hurley_108 hurley_108:
Well we could post scientific studies of course, but let's be honest, you have nothing to post that doesn't have the words computer model in it, and you won't read stuff I post like...
$1:
The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures.
Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate Systemby Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz
That's OK, I didn't read it either,
but I did read a
a breakdown of the study into clear english. You should try that one. There's also links to critique of the study from your guys.
Speaking of critique...here's something I'd like to discuss. As I hear it there's this study mentioned in the IPCC, I think it's called Jones et al. It makes the claim urban heat effects don't really matter. It bases a good chunk of this on data gathered by this Chinese scientist named Wang.
This guy makes allegations of scientific fraud against Wang. I know what you're thinking. So what? I can answer that. It isn't the allegations in themselves that bothers me. It turns out when he requested the data Jones used for his report Jones refused. His study was publicly funded.
You've perhaps heard a little bit about the
scientific quackery of NASA scientist James Hansen. In particular the mistake Steve McIntyre caught him making which led to NASA having to rewrite it's American weather data, and put 1930 as America's warmest year over 1998. Again that isn't what bugs. I think a larger complaint can be made over the fact Hansen, of the publicly funded NASA again refused to release data.
So what I'm wondering is if the alarmist scientists are really the holders of the truth why are they all the time refusing to release the data they're supposedly basing all this unchallengeable science on. Why aren't they shining it openly like a beacon?
Oh, I tell you what, You wanna talk science right? You guys like NASA, I hear. I find the study they did mentioned
HERE interesting. It's indicative of a lot of studies I hear about lately which sets about to prove climate model predictions with real world data, but Damn Mother Nature just won't play ball. This one shows how the arctic warming we were experiencing is part of a shift, and it appears to be shifting now in the other direction. But not to worry, they just created another model, and they tell us with this new one things will soon shift back. Again not to worry, if it doesn't I'm sure they can create another climate model to say it will shift again soon after the next deadline comes and goes.
Here's another one. This time from skeptics. It's a report published in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. It's reproduced here -
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.
Basically it goes like this...
$1:
Climate Warming is Naturally Caused and Shows No Human Influence
By David Douglas, U of Rochester, John Christy, U of Alabama, Fred Singer, U of Virginia
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-ne ... influence/
Oh and wanna know what the critique of this study is? When the alarmist guys first started hearing about this damned refusal of the tropospheric readings to line up according to their computer models with the surface temperature readings they decided the problem was with the data, so they just did a couple of studies of their own, and changed the data.
It's what I call ad hoc hypothesis science. You'll see a lot of that if you check around. It's usually done with computer tricks. I think in this case they changed the way the computer read the satellite data, and stopped tweaking when they got what they wanted, or something like that.
I don't know. Is that enough actual science for you, or do you want some more? I'd ask you for some, because you guys keep telling me you've got it all, but every time I do, you get all, like, angry at me, or something.
CKA Super Elite 
