Favorite Tilt quotes

“LOL”

“dance puppies dance”

“http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html”

“LOL
Stovie
9:24:52 AM
10/22/09

Poor sad, bitter, hate-filled Stovie. Nothing left in life but trolling.”

“Boy, I guess T*lt is teaching us all a lesson.�

maybe he's "holding up a mirror" like your hero did”

“Graphs make pretty pictures, but unless we fully accept they are data driven, they are meaningless.




http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf”

“I think if you will review the graph you will see that the increased presence of Envrio Wackos has been the cause of global destruction...(LOL)

”

“chili36, if you'd like to present a graph or raw data that you believe is more accurate that shows there is NOT a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature, feel free. I'd love to see it.”

“It's interesting, Sarge. I'm not discounting it, nor am I discounting CO2 as the major contributor.”

“Read the white paper, HPD.”

“Then there is AW CRAP....


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that during past glacial periods, temperature changes had preceded CO2 changes by several centuries. Some scientists doubted that dates could be measured so precisely, but as as better cores were extracted the data increasingly pointed to a time lag This surprised and confused many people. If changes in CO2 lagged behind changes in temperature (and likewise for methane, another greenhouse gas measured in the ice cores), didn�t that contradict the greenhouse theory of global warming? But in fact the lag was not good news.



<=Climate cycles

It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles. In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles") matched the timing of ice ages with startling precision. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia. As some had pointed out ever since the 19th century, in times when sunlight fell more strongly on northern latitudes, snow and sea ice would not linger so long in the spring; the dark earth and seawater would absorb more sunlight, and get warmer. However, calculations showed that this subtle effect should cause no more than a small regional warming. How could almost imperceptible changes in the angle of sunlight cause entire continental ice sheets to build up and melt away? ”

“However...


Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.”

“HPD's graphs don't show me much. In fact, to the extent they show anything they support the argument for global warming I've seen.

What I've heard is that solar activity, which correlates highly with sun spots has been a major driver of climate cycles and continues to exert a strong force on climate. However, since sometime around 1975 the correlation decreased and a longer term pattern of increased temperatures took over. (This is what some stock market analysts called a "secular trend" that persists - but, of course, doesn't eliminate other cycles).

So, what we see in the graph second to bottom is an illustration of that... temperature takes off and separates from solar activity around 1975.

The third graph from the bottom alters the argument as it focuses on "temperature anamoly" (changes in average temperature) while the sun spot graph is for sun spot activity not changes in sun spot activity. This method would be fine if if temperature was simply cycling during the period describes. What the graph hides is the fact in the second half of the 20th century that temperature continued to rise while sunspot activity was declining. If they charted temperature and not temperature anomaly (change) it would show what the other graph shows - the two are decoupled during the last century.

The top graph shows me the same phenomenon as I mentioned above - temperature continues to cycle along with sun spot activity, but there is a upward trend in temperatures not accounted for by SSN ("sun spot number" I assume).

The second graph stops at 1980, basically hiding the rest of the temperature take off that emerges. The last graph isn't labeled, so I don't know what to make of it. I would guess it is tracking temperature anomaly and sunspot activity - a method, as I noted above, which would mask any long term trend toward increase or decrease.

One thing looking at the graphs should teach us is that amidst any long term trend, there are many other cycles and we shouldn't be fooled by them. Thus we can't be sure temperature is increasing exponentially when all the cycles are on an upswing and we can't be can't dismiss long term trends quite yet based on a down turn of a few years.”

“By the way, none of my analysis comes from other sources. It comes from my attempt to look at the charts and see what they really represent.”

“I have some really interesting sun spots too.”

“WTF does this subject have to do with T*LT QUOTES?”

“Still waiting for a chart of some sort demonstrating sunspot activity and temperatures.”

“Now don't be grumpy.”

“You certainly don't get a chart of my sunspot activity and temperatur you nasty old man.”

“Again, read the white paper.


But you can just use the pedxing Cliff notes if you want, because he basically described in a couple paragraphs what the scientific paper said in about 4 pages.”

“Excellent analysis, Ped.”

