jryan

This is where discussions fall apart. It isn't enough that we have established in several discussion here that sunspot activity does affect the suns radiative output. If that article doesn't specifically say that the lowest energy output of the sun in a few thousand years may also affect the Earth's temperature, it isn't a viable source for discussion. As I said, the current models for global warming do not account for the dramatic drop in solar radiance in 14 years... so maybe they should start. If it makes you all feel better though, I tracked this down: http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/PressReleaseSSRC1-2008.doc

Sorry, I figured that a discussion that has revolved around the contribution of solar cycles as a GW forcing on several pages may have room for an article about a predicted extreme decline in that forcing. Especially when all the models should probably start account for this occurrance since it is fairly certain to happen. But you are right.... anything that is both fairly predictable, and is used in most AGW models, couldn't be all that important. And we can just assume it will have no effect on the environment.. so why discuss it in the "Environmental Debate" thread, right? Sheesh.

I wonder about this NASA report: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm If AGW is real, is it a curse of a blessing? It would appear that we are in for a bit of a reprieve.

That's a shame. It would be nice if people could discuss such things rationally... though I can see how people on both sides would have a propensity for circling the wagons and refusing to discuss the topic in an open and rational manor. I've certainly been involved in a few of those over the years. Though I bow out when tempers needlessly flare.

I thought it was because there must have been a lot of bickering... but looking for a religion thread that isn't closed showed me that some times they are just closed because they are religion. Are these discussion forbidden in this non-science section under "other topics"? And why?

Explain "internal variability". I'm not familiar with that term as a forcing.

Relax Tokyo! That's just a cloud!!

Well, I would guess that bio mass could be converted to oil in that same method, and it has all the necessary components. It just appears possible that bio mass isn't the ONLY thing that can be converted to oil, and that bio mass would be by far the smallest source of available material. Assuming that it's true, of course.

Ok, what are you talking about?

????

I am a data security and data architecture planning specialist for a large national IT firm... I can assure you that data has, for all intents and purposes, the characteristics of a gas... It fills the container it is given.

Are you going to tell us why you need to know?

I'm not saying Bigfoot is real either, and I don't believe it is real. I am simply telling you what the proper answer to your question is. Me not believing Bigfoot is real is not scientific. It is simply an opinion. Also, you miss my point. Peking man was Homo Erectus, and my point was that Homo Erectus and the Native American are unrelated (one isn't descendant of the other), even though Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus have some similar features. I am saying that Gigantopithecus and "Bigfoot" don't have to be the same, or even have one be a descendant of the other. And it also doesn't matter how big Gigantopithecus actually was, either. But that staement was odd in and of itself... if we are so unsure even about Gigantopithecus size then why bring it up at all? All the "couldn't"s and "wouldn't"s fly out the window when you start conceding lack of knowledge of Gigantopithecus. As I said before, the existence of Gigantopithecus, and whether or not his name was poorly chosen has no baring on Bigfoot. That is the thing about crytozology (as well as conspiracy theories) they thrive on the simple fact that science is not in the business of proving a negative. I could easily just say that Asia 300,000 years ago stopped being habitable for "Bigfoot", so it's Asian descendants died out, where as the Bigfoot in North America thrived. There are no end of theories... you should only interest yourself in those that are demonstrably accurate, and those that are widely accepted as true before the evidence demostrates it to be. The first is sound science, the second is dangerous, and everything else is not worth your time unless you are paid to study it.

You are simply shooting down some theories that say that Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus that migrated to North America. That doesn't indicate that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist, that just says that Bigfoot would probably not be Gigantopithecus. Which has no bearing on the existence of Bigfoot. If anything, the fact that Gigantopithecus was found is more in line with broadening the possibility of large primates, as before that we had little evidence of giant primates that even resembled Bigfoot. Using Gigantopithecus to discount Bigfoot is like saying that Peking Man couldn't cross the Northern land bridge, so the Native Americans are a bunch of fakers.

Heh, that would be the third in as many weeks. I like your optimism.

The only scientific answer, in the absence of hard data, is #2. Both answer 1 and answer 3 are not supported, and here is why: Answer 1) There is nothing in the current studies and collected data that would indicate the probability that the creature exists. Answer 3) It is impossible to prove a negative.

Well, then why not think about a few other potential catastrophes? On the off chance that the supervolcano in Yellowstone will blow in the next 100 years, should we mandate fallout shelters in all homes around the world? It would cetainly assist in survival. But of course we won't because the cost<-->benefit connection simply isn't there. In the same way, if AGW isn't the primary driver, or an insignificant driver in GW (due to some yet seen or quantified forcing) then what is the alternative benefit of CO2 reduction? And is that alternative worth the cost?

Thank you for the response. In that case I have still not found a peer reviewed response to the McIntyre peer reviewed critique of Mann's 1998 study. THe only rebuttals I find are from Mann in the "letters to Nature" section.

