Oooh, the earth has a "fever"
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so.
*Emphasis mine. But isn't that the crux of it? Without good historical data how can anything be labeled "unusual"? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
But isn't that the crux of it? Without good historical data how can anything be labeled "unusual"?
i think what the authors are saying is that they have enough data, from a number of different sources, which all correlate, to be able to put some weight behind that "unusual". Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
yep. And according to some things I've read, the earth is currently in a relatively 'cool' period over the span of it's lifetime.
Allen Anderson wrote:
And according to some things I've read, the earth is currently in a relatively 'cool' period over the span of it's lifetime.
it is called a solar minimum, easily measured by sunspot and neutrino counts. The sun goes through phases where it slows fusion and then heats back up due to ratios of fused materials. Although difficult to predict in the future, it is easily measured now. We should be about 3/4C lower due to solar factors, which political parties against global warming use to prove that the warming is entirely solar driven. (faith above measurement) If you were to remove the factors of the solar minimum, we would be about 1.25 warmer than we "should be" by solar effects making some scientists even more concerned. However, total climate is an average of all factors, so the multi-method does not seek to remove measurements, it seeks to include more. Which is the concern, the other side relies on the idea that it is impossible for man to change climate (ignoring all the major mistakes we have done in regional form), and rejects all evidence. So the inclusion of more evidence only makes them more angry since all evidence must be ignored, because the foundation of belief is that it is impossible to affect temperature on a global scale. Since it is impossible to affect temperature on a global scale, any evidence to the contrary is faked or irrelevant. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Allen Anderson wrote:
And according to some things I've read, the earth is currently in a relatively 'cool' period over the span of it's lifetime.
it is called a solar minimum, easily measured by sunspot and neutrino counts. The sun goes through phases where it slows fusion and then heats back up due to ratios of fused materials. Although difficult to predict in the future, it is easily measured now. We should be about 3/4C lower due to solar factors, which political parties against global warming use to prove that the warming is entirely solar driven. (faith above measurement) If you were to remove the factors of the solar minimum, we would be about 1.25 warmer than we "should be" by solar effects making some scientists even more concerned. However, total climate is an average of all factors, so the multi-method does not seek to remove measurements, it seeks to include more. Which is the concern, the other side relies on the idea that it is impossible for man to change climate (ignoring all the major mistakes we have done in regional form), and rejects all evidence. So the inclusion of more evidence only makes them more angry since all evidence must be ignored, because the foundation of belief is that it is impossible to affect temperature on a global scale. Since it is impossible to affect temperature on a global scale, any evidence to the contrary is faked or irrelevant. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
the other side relies on the idea that it is impossible for man to change climate
Umm, so you're saying everyone that believes man hasn't changed the climate also believes that it's because it's impossible for man to change the climate? That's a blanket statement with just as much ignorance as believing man can't change the climate. Why is it so hard for humans to engage in scientific discourse without breaking down into calling each other ignorant?
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
But isn't that the crux of it? Without good historical data how can anything be labeled "unusual"?
i think what the authors are saying is that they have enough data, from a number of different sources, which all correlate, to be able to put some weight behind that "unusual". Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
...and like all scientific theory it needs to stand up to rigorous testing. Is there really enough data? Is the data truly accurate? Is the data being interpreted correctly? Can conclusions be drawn from this data? Are these valid conclusions? What alternate conclusions need to be considered? Global warming and potential human causes has become so "political" it's hard to tell if/when any of this is actually going on. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
...and like all scientific theory it needs to stand up to rigorous testing. Is there really enough data? Is the data truly accurate? Is the data being interpreted correctly? Can conclusions be drawn from this data? Are these valid conclusions? What alternate conclusions need to be considered? Global warming and potential human causes has become so "political" it's hard to tell if/when any of this is actually going on. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Is there really enough data? Is the data truly accurate? Is the data being interpreted correctly? Can conclusions be drawn from this data? Are these valid conclusions? What alternate conclusions need to be considered?
apparently, the people who wrote this think so. as i am not a climatologist, when it comes to these questions, i defer to those who are, and discount the opinion of those who aren't.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
and like all scientific theory it needs to stand up to rigorous testing
it has been, is, and will be tested. no matter how much testing happens, i predict people will still say "no way. you're wrong". Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 12:08 Friday 23rd June, 2006
-
So read one headline from the Sydney Herald. Read down a bit, and they're talking about a 155 page paper that decides the earth has warmed by 1/2 degree C over the last 2000 years. 155 pages 1/2 degree C Fever. Riiiight. I wonder what the error was. +/- 5 C? I bet the error was more than the 1/2 degree C estimate. Sigh. It's hard to tell if the media gives science a bad name, or scientists do a fine job of it on their own. Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
...Sydney Herald.
