Scientists Are Leftist Political Hacks

[Trader666]

Bullshit. Your "argument" totally ignores the second sentence of your own reference. What part of this don't you understand? Or do you ignore anything that conflicts with your biases?

However, climate projections have model uncertainties that overwhelm the uncertainties in greenhouse gas measurements.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Quote from trefoil:

...So arguably the recent relative steadiness of global temps (still rising, but at a smaller rate) which can be directly traced to the decline in CFCs is now being used by skeptics...

 

[Trader666]

The only "validated evidence" is that you don't know what you're talking about. Your "example" is like trying to use a few seconds of tick data to analyze the profitability of a company -- not to mention that correlation does not prove causation, scientists have no clue how to accurately quantify feedbacks, observations can't distinguish between competing climate processes, etc., etc. Even the IPCC reports make you look like a liberal loon on a crusade.

Quote from trefoil:

Like I said, it's a complete waste of time posting actual, validated evidence in these debates.

 

[jem]

Finally, a quick graph of the 2nd derivative of the rate of change of global temperatures averaged over 10 years starting in 1979, when the AGGI data starts, shows a sharp drop which coincides with the start of the Montreal Protocol, but then a sharp snapback, so it would appear that the effect of halting the production of CFCs has already been overwhelmed by the continuing rise in CO2. Like I said, I last looked at this ages and ages ago, so at that time the 2nd derivative was probably in that trough. But that's long over with now. So, no, CFCs are no longer having the effect I remember, I was wrong about that. We're back on the treadmill already:
--

So it is your theory the earths temperature reacts within what 24 hours of the limiting cfc's

As opposed to saying temperature is complex and we are not sure what effects it in the short run or that it cycles or that is reacts to something else. All you have "found" is very likely a coincidence.

Limiting CFCs could be a very good thing, but arguing that they had any effect on global temperatures in the very short run is ridiculous without proof.

Its like saying the if the market went up for the year the AFC wins the superbowl and then showing me a roc of a moving average.

 

[Lucrum]

Meanwhile back at the ranch.


Rare November Snow in the South

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

Finally, a quick graph of the 2nd derivative of the rate of change of global temperatures averaged over 10 years starting in 1979, when the AGGI data starts, shows a sharp drop which coincides with the start of the Montreal Protocol, but then a sharp snapback, so it would appear that the effect of halting the production of CFCs has already been overwhelmed by the continuing rise in CO2. Like I said, I last looked at this ages and ages ago, so at that time the 2nd derivative was probably in that trough. But that's long over with now. So, no, CFCs are no longer having the effect I remember, I was wrong about that. We're back on the treadmill already:
--

So it is your theory the earths temperature reacts within what 24 hours of the limiting cfc's

As opposed to saying temperature is complex and we are not sure what effects it in the short run or that it cycles or that is reacts to something else. All you have "found" is very likely a coincidence.

Limiting CFCs could be a very good thing, but arguing that they had any effect on global temperatures in the very short run is ridiculous without proof.

Its like saying the if the market went up for the year the AFC wins the superbowl and then showing me a roc of a moving average.

sorry I wrote the above response quickly.
This is the point:

1. you have a data problem. your sample size is too small
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis
2. you should at least attempt a regression analysis.

What you show is coincidence not causation.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Lucrum:

Meanwhile back at the ranch.


Rare November Snow in the South

That was just God taking a dump on the southern Occupy crowd.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from Trader666:

However, climate projections have model uncertainties that overwhelm the uncertainties in greenhouse gas measurements.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ [/B]

Which of course will come as no surprise to anybody, as the measurement of atmospheric GHG concentrations, especially CO2 is very good. The radiative forcing of those GHG changes can be calculated without models:

You should read your references and try to understand them, rather engaging in quote mining fishing trips.

 

[Trader666]

You idiot, measurements and concentrations without knowing the overall impacts aren't cause to say the sky is falling and shut down the world.

You should try to understand what earth's been through in the past and how little scientists really know about feedbacks, equilibrium climate sensitivity and stabilization instead of mindlessly parroting the latest hype.

Quote from dcraig:

Which of course will come as no surprise to anybody, as the measurement of atmospheric GHG concentrations, especially CO2 is very good. The radiative forcing of those GHG changes can be calculated without models:

You should read your references and try to understand them, rather engaging in quote mining fishing trips.

 

[OccupyThis]

Not sure if this article was discussed:

Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...inancial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1f6cjPiNo

More than 5,000 documents have been leaked online purporting to be the correspondence of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia who were previously accused of ‘massaging’ evidence of man-made climate change.

Following on from the original ‘climategate’ emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.

And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.

One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’