A MUST SEE! Global Warming Swindle!

POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, July 3, 2009 16:48
VIEWED: 11660
PAGE 1 of 1

CREVANREAVER

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:34 AM

I'm sure a lot of you have already heard of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and seen it.

For those of you who don't know, it is a brilliant and fascinating and surprisingly entertaining documentary by British journalist Martin Durkin.

In the film the core ideology of the anti-humanitarian, neo-Marxist modern environmentalist movement is torn to shreds. Several experts make point-by-point explanations that show exactly why global warming is actually nothing more than a natural phenomenon triggered by the solar cycle.

The documentary even shows how the whole man-made global warming crowd have indirectly promoted a racist suppression of the developing world and caused the death of millions of poor people.

For free, here is the entire documentary:

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=WV4J373P

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WV4J373P

By the way, here's a great website:

http://www.junkscience.com

ZZETTA13

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:53 AM

I’ve always felt that the global warming issue was the excuse Big Petroleum companies were touting to the major governments in order to raise gas prices through the roof. Their way of servicing the environment by making you pay an arm and a leg to put a gallon of gas in you vehicle therefore causing you to make less trips to the market store or any place else but work. This viewpoint by the gas companies is plausible and accepted by world leadership. Come on they are just a bunch of good fellows trying to help you breath cleaner air and make a ton of $$$ while doing it. Oh and help you stay home and watch more FF. It warms my heart knowing that Big Government and Big Business are strolling hand in hand to help my health. The Alliance, I mean, Government cares about us.

Z

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:56 PM

Nice link. Loved that documentary... it makes me happy to know more and more people are seeing it.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:33 PM

Finally had a chance to watch that all the way through. Interesting.

I was struck by the fact that the WHO says up to 4 million children a year die from breathing indoor smoke from cooking fires. Get those people some electricity!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:

In the film the core ideology of the anti-humanitarian, neo-Marxist modern environmentalist movement is torn to shreds. Several experts make point-by-point explanations that show exactly why global warming is actually nothing more than a natural phenomenon triggered by the solar cycle.

Actually no it didn't. It just pointed out some issues with the science which everyone already knew were there mixed in with a bunch of fud.

I'll also point out that they used the same sensational techniques that "the other side" uses that they criticize. The whole thing was quite hypocritical.

Sorry, but all this /movie/ was, was the anti-global warming people further muddying the waters. In all seriousness, the "scientists" on both sides should bloody well be embarrassed for things such as this.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
I'm sure a lot of you have already heard of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and seen it. For those of you who don't know, it is a brilliant and fascinating and surprisingly entertaining documentary by British journalist Martin Durkin.

Now I want to be clear...I haven't researched this info thoroughly, just skimmed it. The thing that struck me is how you described the documentary as entertaining. It's my experience that hard science is usually not entertaining. If you're being entertained, I would be suspicious. Because entertaining is what politicians and the media do to lock you in, as a viewer, or a voter. They also use anger but that's another story.

Anyway, give it a look, they discredit Martin Durkin and address the claims made inividually. I don't claim it's true, just thought you mght want to see it

http://scan.editme.com/200703GGWS

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:48 AM

Oh yah, I forgot to mention something.

Professor Tim Ball, which is the first guy that shows up in the movie, is listed as being from the Department of Climatology of the University of Winnipeg.

Well, here's two little facts that people might be interested in:

1) There is no such department at the University of Winnipeg

2) He wasn't a faculty member at the University of Winnipeg as of the making of this movie, not even close to it in fact. Poking around shows he retired in 1996.

Now, who's going to trust a "documentary" with these things going on? Better yet, who's _not_ going to question there ethics?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CREVANREAVER

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:01 PM

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/

For those who don't want to go through the entire documentary, here's the gist:

Global warming does indeed exist, however human-produced CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing that warming. It is actually nothing more than a natural phenomenon triggered by the solar cycle.

Each day the news reports grow more fantastically apocalyptic. Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change. There is tremendous intolerance of any dissenting voice and it is the most politically incorrect thing possible - to doubt the climate change orthodoxy.

Global warming has gone beyond politics. It is a new kind of morality. Yet as the frenzy over man-made global warming grows shriller, many senior climate scientists say the actual scientific basis for the theory is crumbling.

It is often said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, there are many scientist that simply think that is not true.

We are told that Earth's climate is changing. But the Earth's climate is always changing. In Earth's long history there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler than it is today. When much of the world was covered by tropical forests or else vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us humans.

We can trace the present warming trend back at least 200 years to the end of a very cold period in Earth's history. This cold spell is known to climatologists as the Little Ice Age. In the 14th Century Europe plunged into the Little Ice Age. And where we would look for evidence of this are the old illustrations and prints and pictures of Old Father Thames, because during the hardest and toughest winters of that Little Ice Age, the Thames would freeze over. And there were ice fairs held on the Thames, skating and people actually selling things on the ice.

If we look back further in time before the Little Ice Age, we find a balmy golden era, when temperatures were higher than they are today, a time known to climatologists as the Medieval Warm Period.

It's important people know that climate enabled a quite different lifestyle in the Medieval period. We have this view today that Warming is going to have apocalyptic outcomes. In fact wherever you describe this Warm Period it appears to be associated with riches. In Europe this was the great age of the cathedral builders, a time when, according to Chaucer, vineyards flourished even in the north of England. All over the city of London there are little memories of the vineyards that grew in the Medieval Warm Period.

So this was a wonderfully rich time. And this little church in a sense symbolizes it, because it comes from a period of great wealth.

Going back in time further still, before the Medieval Warm Period, we find more warm spells, including a very prolonged period during the Bronze Age known to geologists as the Holocene Maximum, when temperatures were significantly higher than they are now for more than three millennia.

If we go back 8,000 years in the Holocene period, our current interglacial, it was much warmer than it is today. Now the polar bears obviously survived that period, they're with us today, they're very adaptable, and these warm periods in the past, what we call, posed no problem for them.

Climate variation in the past is clearly natural. In the current alarm about global warming the culprit is industrial society. Thanks to modern industry, luxuries once enjoyed exclusively by the rich are now available in abundance to ordinary people. Novel technologies have made life easier and richer. Modern transport and communications have made the world seem less foreign and distant. Industrial progress has changed our lives. According to the theory of man-made global warming, industrial growth should cause the temperature to rise.

Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of t

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:24 PM

For those that don't want to read CrevanReaver's post it's mostly the same sophistry that is presented in this laughable "documentary" and elsewhere on the net.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

CREVANREAVER

Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
...it's mostly the same sophistry that is presented in this laughable "documentary" and elsewhere on the net.

Stop global whining.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:05 AM

Got anything else to say aside from attempting to be clever?

EDIT: fix a typo.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 7, 2007 11:16 PM

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/060707rothschild.mp3

you guys have got to hear this, ALex Jones debates David Mayer De Rothschild(yes, of the luciferian Rothschild empire) on global warming. listen while its still free

CREVANREAVER

Friday, May 1, 2009 8:05 PM

Now that the socialists are in power in America more people need to see this documentary.

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 1, 2009 8:24 PM

I said it years ago; it's a natural trend being hurried somewhat by man. That's all. And if all the man-made pollution stopped cold tomorrow, it'd still happen.
My point is: it's REAL, and we can't deny it IS happening. But anyone who wants to debate the cause(s), feel free.

