Global warming!! - Page 6

[GrimJack]

and that's your idea of a fair dialog?

I read this:

Originally Posted by zeroth View Post

This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??

and I forgot that I had read the complete site - I followed the entire argument but pointed you midway into the discussion (and I mentally inserted an 'is' after your 'what'). Here is a much more data-oriented site(cite)

Guy, I've never disputed any data from a reputable source, just the interpretation of same. I contributed data in the form of temperature & CO2 history derived from the study of ice cores. In any case, no matter how you slice the numbers, temperature is on a cooling trend since the present interglacial began ~18K BP, according to any vetted data you choose.

zeroth

0th, I hope you will accept the above link as data from a reputable source - I will get more of the longer range data later - right now I just found the weirdest site.

[zeroth]

Here is a much more data-oriented site - 0th, I hope you will accept the above link as data from a reputable source

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#intro (inserted by me as the URL doesn't show for some reason on the thread)

Yes, I consider this a reputable site. Here's part of an abstract for one of their analysis of the MSU data:

Over the period from 1979 to 2001, tropospheric trends derived from a widely cited analysis of the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperature record show little or no warming, while surface temperature trends based on in situ observations show a pronounced warming of ;0.2 K decade21. This discrepancy between trends at the surface and in the upper atmosphere has been a source of significant debate. Model predictions of amplification of warming with height in the troposphere are clearly inconsistent with the available observations, leading some researchers to question the adequacy of their representation of the water vapor greenhouse feedback.

Seems pretty clear to me GrimJack...and this is the point I was so carefully trying to make when you cracked me about knowing what the troposphere was...

Originally Posted by zeroth

This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??

Do you know what the troposphere is? I hope you know what the stratosphere is. If you do not know what the troposphere is I don't think you will be able to follow the argument very well.

So if we can debate without insulting one another, the point is that there's not enough solid proof that such a phenomenon as global warming exists to put massive amounts of effort into "reversing" the phenomenon.

[GrimJack]

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#intro (inserted by me as the URL doesn't show for some reason on the thread)

Yes, I consider this a reputable site. Here's part of an abstract for one of their analysis of the MSU data:

Over the period from 1979 to 2001, tropospheric trends derived from a widely cited analysis of the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperature record show little or no warming, while surface temperature trends based on in situ observations show a pronounced warming of ;0.2 K decade21. This discrepancy between trends at the surface and in the upper atmosphere has been a source of significant debate. Model predictions of amplification of warming with height in the troposphere are clearly inconsistent with the available observations, leading some researchers to question the adequacy of their representation of the water vapor greenhouse feedback.

And here is the rest of the abstract:

A reanalysis of the MSU channel 2 dataset, with the objective of providing a second independent source of these data, is described in this paper. Results presented herein show a global trend of 0.097 +/- 0.020 K decade21, generally agreeing with the work of Prabhakara et al. but in disagreement with the MSU analysis of Christy and Spencer, which shows significantly less (0.09 K decade21) warming. Differences in the various methodologies are discussed and it is demonstrated that the principal source of these discrepancies is in the treatment of errors due to variations in the temperature of the MSU hot calibration target.

This seems pretty clear to me zeroth, I had to re-read the full article to make sure (I have ADD - you really have no idea how hard it is for me to plow through this stuff after being out of school for 30 years). The discrepancy seems to be related to orbit degradation:

Drawing on work by Trenberth and Hurrell (1997),
an investigation of systematic correlations in the MSU2/MSU2LT time series by Wentz and Schabel (1998) revealed the presence of a spurious cooling trend introduced into the MSU2LT data by neglect of the differential effects of satellite orbit decay on the near-limb and near-nadir observations. Accounting for this led to an increase in the global trend of approximately 0.12 K decade21, bringing the lower-troposphere observations more in line with model predictions and surface measurements.

So we are back at 2 smart people reading the same data and coming to different conclusions.

[zeroth]

So we are back at 2 smart people reading the same data and coming to different conclusions.

And that's the reason some of us here discuss certain subjects in the abstract rather than presenting endless displays of data connected and resolved into relationships that cannot be proven...it's subjective and there's always going to be half the people that see opposite viewpoints.