“Permafrost

Permafrost is a solid structure of frozen soil, extending to depths of 2.200 feet in some areas of the arctic and subarctic regions, containing grasses, roots, sticks, much of it dating back to 30,000 years. About 25% of the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere hold permafrost, which is defined as soil whose temperature has been 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius) for a period of at least 2 years. Permafrost is under 85% of Alaska land surface and much of Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia and holds about 14 per cent of the world's carbon. The hard permafrost on which is built homes and other buildings, can, with rising temperatures, turn into a soft material causing subsidence and damage to buildings, electric generating stations, pipelines and other structures. Ground instability would cause erosion, affect terrain, slopes, roads, foundations and more. [121]





Svein Tveitdal, Managing Director of the Global Resource Information Database (GRID) in Arendal, Norway, a UNEP environmental information center monitoring the thawing of permafrost, told a meeting at the 21st session of the United Nation's Governing Council in Nairobi, Kenya on February 7, 2001: "Permafrost has acted as a carbon sink, locking away carbon and other greenhouse gases like methane, for thousands of year. But there is now evidence that this is no longer the case, and the permafrost in some areas is starting to give back its carbon. This could accelerate the greenhouse effect." (83)




In a December, 2005 study climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that climate change may thaw the permafrost located in the top 10 feet of permafrost, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. According to the NCAR press release (December 19, 2005) permafrost may contain 30% of all the carbon found in soil worldwide. In areas to a depth of 11.2 feet climate models (assuming business as usual scenarios) show permafrost presently in an area of 4,000,000 square miles shrinking to 1,000,000 square miles by 2050 and 400,000 square miles by 2100. With a scenario of low emissions (assuming a high degree use of alternative energy sources and conservation) permafrost is still expected to shrink to 1.5 million miles by 2100.........In a USA Today (December 26, 2005) interview David Lawrence says, "If that much near-surface permafrost thaws, it could release considerable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that could amplify global warming," �.."We could be underestimating the rate of global temperature increase."

In a study reported in the journal Science June 16, 2006 (see San Francisco Chronicle article) researchers say that thawing permafrost may add to the buildup in atmospheric greenhouse gases significantly, stating that present climate models do not include releases of Siberian carbon dioxide from permafrost. Dr. Ted Schuur of the University of Florida traveled to Siberia and secured samples of permafrost soil up to 10 feet in length, maintaining it in a frozen state until arriving back in his laboratory, where the thawing soil was attacked by microbes, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. The frightening scenario that scientists, Sergey A. Zimov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ted Schuur and Stuart Chapin III of the University of Alaska, paint is one of hundreds of billions of tons of greenhouse gases entering an already destabilized atmosphere this century, spurring yet more warming in a positive feedback syndrome. Extend this scenario to Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia, where permafrost underlies much of these regions and there's no other way to describe it. We're in trouble.”

“Still waiting for data, not theories.”

“The data backs up the theories and thus far, whenever I look at data or (years later) results, they don't support your "scientific" theories, so let's have the data.”

“Al gore and global warming alarmists (1990s):
Prediction - global temperature will increase drastically over the next decade and beyond as we emit more co2 into the air
Reality - It is now 2009, the temperatures have DECREASED.

me on trailtalk years ago - hurricane activity will not increase
trailtalk alarmists years ago - you are wrong
me on trailtalk years ago - the man who invented the formula for hurricane predictions says global warming is a hoax
trailtalk alarmists years ago - he's nuts! he's been certified as an idiot by his peers and they no longer use his outdated hurricane models
REALITY: hurricane activity is down, his predictions were correct, the new "global warming approved" models SUCK

global warming alarmists a decade ago: ice is melting due to global warming
REALITY: ice mass has NOT decreased. It has increased over the last decade.

I have shown sunspot activity graphed against global temperatures. You give me an "analysis" as to why that isn't true.

Show me the money. Give me the numbers. I do not believe you now, just like I did not believe you THEN.”

“Then keep polluting the atmosphere with utter disregard.

After all, you will be long gone before the #&%!$ really hits the fan.”

“Ok, chili36 is the first to bail out and resort to silliness.

I am talking to science-minded people, right?

Show me the science, not the theories.

Data data data....”

“Getting data and reading data should not be confused.

However, what I am trying to flush out is whether you feel global warming has any other cause OTHER than sun spots.”

“Getting data and reading data should not be confused.

I know, except when a prediction is made. If you predict hurricane activity will INCREASE, but it actually DECREASES, or you predict that temperatures will INCREASE, but they actually DECREASE, then I can safely say your theory was wrong. THAT is why I don't want to hear these theories unless they are backed up by DATA.

However, what I am trying to flush out is whether you feel global warming has any other cause OTHER than sun spots.

Maybe you should have asked me. I haven't even touched on that. All of this came about because Roseymonster made two statements of fact, that were not in fact, fact, so I asked for the DATA to back up his "reading of the data".”

“If you look at the waves in both charts, there is a strong correlation.

However, if you look at the trend lines since 1960, there is absolutely no correlation.”

“So we are clear chili36, where is the data coming from. (besides God and Science) I ask because previously the methodology used of the graphs I presented was called into question by you, so since this graph is different than the ones I presented, what about this data resolves the issues that YOU presented earlier. (or pedxing)”

“Which I provided. Average global temps have been going up consistently over the past 130 years, concurrent with industrialization and use of the automobile.”

