Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:Well, if you're talking about modulation of cosmic rays, I think that theory is getting generally discredited as a significant contributor to climate.

Reference, please?

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849?ln=no

Nothing like getting some actual data and observations instead of relying on some hokey 'model'.

I'm getting the impression that anything you don't approve of is "discredited" (without any references). I'm still waiting to learn how Sallie Baliunas is "discredited".

I think you're discredited.

gpobserver wrote:I'm still waiting to learn how Sallie Baliunas is "discredited".

She's an astrophysicist, what does that have to do with climatology.

Obviously someone doesn't like her.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html

gpobserver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Well, if you're talking about modulation of cosmic rays, I think that theory is getting generally discredited as a significant contributor to climate.

Reference, please?

To be honest, in a casual conversation I don't feel compelled to reference everything. However, in this case, I just read a report of new work a couple of weeks ago, in Science May 1, 2009), reporting on work by Pierce and Adams at Carnegie Mellon. I saw a report about a similar study from a University of Colorado news email, but I don't have it anymore.

I'm still waiting to learn how Sallie Baliunas is "discredited".

Baliunus started writing about her "belief" that CO2 was unrelated to atmospheric temperature back in 2001. Nothing about her background suggests she has any basis for this belief. She had done no research of her own, and the subject is completely outside her area of expertise. Her article in Nature (with Soon) was soundly criticized for simple factual errors in the following issues- forcing her to back off on some silly claims, such as her position that there was no warming trend over the last half century. She went on in 2003 to publish a paper (again with Soon) in 2003 in Climate Research, using other studies to conclude that solar activity was the main factor in climate change over century periods. More than a dozen of the authors in papers she cited refuted her interpretations of their work, and half the editors of Climate Change resigned in protest because the paper was even published, without proper peer review. Other authors have taken the same material and come to different conclusions.

A scientist loses credibility when she doesn't have the respect or trust of her fellow scientists, and in the area of climate research, this describes Baliunus. She is a "think tank scientist"; someone who is very public about promoting a position (in this case, a largely discredited one, scientifically), but does little or no original research herself. However, this can be useful. If I see a reference to her in a discussion about climate, I know I can stop wasting my time with that part of the discussion and move on. She is a useful proxy for a bad argument.

bystander wrote:Obviously someone doesn't like her.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html

Yikers, what a whack job. "FELONY conspirator in attempted MASS MURDER by Weather Chaos"? You have to wonder how anybody can write this kind of tripe and expect to be taken seriously.

There are, in fact, a number of rational, well reasoned, and descriptive references available on the Internet explaining why Baliunus is not credible with respect to her views on climate change, and why she isn't even a very good scientist. No need for extreme rhetoric! (I'm not accusing you of this; I expect you're laughing at the nature of the link as well.)

Chris Peterson wrote:(I'm not accusing you of this; I expect you're laughing at the nature of the link as well.)

Yes, I thought it especially funny since gpobserver is constantly talking about google hits. Guess which was #1 when I googled Baliunus. However, that aside, even considering this was obviously written by somebody with an agenda, the left hand column gives one plenty to wonder if Baliunus is not on the up and up, particularly the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

It's both funny and disheartening when people uses a Google or Wikipedia University degree to argue subjects surpassing their education.

The legalistic approach: "Not proving it to my satisfaction - I win by default".
Reality isn't bound to opinions.


Luke 16:31
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

bystander wrote:

gpobserver wrote:I'm still waiting to learn how Sallie Baliunas is "discredited".

She's an astrophysicist, what does that have to do with climatology.

Well, Duh! If variations in solar activity have a major influence on terrestrial climate, maybe it kinda makes sense, huh? At least to rational people it would.

Chris Peterson wrote:To be honest, in a casual conversation I don't feel compelled to reference everything. However, in this case, I just read a report of new work a couple of weeks ago, in Science May 1, 2009), reporting on work by Pierce and Adams at Carnegie Mellon. I saw a report about a similar study from a University of Colorado news email, but I don't have it anymore.

In a casual conversation, yes. However, in a fashion, we're all on a stage, engaging in a public debate. We have an audience, people who randomly visit this forum and read the posts. The thoughtful ones will read our posts and may decide on the issue of AGW based upon our arguments. I'm not really worried about convincing you and the other die-hard AGW alarmists. I'm interested in participating in a substantive debate that readers may find informative and helpful in making up their own minds on the issue. You might want to provide more references.

