Global Cooling

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:42 am

Badger wrote:A most swoon-worthy post Doc.

That was just fucking insightful.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:54 pm

There is no global warming or cooling. Aliens are just manipulating our brains to make them speed up or slow down, which gives the illusion of changing temperature. And this graph proves it:

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:49 pm

This is interesting. I'm not making any claims for veracity. It was published by the royal Academy of something or another;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ecies.html

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:26 am

The theory that a somewhat disassembled comet caused a minor ice age about 13k years ago has some facts going for it. The hailstorm from space model is meant to resolve certain problems in the Younger Dryas impact event theory, like the lack of a significant impact crater. However, follow the link to read about additional weak spots in the theory (at least as described in the Wikipedia article).

There is agreement that something significant happened around that time, and the temperature decline seems pretty solid. There does not seem to be a consensus just yet about the cause (or causes).

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:16 am

The Nano-diamonds limit somewhat the list of possibilities. All very interesting.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:28 pm

One scenario proposes that an air burst and/or earth impact with a rare swarm of carbonaceous chondrites or comets set vast areas of the North American continent on fire, causing the extinction of most of the large animals in North America and the demise of the North American Clovis culture at the end of the last glacial period.

Not being an astrophysicist or a anthropologist there's probably a LOT I'm not taking into consideration. Still, two points bother me about the theory 1) carbonaceous chondrites are pretty robust minerals (or rocks if you will) that seem like they'd leave some residual trace in the form of particulate fallout. That fallout would seemingly be present in relatively recent Pleistocene ice core samples both in and adjacent to North America 2) the demise of Clovis point culture in the US has been attributed to a continued southern migration by the original tribes. From what I understand, examples of clovis culture are to be found from Bering, Alaska down into portions of South America and that the dating suggests a continued, almost uninterrupted advancement south.

As I said, I'm suspect. Rather, I'm not convinced as there are a bushel of other ideas out there related to large extinctions and migrations of humans. Still, it *is* a compelling idea in its originality and the arguments used to support it.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:43 pm

IIRC, about 15 years ago. Algore, said we'd all die if we didn't change our evil ways...............in less than 10 years.

I can't remember the quote, though.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:51 pm

I quote,,, "A pissed-off polar bear is going to bite off your bootie" Does that jog your memory?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:00 pm

"manbearpig"?

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:05 am

1972, polar bear population: approximately 5000

2010, polar bear population: approximately 25000

Cannot possibly imagine why there is an increase of sightings and human interaction.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:53 am

interesting article ... as usual, i would love to hear comments ... not that i really have to ask for them .....

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 59,00.html

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:03 pm

I read the article twice. I'd love to know if anyone else thinks that it is fair to slam (and possibly slander) climate scientists and to give climate change skeptics a free pass.

The article seeks to discredit CRU (and Phil Jones), and has some absurd claims, such as:

Most of all, however, Jones controlled the "smoking gun" of climatology: the Earth's temperature curve. The temperature records dating back to the beginning of industrialization are intended to prove that the average global temperature has already increased by almost one degree Celsius since 1850.

It is not Phil Jones' data. It is not the "Jones curve." There are multiple independent sets of data that point in the same direction, and Prof. Jones does not even control the data for the CRU. To assert otherwise is either being willfully dishonest or obtusely credulous, since the existence of these data sets is a matter of public record.

There's quite a list of problems with the article. It dives into irrelevant detail (such as the reported authoring of an erotic novel by IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri), but ignores major sources of data, such as any data from satellites.

I wish that the journalists had standards of accuracy that came within a factor of ten of the scientists they criticize.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:10 pm

the most interesting thing about that article *is* the source, methinks. it was hardly something i'd expect to see in der spiegel ...

it's quite a change in tone from what they have reported in the past.

i wonder what is behind it ......

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:56 am

Yes, it would be good to get the story behind the story. I'd like to know why Der Spiegel commissioned or approved of the story, and I'd like to know more about the motivation of the authors.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:08 am

dr.placebo wrote:Yes, it would be good to get the story behind the story. I'd like to know why Der Spiegel commissioned or approved of the story, and I'd like to know more about the motivation of the authors.

that, is the key, IMHO, to both sides of the debate.............

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:03 pm

I agree with ygmir, the motivation of the authors is important in any media dispute. It's far less clear how to establish the motivation, although I tend to think that the language chosen has something to do with it (and I'm not talking about English vs. German).

For a more detailed response to the Der Spiegel article, see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... t-bashing/

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:01 pm

The CRU has been exonerated by a second report, this time by an international panel commissioned by the Univ. of East Anglia, chaired by Lord Oxburgh.

There are some criticisms of the CRU procedures, but in summary the CRU was held to be honest.

Some relevant links:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/14/c ... red-again/

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pre ... ment+Panel

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:33 pm

It's a conspiracy I tell you. A damn conspiracy!!!!

