Is news coverage of stories global?

[Lost User]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

They know what they know, and they know what they don't know.

4/5ths of factors afecting climate have a "very low level of scientific understanding" to quote an IPCC graph. I would provide a link to it on their website but they have recently moved a lot of stuff around and broken it.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

They understand the building blocks of the theories, which is more than I can say about either of us.

Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier. As for our friend with the environmental qualification you yourself replied saying that you thought he was wrong that only qualified people are capable fo discussing a subject. I agree with you, and I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics. And really, this ia what GW is all about. Heat. And its transfer.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

You think a scientific field of study is a political agenda?

Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation. In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data. Anyway, back to education being pliticised... OK, lets take it from another angle. The UK government wanted to show Al Gores An Inconvienient Truth in all schools. In fact, in some private schools it was being shown as part of I believe three different courses. The government was taken to court by a lorry driver (admittedly funded by a group). Al Gores film was hence judged to contain 9 seriou

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier.

Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.

fat_boy wrote:

Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation.

No. The people ADVOCATING a certain theory may have political viewpoints, but science is science. I don't care whether you agree with it, but IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)

[ragnaroknrol]

fat_boy wrote:

You do not want to be aware that the ex Clmate chief, Phil Jones called the recent warming 'stastically insignificant1 and that there has been no significanty warming since 1995 and that the scientific debate is far from over.

You know what gets me, this gets quoted a lot. Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!

fat_boy wrote:

You will ignore all this and continue to insult me because it runs counter to your belief system.

and you insulted someone that knew a lot more than you did about the subject when you realized you couldn't beat him. The kettle called, it wants you to look in a mirror.

[Ian Shlasko]

ragnaroknrol wrote:

Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!

So true... Look! The Dow Jones has risen about 60% since early March! We must be in a huge economic boom! Oh wait, it's fallen almost 4000 points since October of '07! We're all doomed! But it's more than ten times what it was in 1980! Woohoo!

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)

[William Winner]

Wow, you totally missed my point...and apparently haven't been listening to what I've been saying. To be clear: I never actually said I believed in GW. Nobody's convinced me yet that the current "trend" is a climatic change. And as far as the carbon graphs that have been shown...such as in An Inconvenient Truth, I'd say they're a little blown out of proportion...no, wait, I've already said that in here... Sure, carbon has been increased on an exponential scale since the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure the same thing could have been said regarding an increase in iron weaponry during the iron age. But to assume that that trend is going to continue seems a little ridiculous to me. And tell me where I claimed to be an expert on global warming. This is what I said...

William Winner wrote:

I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it.

Hmm...what else did I say...oh yeah, that the fact that I took classes in computer science doesn't make me an expert on computer science nor does it qualify me to claim to understand everything about it...and you seem to feel you know everything there is to know about GW because you took a thermodynamics course with a professor who probably also didn't believe in GW. Seriously...how are you able to twist what I've said so completely? Are you not able to comprehend what I've said, or do you just not read it? I say, taking a course on a subject doesn't make me an expert and you respond with

fat_boy wrote:

I studied black body radiation and Planks law as part of thermodynamics so, according to your criteria that makes me an expert on GW theory.

I say, "I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied." and you respond with

fat_boy wrote:

SO just because I earn most of my cash by engineering software I am not entitled to discuss anything else? So I also earn cash on stock, does that make me a f***ing financial expert? OK, we also get paid a bit in the band for playing, mostly beer,

[William Winner]

fat_boy wrote:

I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics.

You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like. The Environmental Biology Bachelor's at my school was actually a double major in Environmental Science and Biology. And when did I claim to be an expert on thermodynamics? Oh, that's right, I didn't take a course on it, so I can't be an expert on it like you. Seriously...do you see me making statements for or against GW or trying to pass myself off as an expert?

fat_boy wrote:

Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed.

Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.

fat_boy wrote:

In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data.

Oh my god...stop the presses...a politician politicized science! How could that possibly be?!?! I don't think that's ever happened in the history of the world! Why don't you back up your claims... Show me in a scientific paper or text where it says "The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface." Why don't you start there. You can make all of the claims you want, but back them up. Here's an interesting statement: "Within the region where radiative effects are important, the presentation of

[Lost User]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.

Minor, but minor is important. Afgter all CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere and that is aparently a big issue. I'll get back to you with more on solar IR later when I have more time.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science

Thank god you said that. At least you have a scientific understanding. OK, so to the evidence. 1) Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2. 2) Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming. 3) A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends. 4) South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player. So, is the theory of AGW proved or not? In my book it is disproved. Do you agree?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

ragnaroknrol wrote:

You know what gets me, this gets quoted a lot. Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!

Yes ther WAS warming between the 1970a and 2000 (with the notable exception of the south pole) but thisAGW advocate and ex head of the CRU who has spent decades stufying climate science has now stated that it is indifferent to the previous three warmings when CO2 cant have been a factor. Which bit dont you understand? Do you know who Phil Jones is and what CRU do and their involvement with the IPCC?

ragnaroknrol wrote:

and you insulted someone that knew a lot more than you did about the subject when you realized you couldn't beat him. The kettle called, it wants you to look in a mirror.

