[egad]

That is an impressive morph.

[egad]

Thank you for the collection of pictures. 

[egad]

Hey, no problem of the lack of bullets.  Also, don't believe that the lack or presence of a degree makes someone any more or less qualified than another.  I've seen too many good ideas overlooked because the guy who came up with it doesn't have an advanced enough degree, or completely lacked a college degree.  Don't let the math intimidate you, with enough practice you could do it, the bad part is the debugging and that just requires patience.  Possibly years worth.  Also, I'm sure there are much more qualified people than myself for math topics on this board.  As my friends who were Math majors like to say "Engineers don't do real math", which may be true as we mainly focus on the applied math topics. 

With all honesty we don't have any more idea of the cause of the climate change on Mars than we do Earth and the two may happening at the same time may be coincidence. 

It's not rude to let me know where you were posting from, I had just gotten an incorrect impression of what you were trying to say.

As far as the p <.05 values they are used, the problem is that they cover such a wide range of temperatures over the last 1000 years.  For instance look at the infamous hockey stick graph with the 95% confidence intervals included.  When you look at that graph the recent warming trend appears much less alarming.

Myself, I am not convinced that there is a precipice, let alone that we are dancing merrily along its edge.  Also, the fact that nearly everything that someone doesn't like conveniently causes global warming raises alarms.  Many of these causes are lifestyle changes that busybodies have been trying to force upon the rest of us for years with new advertising, for instance my desire to eat steak causes global warming.  I realize that many sane believers in global warming also consider that to be ludicrous.  This hijacking of the issue which has been occurring since at least 1998 reeks of politics and a great deal of those politics border on areas that are quite unpopular in America. 
I don't believe that the average American is any more or less qualified than the average European on scientific matters.  However, the average American may have an advantage due to the high level bs that he wades through in American politics, but then I may be weighing Tony Blair to heavily.

  As far as the debate, I doubt the intellect and learning is that obvious but thank you anyways.  Finally, the disagreements are what makes the world interesting.

[egad]

Thats great; the animations hilarious.

[egad]

Thank you for the notice

[egad]

First if we are going to throw out degrees, I have an M.S.E and have conducted research using numerical modeling, and am aware of some of the inherent drawbacks. One of which is that input values with high degrees of error cause error in the modeled results regardless of the elegance and accuracy mathematical algorithms the model is based on.  In layman's terms: junk in = junk out.  However, I too am not involved in climate change research, although I would believe as you clearly do about yourself, that I am capable of evaluating the literature and reaching my own conclusions.  Furthermore you indirectly accuse me of being a cynic.  I find your choice of words revealing.  I would have said skeptic to describe myself, and as one of you quotes described, skepticism is important to good research.  Skepticism insures that you are seeing what you believe you see in your research, and is highly important when doing numerical research.  Also, I did not call anyone a liar in my post, although I did admittedly disparage what I consider to be an environmental extremist position.  I found it humorous, apparently I was wrong.

Comparing Mars' climate situation to Earth's is relevant as the main heat source of that planet is the sun.  Geothermal energy is also present.  If the southern ice cap on Mars is melting it implies that something is causing the temperature on Mars to increase, or at least the temperature at the pole.  As in global warming, there is disagreement on the cause.  The fact that both have been occurring at roughly the same point in time should at least arouse curiosity.

I did not bring up Milankovitch cyclicity to argue the CO2 lag theory, if I had I would have mentioned it.  I merely brought it up as a reference to the natural climate observations taken from the geologic record and though I forgot to mention it the vast amount of time that these cycles cover.  The Milankovitch's theory is based on these observations is basically that the Earth's climate oscillates between two extremes that he called greenhouse and icebox Earth.  The oscillation between these two states are governed by many natural cycles, the shortest of with last 12,000 years. 

You linked to the wrong page on point three, but I will not argue the point that temperature readings taken from ice cores and other historical sources are likely as accurate as temperatures measured pre-1850.  However, that does not make these readings accurate by any means.  Considering that these readings are likely accurate to at best plus or minus .5 degrees C and more likely on the scale at least plus or minus one degrees C, the argument that an increase of .6-1 degree C over the last hundred years is unnatural is hard to support. 

The onus is only on the skeptics to disprove a proven theory.  The theory that global warming is being greatly influenced by man is not proven.  Hence the proponents must also continue to produce the body of evidence, i.e. a definite relationship not merely a casual one.
Also, it should be noted the vast majority of the grant money in this field is being paid to research to prove global warming, and anyone who speaks out against it has been slandered and had their academic integrity brought into question. 

BTW, I didn't mind the bullet points at all.  Much more organized than my rambling posts.

Awaiting the next logical step of the phd to appear in this thread.

[egad]

Thanks for the clip.  Johanna is always appreciated.

[egad]

Would the similar warming occuring on Mars be evidence enough that solar cycles are causing a significant amount of warming?  I believe it does, although I will admit there is disagreement on the cause.  Or would the fact that the Max Planck institute believes that solar activity over the last 60 years has been at its highest level in  the past 8000 years?  Furthermore, Milankovitch Cyclicity indicates that the Earth should be currently warming due to natural cycles.
Or maybe you could look at the fact that the Earth has been both much hotter and much cooler than its current climate, both occurred without human assistance. What we know is that the Earth is the hotter now than it has been in the last 400 years.  So the planet is hotter now than it has been since the little ice age; a stunning scientific discovery.  Furthermore accurate temperature measurements have only been around for about a century.  So we are using a hundred years of accurate data to predict variations of cycles of up to 400,000 years.  A variation of less than 1 degree C, which given the accuracy of the historic data falls well within the margin of error.
Also, the so called consensus on global warming is a political propaganda carefully chosen to give the impression that all scientist agree, when in fact many very well respected and distinguished scientists disagree for a variety of reasons.
So the worshipers of the church of environmentalism can freak out over their coming apocalypse, I'll what until I see real evidence before I worry about it.

BTW, good posts Dave and Jimmy.

[egad]

Very nice

[egad]

nice work.

[Author]

Posts