The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Thats because all evidence related to global warming becomes political as soon as it is announced, whether it supports or discredits the consensus. Dismissing all opposing evidence as "political" is meaningless, because the supporting evidence is every bit as political.

Er, no. People literally have been using material from conservative think tanks, right wing bloggers, and other sources that are not related to science organizations or peer reviewed journals as their rock solid proof for their arguments, instead of being able to prove their point by referencing academically credible sources.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by bkelly

And you've modified "the facts" to support you're side a little more. Previously you said Paul Reiter had to "legally threaten" to get his name removed. Now he not only had to get a court order and his motive was disagreement with the IPCC's conclusions.

I question whether Paul Reiter threatened legal action at all, but won't push it since I know Frenchmen are quick to rile.

Oops, I finally got to the end of The Great Global Warming Swindle and Paul Reiter is interviewed. Not only is he not French but he said he did threaten the IPCC legally to get his name removed.

So I agree that he "legally threatened" but not "literally had to get a court order". I also think is wrong to say he disagreed with the IPCC's conclusions. He disagreed with the one conclusion about global warming and the spread of malaria.

bkelly

[[tR]Greasy_mullet]

How about reports like this?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

The real people who are in denial are the ones who support the hoax of Global Warming. I honestly don't understand how any educated person can buy into such rubbish. Global Warming is just another way to push socialism on us and allow government to play the so called heroes to save us all and gain unprecidented control over our entire lives enslaving us all.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by [tR]Greasy_mullet

How about reports like this?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

The real people who are in denial are the ones who support the hoax of Global Warming. I honestly don't understand how any educated person can buy into such rubbish. Global Warming is just another way to push socialism on us and allow government to play the so called heroes to save us all and gain unprecidented control over our entire lives enslaving us all.

Yes, a blog from the GOP. Very informative and non political

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by [tR]Greasy_mullet

How about reports like this?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

The real people who are in denial are the ones who support the hoax of Global Warming. I honestly don't understand how any educated person can buy into such rubbish. Global Warming is just another way to push socialism on us and allow government to play the so called heroes to save us all and gain unprecidented control over our entire lives enslaving us all.

The hoax? Not really. The link doesn't ever claim that global warming isn't happening. It says that what we are seeing is a natural, cyclic, phenomenon.

It doesn't say that global warming isn't happening. It doesn't say how bad, or mild, this cycle will be. And it doesn't say that it won't negatively impact humans.

All it says is that some scientists question if human activity is playing a part in this cycle.

This is the thing I don't understand about the "anti" Global Warming group. They have no problem saying the pro side is bad science and they are wrong.

But they don't question for a second any scientist that supports the anti-global warming position.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Yes, a blog from the GOP. Very informative and non political

Actually I think it is informative and encouraging. There are many in the field that have questions about the current theory and that is a very good thing. It would worry me if no scientists had questions. At that point it becomes more of a religious thing. Those that doubt will either strengthen the theory or provide evidence that the current theory has major problems. Then, hopefully, a better theory will surface.

That is the way it should be. Politically it is inconvenient but that is all. (Unless the doomsayers are correct. Then it is a human tragedy.)

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

The hoax? Not really. The link doesn't ever claim that global warming isn't happening. It says that what we are seeing is a natural, cyclic, phenomenon.

I thought we established early in this thread (or was it the last one, or the one before that?), that the phrase "global warming" was understood to mean "man-made global warming" the majority of the time it is used now.

Actually I think it is informative and encouraging. There are many in the field that have questions about the current theory and that is a very good thing. It would worry me if no scientists had questions. At that point it becomes more of a religious thing. Those that doubt will either strengthen the theory or provide evidence that the current theory has major problems. Then, hopefully, a better theory will surface.

That is the way it should be. Politically it is inconvenient but that is all. (Unless the doomsayers are correct. Then it is a human tragedy.)

I don't think I could agree more.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

All it says is that some scientists question if human activity is playing a part in this cycle.

I liked what Mark Hoofnagle said about this list on his blog.

The best reason to reject this nonsense immediately is that they couldn't even break 400 signatures.

Hell, even the IDers can get 700 signatures of other cranks that deny evolution. The global warming denialists barely broke 400, and we're supposed to be impressed?

bkelly

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Every high school science course gives you a lesson somewhere in there on how Precision and Accuracy are not the same thing, and have distinct and separate meanings. You can have Precision without Accuracy, and you can have Accuracy without Precision.

Side note to B-kelly -- Ghost is complaining more about the Precision of your clock than the Accuracy.

By the way, precision and accuracy are the same thing. You cannot be accurate without precision, nor can accuracy be precise.

I'm going to make a cuckoo clock that just repeats this over and over until its true. In a variety of frequencies.

Try convincing someone that their house MIGHT be on fire without describing what it looks like. I guarantee they'll at least sweat a little. Same thing applies to thermometers and scientists, except scientists would ask for an atmospheric sample to verify the contents of their burned up living quarters.

By the way, incase anyone didn't notice yet.. I'm contradicting myself.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I thought we established early in this thread (or was it the last one, or the one before that?), that the phrase "global warming" was understood to mean "man-made global warming" the majority of the time it is used now.


I don't think I could agree more.

So we're just going to ignore naturally occuring global warming and focus on the kind we're inducing to make money off of ignorance?

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by mentholated

By the way, precision and accuracy are the same thing.

What are you trying to say? In plain English, please?

So we're just going to ignore naturally occuring global warming and focus on the kind we're inducing to make money off of ignorance?

If there's global warming that is not man-made, what do you propose we do about it?

[Kerostasis]

Global Warming that is not man-made is not likely to be preventable, but might still be predictable -- and that allows us to prepare ourselves ahead of time to live with it.