Pollution should be addressed just for it's toxic effect on us, if for no other reason.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:38 AM

"The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but the people of Africa are still at the stage of survival. The idea that the world's poorest people should be restricted to using the world's most expensive and inefficient forms of electrical generation is the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign. If we're telling the Third World that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is, "You cannot have electricity". A solar panel is not going to power a steel industry. It is not going to power some railway train network."

Hello,

This bit at least seems logically legitimate to me. You can't restrict the development of poor nations to 'green' technologies unless you are also willing to subsidize their development.

I personally prefer not to subsidize any other nation until we get our own affairs in order. This is morally easy for me, as I believe our foreign aid to Africa is often as harmful as it is helpful.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:21 AM

the thing that gets me is... if the GW theory had never been propogated, no single person within their lifespan could discern a shift in climate change. even if it were true, the recordable variations are so miniscule, who would notice within their life time? i mean really?

however, the impact on western economies from GW initiatives would essentially plunge us back into the 19th century. its regressive! its purely a means of social control, plain and simple. the statist, collectivist mindset has no regard for liberty, GW theory is social engineering, plain and simple

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
no single person within their lifespan could discern a shift in climate change.

I can cast no stones as I have said things just as insipid in my own time on this planet.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:48 AM

Hello,

Sometimes, a problem can truthfully exist (Terrorism, for instance.)

And this problem can be used as an impetus to implement changes to a society.

Often, changes made in the name of solving a problem are actually implemented for undisclosed reasons far apart from the stated ones.

Universally, the more emotional you can make someone feel about a problem, the more willingly and un-critically they will embrace proposed solutions to that problem. (Say, curtailing Civil Liberties in exchange for Safety.)

I am cautious when people tell me that I have to do {A} (something they want me to do) in order to avoid {B} (something bad that I wouldn't want.)

Fortunately, I don't need to believe in Global Warming, and neither do any of you.

Fuel Economy, Toxin Reduction, and Cheap Abundant Renewable Energy are their own rewards. These are rewards we can encourage and implement for their own merits, without bringing in the specter of Global Warming, and certainly without imposing our will on other countries.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Fortunately, I don't need to believe in Global Warming, and neither do any of you.

But that won't stop the partisan bickering, Tony.

But I'm with ya.

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:11 AM

I do not agree with this documentary.

I have seen no hard evidence that global warming exists.

The most compelling evidence of warming we have is melting ice in various regions of the world. While this demonstrates regional warming, it is a leap to generalize the observance to GLOBAL warming.

Global warming, as we know it, is entirely defined by computer modeling. They don't take average temperatures across the globe, and then average them over the year, and then compare averages year to year to find a significant increase. No....

Quote:

This is what really happens. Climate scientists take readings from weather stations and feed the data into a computer model that adjusts for all sorts of variables, including number of wet days, cloud cover, sunshine, diurnal temperature range, etc. Using computer modeling, they divide the world into 5x5 grids, and fill the boxes with known data and interpolate unknown data. They run the model for a while and come up with a single mean for a 30 year period, usually 1961 - 1990. This mean is called a climatology. The GISS site discusses the Elusive Absolute SATs (Surfact Air Temperatures):

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?

A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com/2008/11/elusive-standard-deviatio
n.html

In other words, climate researchers invent something called a climatology, which they claim to represent the global average over a 30 year period. Climatologies are computed by modeling, which is basically a "Sim Climate" of sorts. But as anyone who has played sim games knows, the output depends entirely on the subjective understanding and oversimplifications of the programmer, and rarely reflects the complexities of reality.

Any conclusions derived from "Sim Climate," such as "The earth is warming," should be considered as a hypothesis at best. It is NOT a fact.

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I have seen no hard evidence that global warming exists.

So, you're like, what? 20 years old?

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
I’ve always felt that the global warming issue was the excuse Big Petroleum companies were touting to the major governments in order to raise gas prices through the roof.

The big push in global warming legislation is to require "carbon sequestration." Dept of Energy scientists are getting huge amounts of money to research this. Carbon sequestration is capturing carbon dioxide waste and sending it anywhere other than the atmosphere. Surprisingly, Big Petroleum is extremely supportive of global warming legislation. On second thought though, it is not so surprising after all.

Carbon sequestration requires energy. More energy means more fuel consumption. If one liter of fuel produces X amount of carbon dioxide, but 2 liters of fuel captures that 2X amount and reroutes it into the ground (for example), who makes out in all this? Why, the fuel suppliers of course.

It is a swindle after all.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:29 AM

@ CrevanReaver: I have never ever heard anything to indicate that studies are concluding that solar cycles are causing the current period of warming. Technically, going by the geological record and the Milankovitch cycle, for the last ten thousand years, we should have been going further into an ice age.

Also, I'd recommend looking at the chemistry of burning carbon fuels. I can guarantee to you that CO2 is being produced, and it's being produced by human activities.

As for humans being unable to effect the atmosphere... We're talking changes in concentrations on the order of parts per million, and yet, considering the volume the chemicals are going into, that's a lot of tonnage being belched out into the air. And I can tell you it's not nothing.

Remember the Ozone Hole? CFCs are far from the largest volume of chemicals we were putting into the atmosphere back then. Did they have an effect? Well, there's blind Rabbits on the Cape of Good Hope because of UV from the Antarctic Ozone hole.

But in the 1980s, aerosol industries complied with recommendations of scientists, and switched to HCFCs to pressurize their fluids. On account of the hydrogen in the chemical formula allowing the chemical to dissolve in water droplets, HCFCs have a lower residence time in the atmosphere (a few months compared to 5 years). This means that CFCs no longer are reaching Antarctica, and are no longer contributing to a breakdown of Ozone in the winter months. We've started to see the concentration numbers in the Ozone hole begin to climb back up. So not ONLY were people able to cause a problem on the atmospheric level, we were able to mediate it.

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

It is a swindle after all.

Swindles are built on realities, CTS.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
there's blind Rabbits on the Cape of Good Hope because of UV from the Antarctic Ozone hole.

They were paid to act blind by special interests, I conjure.

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Swindles are built on realities, CTS.

Swindles are built on magic tricks, cons, illusions of reality.

All lies have some truth in them. Swindles are built on conclusions that aren't true, based loosely on a few facts that are true.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My point is: it's REAL, and we can't deny it IS happening.

What is your basis for believing it is real? Because a lot of experts say so? What if in a few generations, the popular trend reverses and experts then say it isn't real. Would you then believe it isn't real?

I'm not targeting you specifically. I am just saying most people believe it by reason of authority, because they believe a lot of people more knowledgeable than they are believe it. Most people have never looked at the evidence themselves--just the conclusions of authorities they trust. That is what GW boils down to. Trust. Faith. It's become a religion, with climate scientists as priests. Computer modeling is the new oracle, predicting the tides of good and evil, reinforced by signs from the Gods: anything from melting ice to increase diseases. Skeptics are seen as heretics, condemning the world to a special, very warm hell.

Quote:

Pollution should be addressed just for it's toxic effect on us, if for no other reason.

I am all for addressing pollution. But that shouldn't lend support for global warming, let alone manmade warming.

--------------------------
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateRepor
t

Freeman Dyson Takes On
The Climate Establishment

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:51 AM

Actually, I'd say I've probably looked at this issue a lot. And I agree with the experts.

Even if you take out the computer models and all the uncertainty about just how the climate is changing... And if you take out all the smokescreen from the corporate interests, scientists have built up a pretty good case. In fact, I've known one of the scientists who was studying acidification of the ocean, and he is not the kind of guy to just be trying to put forward an agenda, whether it's on behalf of an increasingly controlling government or energy companies wanting to manipulate the market.