Oh really? I have studied black body radiation and themrodynamics, what pissed me off is the automatic assumption he made that I dont know what I am talking about all because HE has an environmental qualification. Its arrogant superiority and prejudice, and that grips my shit evey time.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

William Winner wrote:

You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like

Ditto. Did your cover black bodies, Planks law and Thermodynamics?

William Winner wrote:

Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.

Good.

William Winner wrote:

"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm.

I'll provide plenty of suport for my claim. In fact I heard yet again this morning on the news a scientist stating that the poles are early indicators of GW. I already provided proof regading the troposphere from Wiki. I am sure you can realise that when it comes to radiation energy transfer takes place from a hotter body to a cooler one, not the other way round. This is pretty basic stuff.

William Winner wrote:

Hmm...did you catch that..."simultaneously cooling the atmosphere". Of course that's a report to the IPCC, so you'll ignore it from the start regardless of the science behind it.

Oh dont be such a tool. Of course heat is radiated in all directions , and the part of that that goes to space provides a cooling effect.

William Winner wrote:

So, the presence of more people and more industrialization in the northern hemisphere won't play as much of a role on the southern pole as the northern.

Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

Never said I was an expert, but I can look at observable data and see it doesnt fit the theory. And that, my friend, is basic science.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

1. Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2.

Again, you're looking at the change since an arbitrary date. The economy has gone up since last fall, but it's gone down since three years ago, but it's gone way up since ten years ago... All three statements are true, but which one gives the overall trend?

fat_boy wrote:

2. Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming.

Yet again... Looking at one decade, when this is a LONG term effect. The climate fluctuates in the short term, so any gains or losses could be overshadowed by these cyclical changes. We're not expecting a ten-degree shift, but even a 1 degree change could greatly affect things.

fat_boy wrote:

3. A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends.

After agreeing that we're looking at facts instead of opinions, you've gone right back to quoting ONE man, known for being an "advocate." Look at overall scientific consensus, not single people. I could start quoting people to support the AGW theory, but I don't, because it's irrelevant what one person thinks.

fat_boy wrote:

4. South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.

As William said in the other post, the two hemispheres are somewhat divided by the circulation patterns. The currents push CO2 in each hemisphere away from the equator toward the pole. Since there's MUCH more CO2 production in the northern hemisphere (More population, more industry, less oceans to absorb it), the north pole would be affected much more than the south pole. The arctic ic

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.

NASA disagrees with you. http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/[^]

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)

[Lost User]

OK, so I have already provided the Wiki link that states that it is the troposphere that heats first and then heats the surface by radiation. Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^] So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface. Now for polar warming being accelerated: The joint effect of the ice-albedo and dynamical greenhouse-plus feedbacks acts to amplify the high latitude surface warming [^] The enhancement (reduction) of local feedbacks in high (low) latitudes in response to the non-local dynamic feedback further strengthens the polar amplification of the surface warming.[^] Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get. Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^] So, slam dunk, two points to me, zero to you, point proved, QED, etc etc etc. Next argument please!

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[William Winner]

fat_boy wrote:

4. South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.

Did you miss the article in Nature that I sent you? The one published after the one you tried to quote saying that there was cooling in Antarctica? Well, here it is again: Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year[^] So you can quit hawking that line.

[William Winner]

Ok...well, you go ahead and use "basic" scientific principles to an extremely complex and not well understood subject. Since you took an upper-level physics class, I'm sure you are familiar with the Theory of General Relativity...you know the one by Einstein. And I'm sure that you are also aware of the fact that his theory breaks down at the Quantum scale. So, anyone that looks at the observable quantum data would then have to presume that Einstein's theory is incorrect. The problem I have is that you take data and interpret it as if you are an expert on these fields. The rest of us use interpretations put out by highly-qualified "experts" that have studied this intensely. Once again, let's start at the beginning. When I was in college, when we wrote a paper, we had to support our use of any source by proving their credibility on the subject. So, if we used a paper from Science, we had to show why that author was qualified to say what they did. So, once again, what are your qualifications? You say you took a class on Thermodynamics, eh? What other courses in physics have you taken and did you pass them? Did you get all C's? In my Discrete Structures course, there were a lot of people that were getting 20's and 30's on the test, but they can still say that they took it. Of course, there's no way for us to verify anything you say, but that's the way it goes. You're claiming to have looked at data and put it through scientific analysis to come up with your conclusions.

fat_boy wrote:

This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one.

fat_boy wrote:

I found an online Plank law calculator. You can enter the temperature of th eblack body, the wavelength range, and calculate the energy produced. If you do the same you will see what I mean.

fat_boy wrote:

but I can look at observable data and see it doesn't fit the theory.

So, if you want to use your observations, tell us, what are your qualifications?

[William Winner]

fat_boy wrote:

Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^]

Did you actually read the article? It said that temperature readings have proven little, if any, increase in temperature. Is that where you stopped reading? It then went on to say that the fault was in the temperature equipment, so they instead went with measuring the changing wind patterns and "estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models."

fat_boy wrote:

So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface.

