For those interested in ice sheet data from the northern hemisphere, I present a link to a fairly readable Nature news article from September of this year. Far from the idea of a gradual decline in ice sheets over 12,000 years, the truth appears to be that: * a fairly stable sheet from 12,000 years ago to 9,000 years ago. * a warming period from 9,000 to 6,000 years ago, resulting in massive melting * a relatively stable period again until the industrial revolution. So, more ice melted during the 3,000 years cited in the 2nd point than has melted in the last 200 years. Not sure how that would argue against an human role (not sole cause) over the last 200 years. What is alarming people, if you follow that link, is just how much ice was lost due to a relatively mild increase in temperature. This is part of why climate scientists are saying none of the existing models have predicted the alarming current rate of ice sheet loss. Ice loss has beat all predictions in the northern hemisphere.
No, I read it at least twice before you re-re-posted the same thing. do you have any other arguments or are you going to stick with a fictional picture from 12,000 years ago plus a ten year blip in the data? B-Bob has again done a great job of explaining the ice melt that you are trying to contort to support your argument, so I again suggest that you answer his arguments. No, just marveling that you think that what you posted dismisses AGW.
I have no problem with Bob's presentation on the ice melt. It was a good post, and it is a very interesting hypothesis. Also, it is in no way inconsistent with what I said in my previous post that you say you have read. So, I am not sure what else I would want to say about that. I am not sure what your point is about the 10-year blip. This is a brief cooling period that we appear to be in now, which is not inconsistent with the continuing cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth has been experiencing over who knows how many thousands of years. But none of the climate models used by the AGW alarmists predicted this cooling period. Instead, they all predicted increased warming due to rising CO2 levels. Since these models have not been reliable in providing even short term forecasts, would it be smart to rely on them for longer term predictions? Obviously, it would not. As an aside, I do not know anyone who thinks along the lines that I do who flatly rejects the suggestion that CO2 emissions from human activities has made some small contribution to the long term warming trend that the Earth has been experiencing since the end of the last ice age. Probably it has. Nor do I know anyone who is even moderately familiar with this issue that believes the Earth has not become warmer since the end of the last ice age. So, whenever you or anyone else around here tries to suggest that I have defended either of these two positions, you are just presenting a "straw man" argument. I would appreciate it if you would please try to stop doing that. Thanks.
It's not entirely clear you all read this post. please read it again! ok, have you all read it. C'mon, people. You have to read the post first....it makes everything so clear. Surely you've read by now. It's right above this sentence. No? How's that possible? Okay, I'll quote it again below: great, now we're all clear on the issue and that's that. we can all go away and end this thread. The post has been properly quote (and requoted for those of you who didn't catch it the first 400 times or the first time in this post).....WHAT! You still haven't read it. Don't make me post it again...do not do it....okay, you asked for it....pleas read the following quoted post below first before responding further: [just kidding...]
Wait - why would this be the case? I can't predict whether it will be colder two weeks from now than today, but I can fairly confidently predict that it's going to get colder over the next 2-3 months. Short term fluctuations happen but they don't invalidate longer term more predictable trends. These are models designed to forecast long term trends - there's no reason to think they'd be good at predicting 1 or 5 or 10 year effects.
I presume that anyone who establishes a pattern and practice of deviating from the politically correct talking points is a troll. Some people are just not very open minded at all. No sir.
Why? The fact that a long-term forecasting tool can't predict short-term blips is not evidence as to how well or poorly it would forecast long-term trends. Where is the evidence that they can't?
Where is the evidence that they can? If we are going to go all-in based on the assumption that these models are dependable over the long term, it is reasonable and prudent to require strong evidence that these models perform reliably. So far, there is precisely no evidence to support that assertion.
Yeah, perhaps true. I've said my piece for the benefit (possibly) of others, but I'm completely done with him. He's made up his mind, data and analysis and expertise be damned, and that's his right. Still wish he had taken me up on my offer to replumb his house with lithium piping though, since I can refute the experts with my own tangential and narrow analysis.
OK, Mojo, you still haven't answered B-Bob and I suppose your insistence on playing "yes it is," "no it isn't" with Major proves that on that point, you are intransigent nearly to the point of insanity, but you still haven't addressed the main reason I would like to see cap and trade implemented. Do you need me to post it for you again?
The scientists who put the models together did so based on science. Science has correctly identified quite a few things that were controversial at the time, but do you want to be on the same side of history as the flat-Earthers? Besides, there is a far bigger and more immediate positive impact that cap and trade will have on our country. Care to address that point?
I guess so. I answered your last post. If you asked me a specific question relating to cap and trade, I must have missed it.
These models are basically a bunch of computerized formulas, created and programmed by men and women, which are based on a huge array of very questionable assumptions. Just because a man or woman gets a degree in one of the sciences does not inoculate their future work from error. Your use the phrase "based on science" as if that anoints the work of these people with some sort of supernatural correctness. These models are not reliable. In order to be considered reliable, they need to be able to be predict climate or weather results accurately in the real world. One way to begin doing that is to enter historical assumption data from a period when we know what the final results are, and see if the output matches those final results. These models have never been demonstrated to pass that test. And as far as future results go, those results are consistently wrong as well, as shown by their failure to predict the current cooling period, as discussed earlier. As far as your cap and trade point, I do not know what you are talking about.
Just for more wonders of science for interested parties, let's examine this requirement that a model fit every year of present and future global temperatures. Let's try the same thing with a human voice. Here, thanks to the University of Pennsylvania, I can plot a phrase that will really epitomize a certain poster's responses to my detailed points in this thread, from ice sheets, to ten-year data cycles, to ice core data sets, and the physics of how CO2 interacts with sunlight. Here is a phrase plotted as sound intensity (or wave pressure) versus time: No matter how much we try to model this exact human voice, using sine waves for primary frequencies of the vocal chords, weighting functions for the formants of the specific human mouth, and even some distortion from human saliva flying around, etc, we can never model exactly every wiggle in the voice pattern. Not in a predictable way. If I fit "I couldn't care less" perfectly (unlikely), then I can't then model exactly what the same person's exact vocal signature will be like when he says "just two good old boys, never meaning no harm." What can we conclude? Clearly, we have no idea how the human voice works. If scientists understood how the human voice works, they could model (and predict!) every single wiggle of the resulting data sets! The voice is magic. I think that's the only conclusion. Science should stick to predicting the boiling point of water... or maybe not since it varies with pressure and pressure depends on weather. Crap. Let's just do away with science.
For sarcasm impaired: data sets are noisy. No model for a real world problem (and most all of science aside from quantum electrodynamics) fits every wiggle of a dataset. That doesn't mean that the models aren't incredibly useful and overall valid. There's a lot of technology you're using (even looking at your screen right now) that is based on such models that only give a strong approximation to real world noisy data sets.