Do I think Global Warming is being sensationalized? Well, yes, probably about as much as the Ozone Holes were. But that didn't mean they weren't a problem.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
@ CrevanReaver: I have never ever heard anything to indicate that studies are concluding that solar cycles are causing the current period of warming.

In fact the Sun is undergoing a period of low activity.

CUDA77

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
Now that the socialists are in power in America more people need to see this documentary.

The socialists are in power? Since when? I know I certainly voted for Brian Moore but I'm pretty sure he got flattened in the election. All I see in power is a bunch of hypocrites and liars who claim to have a liberal agenda but once they get voted in show their true conservative colors.

That's the one thing I can at least respect about the Republicans. They do say exactly what they intend on doing. They don't lie like the Democrats. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats in America are Republicans who say nicer things than their opponents to get elected. And that anyone can think that Obama & Co. are socialists is so damn laughable. The only, and I mean ONLY candidate that had even remote socialist leanings was Dennis Kucinich (my personal pick in the primaries) but he sadly dropped out.

Please, take as much time researching socialism and Obama's platform as you seem to have done on global warming and you will come to the realization that Obama is far more like GWB than Karl Marx. Sorry for getting off on the tangent.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, I'd say I've probably looked at this issue a lot. And I agree with the experts.

Which experts? Because the experts don't all agree....

My husband is a research scientist working at the Dept of Energy, where everyone pays lip service to GW. But he doesn't subscribe to it, and he doesn't know any of his colleagues who does. But hey, that's where the money is, so they all go along. There is a difference between experts who don't believe it but don't want to rock the GW boat, and experts who aggressively push the GW agenda, and experts who deny GW, and experts who question the validity of the data.

No matter one's position on GW, one can always find experts to support that particular position. It's called confirmation bias. One finds the evidence to support a position that has already been chosen. That is why "appealing to authority" is one of the most popular rationalizations for one's position. Science is the careful practice of weeding out both appeals to authority and confirmation bias.

For me, the default position is business as usual. If someone wants to make a case for GW, they have to present evidence, hard scientific evidence. So far I haven't even seen hard scientific evidence that the earth is warming. Climatologies are intelligent, educated speculation, but speculation nonetheless. No one knows, with any certainty that meets scientific rigors, what the annual mean of the earth's surface temperature is, let alone knows if it is rising.

And if you have looked at the methodology and data for determining climatologies and think they are scientifically valid and representative of the earth's true mean of hugely variant surface temperatures for a 30 year period, please explain why you think they are more than speculation.

--------------------------
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:05 PM

The Earth has warmed on average 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last half century. The above linked "documentary" even ACKNOWLEDGES this. Furthermore, as that is an average global temperature only, temperatures have have been twenty degrees higher, on average, in arctic and antarctic climates.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html

Look, no offense, but the DoE has ENERGY as it's concern, not the climate. I'm really not surprised to hear that your husband and his colleagues don't think global warming exists, or is a problem.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The Earth has warmed on average 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last half century.

And how do you know this? Because the experts you linked to say so?

Where's the real life data? (As opposed to fake, sim data.)

Let me put it another way. Where is the absolute data, that is data based from actual thermometer measurements? See, all the links you sent, and all the links I've looked at, show relative data, data relative to the flatline 0 degrees, which is the computer-modeling derived climatology. It is all artificially adjusted and computed, not the actual measurements. The thing about adjusting and computing data is that you can adjust them to whatever you want. Sort of defeats the purpose of science. If you trust their judgement, expertise, and integrity, then you can trust their adjustments. But science is supposed to be NOT about trust.

It doesn't matter if my husband is an energy scientist or a climate scientist. The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend. And I have seen none either. If you have seen absolute data that supports the above quoted conclusion, please provide it.

Thanks.

--------------------------
The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't
misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know.
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

GRIPPER

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:42 PM

I always find amusement in the belief hel dby som epeople that the climate has NEVER changed in th epast,and that somehow a)WE are reponsible for preferring to liv ein this millenium,and b)That th eidea of a climatic shift i s ALWAYS a bad thing....hey,didn't Greenland used to be ,you know;green?

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Where's the real life data? (As opposed to fake, sim data.)

Another thing scientists aren't supposed to do is say data is only real if it fits their preconceptions.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:54 PM

I just edited the post to explain what I mean by "real" data. I mean absolute data.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And how do you know this? Because the experts you linked to say so?

Where's the real life data? (As opposed to fake, sim data.)

It doesn't matter if my husband is an energy scientist or a climate scientist. The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend. And I have seen none either. If you have seen data that supports the above conclusion, please provide it.

Thanks.

I just LINKED you the hard data. The graphs you saw were not projected climate sims, but 200 years worth of temperature measurements, taken monthly and averaged for a year, and then averaged with (in the past 50 years) over 7,000 different monitoring stations at different locations AROUND THE WORLD. Global Temperature Average. 0.6 Degrees Celsius.

I am not just trusting the experts, canttakethesky. I am not a grant-based scientist, but I am an environmental scientist, with a heavy geology, chemistry, hydrology, and atmospheric science background. I got my degree at the University of Utah's Department of Geology, and if you didn't know, Utah is a fairly damn conservative state, all considering. I don't really enjoy hearing that 5 years of stuff I studied is being dismissed as myself just being a sheep.

Okay, how's about this: why do you think the DoE has more expertise in global warming data than National Air And Ocean? BOTH are government agencies. You're choosing to take one of their perspectives over the other because your husband is at one, okay. But does that make the conclusions of the other branch wrong?

I'm just saying, no offense to you, your husband, or his colleagues, but America is facing an Energy Crisis. And I can understand how people working in the department of energy might categorize global/national danger differently than myself. I can even see how people at the DoE might consider global warming as a THREAT to their efforts to resolve what they see as the greater crisis.

But maybe you and your husband shouldn't be so quick to just dismiss global warming. Not being convinced by the data is not evidence that the data doesn't exist, nor is it a judgment upon those who ARE convinced by the data.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 11:07 PM

Actually, no, Greenland was never green, except maybe several million years ago when it was part of Pangea. Or Gondwanaland. Or Rodinia. But in the recent past, for as long as we have ice data to figure out what temperatures have been, which go back a few ten thousand years, no.

Greenland was called Greenland as a marketing ploy. The viking group that discovered it was hoping they could encourage farmers to travel there.

However, climate change does NOT say climate change hasn't existed in the past, only that present, human activity is causing unprecedented change.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I just LINKED you the hard data. The graphs you saw were not projected climate sims, but 200 years worth of temperature measurements, taken monthly and averaged for a year, and then averaged with (in the past 50 years) over 7,000 different monitoring stations at different locations AROUND THE WORLD. Global Temperature Average. 0.6 Degrees Celsius.

Uh...no. The data you linked to me is an adjusted computer modeled summary, comparing various measurements to a statistic simulated artifact called a "climatology." There is no absolute surface average temperature for the globe. It doesn't exist. What is that 0.6 degrees celcius? It is a RELATIVE change in temperature from the climatology. What was it before, and what did it change to? Do you know? No you don't. Because the absolute measurements don't exist.

Quote:
I don't really enjoy hearing that 5 years of stuff I studied is being dismissed as myself just being a sheep.

Then show me data that hasn't been adjusted by people you trust.

Quote:
Okay, how's about this: why do you think the DoE has more expertise in global warming data than National Air And Ocean?

