The Dunning-Kruger effect

Discussion in 'Politics' started by futurecurrents, May 4, 2013.

  1. wjk

    wjk

    I addressed all of these in our discussion. Feel free to go back and review them if you like. I'll sum it up, though.

    I don't have a problem with the CO2 readings. The man who started it (Keeling) was not driven by an agenda other than his own concerns, at least that's been my interpretation of what I've read of his work. I believe his son continues it.

    I stated that when the climatologists didn't want the opinions of world class meteorologists, they made a huge mistake. Many of these were masters of meteorological trends, which are ways to read the atmosphere.

    I've stated that as one who actually collected vertical atmospheric data that most likely has been used in the models, that the data itself had huge potential for error and was sparse at best until a few decades ago (atmospheric temp readings, lapse rates, etc.), and numerous land stations don't paint the entire picture, far from it. I could give countless reasons, but won't waste my time. For the record, I also recorded surface obs here in the states, which included temp, humidity, pressure, wind, and wx. Those were recorded hourly, 24/7 and more often during weather events. I also performed quality control of that data for a time. The surface warming for the last 150 years sounds cyclical to me. Didn't we have a cold cycle into the 1800’s? Warming is what happens when cold periods end.

    You yourself stated the next major ice cycle is less roughly 1000 years out. Didn't the geological studies of ice ages prior indicate peak heating and atmospheric gasses before each? How was the geological data from prior times verified by upper air readings (it wasn't) other than estimations and extrapolations from atmoshperic fallout that appears in the geological record? Again, how was this data used in the models?

    So in a nutshell, is there trapping? Quite likely. Is the result causing warming? Possibly. Are other issues causing warming, such as solar and orbital cycles? Possibly.

    I summarized that for me to be completely on board, I need to see many more years of highly accurate data, both through the layers of the atmosphere, and the ocean, not just huge extrapolations through the time of sparse data to the beginning of more accurate data, though extrapolation will always be necessary in this type of science.

    I've said repeatedly in this thread and others, I don't dispute warming. I simply question whether we have enough evidence to blame man solely. In my opinion, we don't.


    Peace out.
     
    #51     May 7, 2013
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    The orbital cycle, aka orbital forcing, is supposedly cooling the Earth for the next 23k years.
     
    #52     May 7, 2013
  3. wjk

    wjk

    Are you referring to the cycle that FC mentioned (Milankovitch)?

    So do the people who believe 100% in AGW believe that cooling from that period will be prevented by the warming? That would make an interesting thread. Minakovitch VS AGW. Most AGW people believe the damage will occur long before that cycle kicks in so such a thread would probably be a non-starter.
     
    #53     May 7, 2013
  4. pspr

    pspr

    Here is a nice article on the Minakovich cycles. I'm sure it will be over the heads of Ricter and futurecurrents.

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/confirmed-orbital-cycles-control-ice-ages
     
    #54     May 7, 2013
  5. wjk

    wjk

    #55     May 7, 2013

  6. Well, pardon, but virtually all the world's climate scientists say that since 1970 or so essentially all the warming is from man's release of CO2.

    So you are not even sure the world is warming? Wow. You are one of a very tiny tiny minority then. Virtually no-one contests that the world is rapidly warming anymore.

    The following is not enough data for you to be able to say the world is warming?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
     
    #56     May 7, 2013
  7. pspr

    pspr

    That's just an outright lie and you know it.
     
    #57     May 7, 2013
  8. Ricter

    Ricter

    Hey FC, he did say he thinks the world is warming...
     
    #58     May 7, 2013
  9. wjk

    wjk

    I know you and I aren't on the same page on a lot of issues but thanks, Ricter. Perhaps it's true what the others say about FC. He's not reading what I'm writing. Damn shame. Waste of my fucking time. The record is there regarding my comments. I've showed my experience to make my argument. What is his experience (besides surfing Al Gore sites?)

    FC is proving himself to be a true soldier for some progressive cause. His mind is conquered. He just showed me all I need to see (perhaps he just can't comprehend what I'm saying to him). I gave him real world science, but it didn't matter. I question if he even has the degree he claims. If he did, he would at least understand what I'm saying.

    Futurecurrents, I'm done talking to you. Good luck to you. Free you’re fucking mind, dude.

    Ricter, glad you're an old Navy guy. Navy guys understand detail. You may not agree, but at least you read the posts. Best to you, as well.
     
    #59     May 8, 2013
  10. Sorry I missed where you said you agreed the world was warming. It sounded by all your talk of unsure measurements and extrapolations that you were questioning the temperature record. But what you are saying is that there is not a accurate or long enough temperature record to inform the science enough to make it reliable. Understood. But that is not what the world's science community thinks.

    There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
     
    #60     May 8, 2013