or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Insanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Insanity Thread - Page 2

post #41 of 88
post #42 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Please stop. I know we disagree on many things, but I don't dislike you and I hate to see you careening about like this.

Just, generally, it's a not a great idea to pick up a grab bag of "gotcha" talking points from the web and brandish them when you (I guess, it appears) don't know much about how those "arguments", such as they are, are being structured. It just looks foolish.

And no, this isn't breezy dismissal of forbidden thought in the way of those group think climate scientist robot black helicopter dupes.

Posting utterly irrelevant graphs because some web site proffered it up as yet another "HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THIS YOU CAN'T HA!" is foolish. Upon learning of this immediately falling back on "OK SO GLOBAL HOCKEY STICK HA!" is foolish.

Save yourself. The people disseminating this crap are not your friends, they have no intention of making good faith arguments and they are profoundly, deeply, cynical. You are being used, friend.

I don't dislike you, either. That said, I do dislike that you're discounting some very easy to understand points:

1. The Earth is not warming rapidly.
2. There is no evidence that the small temperature changes we've experienced are abnormal, historically speaking.
3. The Earth has been far warmer in the past.
4. Small variations in temperature (say, less than a degree) have been happening for millions of years. They do not effect the overall trend of warming or cooling.

Now...I ask you: Address those points. I know Frank cannot with mocking and insulting me, but I hope you can.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't dislike you, either. That said, I do dislike that you're discounting some very easy to understand points:

1. The Earth is not warming rapidly.
2. There is no evidence that the small temperature changes we've experienced are abnormal, historically speaking.
3. The Earth has been far warmer in the past.
4. Small variations in temperature (say, less than a degree) have been happening for millions of years. They do not effect the overall trend of warming or cooling.

Now...I ask you: Address those points. I know Frank cannot without mocking and insulting me, but I hope you can.

TFTFY.

(thus is a temporary placeholder to address SDW's four incorrect points)
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #44 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... rate of change as opposed to temperature plateaus, and that rate of change is what is important with respect to climate change, then and only then, will I bother to discuss further with you your gross misconceptions of what increasing GHG's of human origin and AGW actually means.

I honestly don't think you've ever dealt with derivatives, mathematically speaking.

So a simple question to you is: Do you even understand what rate of change means with respect to global warming, or what the rate of change of the rate of change means with respect to global warming (e. g. the second derivative of the CO2 curve from 50 years of objective empirical instrumental data is real and positive).

Of course I do. The rate of change is not abnormal. Nor is the rate of change of the rate of change. Not when we're talking about Global Average Temperature. Now, when we look at atmospheric CO2 content...that's another story. Clearly there has been an exponential rate of change in that level, and in the second derivative as you mention.

But therein lies the problem: We don't know that CO2 causes global warming. You can pretend we do. Some think it does. But we don't know. Why? For one thing, temperature has not followed C02. It's increased marginally.



I'm sure you've seen this. If C02 causes warming, why then despite the massive increases has temperature barely increased?

Now, you'll likely point to this as "evidence" that the rate of change and the rate of change of the rate of change is abnormal and precedented:



But, from Wiki we get this:

Quote:
A quasi-global instrumental temperature record exists from approximately 1850; but to construct a millenial-scale record proxies for temperature are required; issues arise over the faithfulness with which these proxies reflect actual temperature change, their geographical coverage, and the statistical methods used to combine them.

What that means for all you scientists out there is that we're not sure of the accuracy of such reconstructions that reach millenia into the past. We're not even sure of the accuracy of actual readings from 150 years ago, particularly when we are talking about changes that are measured in tenths of one degree.

The bottom line is that temperature has not increased substantially and beyond the margin of error in our estimations. We're talking about .5-.8 degrees difference in GAT over 100 years! In addition to error, we must take into account small differences that result from the Urban Heat Island Effect. There's another concept for us simpletons out there: Temp measurements are affected by urban development. Wow.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #45 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course I do. The rate of change is not abnormal. Nor is the rate of change of the rate of change. Not when we're talking about Global Average Temperature. Now, when we look at atmospheric CO2 content...that's another story. Clearly there has been an exponential rate of change in that level, and in the second derivative as you mention.

But therein lies the problem: We don't know that CO2 causes global warming. You can pretend we do. Some think it does. But we don't know. Why? For one thing, temperature has not followed C02. It's increased marginally.