I don't think that. See, I don't think in terms of expertise. So I don't compare which has more expertise, and who I should trust more. I trust the data, period. If it is not there, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

Quote:
I can even see how people at the DoE might consider global warming as a THREAT to their efforts to resolve what they see as the greater crisis.

Oh, no! You miss understand me. They all embrace GW! They don't believe it, but they sure pay it lip service--cause that is where the money is, you see? They want money just like the next person.

Let me put it this way. If you are handing out huge research grants to investigate the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lots of people are going to send you research proposals to investigate it. After all, why not? It COULD exist. I'm not going to go on record to say it's all hogwash. I'm going to talk about how important investigating the FSM is and how my methods are going to help solve your problem. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in it, see? It's a job.

Quote:
Not being convinced by the data is not evidence that the data doesn't exist, nor is it a judgment upon those who ARE convinced by the data.

You are absolutely right here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I am not saying GW doesn't exist. I will never say that. I am saying thus far, there is no hard evidence that GW exists. Big difference.

I also make no judgement on the PEOPLE who find existing evidence compelling. You want to believe in God, or the FSM, or GW, or whatever it is you believe, that is fine with me. I don't think less of you as a person.

What I am judging is conclusions of GW themselves as unscientific. I judge the fallacy of hasty generalization in climate research. I judge the fallacy of calling appealing to authority, "science." I also judge the offensiveness when people want to legislate their faith in "experts" onto me.

I apologize that I have been inept at making a distinction between criticizing a body of conclusions I see as an unmerited farce, and criticizing people who subscribe to those conclusions. I don't believe the tenets of hinduism for example, and I might severely criticize the core beliefs of that religion, but I don't have anything against hindus.

GW, as it stands, is like a religion to me. My only beef is when they try to pass for a science, and when they try to force me to pay for that religion. I have nothing against those who believe in that religion, personally. I also mean no offense, personally.

-----------------
What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?
-- Henry David Thoreau

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:47 AM

I posted a link earlier that in turn, linked to this. But in case you didn't click on that link, here it is directly:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

It explains why there are no absolute surface air temperatures, and why there is no such thing as an annual global mean surface temperature, and why the enormous variance of temperatures throughout the globe, throughout the year is neither here nor there for climate researchers. It clearly explains that when you look at what you consider to be "hard data," you are really looking at adjusted data compared to other adjusted data.

When data is adjusted, the conclusions leave the realm of the objective and become subjective. It leaves science, and becomes opinion, or faith.

--------------------------
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
-- Ashley Montague

I might add, GWists have certainty without any proof as well.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:42 PM

It's really not simulated data. It's measured data. The reason the numbers on the right side range from -0.6 to 0.6 isn't because they're computer simulated, but because some reference temperature has been subtracted from the measured temperatures, in order to give a better idea of measured change. This is explained in the description on the link.

But, clearly you don't agree with that. If you don't agree with the graphed measurements, I believe there was a link to the numbers on that same link, I'll go check later. If not, they'll be easy enough to find. The site's down and I'm leaving to go on a hike soon.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:47 PM

In your link: that's absolute surface temperature. Not average measured surface temperature. Okay. When you measure temperature, it's in a constant state of flux. It's a bit like a car that's accelerating (changing velocity). Say you measure the car's velocity twice while it's accelerating, and you want to find it's absolute velocity it was going at a certain time between those two times of measurement. The absolute velocity is not going to be the average of two measurements equidistant and time apart, because acceleration is a curve. So instead, you have to integrate to find the absolute velocity at a particular time. A good example of this analogy in terms of temperature are the Newtonian Cooling Differential Equations. And yes, they are a pain, and easiest to do on computers because the sheer number of factors involved in them are ridiculous.

However. While the absolute temperature is only a snapshot, you can still take multiple measurements of temperature in different places and at different times and find an average temperature, and it's a valid measurement. Just like you can can calculate the average velocity of a car over some distance and time, regardless of the acceleration (change).

As such, average temperature as I linked to still fits within possibility, and is also a reasonable measurement, even considering the link you posted.

EDIT: Bah, NOAA's server is still down for whatever reason. I'll check later tonight for the numbers link, and barring that, tomorrow.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:09 AM

Quote:
I don't think that. See, I don't think in terms of expertise. So I don't compare which has more expertise, and who I should trust more. I trust the data, period. If it is not there, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

I guess I was being unclear myself, here. I was not saying one organization or other has less expertise, I was saying different agencies in the government have different ways of thinking.

When I posted the link to NOAA, you continued to abscribe to a perspective that you claimed was common to the DoE. Hence my question.

But I understand where you're coming from now, and apologize for the confusion.

On a side note, still no damn connection to that page I just linked. Isn't that just the way of things, right when when you need something...

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's really not simulated data. It's measured data. The reason the numbers on the right side range from -0.6 to 0.6 isn't because they're computer simulated, but because some reference temperature has been subtracted from the measured temperatures, in order to give a better idea of measured change. This is explained in the description on the link.

It's simulated data mixed with some measured data. All simulations do that--use measured data as input for the simulated output. That reference temperature you are talking about? That is simulated data called a "climatology." It serves as the standard ZERO baseline for comparing annual global mean temperatures, which is calculated by using computer modeling of some measured data mixed with extrapolated data. It is explained in the link I sent.

It doesn't give a better idea of the measured change. What it does is make an otherwise insignificant change of measured data appear significant by adding computer simulated adjustments.

Let me rephrase my question this way.

What WAS the global mean surface air temperature last year? What was it a hundred years ago? In degrees celcius? What is the standard error, that is, plus or minus how many degrees celcius?

The most common absolute temperature used to estimate a climatology is 14 degrees celcius. So let's say 100 years ago, the annual global mean was 14 degrees celcius. Now, it is 0.6 degrees higher: 14.6 degrees celcius. Consider the two following scenarios.

1898: 14 degrees celcius ± 0.5 degrees
2008: 14.6 degrees celcius ± 0.5 degrees
Wow, that looks like a really meaningful change.

OR...

1898: 14 degrees celcius ± 10 degrees
2008: 14.6 degrees celcius ± 10 degrees.
Wow, that looks like a random chance fluctuation that is completely meaningless.

You see? The standard error is everything in interpreting a mean.

What computer modeling does is it erases the huge variance in temperatures throughout the globe, throughout the year. This erases the huge standard error involved and artificially creates a teeny, weeny standard error to make the smallest change significant. They use computer adjustments to artificially create the first scenario.

--------------

As they say: There are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:15 AM

Right, I understand you're waiting for me to give you the numbers and errors. I'm waiting for the link to start working again so I can look for them.

However, even if the reference temperature were never subtracted from the measured data, the measured data is still intact. The subtraction of the reference temperature does not remove the change illustrated, unless there were some mischief going on with the errors of the measurements as you suggested.

And let me just say, point blank, that measurement error exceeding one degree Celsius, let alone ten degrees Celsius, would be very unlikely, seeing as how even a mercury thermometer measures to at least one degree Celsius of accuracy.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:22 AM

Wow. A lot of big words floatin' around this thread.
It's getting warmer. Is that too simple?

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So instead, you have to integrate to find the absolute velocity at a particular time. A good example of this analogy in terms of temperature are the Newtonian Cooling Differential Equations. And yes, they are a pain, and easiest to do on computers because the sheer number of factors involved in them are ridiculous.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what they are doing when they calculate a climatology. A climatology is not "average measured surface temperature." They are not trying to find an absolute in constant change using complex calculus and differential equations. They are trying to find an average, given complex weights of different factors. They are saying, you can just compare averages if one weather station is at a higher altitude than the other, or has more dry days than the other, or has more cloud cover than the other. You have to compensate and weight those factors. You have to guess what the weather station might say, had it been at the same altitude with the same cloud cover and dry days as the other.