It can also be caused by a failure to properly piant measuring stations. NASA thought they had a grasp on statistically removing this noise, rather than actually painting stations regularly. They failed to properly adjust for these noise sources. This is partly what lead to the incorrect data on the NASA site. Granted, this error is for a land area that is only 2% of Earth's surface... but are we skeptics supposed to just automatically assume that stations in third world countries are better maintained, or that the the noise is better accounted for? Similarly the Mann study.. which McIntyre citiqued, and the critique was published in a peer review journal. Am I supposed to assume that a non-peer reviewed rebuttal is sufficient from a site for which Mann is a primary contributor? Most skeptics, and cetainly all the ones I have read here, find that the number of errors that are well documented is reason enough to not accept everything coming out of IPCC, or from Mann etc. as correct by default? Even if the anti-skeptics were to provide verification that McIntyre accepted a billion dollars from Exxon to do his work, or that he made mistakes in other studies, it doesn't change the fact that he has successfully aired problems with he data. I don't think any of us on the skeptic side are saying that we should accept the work of skeptics automatically as true anymore than we would say that Mann, IPCC, NASA or Al Gore should. What worries me is I rarely if ever see such a moderate view from the other side. iNow is just one of many examples. In a rush to discount McIntyre, many of his linked sources have made gross errors in their evaluations of McIntyre, and can only seem to cast doubt on him as a person through the old "connection to energy companies" and outright falsehoods. This is like if I were to say "I have been told by my mom that I should never call anyone an idiot. So I will not call you that.". This is a very transparent attempt to take the low road but claim the high ground. It's the intent, stupid. I certainly don't believe you are stupid... but I am simply doing my own take on the realclimate title. Had I not explained that that statement is 100% against my own belief, what would you have felt the meaning was? The trouble is that the author of that paper doesn't ever say that he doesn't believe that Courtillot is stupid... all he states is "We put the last word in small letters since we've learned that it is not a good debating technique to imply (even inadvertently) that those who are having trouble seeing the force of our arguments might be stupid.".... are we to assume that he "inadvertantly" included the word "stupid"? Does his PC have no edit function? This is a weak sidestep. This is similar to a linked realclimate article (linked as it appeared in the statement above) where Gavin poo poos Crichton mentioning the use of private jets by many pro-AGW glitterati as a simple crowd pleaser and not paticularly useful (on this I agree), but then later in the same post metions that all of his debate team refused to take the SUV limo five blocks to the auditorium, where as all of Crichton's team had. This is a bizarre statement on many levels: 1) It isn't hypocrisy if Crichton does it as he isn't in the pro-AGW camp (though he does agree with the existence of some anthropogenic forcing) 2) If both Gavin and Crichton's statements are true, the scale of the two infractions is comically out of balance in favor of Crichton. 3) After stating that he and his fellows "are scientists, and we talk about science and we're not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas", he goes on to do the opposite on the pages of Realclimate.org. This is in line with my previous claims as to the questionable methods of debate used at Realclimate.org. Thank you for that JohnB! I will read it when I have time to digest it fully. One question though... are letters to the journal Nature considered peer reviewed publications?