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:50 pm

I asked a while ago if the weather stations in the cold climates were used in the baseline statistics,,,, and later dropped from the data base. The Russians claimed that; in later data collection, many stations were ignored. Canada said that there were 200 stations used in the baseline and only one station used in later data collection.
Is the jury still out on this one. What have you got for me??
In my first post, I had a link to an article that claimed that the 4 weather satellite systems agreed that global warming halted in 1998. Is the jury still out on that one??

If Anglia cherry-picked data from temperate stations and culled data from sub-arctic stations, it would be easy to get any results that they wanted. Has anyone explained away the Canadian claim?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:45 pm

OK, here's some more data to chew on. It is from the telegraph, naturally but, There are a lot of quotes and interesting stuff. The gist is that the supposed tie between CO2 and heating is getting weaker and weaker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -home.html
Mother Nature is stubbornly refusing to co-operate with their models. SHOOT THE BITCH.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:27 pm

The cited article makes a big deal about it being the coldest recorded July 21st in Nashville TN, presumably because it's so important that it is Al Gore's hometown.

More recent results, though, show the warmest recorded first quarter (Jan-Feb-Mar) for global temperatures in 2010. 2010 has a good chance to be the warmest recorded year, too.

Actually, it's cheating in both cases, because short term or local results really don't demonstrate a lot about global climate change. The long term trend still shows an increase, and 2009 fits within the normal variation for the trend shown by the last 30 years (and 50 years, and 150 years). I expect that 2010 will also be consistent with that trend, because it takes either a huge variation or a significant number of years to show that the trend is broken.

Still, my cherries are bigger.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:20 pm

Here's an interesting article about a new satellite package that does real-time atmosphere measurements. I haven't had time yet to do background reading.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:45 pm

I'm skeptical about this report. There appears to be little direct public free data on the Crista-Spas measurements, which took place in 1994 and 1997 (not really new data). What there is indicates that the ozone distribution is more varied than expected, but the public papers I could quickly find on the results claimed fairly good correspondence with other means of measurement.

There appears to be only one significant source of ozone hole doubter. That raises all sorts of alarms with me. It appears to be another "science consipracy" theme played out by mangling some old satellite results.

Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to get scientists to agree, much less conspire?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:44 am

Not one scientist has had a vengeful wife go "tell-all" during divorce hearings? That, for me, speaks volumes.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:47 am

theCryptofishist wrote:Not one scientist has had a vengeful wife go "tell-all" during divorce hearings? That, for me, speaks volumes.

Actually, there are many examples of failed relationships with scientists. And I don't doubt that ex-spouses would blow the whistle, but they'd have to be scientists to have a coherent story about the conspiracy, otherwise they'd sound like real nuts and have the judgement go against them. But if the ex-spouses were also scientists then they'd be in on the conspiracy, and agar agar is thicker than water.

I'm quite bummed out that I'm not on the conspiracy mailing list. It must be that "real" scientists don't talk to computer nerds.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:56 pm

Once more, I'm guilty of posting info that I thought was current. I need to check better. If this platform is so accurate, why haven't we heard results from it that agree or disagree with other sources?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:44 pm

1. Lies.
2. Damn lies.
3. Statistics.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:10 pm

What was the one I heard the other day? Ummmmmmm

"We don't lie, we simply withold enough truth to manipulate what you to think." the angel Joshua on Supernatural

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:27 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:1. Lies.
2. Damn lies.
3. Statistics.

Add 4. "half truths"

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:24 pm

can't sit still wrote:Once more, I'm guilty of posting info that I thought was current. I need to check better. If this platform is so accurate, why haven't we heard results from it that agree or disagree with other sources?

The Crista-Spas results I've seen were important not because they contradicted other results, but because they showed a lot more structure to the ozone distribution than was previously known. This showed that the atmosphere was not as uniform for ozone (and high altitude water vapor and some other gases) as was previously assumed.

There are a lot more instruments now for measuring the higher altitudes. Some of them are on long-lived satellites rather than Shuttle platforms, and some are on the ground, especially above 80 degrees latitude (where Crista-Spas was not very sensitive). I'm guessing that the reason that Crista-Spas is not discussed more these days is that it was a stepping stone rather than an endpoint for measurement.

One side effect of the Crista-Spas platform is that it has people looking more carefully at the contribution of comet fragments to high altitude water vapor. It is believed to be a minor effect, but it is more common than previously estimated. Not enough to turn around climate models, but enough to try to factor in.

This all brings up a pet peeve of mine. I'm a taxpayer, and I support scientific research. It bugs me that so many results are hidden behind paywalls (usually at extravagant cost). This practice does not promote science, nor understanding by the general public. It seriously disadvantages those who want to learn from original sources rather than mangled or shallow articles.