Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TG Daily]Supercomputer with 20 million CPUs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TG Daily]Supercomputer with 20 million CPUs - Page 9

post #81 of 106
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548


Good reading right there ^

Quote:
Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
ElRigTheRig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 2.4 GHz Asus Maximus Formula Asus EN8800GT 512MB 4GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1.858TB (3x JBOD) HP 16x DVD Burner Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 24" FPD2485 Gateway LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Ultra X3 1000w Antec P182 Logitech G5 
Mouse Pad
Razer Xact Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
ElRigTheRig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 2.4 GHz Asus Maximus Formula Asus EN8800GT 512MB 4GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1.858TB (3x JBOD) HP 16x DVD Burner Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 24" FPD2485 Gateway LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Ultra X3 1000w Antec P182 Logitech G5 
Mouse Pad
Razer Xact Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike View Post
All I have to do is google "global warming scam" and I can find a mountain of counter points to any argument you give. But when the creator of the Weather Channel speaks up and files suit against Gore or whomever, something is seriously flawed, wouldnt you say?

I don't mean to imply I'm smarter than anyone else in this area, especially scientists. But scientists are people too with bills to pay and political views like yours and mine.
The key is to read "independent" scientific reviews... such as those in *new scientist* and a thousand other periodicals.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune" and therefore I trust very little that comes from Govt-paid scientists.

The independent world, however, are all-but-a-few in consensus and agreement that there IS an issue... as I stated before, the problem is agreeing just what the source is.

Erring on the side of caution... would seem, to me, to be an intelligent reaction.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 Asus Lappy GeForce GT520M 4096 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB LG W7=64 ult + Slackware13.1_64 + MineOS HP w2207h 
KeyboardCaseMouse
logitech G11 Fugly, lol logitech mx518 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 Asus Lappy GeForce GT520M 4096 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB LG W7=64 ult + Slackware13.1_64 + MineOS HP w2207h 
KeyboardCaseMouse
logitech G11 Fugly, lol logitech mx518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #83 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike View Post
All I have to do is google "global warming scam" and I can find a mountain of counter points to any argument you give. But when the creator of the Weather Channel speaks up and files suit against Gore or whomever, something is seriously flawed, wouldnt you say?

I don't mean to imply I'm smarter than anyone else in this area, especially scientists. But scientists are people too with bills to pay and political views like yours and mine. It simply doesn't take much to alter evidence. All I'm trying to say is maybe be a little more open-minded in this area. Like I said before, I don't know who is right and who is wrong. But I am against big companies making god knows how much off "Green".

And nice avatar btw.
Being a scientist myself, (though certainly not in that field) the evidence they put forth is compelling. EDIT: Opposing 'opinions' by pundits and political blow hards do not constitute evidence, which most of it is from. Take a look see through the graphs here. Keep graph scale in mind and pay close attention to the first few involving 'Causes' with the ice core samples (huge change) and showing the relative increases over 25 years.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

What can I say... I am a dick head
Raptor Raper
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Something with transistors FOXCONN Boodrage -> eVGA classified e760 GTX 480 / HD6850@1090/1200 3x2 gig G Skill Trident DDR2000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x128GB Crucial C300 Sumsung SATA DVD-RW 64 bit Windows 7 Samsung 245BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft curve Tagan ITZ 800W DD Torture Rack Diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
Raptor Raper
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Something with transistors FOXCONN Boodrage -> eVGA classified e760 GTX 480 / HD6850@1090/1200 3x2 gig G Skill Trident DDR2000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x128GB Crucial C300 Sumsung SATA DVD-RW 64 bit Windows 7 Samsung 245BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft curve Tagan ITZ 800W DD Torture Rack Diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike View Post
That is Written by: Joseph L. Bast
and if you look at the fundings...

FUNDING

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997
$unknown Mobil Corporation
Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2005
$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Anniversary benefit dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
general operating support
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report



You can see no surprise there... HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 Asus Lappy GeForce GT520M 4096 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB LG W7=64 ult + Slackware13.1_64 + MineOS HP w2207h 
KeyboardCaseMouse
logitech G11 Fugly, lol logitech mx518 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 Asus Lappy GeForce GT520M 4096 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB LG W7=64 ult + Slackware13.1_64 + MineOS HP w2207h 
KeyboardCaseMouse
logitech G11 Fugly, lol logitech mx518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #85 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihatethedukes View Post
What can I say... I am a dick head
As am I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newphase View Post
You can see no surprise there... HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE.
That quote isn't doing anything for me. First, just because oil companies paid for it makes it untrue? Maybe, maybe not. Secondly, General Electric paid billions in lobbying the US government for all this global warming nonsense, so, right back atcha.
ElRigTheRig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 2.4 GHz Asus Maximus Formula Asus EN8800GT 512MB 4GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1.858TB (3x JBOD) HP 16x DVD Burner Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 24" FPD2485 Gateway LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Ultra X3 1000w Antec P182 Logitech G5 
Mouse Pad
Razer Xact Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
ElRigTheRig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 2.4 GHz Asus Maximus Formula Asus EN8800GT 512MB 4GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1.858TB (3x JBOD) HP 16x DVD Burner Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 24" FPD2485 Gateway LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Ultra X3 1000w Antec P182 Logitech G5 
Mouse Pad
Razer Xact Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #86 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike View Post
As am I.



