Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Kuya]

So the parents get to decide who gets to leech from the rest of us.

[Tristam]

ITT: Max doesn't know what a negative control is.

They did look at other causes, this is the problem with a University of Google online education. The sun has been looked at, other trace gases in the atmosphere, volcanoes, what else Max? You've got the internet, I'm sure you can think of something professional scientists haven't thought of in the past 150 years. If this is a new cycle, identify the mechanism. According to your "fluctuations" graphs, the rate of current warming of similar magnitudes is 10 times faster than those rapid shifts to warm temperature. This would be pretty big news if you found something all those stupid pro scientists couldn't see. The negative control means there is no known variable which is changing that can account for the current change in temperature.

Also, figure out what you're arguing, I don't remember discussing a runaway greenhouse effect that would turn the earth into a trillion degree fireball, but it's possible that positive feedbacks can quickly remove glaciers, or vice versa if the energy budget shifted in the opposite direction. Answer in five sentences or less, and don't quote anyone, what do you think the models say?

Consider this, the models have already gotten something right that you got wrong. From your own graph dump, when you showed CO2 vs. arctic temperatures and lamented the "typo" in the middle, what you forgot to show was that the models accounted for that "typo" providing further confidence that they are correctly assessing the various non-anthropogenic causes of climate change.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Here's other things models have gotten shit right in the past:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere..._a_sceptic.php

* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed
* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected
* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening

[Max™]

ITT: Max doesn't know what a negative control is.

They did look at other causes, this is the problem with a University of Google online education.

I'd hardly call it a even a joke education, this is... a hobby interest.

The sun has been looked at, other trace gases in the atmosphere, volcanoes, what else Max? You've got the internet, I'm sure you can think of something professional scientists haven't thought of in the past 150 years. If this is a new cycle, identify the mechanism. According to your "fluctuations" graphs, the rate of current warming of similar magnitudes is 10 times faster than those rapid shifts to warm temperature. This would be pretty big news if you found something all those stupid pro scientists couldn't see. The negative control means there is no known variable which is changing that can account for the current change in temperature.

I'm saying this is normal variability of the climate. I'm not the one positing the drastic change from recent historical variations based on models with a hidden treatment of a single factor, specifically a factor which is not enough to cause the entire effect attributed to it.

Also, figure out what you're arguing, I don't remember discussing a runaway greenhouse effect that would turn the earth into a trillion degree fireball, but it's possible that positive feedbacks can quickly remove glaciers, or vice versa if the energy budget shifted in the opposite direction. Answer in five sentences or less, and don't quote anyone, what do you think the models say?

I think the models say there is something which is affecting the climate in a specific manner that makes them break down if the Co2 increase and "secret sauce" is removed.

I can't say what this "secret sauce" is, because no matter where I look regarding the fine details of the models, the result I get is "download and run the models to find out", basically.

Consider this, the models have already gotten something right that you got wrong. From your own graph dump, when you showed CO2 vs. arctic temperatures and lamented the "typo" in the middle, what you forgot to show was that the models accounted for that "typo" providing further confidence that they are correctly assessing the various non-anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Wait, by typo do you mean the negative weighting on the temperature stations? Cause uh... wut?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Here's other things models have gotten shit right in the past:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere..._a_sceptic.php

* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed
* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected
* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening

That Skeptic site is indeed a great accumulation of answers to nearly all of these issues.

However, your argument earlier sounds like almost a direct quote from one of those pages.

The null hypothesis is a statistical test and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not, there are known mechanisms involved whose effects can be predicted and measured. These effects are the results of simple laws of physics even if their interactions are quite complex.
But putting the inappropriate application of the Null Hypothesis*** aside, we are indeed well outside the realms of natural global variability as seen over the last two thousand years*** and even over the last 12,000 years.* We can go back several hundreds of thousands of years and we still see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles** were an order of magnitude slower* than the warming rate we are now experiencing. In fact, outside of catastrophic geological events like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum*** there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. I'd say the case for "it's all natural" is the one that needs explaining.


Oh, and by the way, we do in fact have compelling evidence.**

* Linked the same image twice?
** Same site, but a different spot on the site.
*** Wiki ftw!

Spoiler: show

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...es/fig2-22.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ho...Variations.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ate_Change.png

So uh, how is what this site does any different than what I do?

If I made the same arguments on a blog would that make you happy?


Well, I'm allergic to blogging, causes me to break out in hives, sorry.


Either way, all of this aside.


Can you show the data they used, how they processed it, and what they did to obtain their results?

If you had access to a system powerful enough to run the models on, would you be able to reproduce their findings?


If no, do you not see anything wrong with that?


Bonus fun!