To iNow You would be wise to never use the IPCC summary report, nor it's list of signatories (actually contributors) as a verification of anything. Paul Reiter completely dismantled the validity of that report, and the assumed agreement of it's contributors with the final summary. Pay close attention to sections 13 through 18.. though you would be well advised to read the whole thing. Now for the rest of your previous statement: For someone as quick to claim that your statements were misrepresented, and that your questions are never answered, you sure have a habit of misrepresenting peoples statements and inability to answer questions. Where did I say "summarily dismiss information not in agreement with them"? An example of what I WAS saying, and not what you misrepresented me as saying, can be seen here. While a supposed professional climate scientist calling another fellow climate scientist "stupid", among other things, is out of line in a study review... it does shed light on where you picked up your debate style. You can read a very interesting observation of this childish realclimate article here. And I do when I feel is necessary. But when my commentary is self evident, or uses YOUR data as evidence, you really shouldn't be asking me for any. Hey look! We agree! I have already commented on your posts.. though I wouldn't really call them "data". You posted several graphs a while back, and several opinion pieces. In many cases others have responded to you before I had a chance, and therefor there was no need for me to add a "yeah, what about that question that other guy asked you?". This method cuts down on the noise and repetition in these discussions. Where I have commented on your documents, you have chosen to call my responses insufficient. For example, in the often sited graph of models (Mann, Jones, and others) I commented on how inaccurate those models are when they had to rely on historical proxy data. This is self evident as the lines diverge dramatically on the graph as you travel the X axis back through history. They only agree when the answer was already known. I do not need to provide external evidence for that observation. It is self evident. When you inquired about McIntyre, and his correction of the NASA data, I provided evidence. I can only assume that you accepted that, because you dropped the subject. I, and other posters, targeted your sources and fairly well demonstrated that they were not telling the truth about McIntyre (ie. he actually has published peer reviewed material... his NASA paper was actually peer reviewed.. hence the correction by NASA... unless you want to assume that NASA took a non peer reviewed critique, and then didn't review it's correction either before changing their data... I suggest you not try that gambit as it is a lose-lose proposition for you) Your assault on the source actually perpetuates a falsehood of it's own. Go back and read. Also, McIntyre and McKitrick's critique of the 1999 Mann study was published in Geophysical Research Letters, a peer reviewed journal (article: Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005 32 L03710) Funny how that is, eh? I make a statement and provide a source, you rush out and find some method to impugn the source, provide a link to something damning my source... and it turns out YOUR source is actually the one demonstrably distributing falsehoods. Furthermore, there is a funny thing about all this: Mann's study was peer reviewed, and McIntyre's critique was peer reviewed.. yet only one is right. Yet the primary defense of Mann comes from RealClimate.Org.... a non-peer-reviewed blog for which Mann is a primary contributor. Hmmmmmm.... I'm siding with McIntyre. Do you know if Mann has published a peer reviewed rebuttal (honest question)? As you may be figuring out by now: On this subject it is not ME who needs to be finding a new source. And as I showed, the .gov site that you chose to link has been shown to be in error in the past concerning temperature data... by the way, I also posted another McIntyre article (which is easily verified by going to NASA's webpage) that shows that their very own GW FAQ relies heavily on RealClimate citation. Also, before you get ahead of yourself... your citations are as rife with .org, .com and many other non .edu or .gov sites. And your initial graph post had some .gov links, some no citation graphs, and a previous favorite of yours "SkepticalScience.com". I'm glad you stopped using that. Either way, regardless of the source of your links, they have often left several here asking questions regarding the actual certainty you draw from them. Few seem to be even designed to be convincing... Ah, but I HAVE discussed the data you provided, from the very beginning. You object to the fact that I am pointing out curious things demonstrated by many of your sources without posting some peer reviewed paper that also carries my observation. I can say that the model graph you posted clearly shows that they don't agree beyond the small windows where the measurements being modeled were already known.... this is self evident. Well, on one hand you have the accuracy of the data that you share... on the other hand you have the interpretation of the data you share. On the interpretation we diverge. But all your data in not accurate, as I have displayed in this very post. My attacks on you were with regards to your attacks on others (and me). You stop doing that and you will be amazed at my restraint. As for focusing on the data... that is a funny statement as our biggest disagreement is with regard to my comments on the data. How do I focus on it and discuss it without commenting on it? If I see something in your data that contradicts your statement of what that data shows, I will say that. That is "focusing on the data"... I suggest you focus on the oppositions data rather than attempt to discredit the oppositions sources... so far your attempts seem to be backfiring. That is not an ad hominem, by the way, that is just me focusing on the data again.

I know they acknowledged the error... what you fail to understand is that McIntyre brought it to there attention. It says so in the article I showed you. I know the definition of a straw man argument, it just doesn't apply here. I have, your problem is that you fall into an all too comon method of discussion and debate online... that being that you refuse to accept self evident statements, and you refuse to accept, much less read, evidence that doesn't fit in with your belief system. So until I can produce a link for my argument from a source that YOU approve of, you will continue to argue that no evidence was given, and nobody can make an observation of their own without some third party (which you have to approve of). I provided an article to show that McIntyre actually was the genisis for the data correction at NASA... something that you could have "googled yourself", as you put it. You are not a very strong debater, and your propensity to toss out invectives and ad hominems is an all to telling sign that you really aren't comfortable entertaining the possibility that you aren't 100% right. If you need citation of that assertion, go read your own posts.

Of course it doesn't... but it also means that the person posting the information doesn't have to be right either. And I am not stating that they are wrong, either.. just that that site gives no link to the verification. And either way, the "big oil" arguments are tired, and not a particularly sound method of proving a point. It falls under the heading "conspiracy theory". http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027 You can find the documentation in many places. I'm suprised you haven't heard of it, even if you didn't know who found the errors. I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. Could you maybe clarify what you mean? THat is plain semantics. You said that McIntyre "shouldn't be associated with honest climate research." ... so your big defense is that I misrepresented you as saying "should never listen to" rather than "should never be associated with any honest climate research". Care to explain to me the practical difference between the two statements? Should we listen to him, but also not associate him with other studies? Or not mention any issues that he may bring up with individual studies. Explain how that is supposed to work again? Or maybe just explain when we should listen to McIntyre?

This is funny... Sourcewatch is a Wiki site. The contribution and corroboration there is nil. With regard to GCX, that neither supports nor refutes a claim. These "Big Oil" dodges are nothing more than just that... a dodge. Now info-pollution.com... the main page states: .... so his primary target is "skepticism"? And his positions and evidence rely heavily on RealClimate.org... which, last I checked, is not considered a "peer reviewed" source. It may link peer reviewed sources... but it sure pulls out the guns when peers review studies and are not in complete agreement. And it's funny that you say he should never be listened to... his efforts eventually got NASA to eventually correct their surface temperature data. So someone is certainly listening. This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on your part.

Strange... for someone that demands citation, I would have assumed that you would provide some for this statement. But in the spirit of debate, I can provide you with studies based on limited datasets, if you want, from your side of the isle. Here is just one

Another black mark for NASA I would have assumed that they would have had enough climate scientists on staff to complete a GW FAQ without pushing the answers off on sources not subject to federal QC oversight.