion and you'll see this gulf very distinctly demarcated and picture how different the world is in areas Catholic than areas Protestant. In areas Protestant we have something called an economy, whereby people work to produce something - It started out to be out of obligation to God and evolved into obligation to family and self.
To be concise; In areas Protestant we built, we earned.
In areas Catholic, they converted and, shall we say, had a
more relaxed attitude about work.
In areas Muslim, which need to be included because of
sheer numbers, they lopped each other's heads off and
wondered what that black **** was coming up from the
ground.
In Godless areas, they developed communism, which always
fails.
Do you really believe because our parents taught us to work, that we are greedy? Because we worked our asses off and developed a continent or two, did we use more than "our share"? Are we bad because many of us escaped persecution and ended up in the only place free enough to let us do what we wanted as long as we didn't hurt others? Should we be punished, even if it were to mean destroying the society responsible for more health, prosperity, and benevolence than any other in history?
More relevent, What is the thing that most starkly differentiates Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic and Haiti? Relative prosperity? If you really cared, wouldn't you live in a grass shack over there or are you content to not pay U.S. income taxes while collecting almost all of the benefits of U.S. citizenship? How the heck did you score that anyway?
That being said, I do more for the environment than most, through education, trash drives, chemical and oil spill awareness, actually stopping to dip a plastic bag out of the water, conserving energy, and raising my kids to be like dad. I educate them to care but not accept bad science, or more aptly, non-science, as in Global Warming.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by BillyDoc

Probably more than you, Guillermo...

That sounds like an argumentum ad hominem

[Guillermo]

Some more interesting info:
Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity lowest in 30-years:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Cheers

[Guillermo]

NASA has taken an interest in the current solar minimum and is getting ready to launch one or more studies about it. They are willing to spend $4.5M on a three years program for such studies.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/....9%20CCMSC.pdf

From there:

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:

Causes – Solar output
• Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
• Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
• Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
• Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23;
• Effectively no sunspots;
• The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
• Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

Consequences
• With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
• Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
• Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Audio, Video, PowerPoints, and PDFs from the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewY...oceedings.html

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Richard Lindzen (allegedly one of those fools and/or corrupts Tcubed smartly warned us against) flags against simplified visions of climate variability, including the Sun's variability:

"The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science. In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional -- which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing a la increased CO2 -- is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it.

However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble.

Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature.

The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd -- almost as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook."

http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/...hat_to_Do.html

Cheers.

[alan white]

Better to look at data from a perspective of motivation. You can get way too far into details and minutae, never realizing that what makes you right is often only a desire to justify how you enjoy your life.
Seen from a perspective of motivation, each piece of information becomes realized differently, depending on personal orientation.
Like a force of gravity, the motivation to be right puddles and congeals wanted information in a way that corresponds to pre-existing ideas and beliefs.
This is why debates take up hundreds of pages and anytime one visits to see what's being discussed, as Frosty did, nothing has been accomplished in terms of changing anyone's views.
Immature insults are thrown at people, involving basic personal traits that polite and decent people, no matter what they believe, should know only would ever stand in the way of understanding.
So, if not understanding, what is the motivation?
"Being right" doesn't count as an answer to that question.

[Tcubed]

Excellent post, Alan.