What's the difference? Subjectivity. The calculations you discussed are fairly objective. The way a climatology is calculated suggests a large amount of subjectivity--that is, for science.

Quote:
However. While the absolute temperature is only a snapshot, you can still take multiple measurements of temperature in different places and at different times and find an average temperature, and it's a valid measurement.

I agree completely. And if that is what they did, simply measured and averaged, and found a statistically significant change in mean temperatures over the years, I would be much more eager to jump on the GW bandwagon.

BTW, I wanted to say how much I am enjoying conversing with you. Though we disagree, and you even feel disparaged by me at times (with my apologies because that was not my intention), you have been uncommonly civil and intelligent in your arguments. Thank you.

Again, I apologize if I come across as an arrogant ass. I am a bit short on social skills when I am taking on an argument by the horns, as most folks here on RWED can attest. I mean well.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:46 AM

I wasn't referring to the reference temperature when I wrote about the difference between absolute temperatures. I wrote it in regards to the measured temperature data, which consists of a lot of measurements taken that have then been averaged.

I think I keep misunderstanding what you're saying. Go me. :/

But, I now understand you were posting that link in response to the use of a reference temperature.

As for arrogance, no, I haven't really felt that from you. I almost thought *I* was being arrogant by posting that explanation about absolute versus average temperature. I was going to leave it out, but I wasn't sure just what your background here is.

And I also have not meant to offend you... Although I have been making some assumptions about where you're coming from that have possibly been unfounded and unfair, and I'm not proud of myself for jumping to those conclusions. I'm sorry for that.

But I think civility in any debate is important, because otherwise both sides of the argument undermine themselves. I think this is particularly true in a scientific debate where impartiality and sound judgment are key. Everyone means well in an argument, if we weren't concerned we would not argue.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:59 AM

Gave up on NOAA, went to NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

The numbers given are in 0.01 degrees Celsius, and the error is implicit at +/- 0.001 degrees Celsius. They are given as the difference from the climatological temperature that you say is subjective, however, the temperatures can be converted back to their original, unadjusted measured temperature by adding the subtracted temperature, 14C.

The data has been plotted to produce a similar graph, as seen here.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

The following link explains where the numbers came from: I used the temperatures from meteorlogical stations only. Temperatures for a month, and then a year, are averaged from many measurements from the record of the particular meteorology station. Statistically, the only adjustment I can find is that significant outliers beyond two standard deviations have been removed.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wow. A lot of big words floatin' around this thread.
It's getting warmer. Is that too simple?

Don't worry about it Chris, my head hurts too. ._. I normally spend my time just typing up reports, and I've had to dig through the old rusty memory for a lot of this.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And let me just say, point blank, that measurement error exceeding one degree Celsius, let alone ten degrees Celsius, would be very unlikely, seeing as how even a mercury thermometer measures to at least one degree Celsius of accuracy.

I don't mean measurement error. I mean standard error or standard deviation of averages.

For example, if you are averaging the ages of all the kids in one family, and the ages are
2, 5, 8, the average is 5. The standard deviation would be 1. So the average would be expressed as 5 ± 1.

If the ages of the kids were 4, 5, 6, the average is still 5. But the standard deviation would be 0.3. The average would be expressed as 5 ± 0.3.

This shows the range of data is tighter around the average, meaning the average is a very good representation of the range of ages, and therefore very likely to be accurate. In the former example, the opposite is true. The range is larger, the number 5 doesn't represent either 2 nor 8 very well, and is more likely to be inaccurate.

When scientists talk about averages, they are obliged to put that average in context. How tight is the range of data? They usually use one standard deviation as the ± error. There are roughly 6 SDs, 3 below the average, 3 above the average, and the average in the middle. For example, SATs have an average of 500, with an SD of 100. SAT's range from 200 to 800 (3 x 100 points below and above the average).

Now let's look at global temperatures. I think it is reasonable to assume the range of temperatures throughout the earth fall in between at least say, -15 degrees C (5 degrees F) and 45 degrees C (113 degrees F). Since this range barely covers the range in the USA, let alone throughout the planet, I'll assume it is narrow enough.

Even at this uncharacteristically narrow range of temperatures, we are looking at 30 degrees C below the mean of 15 degrees C, and 30 degrees C above. That would make the standard deviation roughly 10 degrees C.

So if you say, the annual global mean temperature is 15 degrees C, ± 10 degrees C, you would be describing the range of data you used to calculate the mean of 15.

Given that my example was unreasonably narrow, I would be very surprised if the real range of temperature data doesn't yield a much, much larger standard deviation, or standard error.

Of course, you can try to make this error smaller by averaging averages of averages of averages. But each time you average, you are supposed to carry the original range and error with you. It is called propagation of error. What climate researchers do, in a roundabout way with computer modeling, is treat averages like they are raw, measured data rather than statistical artifacts--that is, they do not propagate the error like they are supposed to. So that is why many people think the averages they show are measured data, as opposed to artificial data.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:23 AM

Hmm. I'd most often encountered reporting error in my works. I have done propagations of error, but I find myself unfamiliar with using standard deviation as a measurement of error. I've more often used standard deviation as a means of analysis.

In that case, I'm not sure that propagated error is given. All I know is that they're reporting numbers to 0.001 Celsius, which I took to be their statement of error.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Yes. Note where they say: "sources: GHCN 1880-05/2009 (meteorological stations only), using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment."

Not exactly unadjusted, is it? These numbers are all outputs of computer modeling (or as I like to call it, Sim Climate). They put in known measurements from weather stations, take out numbers they don't like, adjust the rest for "homogeneity," extrapolate into areas in which they have no measurements, and come up with an "average."

Quote:
the error is implicit at +/- 0.001 degrees Celsius.

I couldn't find this, nor how they came up with this "error." It looks like the kind of error that comes from averaging averages of averages of averages, not the kind of error that comes from raw, unadjusted measurement data. See my previous post on propagation of error.

Quote:
the temperatures can be converted back to their original, unadjusted measured temperature by adding the subtracted temperature, 14C.

See first paragraph.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In that case, I'm not sure that propagated error is given. All I know is that they're reporting numbers to 0.001 Celsius, which I took to be their statement of error.

I see. I am not looking for accuracy, the kind that comes from interpreting significant figures. I am looking for the standard deviation of the raw temperature data, as a mean of analyzing and interpreting the significance of a 0.6 deg C change in the averages of averages of averages over a hundred years.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:36 AM

In statistics, don't you normally remove outliers? I took it to mean numbers outside of two standard deviations.

Anyway, you asked for the numbers, I provided. Up to you, as ever, whether those numbers are convincing or not.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's getting warmer. Is that too simple?

it depends on your purpose. If you are talking about politics or religion, simple is just fine. If you are talking about science, you need to be much, much more precise.

How much is it getting warmer, and is that extra warmth just random chance fluctuation or is it a significant change? Is it getting warmer in all areas or only most areas or only certain areas of the globe? Are these warmer areas representative of the entire planet, not just laterally on the surface, but vertically in the atmosphere? Are there any areas that are cooling? Are the methods for calculating warmth valid and accurate and reliable, or do they tend to be biased one way or another?

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:49 AM

Also, the main page of the links explains the adjustments made.