We've gone over that 'model' before and it doesn't stand up to the actual observations of the correlation between solar activity and low-level clouds. I'm not going to go over it again.

Chris Peterson wrote:Baliunus started writing about her "belief" that CO2 was unrelated to atmospheric temperature back in 2001. Nothing about her background suggests she has any basis for this belief. She had done no research of her own, and the subject is completely outside her area of expertise. Her article in Nature (with Soon) was soundly criticized for simple factual errors in the following issues- forcing her to back off on some silly claims, such as her position that there was no warming trend over the last half century. She went on in 2003 to publish a paper (again with Soon) in 2003 in Climate Research, using other studies to conclude that solar activity was the main factor in climate change over century periods. More than a dozen of the authors in papers she cited refuted her interpretations of their work, and half the editors of Climate Change resigned in protest because the paper was even published, without proper peer review. Other authors have taken the same material and come to different conclusions.

HAR HAR! You mean this press release: "Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity" (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html)

In retrospect, which has been discredited, these climatologists or Sallie Baliunas who said, "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."? Please examine: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html

I'm so delighted to be in such good company: http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

I'll bet on one brilliant mind against a 'consensus' of mediocre minds any time.

gpobserver wrote:I'll bet on one brilliant mind against a 'consensus' of mediocre minds any time.

The standard slogan of the pseudoscientist. You bet what you want. I'll trust the experts.

Chris Peterson wrote:

gpobserver wrote:I'll bet on one brilliant mind against a 'consensus' of mediocre minds any time.

The standard slogan of the pseudoscientist. You bet what you want. I'll trust the experts.

Hee hee hee! Back to name-calling again. Standard procedure for the intellectually lazy.

gpobserver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

gpobserver wrote:I'll bet on one brilliant mind against a 'consensus' of mediocre minds any time.

The standard slogan of the pseudoscientist. You bet what you want. I'll trust the experts.

Hee hee hee! :) Back to name-calling again. Standard procedure for the intellectually lazy.

It isn't name calling if it is accurate. And I do believe, based on your many posts in this thread, that you are a true pseudoscientist. You accept weakly supported ideas while rejecting well supported ones, as required to maintain a dogmatic belief in something that can't rationally be believed. You aren't a climate scientist, but believe that you can better interpret the data than thousands of specialists who do primary research. Indeed, you reject them as having "mediocre minds". That isn't name calling?

Sorry, by most measures, you seem to pretty much the definition of a pseudoscientist.

Chris Peterson wrote:It isn't name calling if it is accurate. And I do believe, based on your many posts in this thread, that you are a true pseudoscientist. You accept weakly supported ideas while rejecting well supported ones, as required to maintain a dogmatic belief in something that can't rationally be believed. You aren't a climate scientist, but believe that you can better interpret the data than thousands of specialists who do primary research. Indeed, you reject them as having "mediocre minds". That isn't name calling?

Sorry, by most measures, you seem to pretty much the definition of a pseudoscientist.

And I believe I am accurate by describing you as intellectually lazy. This AGW hypothesis has gone far beyond science into the realm of politics and, for some, religion. If this was just science, like if dinosaurs were warm-blooded or not, I would be happy to leave this battle to the experts and read accounts of the controversy in the popular journals. However, it isn't just science, there are forces in the world that seek to profit by this unproven hypothesis, to take thousands of dollars a year from my pocket, to deprive me of liberties, and impoverish me and my family. You'd better believe I'm going to get involved in this debate, Pal! You call yourself a scientist? A scientist abides by the Scientific Method and looks for data and observations to falsify a hypothesis. AGW is falsifiable on more than one basis: (1) There is no warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere, (2) there has been no warming for the past ten years in spite of a continuing increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, (3) ice cores clearly show that carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere lags behind changes in temperature, (4) The infrared adsorption bands of carbon dioxide increase logarithmically with increasing concentration and are essentially saturated now, and (5) carbon dioxide alone is incapable of the temperature increases claimed but requires a hypothesized amplifying positive feedback mechanism that is not seen. These are facts. FACTS! Not some simplistic 'model' devised specifically with carbon dioxide in mind and totally devoid of any terms involving solar activity. Do you think a model trumps data and observations? You seem to think you are a scientist. You're a member of the choir, bowing before the altar of AGW, worshipping at the feet of the High Priests of The Consensus, and reciting the Litany of the Computer Models. You don't think for yourself with a critical mind, you don't acquaint yourself and try to understand facts that are contrary to your accepted beliefs, and you are content to appeal to authority without question. If you're a scientist, start acting like one. Educate yourself, ask questions, think critically, and bear in mind somebody might be trying to play you for a sucker.

Here's a challenge for you, Mr. Intellectually Lazy: The temperature records clearly show a Roman Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Little Ice Age. Something had a potent influence on the climate to cause those events and IT ISN'T CARBON DIOXIDE! Now get your lazy neurons in gear and come up with an explanation of what caused those variations in climate and knock off the name-calling. I will if you will. Let's stick to the debate.

I'm not the only one noticing that the Scientific Method and peer-review are falling by the side:
http://climatesci.org/2009/06/04/short- ... community/

gpobserver wrote: ...AGW is falsifiable on more than one basis: (1) There is no warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere, (2) there has been no warming for the past ten years in spite of a continuing increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, (3) ice cores clearly show that carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere lags behind changes in temperature, (4) The infrared adsorption bands of carbon dioxide increase logarithmically with increasing concentration and are essentially saturated now, and (5) carbon dioxide alone is incapable of the temperature increases claimed but requires a hypothesized amplifying positive feedback mechanism that is not seen ... Do you think a model trumps data and observations? ...and bear in mind somebody might be trying to play you for a sucker ...The temperature records clearly show a Roman Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Little Ice Age. Something had a potent influence on the climate to cause those events and IT ISN'T CARBON DIOXIDE! ...

Good rant, but you forgot to mention the polar bears.

gpobserver wrote:Here's a challenge for you, Mr. Intellectually Lazy: The temperature records clearly show a Roman Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Little Ice Age. Something had a potent influence on the climate to cause those events and IT ISN'T CARBON DIOXIDE! Now get your lazy neurons in gear and come up with an explanation of what caused those variations in climate and knock off the name-calling. I will if you will. Let's stick to the debate.

There is no debate. That question has been discussed a dozen times here, and the arguments ignored by those who want to keep using it. In fact, pretty much every response to any of your questions has been ignored. At the same time, you have been unable to offer any arguments against the good science supporting AGW, other than things like "I don't believe in models". Again, this entire pattern is typical of pseudoscience. Selective use of evidence, don't discard discredited evidence, ignore responses challenging points. You see it used by the moon landing hoax crackpots. You see it used by the creation science crackpots. And you see it used by the anti-AGW crackpots.

This "debate" can occur if you are able to offer solid, scientific reasons that the AGW theory is likely to be incorrect. Otherwise, the discussion has become a waste of time. I haven't seen anything new offered up in a dozen pages of comments.

And there we have it, folks. Mr. Peterson's intellect hits the "Snooze" button.

Here is an animated clip of the past 30 days of ice conditions in the arctic region
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate ... lor.0.html (It takes a little time to download.)
Note: at about May 25th, a low pressure region is passing from the Atlantic side, North of Greenland, to the Northern coast of Alaska.
The current sea ice at the Arctic is so thin that a single warm (relatively speaking) low pressure storm could take 100% solid ice and turn it into areas of less than 75% solid.
The ice in the region isn't nearly as thick as once thought.
You will also notice that the Sea ice melts off without being blown from the region into warmer southern waters. The storm track and wind leads from the North Atlantic into the Arctic region so the current melt down isn't due to the winds blowing the sea ice bergs out of the region into warmer waters. And the melting conditions seen couldn't be attributed to the massive solar activity currentlt being experienced (there isn't any remember? We are supposed to be experiencing a 20 to 30 year low solar induced cold cycle) So some other mechanism is warming the region other than increased solar activity or an alteration to the Arctic Wind patterns blowing sea ice into the North Atlantic.

Since there is so much concern about arctic ice may I bring this article to your attention:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/n ... #more-8273

Interesting debate. I wish I had the knowledge and time to join in.

gpobserver wrote:However, in a fashion, we're all on a stage, engaging in a public debate. We have an audience, people who randomly visit this forum and read the posts. The thoughtful ones will read our posts and may decide on the issue of AGW based upon our arguments. I'm not really worried about convincing you and the other die-hard AGW alarmists. I'm interested in participating in a substantive debate that readers may find informative and helpful in making up their own minds on the issue.

As an "audience" member of this thread, I'd just like to chime in and point out that your stated interest in substantive debate would appear less hypocritical if you used fewer expressions like

gpobserver wrote:And there we have it, folks. Mr. Peterson's intellect hits the "Snooze" button.

gpobserver wrote:Hee hee hee! Back to name-calling again. Standard procedure for the intellectually lazy.

gpobserver wrote:I think you're discredited.

gpobserver wrote:"getting larger.. And larger..." Boom-boom... boom-boom... It's the chicken heart! Eeeeeeeeeeeee....

It's hard for the casual reader (for me at least) to follow an argument when I'm constantly face-palming at snide remarks. Sure, that sort of banter is part of communication (particularly in schoolyards), but here on the Internet, it's pinning my troll-meter. The patience of your main debate opponent surprises me.

Hi Pete,

Pete wrote:As an "audience" member of this thread, I'd just like to chime in and point out that your stated interest in substantive debate would appear less hypocritical if you used fewer expressions like (various examples)

I actually do appreciate your comments and helpful criticisms. I shall endeavor to be more restrained in the future. How would you recommend one should respond to rudeness?

I must confess it's very annoying to spend considerable time crafting a substantive argument with references and then having an opponent dismiss it with a simple "that's been discredited" without explaining how it is discredited or with references. That's a lazy response.

One of the reasons I'm engaging in this debate is to gain experience and confidence in dealing with pro-AGW debating opponents. It's also provided me incentives to do some more literature searching. I've got such a large reference database now and I've seen some of the tactics that are used to distract from meaningful topics. I've been a bit disappointed by the relatively low level of challenge, however. So many of the arguments are what one encounters in religious debates, there is an appeal to authority, that's what the person believes, and you're at a dead-end. My opponents place such great faith in computer models even though they are not properly validated (see http://climatesci.org/2009/01/20/commen ... s-part-ii/ as a possible starting point in such a discussion).

Pete wrote:It's hard for the casual reader (for me at least) to follow an argument when I'm constantly face-palming at snide remarks. Sure, that sort of banter is part of communication (particularly in schoolyards), but here on the Internet, it's pinning my troll-meter. The patience of your main debate opponent surprises me.

Thank you very much, Pete, I shall be more restrained. Does anyone else have constructive criticisms?

Best regards,
- Roy

downright balmy in Pevek Russia (Northern Siberia above the Arctic Circle) 19dC (66dF) and in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT Canada its a mild 6dC (43dF) also above the arctic circle.

BMAONE23 wrote:downright balmy in Pevek Russia (Northern Siberia above the Arctic Circle) 19dC (66dF) and in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT Canada its a mild 6dC (43dF) also above the arctic circle.

Good Sir, It is also true that there is unusually cold weather in Canada and North Dakota. Here in Tucson the weather is cool and cloudy, very unusual for this time of year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/06/d ... #more-8248
Accuweather is forecasting cold weather for parts of the US this summer.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.a ... &article=9
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastard ... e-blog.asp
Although it is intriguing, I would not propose it as indisputable proof of a solar influence on climate. Surely you would not propose warm weather in Russia as indisputable proof of AGW?

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

Chris Peterson wrote:

StACase wrote:In the sixth grade, maybe earlier I learned that water seeks its own level. So I don't exactly understand how one area of the planet could have a rise in sea level exceeding the rest of the planet. Perhaps someone with greater scientific expertise than I can explain.

On the Earth, sea level is nominally defined by a gravitational equipotential surface. This surface is not a sphere, due to the fact that the Earth itself isn't a sphere of uniform density. This geoid defined surface is then disrupted by the complex structure of currents flowing in and out of the various bounded zones making up regional seas. In the North Atlantic, warm water flows in, cools rapidly and sinks in the north, and flows back out along the sea floor. The effect of the cooling is to reduce the volume of the water, causing the surface to drop below the equipotential. Surface currents don't flow along that gradient quickly enough to fill in the resulting depression. You're only talking about a surface slope of a couple of feet over a few thousand miles. But if the active pump stops, that depression will get filled in, resulting in a local rise in sea level.

Local sea levels all over the world are calibrated against the global mean sea level.

Well there's this:

And ...[sea level]... has been rising faster in the mid-Atlantic because the land here is sinking.

Understanding this phenomenon requires thinking of the Earth as an enormous balloon. Push down in one spot on the ball's surface and surrounding areas are raised up. Glaciers did this to Earth's surface during the last ice age: they pressed down on northern North America and areas to the south tilted up, like the other end of a seesaw. Today, thousands of years after the glaciers retreated, the seesaw is tipping back the other way, and the region from New York to North Carolina is falling about six inches per century.
Washington Post