The context free comes from you; so, have you found some from the UN or other climate centers that agree with your peculiar point?
Which peculiar point?
No, it isn’t, because it’s not technically correct to use 1998 as a starting date. If you take 1999 to 2010 you see a clear warming trend. If you take 1997 to 2010 you see a clear warming trend. If you see a cooling trend when you pick one specific date, this identifies that date as an outlier which should therefore not be used as a starting date. It is technically wrong to do so as it will skew your results.
I’ve debated global warming and related issues online for many years now. Again and again people have supplied me with bare links to materials which did not support their claims.
So now my personal policy is that I’m not your research assistant; I’m not going to spend time combing through articles looking for evidence to support their claims.
If you want to call that “laziness,” then so be it.
Please do not accuse me of dishonesty. If you want me to consider evidence or arguments, please summarize them, provide cites and links, and quote the relevant materials.
I understand your sentences, and I am also aware that people have speculated about ice-driven positive feedback. I’m not aware that this hypothesis has been confirmed. Simply asserting that this positive feedback exists is not productive.
Lol, personal insults are not a substitute for actual evidence. Not for me, anyway.
What’s the technically right approach that would hypothetically produce “cooling trend” results? (Or at least, um, “not a warming trend” results?)
Septimus: you should know that **brazil84 **has me on ignore, he is clearly out of bounds when saying that “people have supplied me with bare links to materials which did not support their claims.”
What we have here is clear evidence that some have to keep their ignorance on this subject at all costs.
This may be my last post in this thread, so those who consider the last word to grant victory can soon claim to have defeated me. I will leave with one final question:
I’ll confess to being lost here. Are you doubting that white is reflective? Or that heat melts ice?
My mind is boggled by your “argument.” By all means, use my bogglement to claim victory. 
The is an interesting article that suggests that climate models underestimate the effect of black carbon on global warming and that we could roll back the effect of decades of global warming by limiting soot production, which is fairly simple and cheap compared to limiting carbon dioxide.
Not at all. But heat has a lot of effects on the Earth’s climate besides melting ice. And probably ice has a lot of effects on the Earth’s climate besides reflecting sunlight.
For example, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that increased global surface temperatures will raise the amount of precipitation in Antarctica, resulting in more snowfall and ice there and thereby increasing the reflectivity of the Earth. It’s conceivable that this (hypothetical) effect outweighs decreases in reflictivity cause by general melting of ice.
So to know whether there is indeed an ice-driven positive feedback loop, you need to either (1) understand all of the forces which drive the climate and how they interact; or (2) do some extremely sophisticated measurements.
I’m pretty confident that the first has not been accomplished. I don’t know about the second, but I am skeptical.
I hope that clears things up.
It is not the sixth time you have “had” to ask; it may be the sixth time you have emulated such questioners as Gish and Hovind in pretending that you actually have a “simple” question that can be answered in short sentences of words of one syllable.
Now, you are simply badgering Gigobuster.
You will not post this blatantly dishonest “question” about why he will not answer in Great Debates, again.
[ /Moderating ]
you’re describing the basic problems of any computer model. The more variables inserted, the less precise the model becomes. That is magnified over projected time. It doesn’t matter if the model is for climate, natural resource mining, or widget sales. If it’s off by the tiniest fraction in any variable that is magnified by time.
The debate over climate models should not be over the data but the computations behind it. While that may seem obvious it goes to the heart of any debate. It’s pointless to argue the merits of the data. It’s the model and the model only that should be debated. We cannot debate this because the models are not public domain.
I’m not saying there is or isn’t global warming, and lets call it what it really is instead of changing the name to climate change. I assume there is something to it and am willing to work toward a common goal based on the best use of resources. This is the only logical approach to it.
But lets look at the subject matter realistically. Any scientist who claims with certainty it exists or doesn’t exist (because of Co2) based on the data results is full of shit. Any scientist who claims with certainty it exists or doesn’t exist based on his or her modeling expertise is full of hubris. Any scientist who suggests it may or may not be accurate based on his or her modeling should put forth their model for public review. There are many computer programmers outside the climate research realm who are capable of focusing on the technical aspect of the models themselves. The field of Climatology is no different than any other discipline and as a group they haven’t cornered the market on math/computer specialists.
It matters greatly what the projected outcomes are and equally important what the causes are. The solution should address this because we could easily spend trillions of dollars fighting the wrong windmill. We literally cannot afford to be wrong. It’s important that we use our limited resources wisely to effect change.
I cannot emphasize this enough.
I have fought projects like the Chevy Volt because they not a financially viable solution (now). The car is not a technical achievement in any form and it’s not quite there yet because of technology. It needs improvements that are coming to make it viable. Unlike Toyota which could afford to lose money on the Prius, GM cannot afford this car. Toyota already did all the heavy lifting for the Volt which is really nothing but a rework of the Prius. When batteries catch up with the car then it’s a done deal and we will buy it. Batteries will catch up with the car because there is a massive demand for a cheap, fast charging battery. But building a car with expensive technology makes as much sense as building a computer with a 5 ghz processor. Yes, we can do it today but it would be expensive and processors of half that speed do just fine for our processing needs.