That quote isn't doing anything for me. First, just because oil companies paid for it makes it untrue? Maybe, maybe not. Secondly, General Electric paid billions in lobbying the US government for all this global warming nonsense, so, right back atcha.
Come on now ExxonMobile pays their bills. Why would they put something supporting global warming? I have to agree though that alot of people are able to cash in on going green. Earth Day a year ago my dad bought a bunch of CFLs made by GE. But then again people can cash-in on almost anything.
Lenovo W520
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2630QM idk lol Quadro 2000M 8 Gigabytes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
500 7200RPM Windows 8 Pro + Ubuntu 15.6 1920x1080 Lenovo plastic 
  hide details  
Reply
Lenovo W520
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2630QM idk lol Quadro 2000M 8 Gigabytes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
500 7200RPM Windows 8 Pro + Ubuntu 15.6 1920x1080 Lenovo plastic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 106
The Bartender Paradox: I believe you're doing the same thing Gore (and a lot of other "global warming" proponents) are: taking a bunch of data and misinterpreting it because it appears convincing. I believe you're falling into the same logical fallacy that so many others do, which is: "correlation specifically leads to causation". And there are plenty people around that are gullible enough to take it as fact. Taking a bunch of numbers that "look good" and drawing specific conclusions without a clear enough understanding through education and experience on the matter is a little simplistic and premature - and bound to have flaws.

Did you bother to read the PDF I originally linked to? Coleman used the science and data to debunk the simplistic and (literally) uneducated claims Gore makes about man-made "global warming". Coleman actually uses Gore's own data against him - but puts scientific reasoning behind it.

There are plenty of other people out there with education and experience on the matter (whom are either scientists themselves or have scientists backing their claims) that believe man-made "global warming" is not all it's cracked up to be. Such as:

From The Heartland Institute's Instant Expert Guide: Global Warming:
Quote:
Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from industry. Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to comment on carbon dioxide’s effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.

The qualifications of the signers of the Oregon Institute Petition are dramatically better than the 2,600 “scientists” who have signed a competing petition calling for immediate action to counter global warming. More than 90% of the petition's signers lacked credentials to speak with authority on the issue. The entire list included just one authority on the issue. [Source: Citizens for a Sound Economy, “Analysis finds only 10% of Ozone Action 2600 are ‘Experts’ on Global Warming,” News Release, October 29, 1997.]
Excerpts from Global Warming Skepticism, by Dennis Behreandt:
Quote:
Another critic of the standard model of global warming is MIT professor of meteorology Richard S. Lindzen. A giant in climate science, Lindzen has published literally hundreds of scientific papers. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in 2001, writing about a National Academy of Sciences report on climate change in which he participated, Lindzen noted: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But — and I cannot stress this enough — we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."

[Sources:
Lindzen publications list: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html;

Lindzen, Richard. "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty." The Wall Street Journal. June 11, 2001. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/...LindzenWSJ.pdf]
Quote:
One of the senior scientists who has remained a skeptic is noted hurricane expert William Gray, longtime head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University. Long recognized as the world's foremost expert on tropical cyclones (i.e., Atlantic hurricanes), Gray spoke to Discover magazine in 2005 about his work and about global warming. During the discussion, Discover's Kathy A. Svitil asked: "You don't believe global warming is causing climate change?" Gray responded:

No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
Quote:
Moreover, Gray noted that many of his colleagues agree with him. "Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing," Gray told Discover. "But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
Again; correlation doesn't specifically lead to causation.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #88 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Choggs396 View Post
The Bartender Paradox: I believe you're doing the same thing Gore (and a lot of other "global warming" proponents) are: taking a bunch of data and misinterpreting it because it appears convincing. I believe you're falling into the same logical fallacy that so many others do, which is: "correlation specifically leads to causation". And there are plenty people around that are gullible enough to take it as fact. Taking a bunch of numbers that "look good" and drawing specific conclusions without a clear enough understanding through education and experience on the matter is a little simplistic and premature - and bound to have flaws.

Did you bother to read the PDF I originally linked to? Coleman used the science and data to debunk the simplistic and (literally) uneducated claims Gore makes about man-made "global warming". Coleman actually uses Gore's own data against him - but puts scientific reasoning behind it.

