Obama Wants To Raise Your Electric Bill

Fun with Photoshop

Using statistical methods (especially trending) for non-static sytems like climate is frought danger.

For example: The S&P500's been (mostly) up March through June. Want to bet it continues on the same tajectory it had March-June through the end of the year?

We cannot assume temperature will only continue to rise into the future. Trending is the wrong tool for the wrong job. Look at what happens when we examine the period from about 1880-1910. If this was 1910, we would panicing about an impending ice age...



... "global warming" avoided an ice age!

A proper dynamical model is required. Dynamical models are extremely sensitive to inputs that always contain the modeler's bias in setting up the inital conditions. Back when I was modeling groundwater contaminant transport I could justify and tweek the initial conditions and a host of assumed but unverifiable parameters to have almost whatever outcome I wanted. Those are the same numeric methods used for climate modeling. I don't have any experience with climate models but I'd be surprised if they could not be influenced similarly.

I do know this. Water vapour can hold, transfer, and transport a lot more heat than CO2. I've never heard a good explaination of how the heat transfer effects of single-phase CO2 can overcome the self-dampening effect of two-phase water vapour in our atmosphere. Changing phases moves a looot of heat. Something that CO2 will never be able to do.

.

 

Re: Fun with Photoshop

that was a stunningly good post.

 

I'm sober now and I'll be damned if can see where you get all that from that
little ole graph.

 

Re: Fun with Photoshop

In the context of Mother Earth, 200 years is but a millisecond. I continue to maintain that your graph (and all of the other gobbledygook you link to) tells
us nothing except what they want it to tell us. There are just as many opposing views out there backed up by scientific analyses. Believe what you will, but it's futile to try and change the minds of people with common sense and a pragmatic view of things.

 

No. You cannot examine a system containing feedback with trends. To do so linerizes a non-linear system. That's valid but only upon a small time domain. Any dynamic system will respond to perturbations. Action causes reaction. The "anomoly" allegedly happening over the last 30 years will have a response. That response will not be linear, I am certain.

But if you wish... let's examine the trend. The earth's been warming since the last ice age. What is the "base" (0-anamoly) value for the chart you posted? We could put the base at the end of last ice age. "Cold" was normal then. The current "anomoly" would be on the order of 10's of degrees. The 0.4-deg supposedly man-made "anomoly" displayed on that chart wouldn't even stand out. It's not significant. And the majority of "anomoly" would have started long before man was producing CO2 in appreciable amounts.

Huh? What is a "projection" then? How can you justify government seizure of private property (taxation) due to "global warming" that you cannot "foretell" of? I expect a higher standard when someone's taking money from my family.

They don't have any more. They don't have any less either. The propensity is to believe the results that match your dogma.

I walked out of the "global warming" camp when I asked one modeler what effect water vapour had on his model. He said it wasn't significant. I asked if he'd ever looked at a psychrometric chart. He responded "what's that?" I also asked him if he could sketch the heat flows in/out of his elemental control volume used for his model. "What's that?" He made some purty graphs though.