Spoiler: show

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...es/fig12-8.gif

Co2, Co2 + Aerosol
Co2 + Aerosol + Ozone, Observations

[orson]

Which leads to my next point, overpopulation. Overpopulation isn't "going to happen", it has happened. The earth is overpopulated with humans, and it only gets moreso every year. We need a pandemic to hit and wipe out at least 70% of the world's human population. This, in turn, would reduce the strain on the land because we'd need less food. Needing less food would reduce the number of livestock raised, which would reduce the Earth's animal population more. Reducing our population is the most obvious solution to many of the problems we face today. You don't have to deal with the consequences of overpopulation (poisoning the oceans, greenhouse gas levels, etc) if you aren't overpopulated.
The final point is pandemics. Pandemics are more likely now due to the amount of traveling people do and the close proximity in which people live, but less likely due to our scientific advances. Still, you can see how freaked out people get at the mention of a potential pandemic, and how hard it hits the third world nations where people might not be in the best of health to start with. A real one, not this H1N1 bullshit, will probably happen in the next 50 years. At least we'll see an increase in H1N1 quality pandemic frequency.

Basically, right now I see us in a population boom, and I'm waiting for the bust and hoping I'm not voted off the island. I don't think we'll kill the planet, because I think the planet will kill (most of) us first.

You're stupid. Do you really think the earth can support upwards of 7 billion people? What do you think will happen when the poor start making advances towards a better lifestyle? The only reason it's "working" right now is because 80% of the world lives in poverty. If the population continues to grow, and countries like China and India continue to advance economically, our finite resources WILL run out. And it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I'm not saying we need a pandemic, but sadly, it would help the survival of the human species as a whole.

Population control and relishing the thought of humans dying en masse. The ultimate goal of supposed environmentalists. An attitude of the greater good so you can ignore the obviously more important and poignant problems, all the while fooling yourself and others to believe you're morally right. People who think like you are not only usually naive and misinformed but are often just spewing what their 1st year college prof told them.

It's attitudes like this that contorts the true value of protecting and conserving the resources that humans have into a damn religion. Where it's nature vs humans and we have to bow down to mother earth or in her wrath will smite us. Environmentalists then label this religion behind a guise of conservation and protection so that they can enforce their religious believes through legislation. According to environmentalism though people don't have a choice because it's a person's duty to maintain the comfortable status quo of what the environmentalists perceive the human race should be. This isn't like forcing people to wear seat belts in cars you're actually suggesting that we for the betterment of select groups of people take away others' freedoms all the while preaching that if we don't do it the planet with deprive the human race of life.

It's idiots like yourself that in the past honored China for their population control. China the government that forces abortions, sterilizations, and even used to remove children to put into orphanages to die. I suppose that we shouldn't even attempt to help starving people in third world nations? Oh wait, we are helping them! We're mailing them massive amounts of condoms after all maybe if they didn't breed so fucking much they'd have enough food and water. Couldn't possibly be about corrupt leaders, ethnic and religious discrimination, or war but even then, is that so bad as long as it kills people?

You have sick warped view of the world.

[Kuya]

It is kind of amazing how people are more willing to argue that a large amount of the human populus needs to die for there to be enough resources for all of us, rather than some humans consume too much.

[Kuya]

And unsurprisingly, that population that "needs to die off" is probably going to be from a third world country that consumes only a quarter of what first world countries consume.

[Max™]

I like to argue that a small portion of the population should die*, and the rest of us should move out into space.




*Politicians

[Kuya]

Though you are joking, politicians aren't an alien species who came from the nether to unslave us.

[Max™]

I'm actually not joking, and I'm the alien here.

Take me to your leader... and gimme a few minutes alone with them... and my death ray.

[orson]

It is kind of amazing how people are more willing to argue that a large amount of the human populus needs to die for there to be enough resources for all of us, rather than some humans consume too much.

Exactly it's far more important to look at improving the stability and standard of living of poor nations and helping them build responsible governments. Obviously it's one of the most difficult things to pull off. The thing is conservation and environmental protection is far easier to administer you have established a solid country and government. Generally if these idiots that point fingers saying that human population is destroying and sucking all the resources out of the planet then why is it a tiny portion of the population uses the majority of the world's resources?

That said the amount of resources we have available such as food and clean water is another issue hotly debated. Given the way humans adapt and the speed at which technology advances there's plenty of ways to increase the amount of resources we have available. Finite resources generally are very uncommon and usually can be replaced by something to either mitigate or completely stop the use of said resource.

The funny part is I'm all for protecting resources and conservation in many regards but stuff like cap and trade is just a bunch of bullshit that is seeming more and more to be thought up to put into effect a world wide socialist system.

[Kuya]

Then as the alien, i hope you realize that you have to use that death ray on every last human, because the politicians aren't the problem.

