@faaces: the ice caps have been melting since the last ice age when they covered most of the northern US. Why should the last 30 years be significant compared to the last 10,000? OS anyone prepared to argue that life was better then?

And I'm still very interested in the topic, I just figured is point you to my prior rants If you were wondering what my opinions were.

The polar ice cap melting is actually one of the hand waving argumentative for why it hasn't actually warmed according to the models. We're warming the planet catestrophically, which melts the ice, which cools off the planet. That's why we haven't sunk any islands het, but we now have hurricanes which never existed, and the temperature rise has been .09 degrees instead of the .25 degrees we predicted.

Global warming cools the planet and mist therefore be stopped! And by stopped, I just mean paid for ... Preferably to Al Gore

Not ready to get fully immersed in the argument (maybe tomorrow), but I do have a few bones to pick.

"That said I don't like this study because it ignores the carbon lag mentioned in all the other studies"
To paraphrase: I don't like this study that contradicts this claim because it contradicts this claim.

"IPCC is bullshit, don't bother."
To paraphrase: All these damn AGW nuts refuse to accept any papers not written by people that disagree. That said, all of the people who offer the mainstream opionion are wrong because they don't agree with me.

"over half of the temperature increase has been caused by Aerosols"
"45%"
This one needs no explanation.

"Here is why the IPCC synthesis report is bullshit:
A list of some authors and past accomplishments:
Rajendra Pachauri, Bill Hare: work at Greenpeace
Osvaldo Canziani, Saleemul Huq, David Karoly, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Monirul Mirza, Leonard Nurse, Nijavalli Ravindranath, the late Stephen Schneider, and Gary Yohe: Work for the WWF"
You fail to understand that an interest in the environment doesn't create a conflict of interest when publishing about negative environmental impacts unless you first admit that there are negative environmental impacts. Even then, all that they can be accused of is trying to get people's attention, not bad science. What motivation do they have to lie?

"This would be like tracking a stock whose price is $80 on a 5 year average with swings of $5 or more in a given day being common, and then looking at a 5 minute chart which shows the price going from 79.52 to 79.63 over a one hour period during a day and screaming to your investors - we have momentum! BUY BUY BUY!'"

Ignoring the faults in the scenario itself (5 minutes and 1 hour are not the same amount of time). The analogy is completely invalid. Finding a trend at a magnitude where all fluctuations are either much bigger are much smaller would be better equated to a small trend over a long period of time in such a stock. You're also showing a lack of understanding of averages, variance, and data analysis in general, and understating figures.


I'll start reading abge's article now, but from what I gathered from the abstract, it seems like y'all are over-inflating this a bit and completely ignoring the nice bit of explanation dubmdell gave several pages ago. Some of you might also want to start proofreading your posts.

""over half of the temperature increase has been caused by Aerosols"
"45%"
This one needs no explanation.""
Study said at least 45%

"You fail to understand that an interest in the environment doesn't create a conflict of interest "
Its a conflict of interest because if your recruited by greenpeace to write a paper on the environment, your not going to go against greenpeace.

Saying "over half" is still a lie. You can't really defend that.

Again, Greenpeace has an interest in the environment and is trying to do what is best for it. They don't benefit from lying either. You also can't just freely throw around claims of corruption and ignore all of the other scientists. If you want to have an actual scientific discussion of the few points against global warming, let's do it, I'm all ears, but don't try to make it political or equate it to religion, because that destroys all of your arguments before you even make them.

@ghug a 5 minute chart refers to the price increments, you can watch that chart over an hour and get 12 data points. And if you make a prediction of the direction of that stock based on those 12 data points, you're doing your customers a disservice, but you're still getting your commission.

I assure you I understand data analysis better than most. Certainly better than you. You saying that I don't, doesn't make it so. Point out the fault in my data analysis argument. Don't just claim that I do t know what I'm talking about. That makes you look foolish.

Alright, I'll gladly admit to knowing nothing about stocks and concede that point, but the rest of it still stands, and blindly insulting my won't change that.

You can very easily analyze a trend across something that fluctuates with a regular period (a day, a year). I pointed out the fault in your analogy, and it's very clear that you're trying to make an argument about variance that just doesn't hold up.

Try being less of an asshole and making arguments that aren't complete bullshit.

Hooray, my inane Forum Series has a (smarter) brother! :)

...Oh my, so much to look through, lol...

i didnt feel like reading all 4 pages of comments. i see philcore is trolling as usual saying it has only warmed 0.09 not 0.25 as predicted. no. by ipcc 1990 it should have warmed by between 1c or 2c and it has warmed by 0.00c

i have lost faith in the bought and paid for academic community, but it is nice to see an abstract that at least admits a serious flaw in one of their pieces of evidence. that co2 lags temperature in the record.

wait, hold on, back the fuck up. Is Blankflag seriously claiming that there has been no warming what so ever? Da fuck?

@Fasces

I don't think blank seriously claims anything.

I think your right, I would be very surprised if blankflag wasn't a troll, you read the threads he starts and its clear hes just looking for attention.

Well, I finished that 2nd whitepaper and it states very strongly that CO2 is the leading GHG. I don't think Science is really in the business of publishing half-assed research. On the other hand, this was published a couple years before Humlum. I'd be interested if sometime this year there is a paper that addresses Humlum directly.

@ghug: " You can very easily analyze a trend across something that fluctuates with a regular period (a day, a year). I pointed out the fault in your analogy, and it's very clear that you're trying to make an argument about variance that just doesn't hold up."

I agree, but to call something a "trend", that is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the variations, is really stretching the word "trend".

And don't call me an asshole, dick! ;-)