I'm sure you've seen this. If C02 causes warming, why then despite the massive increases has temperature barely increased?

Now, you'll likely point to this as "evidence" that the rate of change and the rate of change of the rate of change is abnormal and precedented:



But, from Wiki we get this:



What that means for all you scientists out there is that we're not sure of the accuracy of such reconstructions that reach millenia into the past. We're not even sure of the accuracy of actual readings from 150 years ago, particularly when we are talking about changes that are measured in tenths of one degree.

The bottom line is that temperature has not increased substantially and beyond the margin of error in our estimations. We're talking about .5-.8 degrees difference in GAT over 100 years! In addition to error, we must take into account small differences that result from the Urban Heat Island Effect. There's another concept for us simpletons out there: Temp measurements are affected by urban development. Wow.

It all depends on what the climate driving mechanism is, changes in the Earth's orbit cause temperature changes that lead to CO2 changes, CO2 changes than take over and drive further temperature increases (or decreases).

We are now (and have been) in an epoch where humans are releasing vast amounts of stored CO2 (via burning of fossil fuels) into the atmosphere. We also know that Earth's CO2 sinks (land and ocean) can't keep up with these vast amounts of atmospheric CO2 releases. We know that gases such as CO2 and methane are GHG's, there's no dispute on that one. We also know that the basic physics of these physical processes are fully captured in current GCM's. And we also know that all GCM's show global temperature increases that lag the atmospheric CO2 increased releases, and that this process is a relatively slow one, on timescales from decennial, to centennial, to millennial.

As to the Mauna Loa CO2 data, glad you brought that one up, a quadratic least squares curve can be fitted and yields;

CO2 (ppmv) = 0.012152 * (year - 1958.208)^2 + 0.80411 * (year - 1958.208) + 314.282

with the regression coefficient, R^2 = 0.9988, the base year, 1958.208 is the start of the Mauma Loa dataset (I'm still working on this dataset to see how well a cubic fit appears for extrapolation purposes, so at the moment all I dare do is a quadratic fit for extrapolation purposes).

Note also that all coefficients are positive numbers, meaning that all derivatives are positive through the second derivative (there are no higher derivatives due to the quadrictic term being the highest).

So if I'm really stupid (and I choose to be so for the purposes of this illustration), I'd go ahead and extrapolate this curve to the year 2200, just to get an idea of what might be in our future with respect to atmospheric CO2.

Doing this I get;

Year, CO2 level (ppmv), CO2 rate of increase (ppmv/year)


1958,314,0.804
2008,385,2.023
2015,400,2.193
2053,500,3.111
2082,600,3.811
2106,700,4.403
2128,800,4.926
2147,900,5.396
2165,1000,5.829
2182,1100,6.232
2197,1200,6.611

So we already know that we've gone from a CO2 rate of ~0.8 ppmv/year (1958) to a CO2 rate of ~2.02 ppmv/year (2008), and there can be little doubt that the first extrapolated year 2015 will come to pass, and that the second extrapolated year 2053 is very likely, and that the third extrapolated year 2082 is certainly possible given continued population growth (to hopefully a plateau of 10-12 billion people) and increased use of fossil fuels (primarily due to increased coal burning globally and continued human induced land usage patterns).

IMHO atmospheric CO2 will reach 600 ppmv by the year 2100.

This curve fitting exercise shows what might happen if we continue on a BAU trajectory, a 2X increase in CO2 in this century (above the pre-industrial level of ~ 280 ppmv of CO2), and a possible 4X increase in CO2 in the next century (ditto). The 2X and 4X scenarios just happen to be scenarios that the IPCC has used to predict future global temperature increases.

And in closing, all the caveats that you bring up have been dealt with extensively in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. For example just look at the instrumental temperature measurements with respect to the various earlier temperature measurements, it's at least an order of magnitude larger than at any time over the past millennia.

BTW, the CO2 data doesn't fit a linear (R^2 = 0.987), or an exponential (R^2 = 0.887), or logarithmic (R^2 = 0.682), or power law (R^2 = 0.959) worth a damn, a polynomial fit is the only one that can produce a nearly perfect fit with R^2 ~ 1. If you look at any of these relationships, it is immediately obvious just how badly these relationships fit the empirical Mauna Loa dataset.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #46 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

It all depends on what the climate driving mechanism is, changes in the Earth's orbit cause temperature changes that lead to CO2 changes, CO2 changes than take over and drive further temperature increases (or decreases).