Quote:
The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

The urban areas, they say, are averaged with nearby rural areas because monitoring stations in urban areas tend to have consistently higher temperatures.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In statistics, don't you normally remove outliers? I took it to mean numbers outside of two standard deviations.

There is no right or wrong answer here. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Removing outliers reduces variance, and increases the significance of small changes that otherwise would not be significant. It also unskews data if the outliers are very rare. Either way, it constitutes an "adjustment." That is the beauty and peril of statistics. You can adjust it to say whatever you want it to say.

Quote:
Anyway, you asked for the numbers, I provided. Up to you, as ever, whether those numbers are convincing or not.

Yes, you did good research. I've actually seen these numbers before, but none of them provides a standard deviation by which the mean can be interpreted in context.

When I asked you for them, I meant to make a point. Absolute SATs don't exist, the SDs don't exist. The numbers you provided were not what I asked for, and you will never find them, because they don't exist.

What would convince me is if I see absolute SATs that have NOT been adjusted or calculated with computer modeling (raw weather station averages), with an honest-to-goodness propagation of error that reflects the humoungous range of the earth's temperatures, showing a statistically significant change from year to year.

Anything short of that is religioin, entertainment, and speculation.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Also, the main page of the links explains the adjustments made.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I appreciate the fact that the numbers on these charts are relatively untainted. :)

You know, I don't understand why they don't use the absolute temperatures in comparison. Why don't they just say, in 1881, the Jan to Dec Annual mean was 13.89 degrees celcius, with an SD of X (propagating the error from the monthly and daily averages); in 2008, the Jan to Dec Annual Mean was 14.55 degrees celcius, with an SD of X. Why do they make you compare everything to that darned artificial climatology? It just makes them look like they are trying to manipulate data to inflate significance.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:28 AM

Well, I can't blame you for being skeptical.

But I can't exactly say that I think that those managing the temperature databases are intentionally hiding their standard deviations for their number sets or the raw data, nor that they are using the data to try to achieve a predetermined result.

I take them at face value when they describe how they have adjusted the data; I have no evidence to suppose that they are hiding some of their adjusting factors.

If there is a problem with the models, then it may very well be the issue of propagated error. But I also have no evidence to suppose they are perpetrating fraud. Motive, say, for government grants for research is something that might throw suspicion upon them, but is not directly condemning.

I find four different databases, three national and one in the UK, producing four very similar looking trends in temperature data very convincing that there is a statistically significant global average temperature difference from the 1880s, especially considering that they're using different methods of statistical selection, averaging, and analysis.

However, I do think there may be a substantial amount of fear-mongering and sensationalization in the alarm-blowers in regards to global warming, and that a lot of that must be taken with a grain of salt. I also think that the climate change models are far from perfect. I do not think we're really going to be able to predict how climate will change.

I only think that there has been some global warming, that human activity is the common factor for the otherwise inexplicable warming, and that I think that this will cause some climate change, which we've possibly begun already to feel the effects of. By which I mean, the documented glacial melt, which we can measure unambiguously.

I also think more intense storms may be the result of warmer temperatures, and we may have experienced some of these storms, but this will be difficult to measure empirically. Similarly, I think the droughts in Africa may be exacerbated by the effects of global warming and climate change, but again, that's hard to measure.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have no evidence to suppose that they are hiding some of their adjusting factors.

I have no evidence that they are hiding anything. But adjusting factors when you can present straight data without adjusting is bad science. Bad science gives the appearance of manipulation for predetermined results, whether or not it is true.

Quote:
...four very similar looking trends in temperature data very convincing that there is a statistically significant global average temperature difference from the 1880s, ...

I don't disagree about the trends. I disagree about the statistically significance. Until they submit SD data, which they can't because they never calculated a straight average, I have no basis to conclude that 13.89 to 14.55 is statistically significant, when earth's temperatures range from -89 deg C to 57 deg C. Statistical significance in context of this enormous temperature variance is simply not reasonable or intuitive.

They will say, we're not concerned about temperatures. We are concerned about climate, which has no variance. My response is this: climate has no variance because you are throwing it all away, and then treating climate like it's raw data. That is bad science at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Either way, it is not scientific enough to declare as fact or truth, which everyone likes to do.

As an aside, personally, I believe global surface warming exists and is very likely anthropogenic (though not CO2, but population growth, thermal energy waste, and radiation waste). I just have no proof of it. It is entirely speculation on my part, just like it is on their part. It's all science fiction, emphasis on the fiction.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 6:13 AM

Quote:
I don't disagree about the trends. I disagree about the statistically significance. Until they submit SD data, which they can't because they never calculated a straight average, I have no basis to conclude that 13.89 to 14.55 is statistically significant, when earth's temperatures range from -89 deg C to 57 deg C. Statistical significance in context of this enormous temperature variance is simply not reasonable or intuitive.

True enough. I wonder if I could e-mail them? It would most likely be ignored, but maybe they might include information on standard deviation and propagation of error if I asked nicely.

Quote:
They will say, we're not concerned about temperatures. We are concerned about climate, which has no variance. My response is this: climate has no variance because you are throwing it all away, and then treating climate like it's raw data. That is bad science at best, and disingenuous at worst.

I'm concerned about temperatures, because I think they might drive climate. However, (I think this is what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong) I do think that climate can vary from their models, and I don't think we can predict it. And I also don't think climate itself can be treated like a variable all of it's own, and stuck into a complicated equation to spit out a description of how it will change.

Well... I should get to bed. About midnight where I'm at, and the past couple of nights I've been getting to bed at one and getting up early (for a weekend) which could screw up my sleep schedule.

I'll check back in tomorrow. :)

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
... I do think that climate can vary from their models, and I don't think we can predict it. And I also don't think climate itself can be treated like a variable all of it's own, and stuck into a complicated equation to spit out a description of how it will change.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Computer models are not good for scientific predictions or conclusions. Reality is way too complicated for that.

--------------------------
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 28, 2009 7:35 AM

Quote:
The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend.

And your husband is the only scientist around?

Quote:
Computer models are not good for scientific predictions or conclusions. Reality is way too complicated for that.

So any model... say, about the earth's gravitation... is too complicated? Models are no good? Can't get to the moon because computer models are too unreliable?

-----------------
The biggest problem with the whole "sun is the driver of climate changes" is that we have been (for quite some time) in a significant solar minimum. The insolation (amount of light hitting the earth) has decreased by about 25%.
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1193&page=85
And we ARE in a sunspot lull, and have been since roughly the beginning of 2005.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
So clearly someone needs to go back and look at their theories.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And your husband is the only scientist around?

To reiterate (since you may not have read all of my posts), my point was scientists disagree on GW; there is no consensus and there are "experts" on both sides of the debate. As an example, no scientist we personally know, including all the ones at my hub's DOE lab, subscribe to the notion that there is scientific data supporting GW. My "scientist" comment, in context of the long conversation between Bytemite and myself, was that my hub disagrees not because of differences in energy priorities but on scientific grounds.

Quote:
So any model... say, about the earth's gravitation... is too complicated? Models are no good?

No, computer models are used all the time, particularly in engineering. In fact, my hub uses computer modeling himself extensively in his work.

I apologize my statement was poorly worded. Let me clarify. Computer models (aka numerical simulations) are basically speculation, and speculation is used in science all the time, to generate hypotheses and to explain observations. But the cardinal requirement of science is experimentation. When numerical simulations / speculation are used to supplement and complement experimentation, they are very useful.

