Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm


Scientists? You're relying on scientists???

--
Nom=de=Plume

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

I'll condense it for you.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the
graph on the right]
1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not
remain in that pattern.[4]
2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific
Decadal Oscillation

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

When have you responded to the myriad of postings presented to you?
Besides, you present four year old garbage and call it science.

Wake up, Loogy.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
 

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model,
that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters
in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING.

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:50:32 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model,
that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters
in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING.

By golly, maybe there IS a way to 'prove' pigs can fly!
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:22 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

I'll condense it for you.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the
graph on the right]
1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not
remain in that pattern.[4]
2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific
Decadal Oscillation

Sorry dude - hit the send button a little fast.

Click on the Senate Testimony link.

http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/...tions-not-co2/

Here's another - a little more condensed, but fairly accurate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aU.evtnk6DPo#

Here's a key point to keep in mind. The relationship between global
temperature and solar activity is confused by the difference between
global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the
average temperature of the oceans - simple fact because they are
Earth's heat sink.

As we've all know ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The
Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where
unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. It's
very similar to lake water turnover in fact. Lake Lanier, one that
you're very familiar with, exhibits this effect as well. This surface
water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so
the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with
respect to the actual local and/or global temperature.

We also need to account for the largest source of raw energy which is
the Sun. It's no accident that, coincident with normal warm/cold
cycles, that the increasedecrease in sunspots and solar prominences,
mass coronal ejections and solar flares. The high magnetic energy
components of these various solar events are very coincident with
Earth weather and weather patterns. One of the more interesting
studies done in 2007, which I can't find on the web but I'll keep
looking - at the minimum I'll be glad to send you a copy of it,
studied a solar event that occured in 1998 and it's effect on weather
patterns. It was a major mass ejection that caused an unusual wet/dry
pattern in the Northern Hemisphere.

There is also some interest in what are called Milankovitch Cycles -
basically eccentricities in Earth's orbit around the sun. Oddly,
these cycles also seem to correspond to warm/cold cycles and long term
Earth weather patterns.

Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:50:32 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model,
that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters
in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING.

Er..that's what a mathematical/statistical model is supposed to do. By
manipulating variables, you obtain different results - that's why it's
called a model. You're taking a given set of parameters and varying
them to obtain a result.

Now can you develop a model that will produce the results you want?
Certainly - it's easy enough to do if the parameters and data sets are
limited and confined to already established results.

A good exampe is Dr Michael Mann's GRL paper (the infamous "hockey
stick"), which, in one scientific coup, overturned the whole of
climate history.

It was an essentially overlaid "graph" based on past temperature
max/mins and a set of tree ring data that was tightly controlled.
Within these limited data sets, Mann purportedly used a standard
analysis methodology called Principal Component Analysis which is a
fairly standard type of evaluative tool. PCA utilizes a technique
called normalization in which all data sets are normalized within
certain parameters. What Mann did was supress the data that did not
support his theory and enhanced the data that did. It was totally
improper, unethical and unscientific.

When the data used, even as limited as it was, is normalized within
accepted parameters, the hockey stick goes away.

So my point is that you can build a model using standard techniques
that will produce a unknown result or you can build a model using
parameters outside the accepted technique pool to produce a wanted
result.

Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
 

In article ,
says...

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal...

CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots
activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan
organization.