Then why discount the other possible mechanisms?

Quote:

We are now (and have been) in an epoch where humans are releasing vast amounts of stored CO2 (via burning of fossil fuels) into the atmosphere. We also know that Earth's CO2 sinks (land and ocean) can't keep up with these vast amounts of atmospheric CO2 releases.

The problem there is we're not contributing most of of the GHGs. We're contributing 3%. Is that 3% enough to cause such large increases?

Quote:
We know that gases such as CO2 and methane are GHG's, there's no dispute on that one. We also know that the basic physics of these physical processes are fully captured in current GCM's. And we also know that all GCM's show global temperature increases that lag the atmospheric CO2 increased releases, and that this process is a relatively slow one, on timescales from decennial, to centennial, to millennial.

Which is it? Is it decennial, centennial, millennial? Secondly, does it then follow that C02 levels CAUSE warming? All that's been demonstrated is a proportional relationship, not one of cause-effect.

Quote:

As to the Mauna Loa CO2 data, glad you brought that one up, a quadratic least squares curve can be fitted and yields;

CO2 (ppmv) = 0.012152 * (year - 1958.208)^2 + 0.80411 * (year - 1958.208) + 314.282

with the regression coefficient, R^2 = 0.9988, the base year, 1958.208 is the start of the Mauma Loa dataset (I'm still working on this dataset to see how well a cubic fit appears for extrapolation purposes, so at the moment all I dare do is a quadratic fit for extrapolation purposes).

Note also that all coefficients are positive numbers, meaning that all derivatives are positive through the second derivative (there are no higher derivatives due to the quadrictic term being the highest).

So if I'm really stupid (and I choose to be so for the purposes of this illustration), I'd go ahead and extrapolate this curve to the year 2200, just to get an idea of what might be in our future with respect to atmospheric CO2.

Doing this I get;

Year, CO2 level (ppmv), CO2 rate of increase (ppmv/year)


1958,314,0.804
2008,385,2.023
2015,400,2.193
2053,500,3.111
2082,600,3.811
2106,700,4.403
2128,800,4.926
2147,900,5.396
2165,1000,5.829
2182,1100,6.232
2197,1200,6.611

So we already know that we've gone from a CO2 rate of ~0.8 ppmv/year (1958) to a CO2 rate of ~2.02 ppmv/year (2008), and there can be little doubt that the first extrapolated year 2015 will come to pass, and that the second extrapolated year 2053 is very likely, and that the third extrapolated year 2082 is certainly possible given continued population growth (to hopefully a plateau of 10-12 billion people) and increased use of fossil fuels (primarily due to increased coal burning globally and continued human induced land usage patterns).

I have no problem with any of that. I'll be honest in saying the math is a bit over my head, but I follow the general principle.

Quote:

IMHO atmospheric CO2 will reach 600 ppmv by the year 2100.

This curve fitting exercise shows what might happen if we continue on a BAU trajectory, a 2X increase in CO2 in this century (above the pre-industrial level of ~ 280 ppmv of CO2), and a possible 4X increase in CO2 in the next century (ditto). The 2X and 4X scenarios just happen to be scenarios that the IPCC has used to predict future global temperature increases.

And in closing, all the caveats that you bring up have been dealt with extensively in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

There have been multiple revisions to many data sets, however. Secondly, how are those caveats accounted for? You've got to remember that we're dealing with very small temperature measurements. If, through error or statistical correction those figures are off by even one tenth of one degree over 100 years, the effect on predictions of future warming (and measurements of past warming) could be massive.

Quote:


FOr example just look at the instrumental temperature measurements with respect to the various earlier temperature measurements, it's at least an order of magnitude larger than at any time over the past millennia.

If by that you mean the rate of temperature increase was much greater, please consider that such measurements were taken at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It wouldn't lend much credence to the notion of man being responsible for the small amount of warming we've experienced.

Quote:

BTW, the CO2 data doesn't fit a linear (R^2 = 0.987), or an exponential (R^2 = 0.887), or logarithmic (R^2 = 0.682), or power law (R^2 = 0.959) worth a damn, a polynomial fit is the only one that can produce a nearly perfect fit with R^2 ~ 1. If you look at any of these relationships, it is immediately obvious just how badly these relationships fit the empirical Mauna Loa dataset.