When numerical simulation / speculation is the main source of predictions, to substitute for experimentation--well, no science is being done. Speculation, no matter how educated and intelligent, isn't sufficient to stand in for actual scientific experimentation. Because speculation itself is not scientific.

--------------------------
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:19 AM

Quote:
When numerical simulation / speculation is the main source of predictions, to substitute for experimentation--well, no science is being done. Speculation, no matter how educated and intelligent, isn't sufficient to stand in for actual scientific experimentation. Because speculation itself is not scientific.

But since climate cannot be experimented on (at least not in any controllable way) then the ONLY way to understand the phenomenon is thru modeling.

You model a process. It predicts certain events. You check the model against the actuality, then figure out where you think it went wrong, tweak it, and check it again. Ideally, your model comes closer and closer to reality as it begins to account for more and more processes and interactions. So understanding complex phenomenon which cannot be reduced to lab-scale experiments, like regional air pollution, climate, cosmology, ecology etc. often depends on models.

I also reiterate that the sun has been in a distinct LULL for the past several years, as observed both by sunspots and insolation. There is some speculation that we're entering a Maunder minimum (that idea is also based on a model since we obviously cannot experiment with the sun). There is also speculation in the opposite direction: that this minimum is only temporary, and that we'll soon experience a solar event the like of which the modern world has not yet seen. (Imagine half of the world's power lines acting like big antennae and sending a frying surge through all of our transformers and big industrial motors. Imagine half of our communication, weather, and positioning satellites knocked out in one fell swoop. But that's another story!)

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

BADKARMA00

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I said it years ago; it's a natural trend being hurried somewhat by man. That's all. And if all the man-made pollution stopped cold tomorrow, it'd still happen.
My point is: it's REAL, and we can't deny it IS happening. But anyone who wants to debate the cause(s), feel free.

Pollution should be addressed just for it's toxic effect on us, if for no other reason.

The laughing Chrisisall

-------------------

Well put is all

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:15 AM

I have my own doubts as to how global temperature measurements are made and calculated, and I certainly doubt that ~100 years of barely reliable thermometer data tell any kind of dependable story. Also, I've found climate modelers less than forthcoming as to the actual details of how they weigh their measurements and carry out their calculations. (Try emailing one yourself and asking for details. I'm a geophysicist, I've played in that field. It's messy.)

But here's where I finally found a few solid data-based ideas about climate change:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html

Some of his later chapters are rather silly, but Ruddiman's description of ice core data, climate modeling, and the history of human agriculture are pretty convincing. A small sample: methane levels and solar radiation.

This is methane levels measured from Vostok ice cores plotted against incident solar radiation. See the correspondence? More sun on the northern land masses = more methane in the atmosphere = hotter ("hotter" is not an assumption, but is found from oxygen 18 isotope levels in the ice cores. I won't try explaining - read the book!)

Right now we're in the minimum of solar radiation on the far right of the graph. hmmm... but what's happening with the methane level in the last ~8,000 years? The last solar maximum brought to an end the most recent ice age 10,000 years ago, but the methane levels are doing something they've never done before.

So yes, the sun and our non-perfect orbit force earth's climate to change. But why the difference this time around?

Hint: ask yourself - where does methane come from, and what is new on the earth in the last 10,000 years? Ruddiman puts out a theory, along with similar arguments regarding CO2 levels.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Some of his later chapters are rather silly, but Ruddiman's description of ice core data, climate modeling, and the history of human agriculture are pretty convincing. A small sample: methane levels and solar radiation.

Interesting! Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I have no time to read this book, to tell the truth. Not right now. Could you give us more than a hint? Maybe a synopsis of his observation and hypothesis?

Thanks.

--------------------------
Television is like a really, really good screen saver.
-- Bill Machrone

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You model a process. It predicts certain events. You check the model against the actuality, then figure out where you think it went wrong, tweak it, and check it again. Ideally, your model comes closer and closer to reality as it begins to account for more and more processes and interactions.

I appreciate the limits reality puts on climate research. I really do.

But having limits doesn't grant you a free pass to call non-experimental research "science," and to claim the same amount of certainty in your findings as you would with experimental research.

If you're limited to fancy speculations, then limit your conclusions to the level of certainty that comes with fancy speculations. And don't, by any means, claim scientific consensus and an end to all debate based on said fancy speculations.

--------------------------
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
-- Michael Crichton, author, film and TV producer (1942-2008)

MALACHITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 1:35 PM

Interesting discussion. Does this remind anyone else of evolution vs creation debates in some ways? Each side is claiming to interpret scientific data and punching holes in the others' use of data. I suppose that is the nature of scientific debates and discovery. Hopefully, years from now, the correct interpretation of data will become obvious to us (like darwinism vs lamarckism (sp?), or heliocentrism vs geocentrism).

I like Anthony's point about how regardless of where we stand on the issue, there are some positive steps we can take that likely everyone can agree with (eg, reduce pollution).

I also like how we are able to have controversial discussions these days without burning anyone at the stake or excommunicating them. (Though I suppose the new equivalent would be throwing someone out of the scientific community for having scientifically heretical interpretations of the data).

BYTEMITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hint: ask yourself - where does methane come from, and what is new on the earth in the last 10,000 years? Ruddiman puts out a theory, along with similar arguments regarding CO2 levels.

I think I'm familiar with this one, unless I'm mistaken. I've actually tried to explain on some other threads how according to the natural cycles we were supposed to have begun to enter an ice age ten thousand years ago, and why we haven't. But I couldn't remember the source...

I believe the suggestion was agriculture and irrigation techniques. Wheat evolved from a cross between two closely related plant species in the Fertile Crescent in about 10,000 BCE, and people in the region began to cultivate it shortly afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_agriculture

The cultivation of rice has also been put at about 10,000 BCE, initially from flooded swamps, which eventually grew into the practice of cultivating terraced rice paddies to accommodate terrain in 3000-2000 BCE. Rice cultivation produces a lot of methane, especially when the water rice is grown in is heated by sunlight in the summer months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice#History_of_domestication_.26_cultiva
tion

Raising livestock also has high levels of methane production associated with it.

Wheat agriculture spread through the middle East, and was widely used by 8500 BCE, when the process reached Greece. By 6000 BCE it had been adopted in India, and in 5000 BCE it had reached England. This, in combination with rice agriculture in Asia, constitutes a large area over which agricultural processes may have occurred. Even though settlements were smaller then they are now, there could have still been enough area devoted to farming and raising livestock to produce large enough quantities of methane to slow the onset of that ice age, and as agriculture spread, even to stabilize the climate.

It's a hypothesis, one I like because it does explain why the climate stabilized when it hadn't in past iterations of the cycle by looking at what element was missing in previous cycles. And there is some agricultural evidence that early civilizations did manage to cultivate extensively. Sumer is thought to have fallen because their farming practices eventually used up all the nutrients in the soils they were cultivating, plus with irrigation practices and evaporation led to a wide-spread salinity problem in Northern Iraq that exists to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#Decline

But though I do like it, I admit it will probably be a difficult theory to prove or disprove. In any case, I would still comfortably say that global temperatures did stabilize in about 10,000 BCE due to methane levels. And that I think that they have since destabilized due to human activity around the time of the industrial revolution and increasingly after the 1950s.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:36 PM

I understand the limits of models. Nonetheless CTS, you have not addressed the point that we are in a solar MINIMUM, and neither has Crevanreaver, or anyone else who agrees with the video.