At least in theory. In practice, the potential solutions for surviving in a world with non-man-made global warming are completely different from the proposed solutions for averting global warming, so all we're really doing is shooting ourselves in the foot.

[GhostintheShell]

I will contribute to this since it is not directly regarding "global warming".

Accuracy, Precision and Reliability are not the same. In common spoken language however the two terms accuracy and precision are exchanged often without thought or consideration of their true meanings.

Take the "archer's analogy" as an example.

Precision Alone: An archer sends 10 arrows to the target, misses the target completely but all arrows land within a 2 inch diameter area on the tree next to the target. A tight grouping but not necessarily on target. Precision does not require that the results are "accurate".

Accuracy Alone: An archer sends 10 arrows to the target, they all hit the target but they are randomly spaced covering the entire surface of the 2 foot diameter target. Accuracy does not necessarily require that the results are "precise".

Reliability: An archer sends 10 arrows to the target and all 10 find their way to the center of the target and lie in a tight grouping. Reliability as a function of measurement is defined as the combination of accuracy and precision.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

What are you trying to say? In plain English, please?

If there's global warming that is not man-made, what do you propose we do about it?

Adapt.

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Adapt.

Possibly the most succinct post you have ever written. Bravo.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Global Warming that is not man-made is not likely to be preventable, but might still be predictable -- and that allows us to prepare ourselves ahead of time to live with it.

At least in theory. In practice, the potential solutions for surviving in a world with non-man-made global warming are completely different from the proposed solutions for averting global warming, so all we're really doing is shooting ourselves in the foot.

Not entirely true. There is talk surrounding poor, developing countries and the effects of global warming. This talk, for the most part, assumes global warming is going to happen. It almost completely ignores the developed world and the problems it is going to encounter. NPR and a couple of other places are where you can find some of it and even then it is hard to find.

The discussion focuses on things like internal conflicts over smaller food/water supplies and how aid organizations can, or cannot, respond. Or how longer rainy seasons in places like India and China are going to be affected.

Much of the serious talk I hear does not make gloom and doom predictions. In fact I would say a good third of it is positive. Things like extended growing seasons especially in the northern latitudes of Canada/China/Russia. Some claim they will become the new bread basket of the world leaving the USA behind.

@Cing I forgot about the GW = Human influenced GW rule established early in this thread. But even then it is a huge stretch to call it a hoax. True, the evidence supporting the "human influence" part is weaker but that is not to say that it is non-existent. I find it, from my limited understanding, compelling. (My limited understanding could be the cause of the compelling feeling, of course.) But if there is a part of the theory open to attack that is it.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

The last 8 years have been at a temperature stasis in spite of poorly place MTS devices that read warmer then the area.

I've been looking into this claim of Lucky Shot's and found some interesting tidbits. I thought I would share my findings.

Lucky Shot's reference for this assertion was the video "Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause?", a taping of a presentation made by Bob Carter on September 8th 2007 at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation. It's a brief mention about half the way through the first video clip. Bob Carter says, "We go to the last ten years... sorry, the last eight years... it's (temperature) stasis again like the little ice age."

(( Note that this is slightly different that Bob Carter's normal argument in which he says the temperature has been in stasis since 1998. This is a dishonest, cherry-picked statement because 1998 was a remarkably warm year and a warming trend reappears if you measure from 1997 or 1999. However I am looking into this different 8 year claim from the video. ))

Bob Carter's data behind the statement has been difficult because I can't read the text at the bottom of the slide in the video and he doesn't make is presentations available. After a lot of searching I found this paper by Mr. Carter that features a global temperature graph entitled "CRU Global Ground Temperature Series, Monthly". CRU refers to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so my assumption is that Bob Carter uses their datasets for his assertions about global climate trends.

I downloaded the HadCRUT3v dataset, imported it into Exel and saw that it matched the graph in the paper. Now, to test the Bob's 8 year stasis assertion with his own data. The claim was made in September and since it takes a month or two for CRU to process and post the data, I'll look at the 8 years from August of 99 to July to 07.



And the assertion fails. The trend of temperatures for the 8 years prior to July 07 is upward however I noticed that the data is fairly flat starting around 2001. Could temperatures have stabilized, just not for as long a period as Bob Carter suggests? To see, I graphed the six years prior to July of 07.



Well look at that! According to the CRU's numbers the planet cooled slightly during the six years after August of 01.

Okay, so one can find up and down slopes of linear regressions done on 6 year spans of the HadCRUT3v dataset. That suggests that the slope of any six year span doesn't mean much, but I was still curious about how often the slope did become negative. A graph of the slope of the trendlines would show this and a short dip under 0 would indicate that the "temperature stasis" observation uses cherry-picked data. I started with 30 years and then plotted 100 years when I noticed the pattern. Here's the 100 year result.



So the 6 year temperature trends have spent a majority of their time in the positive area since about 1970 and have been moving more positive since about 1946, however what struck me was the cyclical up and down that happens about every 11 years. Hmm, what else happens every 11 years? Oh yeah, the solar cycle! A quick trip to the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center and...



Hmm, interesting. There does seem to be some correlation between the number of sunspots and the slope of a six year temperature linear regression although the '40-'60 span seems to be a reverse of the trend.

So what does this mean about the 6 year temperature stasis we're seeing and Bob Carter's assertion about 8 years? Simple- they don't mean much. Since the solar cycle does affect temperature here on Earth it needs to be factored in to any analysis of temperature trends. The easiest way to do this is to take samples over at least 1 cycle (11 years) and preferably more to minimize unusual solar cycles.



bkelly