There are plenty of other people out there with education and experience on the matter (whom are either scientists themselves or have scientists backing their claims) that believe man-made "global warming" is not all it's cracked up to be. Such as:

From The Heartland Institute's Instant Expert Guide: Global Warming:


Excerpts from Global Warming Skepticism, by Dennis Behreandt:


Again; correlation doesn't specifically lead to causation.
Excellent Choggs, just excellent. Especially like the last part there, and that seems to be what most people don't understand. There's no PROOF for global warming, and 17,000 scientists saying it doesn't exist? How can people seriously be fooled by the like of Al Gore, I just don't understand...

Oh, the best part: we're going to be FORCED to buy compact flourescent bulbs which cost $4 instead of a $0.50 incandescent by the year 2012. The US Government is forcing this on us, and those things have mercury in them. You've gotta rip out carpet and repaint walls if one of those breaks in your house, not to mention the dangers if one of your kids gets ahold of one! So the government is forcing us to put lightbulbs with hazardous materials in our house because of a liberal-media-created hoax. Wonderful.
post #89 of 106
GW is not a scam. I just had my hottest days since along time.
2 weeks straight of over 90F.
post #90 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Choggs396 View Post
The Bartender Paradox: I believe you're doing the same thing Gore (and a lot of other "global warming" proponents) are: taking a bunch of data and misinterpreting it because it appears convincing. I believe you're falling into the same logical fallacy that so many others do, which is: "correlation specifically leads to causation". And there are plenty people around that are gullible enough to take it as fact. Taking a bunch of numbers that "look good" and drawing specific conclusions without a clear enough understanding through education and experience on the matter is a little simplistic and premature - and bound to have flaws.
Quote:
Did you bother to read the PDF I originally linked to? Coleman used the science and data to debunk the simplistic and (literally) uneducated claims Gore makes about man-made "global warming". Coleman actually uses Gore's own data against him - but puts scientific reasoning behind it.
If you bothered to read my post I said "And I read his rhetoric filled "paper" and it very clearly shows that he has a small understanding of what is going on, most of his claims are laughable. If you really want, point out things of his paper you thing are correct and I'll shoot them down one by one."
You know what he is doing in his 'paper'? Well, you said it best: "Taking a bunch of numbers that "look good" and drawing specific conclusions without a clear enough understanding ... and [it's] bound to have flaws."
And unfortunately "there are plenty people around that are gullible enough to take it as fact."

The first three pages are complete and utter rhetoric, no evidence what so ever are provided for his outlandish claims. He then moves on to provide this graph showing the Medieval Warm Period, and claiming how much higher temperatures were around then:


Doesn't the modern era look small in comparison? Unfortunately the closest thing I could find as a source was to the CO2 Science web page, and they didn't have this graph, let alone anything about from what information it was created. Although by comparison here is a compilation by NOAA of 11 recent studies of the Medieval Warm Period:


Right around 1000AD it does get warm. Comparable but noticeably less than today's temperature. With all due respect, Mr. Coleman's graph looks a little wrong there.

On page 6 he goes on to talk about how NASA recently revised the US temperature data. Unfortunately he seemingly obfuscates exactly what the results are, so here is the graph from NASA them selves of the old and revised data, side by side:


Boy that sure made a huge difference! So yea there goes pretty much his second section.

Through out his paper he repeatedly made comments about how years in the 30's were the hottest years on record, not the modern years. This is true with the narrow focus on U.S. temperature range (see above image, (b)), and where he quotes his facts from. He unfortunately neglects again to look at global temperature levels, which clearly show that the last few years are the hottest on record (above image, (a)). Yet again he fudges his facts to forward his argument.

Coleman's next big piece of evidence is this graph:


Now he oddly only includes the arctic air temperature over that period, which seemingly nicely fits his conclusions (notice a pattern? Compare to above). Thats great, what about the rest of the world? If you went to the doctor and he only examined your left leg, would you thing he did a very full analysis of your whole body? Indeed if you look at the graph I posted just above this one, you see the global temperatures in roughly the same time period. Now would you look at that! Coleman's Hydrocarbon use graph and the world temperature graph line up rather nicely! You see what he neglected to mention and why he did that?

For the second part of his third section he states that CO2 has little effect on temperatures. This graph of CO2 temperatures shows a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, compiled from here, here, here, and here.

There are of course causal reasons for this, I implore you to read the IPCC 2007 synthesis report, focusing primarily upon the results of Working Group I, mostly in topics 1 and 2. They explain the causal nature quite nicely in topic 2. Coleman of course provides no citation for his 'hypothesis 2' where CO2 has little effect.