So, thanks, you provided an article that shows that the troposphere is warming and fits global warming models.

fat_boy wrote:

Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get.

I don't understand what you were trying to show with this. The author said "The purpose of this posting is to explain why there is sometimes an absence of evidence for polar amplification." And the other two articles...what are you trying to show with those? That the polar regions are warming because of some other cause? Besides the fact that unless we want to pay for it, we can't actually read the other two articles, just the abstracts.

fat_boy wrote:

Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^]

And again, sorry, what is this one for? Did you see that the author was a professor of Economics? So, his statement that "Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator." could have come from anywhere. He may have gotten it from the Nature article that he provides as "Further Reading", but he doesn't cite it anywhere in the text. Seriously...you're going to get your proof of something dealing with GW from an Economics professor?

[Lost User]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Again, you're looking at the change since an arbitrary date

No I am not because CO2 really kicked off post war, thats when a lot of the rest of the world industrialised. And yet, even with al that CO2, the temperatures fell for 25 years or so.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Yet again... Looking at one decade, when this is a LONG term effect.

But the models, based on AGW theory, predicted a continuous rise. Lok at Hansens three scenarios. Even his 'no more CO2', scenario C has been beaten in term of temperature decline/

Ian Shlasko wrote:

After agreeing that we're looking at facts instead of opinions

OK, once again I will direct you again to: 1) The graph I showed you that you how th arctic was warmer in the 30s yjan today. 2) News article about arctic warming in 1922. 3) IS data showing the US was warmer in the 3-'s than today. 4) Greenland oce core data showing the 3-s was warmenr than today. All of this is just the second most recent warming cycle that Phil Jones, a warming advocate, and I hope you know what 'advocate' means.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Since there's MUCH more CO2 production in the northern hemisphere

But YOU recemtly stated the differenc eisnt that great. Why the chanmge of tune now? Is it because you have William to back you up?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

The arctic ice is melting enough that there are now shipping routes over the pole.

As there was in the early part of the last century.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Has AGW been proven? No.

Good. This is a start, And if it is not proven by FACTS. Then the theory is unproved. Thuis AGW is NOT happening. OK, it MIGHT happen if we produce a lot more CO2, although given its logarithmic effect this is unlikely, but as of now, there is NO evidence of man made CO2 causing warming. And I hope you looked at Bob Watsons on the video link I sent you stating that the only proof of man made CO2 causing warming is circumstantial.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

Ha ha ha ha ha! A 3% variation! And not only that, the SOUTH pole shows a higher concentration of CO2 than the NORTH pole! And not only that, theres as much over the southern oceasn as over the industrialised north! You really shot yourself in the foot with that one! Thanks, I will have to store the link to that graph, its good proof that CO2 is NOT causing warming in antarctica!

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

But YOU recemtly stated the differenc eisnt that great. Why the chanmge of tune now? Is it because you have William to back you up?

Because CO2 is one of the smaller effects on temperature... Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. A large difference in concentration will still only give a small temperature change. It doesn't need to be a 10-degree difference to signify global warming. Even a 1-degree increase will drastically change climate patterns.

fat_boy wrote:

No I am not because CO2 really kicked off post war, thats when a lot of the rest of the world industrialised. And yet, even with al that CO2, the temperatures fell for 25 years or so.

Again and again, you're picking arbitrary dates. The temperatures have fallen since 30 years ago. They've risen since one year ago. They've fallen since 59.2 years ago. They've risen since the last ice age. The climate changes in cycles, so a mere decrease in temperature, especially in one reason, doesn't mean CO2 is having no effect. IF it is decreasing, then the question is whether it's decreasing more or less than it should be. Again I'll use the economy as an example of cyclical behavior. If we suspect a factor that increases it by 1% per year, and it drops 5% this year, does that mean the factor isn't there, or would it have decreased by 6% otherwise? If it increases by 5%, does that mean it's 4% plus our possible factor, or did it just increase by 5% because the factor wasn't there?

fat_boy wrote:

Good. This is a start, And if it is not proven by FACTS. Then the theory is unproved. Thuis AGW is NOT happening.

Unproven does not mean false. Unproven means unknown. DISPROVEN means false. A lack of conclusive evidence on either side, means that we DO NOT KNOW the answer yet. Also, keep in mind that there are two issues at play here. 1) Is global warming occurring, whether natural or artificial? 2) If so, is industrialization the cause? From what I've seen and heard, I was under the impression that #1 was understood to be probably true, and #2 was the real question.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardia

[Lost User]

Let me guess, before I look its thwe study with Mann, he of Hockey stick fame, and a discredited sceintist, where they 'extend' peninsula warming, cause by ocean floor techtonic activity, to thwe entore polar area and magically come up with warming? ... takes a look... yes.. I was right. Yep, seen it, and its a crock of shit. These are the same people who use the same technique to apply a temperature to the middle of the andes based on a sea side resort on the pacific just because its a few hyndred kilometers away./ Its garbage science. If you real think that this isnt then you are an idot and your science degree is worth less than the paper its written on.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription