Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Well a bit rude, but from the rest of your post it appears I've somehow touched a nerve. I will do my best to respond kindly. But yes, I do understand how science works, I am in fact, an analytical chemist who has in the past studied atmospheric chemisty. Not that internet credentials are worth anything, but there you go.

Clearly, and this should be an issue if they are presupposing there results as you seem to be doing for them. In any case, paradigms have certainly shifted before, the question is how deeply scientist allow themselves to be immersed in the paradigm, and thus how likely they are to resist the actual data they measure which disagrees with their preconceived notions.

I'm sorry... nothing they said leans one way or the other??? Seriously, this is what you are saying? These robots measured NO temperature change, but rather than accept this 'surprising' (surprising because you have already decided what you expected to find) data as accurate you immediately assume it is somehow flawed. What do you base this on, other than that it doesn't support your current paradigm? Oh, you pay lip service to refining the theory of global warming, but I don't think you are intellectually honest when you say this. That is, you assume that GW is at this point an unstoppable force (considering we haven't taken whatever actions you think would stop it), so anomalous data needs to be somehow explained away or fit into the theory, rather than the theory being modified (or indeed rejected if needs be) as the data begins to unravel it.

I would hardly call changes to the largest input to the system you are measuring 'irrelevant', nor is your supposition that it would affect all other variables true. How, for example, does the input of the sun affect the concentration of anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses?

But in any case I think you have misread me. I am clearly not calling for an end to investigations of climate, I am actually doing the opposite. I am saying that we need to be open to all of the various studies and datum we find, not working from our preconceived notion that we've already isolated the dependencies and therefore can ignore the rest.

roflmao...

sorry, but your grasp of logic is severely lacking. Where did I say again that the sun is warming? Look closely and you'll see I imply the opposite. If the energy of the system (being the climate) cannot all be accounted for, and the other variables (GHGs primarilly) are constant or increasing, then it stands to reason that the INPUT has decreased. Of course following that with actually looking at sun activity shows that this is indeed the case, and allows one to postulate that the warming was largely the result of an 'overactive' (as a relative term) sun. There is no contradiction to be had here.

Ehh? You're off your rocker here. No where have I said we should stop doing science, indeed you are the one supporting the suppression of data which does not agree with your view of the system. I'm saying we need to actually do the science first, and do it right before letting people like Al Gore and the politicians writing policy summaries lead us blindfolded.

It's getting pathetic. You can try to put words in my mouth (so to speak) but the facts are that you have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted what I have been saying in some (one can only assume) zealous attempt to defend a world view not based so much on science as it is based on an agenda created by politicians and other non scientists putting together policy summaries for the IPCC.

The funny thing is that the power and money you think is so 'evil' is actually on your side of this argument right now. My opinion is that the power and money should butt the hell out and let the scientists actually get on with what they doing without the constant pressure (and I know these pressures all to well) to formulate your results before you actually have the data.

If anyone believes there is not alot of money at stake for these researchers (and yes that would apply from both sides of the debate) you are deluding yourselves.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.

I would not imagine that anyone serious disagrees with the facts that it has gotten warmer, the question of interest is what caused the warm up, and what is causing it to have slowed/stopped?

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. As Kuhn points out, science is intrinsically conservative, it is very difficult to change paradigms. Basically, there simply has to be no place left to hide for one paradigm before another can take over; as long as there is doubt, the old ones will remain.

However, this means that when a paradigm falls out of favor, its out for good, and the one that replaces it has already undergone rigorous testing. Read up on the history of global warming and you will see that its ascension is fairly recent (as recent as the last half century). Before that, it was only one among a group of competing theories. The intrinsic conservatism of science that Kuhn talks about (and Popper sometimes laments) is in this case lending some favor for global warming and against its (ironically) conservative detractors.

What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming. typically, since the state controls the flow of money, it has a strong say over what is defined as "science". This is witnessed in virtually all social science from psychological testing to sociological tabulating: the state funds science and what ever gets funded becomes "science" while the rest becomes marginal. The almost reactionary attitude within science and pressure to accept global warming is a defense mechanism against this state intervention. without it, scientists would be easily bought by state money, and science itself would be defined by this money. In this sense, scientists have been taking the literature on science studies produced since Kuhn and up through constructionist like Latour very seriously. They know and are taking seriously the golden law: who has the gold makes the laws; even scientific ones. Science is in a double-bind: it can either opt for reactionary conservatism protecting its community production, or it can sell out to conservatism of the liberal economy (thats a twist, but yes its real. think neo-cons, its basically their game.)

As for whatever licker wrote. I'm not bothering to read it. I just think its funny to watch you go through the pains and spend all the time on carefully quoting everything I wrote and viciously rebutting it. This is game forum. Get real. No one here gives a ****. Not like what you say is actually going to change opinions. If you really gave a damn about science, then you should go get a PhD.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Well played... run away since you completely got it wrong... and hide behind the 'no one gives a ****' after you apparently gave one.

And what makes you think I don't have a PhD?

This is a game forum though, perhaps you should have checked your tone in your initial post to me, perhaps not. I don't really care, I can keep the game separate from the rest of this, but I don't mind a little provocative discourse either.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Anyway, I propose we settle this on the field of battle!

You can take whatever heat loving nation you like and I will play some cold loving nation, then we'll see just who's got the right of it! ;)

For better results we should put some neutral nations in the middle and see if we can cause some extinctions...

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

that sounds tempting. I'm already involved in two games though, and that's about my limit.

I'll take a rain check though :)

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Yeah, i'm a bit loaded up at the moment and about to leave for a 2 week vacation.

Perhaps in January we should arrange a battle of hot vs. cold?

No reason to limit the fun to just the 2 of us anyway :)

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Don't forget to rename all important commanders after scientists that support your view. And make sure to post AARs in character.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

First, to address your second point: Again, we have had 2 similar troughs in the past 150 years that we have detailed figures. A 10 year trough, in the geological time scales we are working with, does not in any way indicate that this trend is "over". We are still in a 1000 year+ warming trend, and this is consistent, over this timeframe.

Second, to your first point: I don't think you read my previous posts. I don't completely agree with the causes, at least, not as valid reasoning for humanity to approach the issue with clear intent. The fact is, if global temperatures were to shift down OR up by about 5°, the human race with less than 7 billion people on the planet, will be greatly imperiled. Regardless if you think that any given country or region could persist through such calamity, I can only assure you that it's psychotic not to entertain the notion that eventually the famines and wars would lead to nuclear aggression = the end of the world as we know it.

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity. What matters is the human species rising to meet this problem head on, because we will have to find ways to deal with a little turbulence here or there, if we want to survive for longer than a quarter million years.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

But wait, I thought you were the heat lover, and he wanted things colder? ;)

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

You're right, that is kind of weird, and there probably is more to it than Kuhnianisms. I can think of a couple more factors that might be contributing: one is that there are state actors (Maldive islands) who actually have an incentive to push the fear of warming-driven disaster scenarios (which requires warming). More importantly, there's an unexplained datum, which is the warming trend of the last century. Ignatz Semmelweiss' problem was that he could show a causative link empirically (basic hygiene reduces iatrogenic childbed fever dramatically), but he had no theory to explain the causation. Only after germ theory was invented did his data gain widespread credibility. In theory science is about understanding the universe, which sometimes means understanding that you don't understand it; in practice people like to have explanations even if they're wrong. The GCMs climatologists use aren't high-quality models, but they can be tweaked to explain away the puzzling recent warming trend. Acknowledging the actual uncertainty in the system is too difficult, especially if that threatens your livelihood. Better to keep on studying and publishing on GCMs, even if they don't correspond to reality.

Feynman says scientific honesty is much harder than regular honesty. It takes a certain amount of brutality to say to yourself that the field you're studying really isn't going anywhere, in which case you'll probably leave. Therefore, it makes sense to pay attention to cross-disciplinary debates. Here's a link to an issue of APS Physics featuring debate on global change: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...0807/index.cfm.

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Yes, sorry, I sort of addressed it elsewhere, and so did Max(?), but I'll try to do better.

I have seen first hand funding being denied or removed if the proposed research would seem likely to be at odds with some other agenda (usually non scientific). As I commented somewhere, in the case of GW this is true from both sides of the specturm, and is something I find personally abhorrent.

Further the direct funding issue with the notion of paradigms Omni and others are discussing and when you look at where the funding is coming from, you often have to couch your proposal in friendly terms to the organization handing out the money (think IPCC here, also oil companies, though they have 'come around' lately anyway and are really no longer a factor in this debate).

So if you are interested in doing climate research, and you have publicly been critical of the GW theories as pushed by the IPCC, you are less likely to receive funding for basically any research in that area. At least funding from organizations whom support the IPCC, so there is some impetus to accept the popular theory and just run with it.

Most good scientists do not invest their research with the politics of the day, but some do, and some are pressured to (I have seen this from DHS...).

So does that address your question? You can call it peer pressure if you like, but the field of climate science is (or was) a fairly small and insular one, and as such the breaking of the GW paradigm is very difficult to do internally.

I disagree. Acting before we understand the causes is just as likely to do ill as it is to do good. Look at DDT as a clear example where acting before all relevant information was in place as a case in point. (and yes, DDT is 'bad' but the alternative, malaria, is worse).

I agree that we need to be looking at mitigation and adaptation technologies though, but those are beside the point of whether the temperature is going up or down.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Also, thanks for your response. For someone with infuriating views you're very coherent! :) (teasing)

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Hi Llamabeast: The Project Steve thing isn't about climate change. It's evolution.

Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Again, speaking for myself and not for licker: I'm not in a position to evaluate the history of the climate change theory. I do know that catastrophism has been around for a while (global cooling was the big fear in the 1960s, although it got less press than global warming does today), but I don't know how or whether global warming grew out of that specifically. I do know that I've listened to the arguments on both sides, and the evidence for catastrophic climate change is weak. I don't know whether that means it's always been weak, which I think is what you're asking.

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Ah, I misremembered about Project Steve! Thanks Tichy. Wrong frustrating debate.

Max: I guess in that case, I'm interested to know the same thing as with licker. Regardless of whether the evidence seems strong or weak to you, why do you think it is that so many scientists sign up to fearing climate change, when doing so is really to everyone's disadvantage (assuming it's not really true)?

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I don't know how much I can add to my previous posts, but to recap, there are several contributing factors:

1.) Many of them don't.
2.) Just because I think the evidence is weak doesn't mean everyone will think the same. I think you can have legitimate disagreement here.
3.) There are outside pressures. Many of the ones that don't keep relatively quiet and just keep working in their own fields--not everyone is a crusader, and it doesn't pay to rock the boat.
4.) Sociological factors. Humans in general have trouble differentiating real uncertainty from statistical uncertainty, and scientific honesty is hard (but vital). This is not to say that only one side of the debate is scientifically honest (see points #1 and #2), just that there's likely to be a lot of noise in the data if you're trying to judge truth by consensus. It's much better to judge truth by evidence.

Let me turn your question around: why was Ignatz Semmelweiss a pariah for decades in the medical community, when listening to him was really in everyone's best interest? (To the extent that his discovery, today, would elicit nothing but "Duh. Of course washing your hands reduces infection rates.")

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

what is 'real uncertainty' vs 'statistical uncertainty'?

what is 'evidence'? what comprises evidence? how do you decide what is admitted as evidence and what isn't?

what is the connection between real/statistical uncertainty and evidence?

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

You can read up on real vs. statistical uncertainty here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM1829-1/

It's free.

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I've studied the classics already, from the MX missile debates and more, but thanks. I just want to see if you understand how this relates to what you are saying, or if you just regurgitate misinformation you read elsewhere.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Omni: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...hilosopher.htm

;)

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Well, that makes me glad I gave you such short shrift.

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Thanks for the answer Max.

Well, I think it's obviously the case that there can be enormous inertia in the scientific community, such that obviously correct things can sometimes be resisted for a long time. I definitely wouldn't claim that the scientific consensus is always correct.

However, this is kind of the opposite, in that a very large number of scientists have started believing in a new theory (manmade global warming) and abandoned the status quo to do so. People didn't believe in it in, say, the 70s, and it wasn't a very nice thing to start believing in either. I understand that the early proponents of manmade global warming experienced considerable resistance to their ideas, as you'd expect. But now, I think it's fair to say that a majority of scientists and public bodies accept manmade global warming. Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

I suppose my approach in thinking about this is really to look at the trends in people's beliefs rather than the science itself, at least for the sake of this discussion. I actually had a course in atmospheric chemistry in my undergrad chemistry degree at cambridge, and it was made completely clear that climate change was a real issue, the whole background was explained, and it seemed entirely non-controversial. Of course, it could easily be argued that my lecturers were biased, or misled. Whoever gives the information can make a convincing case in either direction (in a matter with so very much evidence, it is easy to find enough to thoroughly support either side which makes it all but impossible to judge the validity of presented arguments). So this brings me back to the question of why there should be so many biased/misled scientists who believe in this rather uncomfortable idea of manmade global warming in the first place.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

TAke yourself seriously then, be reflexive rather than just destructive.

There are scientists who are trapped in some kind of structure. They have no agency. They say what they say because the 'structure' they are embedded in tells them to.

What about MW. Why does MW say what he says? What do you want to accomplish?

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

You know, llamabeast, I don't know. I'm not much of a scientific historian. (I mean, I could say "what about phrenology?" but I don't know whether it ever caught on to the degree you're asking for.) If you were to go looking for precedent, you'd probably have to look in a field that has the salient characteristics of climatology: the subject is too complex for experimental study, so experiments focus on studying the behavior of simplified models of the subject. The only other field I know of like that is economics, but as I said I don't know much about the history of economic theory so I don't know whether it's experienced fads.

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Actually I do not think there was much peer pressure from the 'denier' side ever. There was repression from the Bush administration though, to me that is different from peer pressure. You have to realize that GW is a reletively new phenomena. It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it, and at that time there was much less (basically zero) research to support any position. It is in many ways a 'boom industry' and for that reason there is money thrown at it, and for that reason you have a certain group who doesn't want off the gravy train. These are the people I detest, because they are not doing science for science sake, they are perpetrating an exaggeration for their own ends. The peer pressure has nothing to do with saving face (though most research scientists are horrible ego maniacs), and everything to do with keeping funding.

I am likewise mystified that people consider themselves strongly in that camp. However, I realize from reading the IPCC reports that they do a good job of spinning their case. I also realize that many people seem to think humans can actually control (as opposed to affect) the climate, though that notion is completely daft.

I also do not like the use of the word 'belief'. Indeed 'belief' has no place in science, either you have the evidence or you don't. As soon as people start throwing around 'belief' and 'faith' it's become a personal sort of religion, and this is why to a large extent I remain utterly skeptical of the AGW believers. They also usually don't help their cause when they behave as Omni has been behaving, alot of hostility, but no support for his position. When someone is incredulous at someone elses 'belief' (for lack of a better word atm...) and cannot provide any kind of meaningful argument you have to really wonder what their level of understanding of the theory is (and this is not directed at Omni, this is a personal observation I have made in discussions with several AGW supporters).

Heh, well I'm a pretty far way from Edinburgh, but thanks for the invite :)

Yes the steve thing had to do with Intelligent Design I believe, out of australia or something like that.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Quote from - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...050425fa_fact3

[quote=New_Yorker]The National Academy of Sciences undertook its first rigorous study of global warming in 1979. Mentions studies by Syukuro Manabe and James Hansen. The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, headed by Jule Charney, found that if carbon dioxide emissions continued to increase, the climate changes would be severe. It’s now 25 years since that report was issued, and, in that period, carbon-dioxide emissions have increased from 5 billion a year to 7 billion, and the earth’s temperature has steadily risen. The world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last 2 millennia.[quote]

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Fair enough, I should not have said 'anyone'.

There was very little research going on on the subject was my point, for whatever the theories at the time were.

James Hanson is an interesting fellow, do you know his history with GW?

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

et tu brute! I thought we were on the same side llama

actually I did mean it that way.:troll:
any intelligence was pure coincidence.


the real reason MW won't respond to my questions is due to the fundamental problem of using a social constructionist argument to attack a position you disagree with. It's like throwing rocks from a glass house.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

and actually llama, MW was patronising first when he dodged my question by posting a link to literature on it. The tone and specificity of that question should have made it very clear that I'm more than familiar with the literature.

I wanted MW to show a grasp of what he talks about by applying it to the argument, rather than just mentioning the concept. MW is talking tropes, llama, and any fool can do that by just regurgitating what he is spoonfed. I want him to show that he understands what he's saying by applying it to the argument.

but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle. I would actually theorize that the reason we see the anti-GW/GCM crowd doing the most talking is because it is only in OT threads on internet forums that they can somehow 'win' their battle. so put another notch on the keyboard there Big Dogs, because your ****ing 'flamewarriors' talking about GW in a place where no one gives a damn what you have to say.



In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

"Modelers generally agree that the climate system is a chaotic system in both a technical and practical sense, rendering short-term weather patterns unpredictable beyond a few weeks." (pg 899)

How true that is.

Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "Based on my sophisticated computational model, the 2027 global climate will be [insert stupid opinion here] <insert stupid="" opinion="" here="">."

Even the simplest weather models are chaotic - i.e. extremely sensitive to initial conditions. No dungeon master worth his twenty-sided die believes the outcome of this roll can be predicted.

----------------

Heat is a different story, though. Heat ("q" from thermo) can only added to the planet from a) cosmic (specifically Solar) radiation, and b) terrestrial release (e.g. burning the Cretaceous period). q can only be shed by radiation.

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

The effect of that increased q is (obviously) quite debatable, however.</insert>

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Climate is actually simpler than weather. At least since you're looking for less detail in the prediction.

To extend your example, would it make sense to say, Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "despite our current cooling trend, the temperature will rise into the 90s by next August."

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Damn ya Fahrenheiters!! Go Centigrades!!! :p

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Thanks, that's exactly what I've been meaning to say. i.e. regardless of the (enormously complex) details, we are definitely trapping more heat in the atmosphere (non-controversial I think?) and one way or another, that's bound to have some big effects. Big effects are most likely bad news.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Then why were you rude? Because you are a rude guy?

The irony is quite amusing. Considering you are the primary person in this thread throwing flames.

Oh my, I can see why this journal would be chock full of information on climate science...

Have you read the IPCC reports? And not just the summary report, the whole big thing? I don't know, but I find it amusing that you are acting like some big tough 'flamewarrior' while calling everyone else who happens to disagree with the premise you support whatever names you want.

Anyway, out of idle curiosity what is your background Omni? Are you involved in some field related to climatology?

Well except that lately we cannot find the extra 'q' in the places we think it should be (oceans primarily, as the atmospheric heating doesn't account for the projections). So you may want to rethink your supposition that the heat flux from the sun is (or has been) indeed constant. Beyond which you still need to find the mechanisms for previous hot and cold periods without human influence (and yes, the planet has had higher CO2 concentrations before...).

Following your statements rigidly leads to a particular conclusion, true, however, I challenge that your statements are actually born out in observable evidence.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

congratulations licker!!! YOU WIN!

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Oh, c'mon, we can't let him win! :D

For his own ammission, he didn't read a word of the scientifical souces provided. He posted only that article that was saying the opposite of what he was thinking (the scientists saying the reports of the robots was a phenomenon to study and broaden, him thinking that it was the great proof of "there is not heat" - also while I had provided articles showing that some local cooling being irrelevant).
As source we have only his own word on the topic (not a graph, not an unbiased article) and his belief that thousands of adult, top-intelligent scientists lie and don't really think what they say about this vital phenomenon, because they fear the other childr... ehm the peer review :p

(Not to sound rude myself too, licker, that's just random thoughts) ;)

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I know I win, thanks for admitting it.

Anyway, I've posted links to studies showing the temperature drops, I've discussed the findings and why omni was wrong in his assumptions about my positions.

If anyone isn't reading all the information available it's clearly not me, but as omni points out so eloquently...

Some people in this thread don't care about the research, they just care about flaming.

Tifone-

Do you really think I said any of that? Or are you just spinning to what you want to hear?

I've looked at your sources and realized they were not scientific in nature, you do realize this yourself right? So there's nothing wrong with looking at them, but you shouldn't just leave it at that.

Anyway as far as the robot findings are concerned, you really should read that article again, as it appears you have completely missed the point. It was not 'some local cooling' it was over 3000 robots world wide. And they didn't find (much) cooling either.

Seriously what filter do you run information through when you process it?

And when some one says 'not to <foo>' clearly they are fulling intending to <foo>. That's ok, like I said, I can keep it seperate from the game (since we're still on the dominions forum) and I don't mind a provocative discussion, I just find it amusing to see you and omni doing exactly what you are accusing me and others of.

Hypocrite much?

Well maybe that's not fair, maybe you and omni just don't have the backgrounds to understand what this debate is really about. I don't know and I don't really care. But if you aren't actually going to show evidence for your claims about what you imagined I said then I'm not going to bother to take your interpretations of some blogs seriously.

And if that sounds rude it probably is.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

It's actually sufficient that some of them don't say what they think. (Others say what they think in the report and let UN bureaucrats write the summary and shift decimal places around to exaggerate what they think.) How many people spoke out against eugenics in Nazi Germany?

Oops, I killed the thread. :)

-Max

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

way to kill the thread MW...

Godwin's Law

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

Yes, I couldn't resist.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

I've been reading this thread for the last hour when I should have been studying. I blame you all for that, however It was interesting reading your arguments about GW.

Re: Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!
 

For the past 48h I've been on the edge of my seat waiting for Godwin. :P What an epic name.


Anyway, kudos all. I am amazed that you can stare analysis in the face that show that the Earth is warmer than it has been in a thousand(s) years, probably since the last ice age, but we can't accurately verify that..... yet still you continue to bicker about scientific process, and the apparent "trend" of the last several years.

Once a scientist has defined "2", even a layperson can add it to itself, if just stop arguing for long enough.