contrails

On Dec 24, 1:51*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
Remember when the scientists were predicting global cooling? Where are
those guys when we need them?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

A snippet from that thread:
"I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific
press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular
press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But
we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look
at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/."

On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote:
No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.

Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
Or is that out of the question?

Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!

On Dec 24, 11:53*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 6:08*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:

Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
ease of reference)

* Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
* that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
* *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
* after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

* *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
* in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

To clarify my earlier response, "yes".

I'm pleased to hear it. What evidence/arguments would be sufficient?


What, in your opinion, is the very best evidence that this is an
imminent problem?

There's no single "smoking gun", and your expecting to find one
(in advance of irreversible changes) is naive.

So, I'm sorry, the best response I can give is the answer can
be found by reading learning and inwardly digesting the scientific
literature.

T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle wrote:

Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
gold standard of science.

What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
don't want to contribute.


No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.
There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a
number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you
require?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

In article Tom Gardner writes:

Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
ease of reference)

Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
*imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

*If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

And what evidince or argument is needed to convince you of the
opposite? Perhaps closed minds call the kettle black?

Alan

Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle wrote:

Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
gold standard of science.

What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
don't want to contribute.


No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.
There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a
number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you
require?



One would suppose that such tests already have occurred many times.
After all, a scientist who was able to disprove global warming would
achieve extraordinary fame (and fortune).

On 25 Dec, 05:22, Greg Arnold wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle wrote:

Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
gold standard of science.

What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
don't want to contribute.

No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.
There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a
number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you
require?

One would suppose that such tests already have occurred many times.
After all, a scientist who was able to disprove global warming would
achieve extraordinary fame (and fortune).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The issues:
1) We have burnt rather a lot of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and
oil, in the last hundred years or so.
2) Many rain forests have been cut down to allow the land to used for
other purposes. Trees consume large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere
for photosynthesis.
3) The human population is expanding at a considerable rate. At least
in the developed World all these folk expect to live in heated and air-
conditioned houses, to drive cars and to travel by aircraft.

On the other hand:
1) We seem to be living in a natural interglacial period. Only a few
tens of thousands of years ago much of North America and Northern
Europe was covered in ice.
2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
3) Reasonably accurate temperature measurement has only been possible
for a few hundred years, so to say that there is a trend of increasing
temperatures may only be looking at a very short term and natural
variation in terms of the entire history of the planet. In any case
the average global temperature seems to have stabilised again, which
is probably why 'global warming' seems to have been relabelled as
'climate change'!
4) Better technology and better insulated buildings are reducing each
person's carbon footprint.
5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be
able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them
as much as possible.
6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike,
famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or
wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they
had it made!

Happy Christmas (sorry, Festive Season to the Politically Correct),
Derek Copeland

To get off of religion for a minute it is amazing how many people
believe contrails are evidence that the government is spraying the
population with something. Maybe it’s just the loons out here in the
west but I caught a call-in radio program a while back discussing
contrails and people were calling in expressing their belief in the
conspiracy. Part of there proof that it wasn't a natural occurrence
was because the planes only sprayed at certain times. Hard to argue
with that logic.

On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote:

No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.

Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
Or is that out of the question?

Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!

The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
the extreme costs of such policy. In my view this is absolutely
required. My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the
AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such
errors are factual and provable.

I am after truth. Yes, I am naive. This was driven home very nicely
by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the
community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain
faced about this. But it fits. We don't share the same scientific
ethics.

Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the
political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of
AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good
reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and
again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously
check their work. To deny that a great number of researchers in the
AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of
laughter. Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a
whole. I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. They've
earned this. I hold them in contempt.

If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to
consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/
costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary
or economically desirable". But if the current state of the art in
AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less
than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then
no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory
agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

delboy wrote:

/snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
Happy Christmas (sorry, Festive Season to the Politically Correct), /snip/
Derek Copeland


Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
the reference is wishy-washy...)

Brian W