The same applies to other technologies that are not quite there. My state required a percentage of our power usage be “alternate power”. That’s not how you address a problem. They should have asked for a reduction of Co2 and let market forces respond. What we got was a 5 acre solar array that is expensive and of very limited use for power production. We could have built the next generation coal plant with a co2 scrubber or a nuclear plant. We have a real need for replacements for of our aging power plants and the little solar array field doesn’t come close particularly since it has no storage capacity built into it. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul and that means something else goes unfunded.
We need to spend our money wisely. People keep throwing all these cites about how great this or that technology is but they are not the most cost effective way to move forward TODAY. The parameters for decisions need to be market driving and not ideologically driven.
Uh, realistically speaking the scientists are not involved much on what to do about it, they can only advise what will happen if we don’t make changes, what those changes are come from the realm of the policy makers (that usually are not scientists).
The point here is that the policy makers can decide to do nothing and the problem… is still here.
Your post is a wonder of equating the science with what the policies to do something about it are. Of course we can see very idiotic policies and I have pointed at some of them before.
But, once again, those stupid ideas are coming from policy makers, and as it was pointed before, the science we are discussing does not depend on models. As has been shown many times.
Andrew Dessler explaining why scientists do not rely on models to be confident that the human CO2 is and will mostly drive the warming increase:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/dessler_debates_lindzen.php
As he tells it, it was fairly true to say that models had a lot of influence on this science about 20 years ago, but that is no longer the case, we have more data and so: less to fudge. (You only need to watch the first 15 minutes of the video for the explanation, Lindsen comes later but as the comments show, he is not being much respected nowadays.)
So for all the logic you are talking there, your post in reality makes several illogical mistakes, It is not only models, and solutions should follow science but getting it wrong on some items should not lead one to assume that the science is wrong.
And it is amazing that this needs to be pointed again:
The term climate change or climatic change was used since 1932 and on scientific papers since the 50’s, most noticeable, by Gilbert Plass, who has the right to be called the father of the modern greenhouse-gas theory.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/11
So lets drop this silly point at least, scientists and academics have never changed the name.
We were not discussing this in 1932 in any real sense so lets drop the idea that it’s an old term. If we’re worried about the earth heating up then the term is Global Warming. “Climate Change” begs derision because it lends itself to the the Chicken Littles of the world. blaming every change on Climate Change is counterproductive to the cause.
uh huh. you posted a 2 hr video without comment. Seriously? On top of that he discusses Co2 rise as a feedback loop in a vacuum of other data.
Oh Ho! I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but that doubt is gone! You see, this point is not only coming from deniers but it is a political point so much for the implications that you are not being influenced by ideology while you accuse others of this in this discussion eh?
The efforts to make the change or to tell others that “we” needed to change the terms was a **Republican **idea. (And if you had seen the video you would had seen even the republican media operators giving that advice to the Republicans.)
There is Global Warming, and that is bringing climate change.
Uh huh… Like if I did not say that:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
You only need to watch the first 15 minutes of the video for the explanation
[/QUOTE]
So no, I don’t think others can take you seriously.
And the only way you can make that accusation to Dessler is that he is not telling the truth, is that what you want to hang up your ideological position?
“Climate change” is a more accurate term. You were just going on about accuracy, weren’t you? So that must be important to you.
While the overall average temperatures are rising (and that’s a matter of data, not modeling, so let’s drop the ignorance-promoting “Chicken Little” crap, if you please), local variations are also increasing, to the extent that some areas can actually experience cooling.
You didn’t post anything behind a video cite which is a poor debate tactic. If you’re going to post a 2 hr video then you should summarize your point. And your cite talked about Co2 in a vacuum which was as useless exercise in weather modeling. Beyond that, I never said he lied which is a pointless attempt at debate on your part.
You don’t have the skills or the models to posit an argument so your opinion doesn’t matter regarding anything to do with global warming. There is no way to debate the subject on the internet and I’ve made no attempt to do so.
I’ve repeatedly pointed out the folly of spending money poorly on the solution and will continue to do so. We have more important things to deal with today and if they aren’t addressed there will be no money to deal with global warming.
In the words of Paul Volcker: “in the long run we’re dead”. It means that we have to deal with the short term problems first. We can’t just plan for the long term.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
As he tells it, it was fairly true to say that models had a lot of influence on this science about 20 years ago, but that is no longer the case, we have more data and so: less to fudge. (You only need to watch the first 15 minutes of the video for the explanation, Lindsen comes later but as the comments show, he is not being much respected nowadays.)
[/QUOTE]
This is the second time you actually make a point by ignoring what it was said early, **that **is a demonstration of poor debating tactics.
And AFAIK it is the one making the accusation that modeling is not performed properly or that models have not been released for public review or that they are not useful.