I was using "exponential" very loosely; certainly not in a literal sense.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 88
SDW: go here.

It's a pretty exhaustive, conveniently organized list of all the stock objections to human forced climate change, together with clear, concise answers for the layman. Every one of your questions is answered there.

You might consider for a moment what it means that the objections are so predictable they can be listed this way, and what it means that each and every one of the things you're convinced are some kind of "stumper" for the "climate hysterics", and which you believe they refuse to or cannot address, are, in fact, trivially easy to address. In fact, climate scientists have gotten really good at it, because the same damn "gotchas" keep getting paraded around, no matter how many times they are shot down.

But I have this sinking feeling you've had your attention directed to this kind of stuff many, many times. And no matter how many times it gets explained that, say, the reason our relatively small contribution to atmospheric carbon can precipitate such large changes is that we are tipping a system that was in equilibrium, putting carbon in that isn't taken back out, you're not going to care. You're going to be right back with the same steadfast convictions the next time this comes up.

Tell you what: you go read some of the responses to your caveats at that site. Then, if you think there is something wrong with the answer, come back here and say so.

But please don't keep acting like the world's climate scientists just happened to overlook some basic point that blows their whole deal out of the water, because that's just stupid.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #48 of 88

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #49 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

SDW: go here.

It's a pretty exhaustive, conveniently organized list of all the stock objections to human forced climate change, together with clear, concise answers for the layman. Every one of your questions is answered there.

You might consider for a moment what it means that the objections are so predictable they can be listed this way, and what it means that each and every one of the things you're convinced are some kind of "stumper" for the "climate hysterics", and which you believe they refuse to or cannot address, are, in fact, trivially easy to address. In fact, climate scientists have gotten really good at it, because the same damn "gotchas" keep getting paraded around, no matter how many times they are shot down.

But I have this sinking feeling you've had your attention directed to this kind of stuff many, many times. And no matter how many times it gets explained that, say, the reason our relatively small contribution to atmospheric carbon can precipitate such large changes is that we are tipping a system that was in equilibrium, putting carbon in that isn't taken back out, you're not going to care. You're going to be right back with the same steadfast convictions the next time this comes up.

Tell you what: you go read some of the responses to your caveats at that site. Then, if you think there is something wrong with the answer, come back here and say so.

But please don't keep acting like the world's climate scientists just happened to overlook some basic point that blows their whole deal out of the water, because that's just stupid.

The problem here is that if I respond at all, you'll just claim I'm ignoring the link. But no matter. I'll address one of the points:

Temperature Measurement Accuracy:

Quote:
Answer: There is actually some truth to the part about the difficulties; scientists have overcome many of them in turning the hundreds of thousands of measurements taken in many different ways and over a span of more than a dozen decades into a single globally averaged trend.
But this is the nature of science -- no one said it was easy. It's taken the scientific community a long time to finally come out and say that what we have been observing for 100 years is in fact exactly what it looks like. All other possible explanations (for example, the Urban Heat Island effect) have been investigated, the data has been examined and re-examined, reviewed and re-reviewed, and the conclusion has become unassailable.
And while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers or elevation above sea level, probably make it impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends, not the absolute level. Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.

I see. So it doesn't matter that the records are riddled with inaccuracies, because they all show a rise in temperature. The problem there is that the inaccuracies are so large they destroy the trend. If measurements had a margin of error of .5 degrees 150 years ago, .3 degrees 75 years ago and .001 degrees now, it would be enough to eradicate the maximum warming observed...that being between .5-.8 degrees.




I can't take the time to go through each one of the points. No one could. But the fact that that someone has posted a page called "how to talk to skeptic" does not thereby invalidate ALL criticism. And that's really what Teh Global Warming people are all about, isn't it? Silencing ALL critics. Dismissing all other possible explanations. Ignoring all contradictory evidence.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The problem here is that if I respond at all, you'll just claim I'm ignoring the link. But no matter. I'll address one of the points:

Temperature Measurement Accuracy:



I see. So it doesn't matter that the records are riddled with inaccuracies, because they all show a rise in temperature. The problem there is that the inaccuracies are so large they destroy the trend. If measurements had a margin of error of .5 degrees 150 years ago, .3 degrees 75 years ago and .001 degrees now, it would be enough to eradicate the maximum warming observed...that being between .5-.8 degrees.




I can't take the time to go through each one of the points. No one could. But the fact that that someone has posted a page called "how to talk to skeptic" does not thereby invalidate ALL criticism. And that's really what Teh Global Warming people are all about, isn't it? Silencing ALL critics. Dismissing all other possible explanations. Ignoring all contradictory evidence.

Here's a link to NIST certified mercury thermometers, and NIST has been certifying liquid thermometers for well over one hundred years.

Also note that even if the gradation is in one degree Fahrenheit increments, usually a daily high and low is taken, as well as wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures to determine such things as humidity and dew point. So right off the bat we know that any temperature reading is accurate to half a degree Fahrenheit if the gradations are in one degree increments, and 0.05 degrees if in 0.1 degree increments.

The error in reading either to the next highest on next lowest increment is random and p = 0.5 for either over many readings.

Also temperatures are usually averaged over monthly increments, so that's from 56 to 62 temperature measurements that are used in a monthly average, and you need not worry about a sum of zero, since all temperatures are referenced to absolute zero. So for example, take a 30 day month, that's 60 measurements, on average given a random distribution 30 measurements will be rounded up and 30 will be rounded down.

Got that?

So say for some odd reason all the readings happened to be zero degrees Fahrenheit (highly unlikely, but that's OK for the purposes of this illustration).

60 * (459.67 + 0) = 27,580.2 Kelvin (summation) so at first it looks like I have six significant digits to form the average monthly temperature, which is of course incorrect, since the two digit number 60 is my limiting precision, or one part in sixty = 1/60 = 0.016667 degrees.

Thus, I can report the average monthly temperature to one part in sixty, as in the average monthly temperature was 0.00 ± 0.016667/2 degrees Fahrenheit = 0.00 ± 0.008333 degrees Fahrenheit, or to keep it simple to the nearest 0.01 degree.

Got that? .
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #51 of 88
To which I would add: why would you imagine that inaccuracies in the temperature data would globally march in lockstep and gradually upwards, so as to mimic a false warming model? Wouldn't that be pretty outlandish?

Doesn't it seem pretty intuitively obvious that many, many readings, taken globally over a period of time, will give us an accurate picture of temperature trends, even if any given reading has a margin of error? It's not like all the readings from 50 years ago are likely to be uniformly wrong in one direction, or present readings wrong in another, is it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #52 of 88
Thread Starter 
Let's first take a looky here. 31,000 scientists and counting.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's first take a looky here. 31,000 scientists and counting.

How else would he sell books?
post #54 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's first take a looky here. 31,000 scientists and counting.

Yes, because the weatherman tells us so.
post #55 of 88
sunspot and sun activity abnormally low similar to the "ice age" period

well good, now we can cool the pot down, and put off this discussion for 15 years
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #56 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

How else would he sell books?

How else would Al Gore sell movies?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Yes, because the weatherman tells us so.

So this man, who has spent his career predicting weather, founded the weather channel, and claims to have done extensive research....his opinion in invalid. This is exactly what I mean. You won't rebut what he says. You'll just attack and dismiss.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #58 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Here's a link to NIST certified mercury thermometers, and NIST has been certifying liquid thermometers for well over one hundred years.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that thermometers from 1900 are as accurate as today's equipment? What about the compilation of the data amassed. The world was one hell of a lot bigger then, that is for sure.

Quote:

Also note that even if the gradation is in one degree Fahrenheit increments, usually a daily high and low is taken, as well as wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures to determine such things as humidity and dew point. So right off the bat we know that any temperature reading is accurate to half a degree Fahrenheit if the gradations are in one degree increments, and 0.05 degrees if in 0.1 degree increments.

Temperatures were not taken in .1 degree increments 100 years ago, where they? And by the way, .5 degrees destroys any possible trend that would be shown.

Quote:

The error in reading either to the next highest on next lowest increment is random and p = 0.5 for either over many readings.

Also temperatures are usually averaged over monthly increments, so that's from 56 to 62 temperature measurements that are used in a monthly average, and you need not worry about a sum of zero, since all temperatures are referenced to absolute zero. So for example, take a 30 day month, that's 60 measurements, on average given a random distribution 30 measurements will be rounded up and 30 will be rounded down.

Got that?

Yes, and that's the problem. Now we're rounding. It starts already...even with temperatures we've actually measured. If we were to round to the nearest tenth, it would still affect the trend.

Quote:

So say for some odd reason all the readings happened to be zero degrees Fahrenheit (highly unlikely, but that's OK for the purposes of this illustration).

60 * (459.67 + 0) = 27,580.2 Kelvin (summation) so at first it looks like I have six significant digits to form the average monthly temperature, which is of course incorrect, since the two digit number 60 is my limiting precision, or one part in sixty = 1/60 = 0.016667 degrees.

Thus, I can report the average monthly temperature to one part in sixty, as in the average monthly temperature was 0.00 ± 0.016667/2 degrees Fahrenheit = 0.00 ± 0.008333 degrees Fahrenheit, or to keep it simple to the nearest 0.01 degree.

Got that? .

I hope this is fun for you. Really..you're just making my point though. All of the estimation and rounding and adjustments and measurement errors and modeling add up to margin of error that is greater than the warming trend observed.

Let me ask this: What do you think the margin of error is in the estimate that GAT has increased about .8 degrees over 100 years? .2? .1? .5? 1 full degree? Keep in mind, you must take into account error in measurement, reading, recording, location of the measurement station, statistical adjustments, rounding, etc.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How else would Al Gore sell movies?

selling carbon credits makes him more money, basically he is anticapitalist and want's to shrink our economy... and make money doing it.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #60 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

selling carbon credits makes him more money, basically he is anticapitalist and want's to shrink our economy... and make money doing it.

Gore isn't sinister. He's just a dumb, egotistical man with no friends.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's first take a looky here. 31,000 scientists and counting.

... Oregon Petition.

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001.

Quote:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located about seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."

[/CENTER]

What, no climate scientists?

[CENTER]
Quote:
The OISM is known mostly for the role it played in 1998 in circulating the Oregon Petition, a "scientists' petition" on global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Quote:
OISM markets a home-schooling kit for parents who are concerned about how "American schools have degraded severely." Another OISM project is Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. The Institute publishes the book "Nuclear War Survival Skills," describing how to survive nuclear war.

[/CENTER]

Better start building that bomb shelter I started building in my backyard as a kid in the late 1950's.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Frederick Seitz (July 4, 1911 - March 2, 2008) was an American physicist.

Quote:
He served as the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962 until 1969.

Quote:
In 1994, Seitz authored a report published by the George C. Marshall Institute, of which he was a founder and chairman of the board, titled "Global warming and ozone hole controversies. A challenge to scientific judgment."

Quote:
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) was established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. "to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy". It is known for its skepticism toward the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, and its strong support for the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Quote:
Since 1989 GMI has been involved in what it terms "a critical examination of the scientific basis for global climate change policy." Although it says "There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real," it is strongly associated with attempts to emphasize scientific uncertainty about global warming, and to prevent regulatory action on global warming. The Institute was described as a "central cog in the denial machine" in a Newsweek cover story on global warming.

[/CENTER]

It would appear that just about anyone can sign on to the Oregon Petition.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So this man, who has spent his career predicting weather, founded the weather channel, and claims to have done extensive research....his opinion in invalid. This is exactly what I mean. You won't rebut what he says. You'll just attack and dismiss.

I agree...Al Gore is a failed divinity student. I'll state that Al Gore has as much experience as this guy and neither of them are going to change my opinion.

Give me scientists.

Oh, wait. You haven't, just a pitch-man and petitioners. Next?

Additionally:
Coleman came up with the idea for a 24-hour channel devoted to weather, but he ran the station for only one year. Since then, the Weather Channel has prominently embraced the fight against global warming:
Quote:
If The Weather Channel isnt talking about climate change and global warming, who is? said Kaye Zusmann, the vice president for program strategy and development for the network. Its our mandate.

And Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert at the WeatherChannel won't be holding the door open for Coleman if he comes back either...

Quote:
"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

Junk Controversy Not Junk Science...
post #63 of 88
Again, SDW, how do your concerns about inaccuracy in older temperature data account for trends?

One thermometer might read half a degree too low, one time, but thousands of thermometers over thousands of readings aren't all going to all read half a degree too low.

Unless you have some evidence that all the thermometers of a hundred years ago tended to read cool, what is your point? I mean, other than seizing on the idea of "inaccuracy" and waving that around making scoffing sounds like, well, Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda.

Aristotle is not Danish!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #64 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you honestly mean to tell me that thermometers from 1900 are as accurate as today's equipment? What about the compilation of the data amassed. The world was one hell of a lot bigger then, that is for sure.



Temperatures were not taken in .1 degree increments 100 years ago, where they? And by the way, .5 degrees destroys any possible trend that would be shown.



Yes, and that's the problem. Now we're rounding. It starts already...even with temperatures we've actually measured. If we were to round to the nearest tenth, it would still affect the trend.



I hope this is fun for you. Really..you're just making my point though. All of the estimation and rounding and adjustments and measurement errors and modeling add up to margin of error that is greater than the warming trend observed.

Let me ask this: What do you think the margin of error is in the estimate that GAT has increased about .8 degrees over 100 years? .2? .1? .5? 1 full degree? Keep in mind, you must take into account error in measurement, reading, recording, location of the measurement station, statistical adjustments, rounding, etc.

... averages. Over thousands of weather stations spatially, over monthly (~60 measurements compose a monthly average, allowing ~ 2 additional significant digits to be carried into that monthly average), or yearly (~720 measurements compose a yearly average, allowing ~ 3 additional significant digits to be carried into that yearly average (if necessary)) for each of these stations temporally.

But to answer your question, the GAT is usually reported to the nearest one hundredth of a degree centigrade. And significant time as been expended on a thorough error analyses.

In other words, the numbers have been vetted scientifically.

But if you doubt that the temperatures reported to the nearest degree have a systematic bias in the readings themselves (note the instruments are calibrated (e. g. NIST certification or other international standards (i. e. BIPM)), in other words the readings are visually rounded to the nearest temperature gradation, and that this rounding on average is random with a mean of zero. Then I suggest you get out a coin, flip it 60 times (or 730 times), subtract the heads from the tales, it will of course follow a very narrow normal distribution, with zero mean over many sets of tosses. Better yet, write about a dozen (or two) lines of code using a random number generator, it's much faster, and will over many realizations show the exact same results, that there is zero bias in the binning process, and that the additional precision is retained in the averaging process, as long as the initial sample size is "large" (and 60 samples (or 730 samples) is indeed "large").

Q.E.D.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Yes, because the weatherman tells us so.

If you haven't noticed most of the contrarians, are very old, they formed their biases long ago, it has become for them an issue of "intellectual ownership" such that, once having made up their minds so long ago, refuse to change their minds, for no other reason, then ... oh I don't know ... stubbornness ... or perhaps senility.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So this man, who has spent his career predicting weather, founded the weather channel, and claims to have done extensive research....his opinion in invalid. This is exactly what I mean. You won't rebut what he says. You'll just attack and dismiss.

Why has John Coleman NEVER published a scientific paper on this?
Why can't he get coverage by the big networks this really would be great news!

Why do SoCal weather people always get the weather wrong? (John is one of them)

Why does it rain more this year in the mid west then ever recorded?

How does starting a TV channel correlate to scientific knowledge?
post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

If you haven't noticed most of the contrarians, are very old, they formed their biases long ago, it has become for them an issue of "intellectual ownership" such that, once having made up their minds so long ago, refuse to change their minds, for no other reason, then ... oh I don't know ... stubbornness ... or perhaps senility.



"I see old people!"
post #68 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

sunspot and sun activity abnormally low similar to the "ice age" period

well good, now we can cool the pot down, and put off this discussion for 15 years



Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots

Quote:
Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.

post #69 of 88
Quote:

I always get laughed at when I mention sun-spots, but imo, this is the single most important unknown factor affecting global warming. I've been trying to find out what the correlation between un-spots and temperature is for a long time. There is no answer.

It is important, because it was predicted that the solar cycle is going to drop off a cliff - if not this time, then next time - and the last time this happened - there was massive cooling.

If solar radiance and flux does not change by much more than a tenth of a percent even during these times, then what is the mechanism that causes cooling? It is very important to find out, because if it does start cooling because of it, the global warming crowd is dead in the water.

Which would be catastrophic, because fundamentally their science is completely right, but this 'unknown' risks pulling the rug from under them - Leading to catastrophic consequences for temperature when the solar cycle resumes normally.
post #70 of 88
post #71 of 88
Santa Claus better find a new house, quick:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/we...ing/index.html

North Pole might have no ice this summer.


Please don't let FEMA rent him one of their toxic trailers...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Santa Claus better find a new house, quick:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/we...ing/index.html

North Pole might have no ice this summer.


Please don't let FEMA rent him one of their toxic trailers...

OK so if we are still in a La Nina next year, the North Pole without its thermal hat will freeze up like it did last year, except it will be even more greatly accelerated, This will produce one of the coldest winter on record for the Northern Hemisphere. This will make SDW and his ilk very happy.

Couple this to $170/barrel oil according to the Saudi's but add another $30/barrel because of the increased demand for heating oil.

The Dollar continues to slide down it's slippery slope as gas prices hit $5/gallon, then $6/gallon, then $7/gallon.

The U.S. Treasury Department starts selling Monopoly money in the place of T-bills.

The Fed lowers interest rates to an unheard of -10%.

The stock market reaches an all time record low of zero.

The homeless, basically all the people on the planet, build their shelters out of dollar bills and lumber taken from all the abandoned buildings.

CO2 starts to drop precipitously, and over the next two decades, returns to it's pre-industrial average. The planet's temperature also returns to the pre-industrial average.

The economy rebounds like never before, every human buys an RV and an upsized Hummer to tow behind their poorly insulated RV's. All fossil fuels are traded at all time record lows, premium gas is 9.9 cents a gallon. CO2 and global temperature begin to rise like never before, but no notices this except a few scientists forgotten at the South Pole long ago.

The End
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #73 of 88
Merry Christmas, everyone.

If the ice melts, will it make drilling easier? Maybe we could find oil up there. Who knows? Maybe Santa Claus is sitting on top of a huge untapped reserve that could fuel the world for a couple of year, or his sleigh forever.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #74 of 88
So, in conclusion, global warming does exist.

And we need to stop wasting time arguing about it and act now.

NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'.
post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

I always get laughed at when I mention sun-spots, but imo, this is the single most important unknown factor affecting global warming. I've been trying to find out what the correlation between un-spots and temperature is for a long time. There is no answer.

It is important, because it was predicted that the solar cycle is going to drop off a cliff - if not this time, then next time - and the last time this happened - there was massive cooling.

If solar radiance and flux does not change by much more than a tenth of a percent even during these times, then what is the mechanism that causes cooling? It is very important to find out, because if it does start cooling because of it, the global warming crowd is dead in the water.

Which would be catastrophic, because fundamentally their science is completely right, but this 'unknown' risks pulling the rug from under them - Leading to catastrophic consequences for temperature when the solar cycle resumes normally.




If the sun dies, so do we.
post #76 of 88
Amid the global energy crisis and concerns about global warming, the gov't not only opens up Alaska for GW's pals, but also stops government efforts into solar power for at least two years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us...7da&ei=5087%0A

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #77 of 88


It's like Groundhog Day in here sometimes. Especially re: global warming.

We had this discussion a while back. It's alive again!!! That "petition" has been "debunked" numerous times. Heck, I remember I posted a list of some of the "scientists" that had signed it.

Here's a sample: Perry Mason, Michael J. Fox, Robert Byrd, John Grisham, Spice Girls Geri Haliwell, "Redwine". Wouldn't be surprised if "Curveball" was one of the signatories as well.

There's duplicate names, single names, and even corporate names. The initial petition was also written in NAS format to be deceiving.

Funny stuff. Can't wait for the next round of....."Theeeeh Petitionnnnnn 09".
post #78 of 88
Plants are moving to higher elevations:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...me=scienceNews

I guess this is pretty funny to some people.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Plants are moving to higher elevations:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...me=scienceNews

I guess this is pretty funny to some people.

The same things are also occurring in the animal kingdom, moving to a higher elevation to stay at their preferred equilibrium temperature. But they can only move so high before they hit the top or lose their critical habitat which doesn't necessarily follow them at the same rate if at all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #80 of 88
On the news tonight there was a story about a bird that lives high in Japan's Alps... it hasn't been seen at its normal altitude this year. It only has a couple hundred more meters to go before there isn't any mountain left.

Its a unique species that the scientist said may be going extinct.

Where's that oil?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Insanity Thread