In Coleman's fourth section he nicely shoots himself in the foot, claiming that the sun is the cause of warming, while providing this graph of solar activity:


In my previous post I already pointed this out, but it serves repeating because seemingly people don't like to read. As can be clearly seen, the solar oscillations remain within constant bounds. But global temperatures have consistently increased over the period shown (again, see image 3, this post). If you compare the low points of the solar Irradiance to the slight temperature dips on the above graph you can see very nicely the correlation between the sun and the global temperature change. Noticeable, but small.

In his fifth topic about ice caps melting, he really shows his ignorance or his disingenuous nature, or both. He spends most of his time comparing the ice melt in one year, pointing out that ice melts in the summer and gets formed in the winter. He conveniently does not compare the ice levels in successive summers or winters. For your pleasure, although I'm sure you have already seen it, here is a comparison of the ice melts from 1979 - 2005. The cause for this is that the poles become significantly warmer, experiencing 5°C or more greater temperature increase than the global trend. See this for an example. As for his 1940's claim on sea ice, see this NASA page, you can see that while the ice levels may have diminished, they were nowhere near the levels today. As for his other claims, like the Medieval Warming Period ice cap shrinkage, this should be inherently obvious- Global temperature increases, ice caps melt.

For his fifth section he wants to show that CO2 has no effect and promptly goes and finds 5 people who worked on the IPCC project and disagreed with the results (one being a business consultant?) What he neglects to tell you is that there were 500 authors and over 2000 peer reviewers. With a group of 2000 people, you can't help but find a few nay sayers. He also makes a big huff about forcings with out really explaining them, and then quotes people saying that the models don't take into effect clouds and such stuff. A forcing is just a measurement of how strongly a constituent effects the total temperature change. Again Review the IPCC paper, section 2 for evidence and explanation on CO2 forcing.

Section 6 he goes into how over-hyped 2007 was for being the hottest year on record (it tied for the second hottest year, despite solar irradiance at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. (source))

He goes on to point out the flaws in temperature collection stations and a flaw in NASA data (discussed before, see above), as for the measurements, modern measurements are also made with satellites, which also show a warming trend, (source)

So how about Coleman's scientific debunking? Really, he is a meteorologist, he should know his stuff a lot better then what he shows in his paper; I was able to show how he was wrong on nearly every point.

Quote:
There are plenty of other people out there with education and experience on the matter (whom are either scientists themselves or have scientists backing their claims) that believe man-made "global warming" is not all it's cracked up to be.
And likewise there are plenty of people out there with education and experience on the matter (whom are either scientists themselves or have scientists backing their claims) hat believe man-made "global warming" is very much all it's cracked up to be. I could list quotes from a bunch of them, but I think you get my point, and my post is very much long enough already.

Quote:
Again; correlation doesn't specifically lead to causation.
Thank you very much for bringing this up! Not nearly enough people realize this and many are fooled by by misleading statistics exploiting this fact. It can be very hard to pick out correlation from causation, and thats one of the big issues in the global warming debate. One of the best ways in modern science to distinguish between correlation and causation is to develop a model, a mathematical or computer model of the system in question. We can test and play with this model seeing what stimuluses lead to what results.

The anti-climate change crowd loves to harp on how all those computer climate models are so flawed, and admittedly they could be better. The real limiting factor to getting an accurate climate model is computing power; the atmosphere is very complex. You would think that the anti-global warming people would love such models because they could show just how incorrect global warming supposedly is, but as you can see from this thread, they quite obviously want everything to do with climate research stopped, because there is no such thing as global warming. With a highly accurate model wouldn't you like to prove once and for all that you are correct? Or do you just inherently know that you are right and that an accurate model of the climate is not necessary.

And besides, with an accurate atmospheric model, there are so many more things you can do than just check on global warming. How would you like the accuracy in the week's forecast extended to a month, and the accuracy of tomorrows forecast extended to a week? How would you like to have an accurate prediction of exactly where a hurricane is going a week in advance and how strong it will be? But of course this seemingly didn't occur to people because they saw climate research and immediately equated it to global warming which equals stop (see the first three posts of this thread).
½
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A64 3500+ Winchester DFI nF4 SLi-DR EVGA 7800GT OCZ 4000VX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Maxtor 300Gb 16Mb Buffer Spinney one XP Pro SOYO LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Broken Somewhat OCZ PowerStream 520W None Old 
Mouse Pad
Pad? AHAAHAHAH 
  hide details  
Reply
½
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A64 3500+ Winchester DFI nF4 SLi-DR EVGA 7800GT OCZ 4000VX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Maxtor 300Gb 16Mb Buffer Spinney one XP Pro SOYO LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Broken Somewhat OCZ PowerStream 520W None Old 
Mouse Pad
Pad? AHAAHAHAH 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TG Daily]Supercomputer with 20 million CPUs