So, coming at this from a logical, rather than scientific or emotional viewpoint, let's look at models and what they represent. Now, among other languages, I was once proficient in lisp, a basic AL compiler. With that background as a baseline, logically it makes no sense that, within current software capabilities, a model could have been built that 1) predicts weather in the past or 2) predicts a believable evidential track for human intervention in planetary weather patterns. The engine is too large for us to desribe yet. The earth, along with its gravity well, forms an enormous energy potential and isn't that easy to compromise.

Remember that the data for the last 50-60 years is still gathered by weather balloon in many cases - we still can't tell the difference in them and ufos, for crying out loud. Without a universally accepted, sound and proven model, we must rely on the evidence that you and I cannot agree upon. And argue about it...

[bumsfeld]

Global Warming, I believe it when they open up the beaches on the South Pole for the tourists.

[R0bb0b]

Without a universally accepted, sound and proven model, we must rely on the evidence that you and I cannot agree upon. And argue about it...

That's just it. Once we get the evidence required to get past that point, the world's governing entities can intelligently make a decision and once people realize this and start taking all of their effort spent on arguing and aim it towards coming up with a better way to prove this theory, then we can move past this point.

[GrimJack]

And that's the reason some of us here discuss certain subjects in the abstract rather than presenting endless displays of data connected and resolved into relationships that cannot be proven...it's subjective and there's always going to be half the people that see opposite viewpoints.

I would like to point out that you did not bother to read the article but just scanned it for what you wanted to see (or so it appears to me). This leads me to believe that you do not look for information but look for support for your beliefs. I could be wrong.

So, coming at this from a logical, rather than scientific or emotional viewpoint, let's look at models and what they represent. Now, among other languages, I was once proficient in lisp, a basic AL compiler. With that background as a baseline, logically it makes no sense that, within current software capabilities, a model could have been built that 1) predicts weather in the past or 2) predicts a believable evidential track for human intervention in planetary weather patterns. The engine is too large for us to desribe yet. The earth, along with its gravity well, forms an enormous energy potential and isn't that easy to compromise.

I am sorry but your background in programming does not offer any proof or support for the conclusions you are offering.

Remember that the data for the last 50-60 years is still gathered by weather balloon in many cases - we still can't tell the difference in them and ufos, for crying out loud. Without a universally accepted, sound and proven model, we must rely on the evidence that you and I cannot agree upon. And argue about it...

Some people not being able to distinguish between weather balloons and UFOs is not support for or against anything. We have added satelites to the mix quit a while ago. I will read, completely, any article that you offer to support your position (especially if you highlight the parts you consider important) and I will comment on it in as much depth as I can handle. I want to know what is happening in our atmosphere - show me something that talks about what is/what is not happening.

[GrimJack]

And some more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

What the green fraudsters do is give you winter ice data from one year, and summer data from the next.
They'll use that as "proof" that the pole is melting, when of course it's warmer there in summer than it is in winter and thus in summer there's less ice than there is in winter.

In reality the ice coverage is pretty constant when taking yearly averages.

When ever i respond to any of your posts, i think I am going to highlight your spurious ad hominem attacks.

Now the response - note the dates on the pictures - the dates are identical but 20 years apart. What you are looking at is the disappearance of a significant amount of sheet ice. You can actually follow it over time as it will update daily. If you want to play

[Dave Sinkula]

Solar winds down to 50 year low

[GrimJack]

Solar winds down to 50 year low

Actually, I have not been ignoring this time -- I have been following all the link so that I can get to some place to understand and correlate and see how the it will tie in. I had some really good stuff working wrt some of the spike in the data andm the accuracy of the Earth Shine Project; then they just finished testing the carbon content on some cores back about 75,000 years. Then I gotta trace back many of the comments -- these guys eat this science for desert so I gotta read an understand their objections..

Suddenly, I have a bourbon and coke - and my Destiny turn just came.

I am not sure how soon I can get back to you on this.

Laters, guy

[platinum8]

Really we people think of it otherwise we will loose lot of things in future.

[ZZucker]

Really we people think of it otherwise we will loose lot of things in future.

You also have to think that we will gain a few things.

[GrimJack]

Solar winds down to 50 year low

Without further ado.

[GrimJack]

Without further ado.

I suppose I should not reply to my own posts but I went back and reread this article; then I worked my way through the responses: sniff,sniff - the passion, the name calling, the emotional outbursts remind me of how much I love DaniWeb where we keep our discussion under control - why I love this place so much.

Sigh.

[vegaseat]

Finally, positive proof of Global Warming ...

[Dave Sinkula]

Earth would be heading to a freeze without CO2 emissions