[Beckwin]

No real-world environmentalist relishes the thought of humans dying en-masse to save the planet. don't confuse isolated internet misanthropy with the real world.

there are environmentalists/progressives of sorts who support the transition to smaller families and lower birthrates, but that's a much different stance than saying "a bunch of people need to die hurr hurr." Given our resources and the modern world we live in, I happen to agree that developed countries ought to have lower birthrates, however it should be noted that it's being taken care of all on its own. China, which is still developing and still having issues feeding everyone, doesn't represent the rest of the world, in which developed countries offer tax incentives for having more children.

[orson]

No real-world environmentalist relishes the thought of humans dying en-masse to save the planet. don't confuse isolated internet misanthropy with the real world.

there are environmentalists/progressives of sorts who support the transition to smaller families and lower birthrates, but that's a much different stance than saying "a bunch of people need to die hurr hurr." Given our resources and the modern world we live in, I happen to agree that developed countries ought to have lower birthrates, however it should be noted that it's being taken care of all on its own. China, which is still developing and still having issues feeding everyone, doesn't represent the rest of the world, in which developed countries offer tax incentives for having more children.

Well I was using relish to drive a point home but many many environmentalists do value human life in very low regard. Granted our society in general now a days holds human life in relatively low regard anyways. Organizations like the WWF, PETA, and Green Peace are often very anti-human or at least discriminatory against humans, often professing the need to protect animals and habitats over even the well being of humans. Why feed the starving village when you can just buy out a land reserve to save Giant Pandas.

The problem I personally have is that they're still saying that people have to reduce the amount of children they have. That's fine as a suggestion and I'm all for a person to be able to advocate their believes. The problem though is from a solely conservation and environmental protection side of things population control isn't a factor that should ever be enforced by governments. Having a "belief" become attached to something the government can control such as conservation is like enforcing laws based on a religion. Again I think there are many ways to allow the human race to have the basic right of having children without using up all our resources to the point of self destruction but it's through technologies like water recycling, genetics to increase food production, and new energy sources (especially renewable.)

[Tristam]

I'd hardly call it a even a joke education, this is... a hobby interest.

I'm saying this is normal variability of the climate. I'm not the one positing the drastic change from recent historical variations based on models with a hidden treatment of a single factor, specifically a factor which is not enough to cause the entire effect attributed to it.

I think the models say there is something which is affecting the climate in a specific manner that makes them break down if the Co2 increase and "secret sauce" is removed.

I can't say what this "secret sauce" is, because no matter where I look regarding the fine details of the models, the result I get is "download and run the models to find out", basically.

The temperature records show the drastic increase, the model suggests an explanation. edit: model =/ data.

Oh I see, goddidit. I got troll'd.

[Solefald]

is it just me or is max is getting less and less coherent with every post

[Howard Roark]

You're stupid. Do you really think the earth can support upwards of 7 billion people? What do you think will happen when the poor start making advances towards a better lifestyle? The only reason it's "working" right now is because 80% of the world lives in poverty. If the population continues to grow, and countries like China and India continue to advance economically, our finite resources WILL run out. And it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I'm not saying we need a pandemic, but sadly, it would help the survival of the human species as a whole.

or people could relocate? germany is the size of ontario or smaller, it holds 85 million and afaik no one in germany is particularly complaining about it. Canada as a whole is absolutely massive, and could really hold a lot more people. Candada takes in something along the lines of 300,000 immigrants for various reasons, very single year, and with no signs of slowing down

stop spouting your pop solutions. the world is not overpopulated, poor people are having too many kids and they can't support them, there's a huge difference in stupid family planning and world overpopulation

[Howard Roark]

is it just me or is max is getting less and less coherent with every post

the charts look fine to me even if they're all reposts

[Max™]

The temperature records show the drastic increase, the model suggests an explanation. edit: model =/ data.

Oh I see, goddidit. I got troll'd.

Uh, what?


It is like I said at the end of that post: can you find the data (besides the stuff they threw away), how they processed it, why it was processed as it was, how the model works, what the data does for the model to work from, etc.

If you were given a rack of supercomputers with all the models they use, without knowing what their secret sauce tweaks are, and simply ran the data through, do you think you'd get the same results?


No, you wouldn't, because they have their hidden factors which get tweaked with no explanation or specification beyond "additional forcing reaction".

You couldn't find the data either... so... fuck, what the hell is hard to see about this not being "good science"?

[Shiroikage]

It is quite difficult to get your hands on original data in a lot of fields.

[Max™]

If you know where to poke around, it really isn't so bad if you're bored and dweeby enough.

The problem here being that I can't find the data which they did use, or how they used the data I did find, and we now know that a lot of this shit has just been discarded?

Argh!