“Average global temps have been going up consistently over the past 130 years

That is NOT true and you know it. You just proved that yesterday.”

“...except when a prediction is made. If you predict hurricane activity will INCREASE, but it actually DECREASES, or you predict that temperatures will INCREASE, but they actually DECREASE, then I can safely say your theory was wrong. THAT is why I don't want to hear these theories unless they are backed up by DATA.


HighPlainsDrifter
8:44:34 AM
10/22/09

While interpretation of the data is important, separating cause from "predicted" effect is critical.

While a forecast of the "effect" may be inaccurate, that does nothing to change the underlying cause.”

“You're looking at a year by year basis. I am looking at the larger century spectrum. They HAVE been going up, overall, during the course of the past century.”

“�Average global temps have been going up consistently over the past 130 years

That is NOT true and you know it. You just proved that yesterday.�
HighPlainsDrifter
8:52:38 AM
10/22/09

More accurately, they are increasing at in increasing rate.”

“Ok, Sarge. Let me ask you this: Is the average global temperature in 2008 higher than is was in 1950?”

“You asked for data. I gave you data. I also gave you very specific information as to how and why your data was faulty.

So we can be more clear, what "source" of data will it take for you to "believe" it?”

“Stop preaching to me chili and show me the data.

The claim is that there is NOT a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature.

EVEN YOUR graph shows that there is!

Nobody said that something else can't affect that, but ALL graphs I've seen, including YOURS, shows that there is a correlation.

You can talk about cause and effect all day long, but what will show if a theory is correct is the resulting data. Show me the data that proves your theory that there is not a correlation between the two. You have not only NOT done that, your graph shows there IS a correlation. You MUST have something other data that is helping you arrive at your theory that you can show. Otherwise, I say your theory is incorrect.”

“roseymonster, if you have more proof to demonstrate, by all means give it. You're not really going to ask me about 2 points in time, are you?”

“Yes, I am. Because you are repeatedly denying that the graphs both Chili and I have posted are valid. The graphs show, undisputedly, that average global temperature for both ocean and land have INCREASED significantly over the past 130 years. You are nit picking between years within a decade, which is irrelevant. The average temperatures are still higher overall.”

“Let me make this crystal clear, HPD. I am in fact saying there is a correlation between global temperatures and sunspot activity.

I am also saying the increase in global warming is not being caused by sunspot activity. Sunspot activity is basically flat over the last 40 years, but global temperatures are rising.

If sunspot activity had trended upwards, the resulting temperature would have skyrocketed.

What you cannot seem to understand is that a contributing factor is not the same as a cause.”

“That rosey is a real man of science. LOL”

“You are nit picking between years within a decade, which is irrelevant. The average temperatures are still higher overall.”
roseymonster
9:03:38 AM
10/22/09

They are not irrelevant. The prediction was that the temperatures would continue to rise as we put more co2 into the air. That has not happened.

If you combine your argument and chili's argument, the temperature rose over the last 130 years due to sunspot activity because much of the time, the two WERE related.

The difference between you and I is that I am claiming that sunspot activity lessoned, and therefore the temperatures decreased immediately afterward (chili's graph only goes to 2000, lol) ... You are not offering an explanation as to why man-made co2 levels are the highest ever while temperatures dropped. I am saying they dropped because sunspot activity dropped.

Yeah, chili, you might want to get a bigger graph so that we can talk about the time period in question. There is a lag behind sunspot activity and temperature fluctuations.”

“I will make this prediction in agreement with science.

I predict a new ice-age.

That was the prediction made when I was in grammar school, and it was due to sun activity.

I agree with that prediction.

So bundle up folks, it's going to get chili.”

“Well it hasn't happened yet, so I have to debunk your theory.”

“I have done a study where I tested people after reading novels with positive homosexual role models. My data shows that the percentage of homosexuals in this group is vastly higher than the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. Thus, reading homosexual novels turns people gay. This proves conclusively that if we don't ban homosexual novels the gay population will increase resulting in an increase in the production of homosexual novels. Which will result in more gay people. Our models predict that by the year 2029 the entire world population will be gay. We must act now with legislation that stamps out homosexual novels.”

“I would argue for more homo novels. More gays would result in less procreation which would result in less exhalation, which would result in less CO2 being produced, which would result in reduced global warming.

I think we solved it with that one.”

“It's kind of funny reading both of you argue from a scientific perspective, yet differ on your argument. I'll explain ...

roseymonster's argument (referring to the temp/co2 graph) is that by looking at the 130 year graph, except for a rogue part of it (the last 13 years), there is a correlation between industry output and global temperature. Therefore, a correlation is proven.

chili's argument (referring to the temp/sunspot graph) is that if they two don't always match perfectly, then there is no correlation and must be some other cause to explain the previous correlation. Therefore, a correlation is not proven.”