Proof Global Warming Exists!!!!

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of your inane rambling.
*Bunch of stuff I don't understand so it's rambling.*

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years Brilliant conclusion!
*Oh hey, something I can understand!*

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Say what you will about Peter Sinclair, at least he's coherent.

Yeah, and charismatic, too. Also dead wrong, because he doesn't have the slightest idea about earth science, and climate...a fact made clear in his attack against Anthony Watts, an AMS seal holder. Now Anthony isn't really an "expert" either, but he's at least knowledgeable enough on the subject at hand to make a few solid conclusions. More than I can say for Peter.

In regards to Mr. Watts:

Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has said that he was aware of Watts' work and invites anyone with expertise to contribute to the scientific process. Elsewhere, he has stated that the evidence for human-driven warming remains robust, however.

The Times monthly science magazine "Eureka" named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs, calling it "one of the more entertainingly [sic] skeptic blogs," and in 2008 it won best science blog in The Weblog Awards (Bloggies).


Peter makes pretty pictures and cool sound effects, though. I'm guessing that's what caught your attention.

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How are you drawing your conclusions, exactly?

Various studies and reports, primarily from scientific journals, because this is the subject for my dissertation...and that's - at least - a formula that works in relation to speaking on the subject. I didn't want to wave the education flag, but you asked.

How are you drawing yours, exactly? Oh wait...Peter Sinclair. Never mind.

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You disregard all the evidence from authority that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas...

What evidence? I'd be glad to read it and interpret the data for both you and Mr. Sinclair. Forget about the Goddard Institute charts and stuff, because I'll blow so many holes in it it'll make your head spin. Just a heads-up, bro.

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are a cookie cutter denialist.

I denied what exactly?

Furthermore, all I see from you in this thread are links and one or two-line conclusions based on...well, damned if I know. If you're that much of an expert, I'd like to see some of your own conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Since you're an expert and all.

So I can have fun shooting them down, of course. As much as I'd enjoy shooting down counter-arguments. Because...the fact is that there is not enough real evidence to support either side conclusively...at the moment. Which I said in my *cough* rambling.

I'll start with your use of satellite imagery as a rebuttal (to what, I dunno - since all I said was that heat-islands interfered with solid temperature data). Your link, rather to Peter Sinclair's use.

Satellite data is useless, because it has such a small window in the context of arguing global warming . It can tell you with accuracy what's happening this year or for the last few years, but all that tells you is what the temperatures are right now, and where the ice and snow coverage is. Unless you have something long-term to compare it with, you have no way of knowing what is "normal" or "average".

I believe you used it to deny urban heat-islands. Urban heat-islands are a fact. Hello. What actual bearing they have on global warming is up in the air, and is likely negligible. At the very least, what I said was about temperature measurement in relation to location and stability - in terms of long-term data. Go back and read it again...because I'm assuming your brain saw "urban areas" and fizzled.

More promising for your argument is thermal wind. I don't like giving this stuff away, but:

(Scientists) turned to a proxy for atmospheric temperatures that they say comes with fewer complicating factors and therefore produces less uncertainty. That proxy is wind speed. Measuring wind at different altitudes and running the data through a mathematical procedure known as the "thermal-wind equation" should give us a good idea of what the temperatures in the upper reaches of the troposphere (more or less that portion of the atmosphere where humans can breathe) really are. Fortunately, the wind and temperature measurements, although taken by the same balloons, are independent. After applying the equation, they conclude that:

'... our data do not seem to be consistent with a lack of upper-tropospheric warming in the tropics. The degree of warming remains fairly uncertain, but is within the range simulated by climate models, albeit with some discrepancies near the tropopause [top of troposphere]'.




Some fun debate here, for those interested enough to learn:


A New and Effective Model


There's a link in that article that points to Climate Realists. Some good debate in the forums there.







Funny thing about conventional wisdom. Try getting published if you hold a position counter to it at the moment.