If I may remind you, the MAIN tenet of the video is that all of this warming is being driven by the sun. They claim to have decade-by-decade correlation between solar maxima and warming, linked indirectly through cosmic rays and cloudiness. I noticed that one of the graphs they show conveniently ends just before the current solar minimum, where the correlation falls apart.

Now, there are several possible response to this:
1) Global temperature measurement is unreliable (in which case the video's hypothesis may fall apart, based as it is on the premise that global warming is indeed taking place)
2) There is another solar factor which has not been taken into account. (The sun emits through the entire spectrum, and it's emissions frequencies may not always be tied together)
3) The current solar minimum hasn't been long enough to effect the weather.
4) Some other earth factor, such as the emissions of small particles which effect cloud formation, is changing warming dynamics.

Actually, given the complexity of the problem, I can think of a dozen more possibilities.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

MAL4PREZ

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have no time to read this book, to tell the truth. Not right now. Could you give us more than a hint? Maybe a synopsis of his observation and hypothesis?

Thanks.

--------------------------
Television is like a really, really good screen saver.
-- Bill Machrone

See Bytemite's post above. I will add that Ruddiman gets into calculating the amount of CH4 and CO2 that could have been put into the atmosphere during our recent (geologically speaking) period of agriculture. I think this is where his arguments get into some pretty serious hand-waving, but it is interesting to think about. I'm hoping to get some of my students into making these calculations for themselves. ie when you burn a tree and reduce it to ash, all that mass has to go somewhere. It goes into the air. So how many trees would it take to explain the rise in CO2 that we measure in the ice cores? And given the interaction of sunlight with CO2 molecules, how much heat energy does this released carbon trap?

Anyway, I have found that all the data used in this book is available online for free. I've used the orbital and ice core data in my classes. So you really can get to the root of what these scientists are doing, as opposed to those who use 100 years of thermometer data to make the "hockey stick" graph, but don't really explain where the numbers come from.

I don't have time to explain the book any more than that. I spent three classes lecturing on it last spring, and still didn't get to everything. But I wanted to put the title out there in the hopes that folks would try to look at some actual data, rather than relying on what "experts" tell them in politically motivated films.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

MAL4PREZ

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:31 PM

I really cannot resist science talk!

Now, there are several possible response to this:
1) Global temperature measurement is unreliable (in which case the video's hypothesis may fall apart, based as it is on the premise that global warming is indeed taking place)

I'm not sure about this one, but I don't think temperature measurements are unreliable as much as we need a lot more of them. I'd also really like to know *where* these measurements are taken and how they are combined mathematically. North America likely has a much broader distribution of thermometers then Africa, but which is the more important factor in the climate system? The heat of Africa drives the North Atlantic currents - big deal! But then, ice ages likely start in northern Canada. So how do we decide how many of those thermometer readings to use? And how about temperature in the middle of the Pacific? We likely don't have many thermometers there. Does that matter?

2) There is another solar factor which has not been taken into account. (The sun emits through the entire spectrum, and it's emissions frequencies may not always be tied together)

I believe this has been taken into account by climate modelers. The sun's spectrum and the interaction of the various frequencies with different parts of the atmosphere are well understood.

3) The current solar minimum hasn't been long enough to effect the weather.

Ice cores show that at this point of the last several interglacial cycles the weather system had adjusted. We are definitely doing something different than ever happened before. At this point in the cycle, the ice sheets in Northern Canada should be expanding, not continuing to disappear.

ETA: I haven't watched the movie above, but I'm guessing from the posts that this is the part they're ignoring. Yes, there are cycles. But the current cycle is different. That much is quite clear. The reasons for the difference and the long term effects are what needs debating.

4) Some other earth factor, such as the emissions of small particles which effect cloud formation, is changing warming dynamics.

This is an interesting point Ruddiman made - if we actually stop all human emissions today, the climate would get hotter for a brief time because these "reflective" particles that cool the atmosphere would settle out first. The "warming" particles would take longer, but eventually they'd get cycled into the oceans and trapped into biomass and we'd cool off.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nonetheless CTS, you have not addressed the point that we are in a solar MINIMUM

I don't need to address it. I am not a proponent of this video or its contents.

I happen to find it entertaining, just like I find GW hypotheses and the occasional horoscope entertaining. But you need to address your solar minimum debate to someone who supports the solar flare hypothesis--not to me.

--------------------------
If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves.
--Thomas A. Edison

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:30 AM

mal4prez: The fact that the book distinguishes between cooling particles and warming ones is... wow. I'll have to read it! Now, do you want to contemplate a nightmare scenario???? Global warming releases methane currently trapped in ocean-floor clathrates.

CTS: I misunderstood. I thought you were a supporter of the video's POV.

So, I address the video's proponents: How do you explain the fact that we're currently in a solar MINIMUM, and yet still warming up???

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:05 AM

On a different note, Taco Bell finds solution to global warming.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/taco_bells_new_green_menu_takes?
utm_source=a-section

--------------------------
A wish is a desire without an attempt.
-- Source Unknown

RUE

Friday, July 3, 2009 1:40 AM

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 3, 2009 2:22 AM

Quote:
So, I address the video's proponents: How do you explain the fact that we're currently in a
solar MINIMUM, and yet still warming up???

Apparently, you don't.

ANOTHER inconvenient truth!

GEEZER

Friday, July 3, 2009 3:52 AM

What's really funny about this whole thing is that even if global warming is man-made, the chances of getting the entire world to make the reductions in CO2 emissions that would be required to hold steady, let alone reverse the problem, are slim to none.

We'd probably be better off spending the money on ways to ameleoriate the effects of global warming; relocation away from coastlines, levees, developing agriculture in different areas, etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:26 AM

Well, we managed to do it with CFCs...

But yeah, CO2 is quite a bit more common an output waste product.

PIRATENEWS

Friday, July 3, 2009 3:18 PM

Here's what y'all came to see, a time-lapse video of Antarctic ice cycles from 1979 to today:

New Antarctic Sea Ice Video – shows cycles and ice growth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/new-sea-ice-video-this-time-watc
h-the-antarctic/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/antarctic-sea-ice-complete
-video/

The so-called "Ozone Hole" every winter (July) in Antarctica is due to a total lack of sunlight for 3 months preventing UV radiation from manufacturing ozone. When daylight returns, within seconds of sunlight hitting the oxygen, ozone is produced. Doh!

Ozone don't protect the Earth surface from solar radiation. 100 miles of nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, H2O, dust, clouds and the Van Allen Radiation Belt Force Field protect us from being cooked alive, as if we were astronots on the Moon. THINK.

Oilman Al Gore and Golden Sacks own the Carbon Credit Trading Ponzi Bubble Bank Tax Scam. Stop them we must, if we want to live.

WARNING: Chemtrail terraforming with deadly barium and aluminum aerosol in jet fuel exhaust actually raises global temperature, while causing Alzheimers and can be used with HAARP radar for mind control.

BYTEMITE

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:48 PM

Actually, the problem with the Ozone hole was that we had only 1/3 left of the normal winter resident concentration of Antartic Ozone. It was enough weakening that we lost some UV protection near the southern-most extremes of continents in the southern hemisphere, and we weren't completely recovering over the summer months.

CFCs have a residence time in the atmosphere of five years, which is enough time for any constituent that it migrates towards the poles. And in the winter months, over antartica and to a lesser extent the arctic, you form a vortex with a barrier that traps whatever chemicals are located over the arctic/antarctic in that general vicinity. CFCS plus Nitrogen plus Ozone, when there isn't any process to regenerate the Ozone... Well... You know the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex