*waits for Flint*

Remind me when we started measuring temperatures in the upper atmosphere?  1952?  Sunspots work on 11 year cycles, so you'd have atmospheric temperature readings for....lessee...1999, 1988, 1977, 1966, 1955...  you got 6 cycles.

And if you hadn't heard they cut the number of earthbound temperature stations in half twenty years ago.

And we didn't have a global map of ocean currents until 1855.

But that doesn't matter, because Egghead built a model.

If a mandmade global warming freak builds a model, and then reverse engineers his model, WOW TOTAL  SUPRISE manmade global warming is the culprit!

Lemme make a model too,

Let's assign You_Fool a coolness factor of 2
And Key a coolness factor of 2
and Justinian a Coolness factor of 2

and Me a coolness factor of 500,000

then assuming ABCD= 4 megacool, well, this thread totally sucks without me!  run the math yourself if you don't believe it.

and I'm more open with my model than AGW agencies are

A=natual
B=unnatural
C=supernatural
D=cosmoligcalnatural
 
And don't forget E= Political idiots who are payed to block or play with the numbers of any scientific data so it look favorable or non-favorable to the masses.

You sure you're not a "Climate Change Expert" Chris??  sound suspiciously like one

Are carbon offsets being traded on the stock market yet?

/me wants to buy some 'carbon offset futures'

/me wonders what the carbon-offset tax on the purchase of investment insurance for the purchase of carbon offset futures would be.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change is a very respected peer-reviewed journal. It appears that this study must have appeared in Volume 1 Issue 1 (January/February 2010), considering that it's the only one published. I wonder why they chose to study their legitimate research in a brand new publication, not one of the many respected scientific peer-reviewed journals? I mean, from the "scientists" who authored its perspective, this is a very poor resume addition compared to publishing their study in a real journal. I wonder why they didn't.

[Edit: "Interdisciplinary" meaning half of it is relatively unscientific analysis of things like Kyoto and pan-asia agreements. It's a publication with a goal, not a serious scientific journal.]

Are all NZHerald stories written this poorly? It's certainly not delivered in a news format, starting with the clear statements (without citation) of opinion followed by a huge lack of data to support it.

I took a look at the publication. Another article:
"The attribution of present-day
climate change, interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast
of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative understanding of how,
when, where, and why natural variability, including by the Sun, may exceed,
obscure or mitigate anthropogenic changes"

"When climate models can
reproduce the multiple, complex responses embodied
in the empirical evidence, confidence will increase in
their ability to simulate climate changes in response
to other radiative forcings, including by greenhouse
gases."

So thank you for the wanna-be "news" story about a study published in the first issue of a publication on climate change. I'm sure the author's disappointment that they couldn't get published anywhere else is made up for by how much you enjoyed their work. I didn't see whatever article the "news" story you linked mentioned in the journal. Maybe it's the "The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century " one? Hard to be sure, since the author of the "news" piece doesn't name the work or its principle author (at least, not accurately). But that's not a scientific experiment, it's a "review," some "expert" explaining his position and citing loads of other "experts" who said pretty much the same thing. (This way, nobody has to do a lot of research of their own, and they're never alone in their findings! An ego win/win!)

Ask and you shall receive Justinian.

Nice try Chris, but you are not gonna hit it outta the park with that meager effort!

Now time to wind this ball up and get the whole mess rolling.

1) Stations
The various agencies collecting data have tons of available data. For instance in the United States there are how many cities, with how many trackings of current rain (precipitation), temperature, humidity, cloud cover, etc. In Portland I remember 10 different regions around Portland being available in the local news. This does expand to other cities (as I will post how I can know other cities sometime in the next couple days most).

However I ask, have you ever seen one of these stations? I have found a few... Antiques is one way to describe the temperature readings... they still use old mercury style thermostats, where the possible deviation in readings is... up to 25%. Aka a 50c day can be guaged as a 49.875c day or a 50.125c day. Thus deviation actually exceeds the deviation standards of the IPCC, East Anglia, NASA, and others who have said we will experience this much warming.

Oh and that motherload of data? NOT USED! Nope we cannot have facts and figures getting in the way. No instead a limited set of stations are used across the nation, and indeed around the world. Where they have 'gaps' they use an 'averager' program to 'determine the temperature there'. And this gap exists because they wont admit data source in that they do not control.

2) Peer review
Well let me talk of the peer review scandals. It seem the global warming people have played unfair there. Ok blatant understatement. They chopped up legs, ruined careers, and ate the kidneys of their opponents. They went so far as to stop using certain review sites entirely, forcing the few they did use to not publish opposing papers, ruined the careers of people who did get papers posted or did do peer reviews critical of the global warming paperwork, and hid source information as much as possible.

3) The proof is in Google
Chris had an interesting start, with his mentioning of recent talking points. But lets go through a bit of history. Google Maps was used to disprove the Artic shrinking. IN fact Google Maps showed it to be pretty large. Oh and as for other complaints of it breaking up... http://www.john-daly.com/NP1987.jpg Please feel free to check our submarines at the North Pole... nice imagery.

Or if you mistrust the military, try NASA? http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003370/SeaIceMaxWdates320x240.mpg It's a short 3.5mb movie clip, media player required.

4) Climate is about the water, nothing else
Yes I said it is about water. Water vapor is the primary factor in heating or cooling of our atmosphere. In one form, it absorbs heat, traps it, and leaves heat here to stay for longer than we want... The other form provides a reflective barrier, diffuses heat, and gives the atmosphere a way to sweat on us a little.

I am talking about the different between humidity and a cloud. A hot humid day... how often do you hear that? Well the science behind it is proven fact. Water Molecules absorb heat, they trap it, they only slowly bleed it off. But if the molecules are bound into a cloud, it reflects the heat, sending it back to space. A cloud is formed by Cosmic Radiation, aka Cosmic Rays. These, some what inappropriately named, rays are towards the Gamma end of radiation. Their sources are still somewhat a mystery though a new Satellite will help detect their origins to a greater extent. The sun does make some, but they are not the more energetic forms of the rays.

These Rays however bind water molecules in the upper and lower atmosphere, even to ground level. Sometimes they 'shower' as a group. When they bombard earth we can get giant rolling waves of Fog around the storms arrival location, or new masses of suddenly forming clouds (if the weather has been hotter rather than cooler).

Rays and Water are our foibles. We must therefore outlaw all water on Earth so we can have a constant temperature!!!! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

5) Carbon Credits
There are two sides of this coin. Done one way, it merely pushes the emissions to another region... an 'Out of Sight, Out of Mind' ideal essentially. The other side of the coin is money, influence, and power. Two company apply for 'exceptions to the rule'. One company receives it, the other does not. The difference may be who they donate to, who is in power, who hates them, who loves them, how much they pay their workers, how well their stock does, etc.

Carbon Credits already exist however. But you, the silly people of this planet, do not see this. Every time you buy something, you pay for not the end result in reality, but the various stages that made that product and the various profits others sought on those stages.

Aka you buy Bananas. Their price is dictated by the cost to refrigerate them for the journey, the cost to ship them, the cost to transport them when arrived in nation, the costs to distribute them, the costs to keep them on display, etc. Each stage has a power requirement. Each stage therefore is getting a carbon cost increase..

Now there will be some freak who says "Coal power is not clean though!". Well let me settle this right now. Ethanol and Biofuels require a primary power source to generate. Their produced material lacks the ability to produce more of itself. Aka one pound of bio-deisel requires a certain amount of diesel, gasoline, coal, and/or natural gas to produce as well as that pound of bio-diesel (if you are trying to use as much bio-diesel in the production of bio-diesel as is possible)

Solar, Wind, and Hydrogen are all myths as for their 'gains'. Solar has an efficiency rating of about 10-15% on average. Do not trust me? Ok then trust MIT http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24521/ Typically Solar has issues with the higher efficiency requires higher costs. Now do not get me wrong, there is some promising research that may just bring prices down to less than 15 times that of coal. And some even say they might not need to take up a huge section of land to do so!

Wind is another issue. 3 times the cost to 8 times the cost of coal and oil... it has a serious set of issues including to make these huge towers you must accept huge bird die-offs. Now if thats ok with you, and it is with me to a certain extent, the other side of the coin is these turbines can only work in certain ranges of wind strength, they are susceptible to damage (I often see a few when passing a farm with a missing blade) and they take up large sections of land themselves. Additionally they are far from able to return the power that was required to make them, transport them, install them, as of yet. Power unit versus power unit they still suck wind (pun intended) And worse for that industry... there is less locations to put these where they can get maximum effectiveness than there is for solar.

Fusion of course has not happened yet, though we keep hearing promises of 'real soon'. I think my Grandpa was told 'real soon' when he was young.

The United States, coincidentally, has the highest levels of coal, natural gas, and oil in the world. Total known reserves of the three now exceed, individually, the known reserves of the rest of the world. And we keep identifying new sources... sigh... But we can never EVER touch that stuff because it would cost us some trees, reduce our dependency on those really cool Arabs, and would ruin the kickbacks certain politicians receive.

If you really start with hydrogen I will laugh. I will, if I read it, since I am here for only a few days, then gone forever, as this is my farewell to IC run.

6) This one puts the hurt on this so called science report with no man-made stuff.
Every so often our scientists say they have found a new carbon sink, a new carbon producer, and so forth. The fact remains that if you corner a scientist, hold a knife to his throat, and ask him "DO WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET?" he will scream "No, we do not, please Dear God do not hurt me, I am just trying to find out what we do not know!"... Therefore this group says 'we know everything in the entire world, we know all aspects, and we can account for them all' should raise at least a yellow flag. Or if your French a white flag, but thats besides the point. THIS SHOULD SCREAM AT YOU THAT THEY ARE LIARS, CROOKS, AND CHEATS right then and there. How presumptious of them, how haughty, how liberal of them to say 'we know it all, now listen to us without cross checking our work!'.

In fact if you want to learn science, for real, without going to college, university, trade school, or something like that, just go to this website and start reading... oh and take rest breaks... and mark off 3 years of your life since you do not read as fast as me... but it will do you some good!  http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

hooray

yeah i'm slippin

its cause i usually post at work

> You_Fool wrote:

> A reason to invalidate all of flint's argument is the fact his scientific education is from a website....

So, where did you get your science degree, and in what field?

I have to ask, what degrees did Newton, Galileo, Franklin, Nostradamus, and Einstein have? When did they start making theories, when did they first publish for peer review, when did they follow all the rules that certain 'scientists' say we have to pass to be 'scientists' today?

A broad spectrum, each with issues which would make Al Gore say 'he is no scientist'. I disagree, science is what you understand, research is what you do not understand. The science is here, and it is more sound, more intact than anything from the left.

Franlkin, No degree

Nikola Tesla, dropped out, TWICE in his first semester at two different universities.

Newton published before graduating, no formal degree then. Binomial theory.

Galileo you got me..

Einstein theorized about aether first, then got his degree

Nostradamus was considered a scientist, such as is also Sun Tzu (military) and Machiavelli (Political)