That's the Sydney Morning Herald. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Is there really enough data? Is the data truly accurate? Is the data being interpreted correctly? Can conclusions be drawn from this data? Are these valid conclusions? What alternate conclusions need to be considered?
apparently, the people who wrote this think so. as i am not a climatologist, when it comes to these questions, i defer to those who are, and discount the opinion of those who aren't.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
and like all scientific theory it needs to stand up to rigorous testing
it has been, is, and will be tested. no matter how much testing happens, i predict people will still say "no way. you're wrong". Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 12:08 Friday 23rd June, 2006
Chris Losinger wrote:
no matter how much testing happens, i predict people will still say "no way. you're wrong".
Human history guarantees it. On the flip side, if further testing "proves" global warming or human causes are false there will be some who say "no way. you're wrong". It's the nature of the beast. What we need is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other. It won't shut-up the extremists on either side but it will swing enough public opinion to put it to rest. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
the other side relies on the idea that it is impossible for man to change climate
Umm, so you're saying everyone that believes man hasn't changed the climate also believes that it's because it's impossible for man to change the climate? That's a blanket statement with just as much ignorance as believing man can't change the climate. Why is it so hard for humans to engage in scientific discourse without breaking down into calling each other ignorant?
Dustin Metzgar wrote:
Umm, so you're saying everyone that believes man hasn't changed the climate also believes that it's because it's impossible for man to change the climate?
The problem is we know that he has changed his environment sometimes on a massive scale, multiple times over! We almost destroyed the giant redwoods (ironically from conservation), almost destroyed all plant/animal life in the grand canyon (from flood control), the ozone hole, many times over man has changed regional and global effects. If you want to call yourself ignorant for ignoring all the things man has done to his own planet, go ahead. I simply said you were ignoring evidence, you put the 'I' word into the conversation. I used the word impossible because it is a common usage. you will hear the catch phrases "all climate affects are solar" which is completely true, and irrelevant to the conversation. Solar drives the energy, the distribution of that energy is atmospheric (fluid dynamics). Claiming that the sun is the only factor in global climate is equivalent to saying all men die therefore there is no such thing as murder because all death is natural. It is irrelevant to the conversation of murder, but completely true, all death is natural but still can be man made. You will also hear "the planet is so large that it is impossible for man to affect it on a global scale". Which ironically, is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish. "it was 2c cooler than last year here at my house, so global averages must be thrown out" is another common argument. Ignoring the thermal dynamic cooling of the atmosphere. If you heat one area, the earth will attempt to cool it creating larger variation from hot to cool, some places will be cooler and others hotter, the average is higher. But by selectively choosing the cooler places ONLY, there are claims to throw out the average. So more ways of averaging temperature are done, and more evidence ignored by those who wish to believe in ignoring evidence of "global average". There is also the argument of "average of 1/2C is not much" which also ignores the fluid dynamic cooling which means areas are getting hotter and cooler, larger extremes, but the combined average is 1/2C higher. Man has to live through the extremes, the natural cooling
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Isn't that pushing an "agenda", when you say that you have low confidence in some of the analysis, yet it's still useful?
the rest of that paragraph talks about why they think it's useful. and, they mention that their confidence overall goes up, when multiple proxies agree.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And then there's the whole bizarre thing about 20th century warming but a little ice age.
what's bizzare about the "Little Ice Age" ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
The thing is, it's written in a way to help you draw the conclusion that something we are doing is responsible for global warming, rather than a naturally occuring exit from the little ice age or other factors.
but they didn't write it that way because of some sinister "hidden agenda". they wrote it that way because that's what the bulk of current scientific research suggests. that question is pretty much settled, for the people who study such things. it's only the people who aren't climatologists who disagree... try this:
"Four out of five hairdressers agree: C# is a stupid language because it doesn't have pointers. Programmers who use C# disagree. Will the conflict ever be resolved ?"
In other words "Our data doesn't provide the required accuracy but someone elses must." Great example of "group think."
-
Dustin Metzgar wrote:
Umm, so you're saying everyone that believes man hasn't changed the climate also believes that it's because it's impossible for man to change the climate?
The problem is we know that he has changed his environment sometimes on a massive scale, multiple times over! We almost destroyed the giant redwoods (ironically from conservation), almost destroyed all plant/animal life in the grand canyon (from flood control), the ozone hole, many times over man has changed regional and global effects. If you want to call yourself ignorant for ignoring all the things man has done to his own planet, go ahead. I simply said you were ignoring evidence, you put the 'I' word into the conversation. I used the word impossible because it is a common usage. you will hear the catch phrases "all climate affects are solar" which is completely true, and irrelevant to the conversation. Solar drives the energy, the distribution of that energy is atmospheric (fluid dynamics). Claiming that the sun is the only factor in global climate is equivalent to saying all men die therefore there is no such thing as murder because all death is natural. It is irrelevant to the conversation of murder, but completely true, all death is natural but still can be man made. You will also hear "the planet is so large that it is impossible for man to affect it on a global scale". Which ironically, is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish. "it was 2c cooler than last year here at my house, so global averages must be thrown out" is another common argument. Ignoring the thermal dynamic cooling of the atmosphere. If you heat one area, the earth will attempt to cool it creating larger variation from hot to cool, some places will be cooler and others hotter, the average is higher. But by selectively choosing the cooler places ONLY, there are claims to throw out the average. So more ways of averaging temperature are done, and more evidence ignored by those who wish to believe in ignoring evidence of "global average". There is also the argument of "average of 1/2C is not much" which also ignores the fluid dynamic cooling which means areas are getting hotter and cooler, larger extremes, but the combined average is 1/2C higher. Man has to live through the extremes, the natural cooling
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish.
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved? What if a creator was involved? Is science a search for truth or only politically correct answers?
-
Allen Anderson wrote:
And according to some things I've read, the earth is currently in a relatively 'cool' period over the span of it's lifetime.
it is called a solar minimum, easily measured by sunspot and neutrino counts. The sun goes through phases where it slows fusion and then heats back up due to ratios of fused materials. Although difficult to predict in the future, it is easily measured now. We should be about 3/4C lower due to solar factors, which political parties against global warming use to prove that the warming is entirely solar driven. (faith above measurement) If you were to remove the factors of the solar minimum, we would be about 1.25 warmer than we "should be" by solar effects making some scientists even more concerned. However, total climate is an average of all factors, so the multi-method does not seek to remove measurements, it seeks to include more. Which is the concern, the other side relies on the idea that it is impossible for man to change climate (ignoring all the major mistakes we have done in regional form), and rejects all evidence. So the inclusion of more evidence only makes them more angry since all evidence must be ignored, because the foundation of belief is that it is impossible to affect temperature on a global scale. Since it is impossible to affect temperature on a global scale, any evidence to the contrary is faked or irrelevant. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
well you just exceeded my knowledge by a factor of a bunch. :) Thanks for filling that in, I didn't know that.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Actually, I was going to write more, but decided not to
maybe you should have... a link would've been nice, too. here's the NAS report[^]. especially check out the report in brief[^]
• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies. • Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
the people who wrote the study are aware of the problems with some of their methods and they take those problems into account. you should really try reading some of the study before you start leaping to conclusions. the people who did the work aren't as dumb as you apparently think they are. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 9:48 Friday 23rd June, 2006
Heh heh heh.... your funny. We're talking about headlines that get people concerned that are founded on supposed scientific data when really its just a pile of theory. Reverse engineering historical data through immature methods. Why we think that in a paultry 400 years, taking into account calculus was invented in the 1600s, that we can figure out what happened at a time we have no data for is a mystery to me. Its scientific inference. At best an educated guess. Its the headline that makes me laugh. Its trying to give in to the fear of global warming, which I'm not refuting, but this data is bull. The headlines state it as fact, while you need to dig through 150 some odd pages to get the fact that they are guessing. This statement is false.
-
DavidCrow wrote:
I know that. The point I was trying to make is that unless we use the same tools then as we use now, can the results be entirely accurate?
The timber industry is required to cut tree ring samples from a predetermined number of trees at each tree culling. The trees are marked and an inch is taken from the base and sent off somewhere. So yes, it is not used as a primary gauge of temperature, but we do use it to cross-correlate with temperature changes in the region to determine past changes. We can measure the moisture profile of the soil today, and temperature and use them as reference guides for the past. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
And at best we still just have an educated "guess". This statement is false.
-
Heh heh heh.... your funny. We're talking about headlines that get people concerned that are founded on supposed scientific data when really its just a pile of theory. Reverse engineering historical data through immature methods. Why we think that in a paultry 400 years, taking into account calculus was invented in the 1600s, that we can figure out what happened at a time we have no data for is a mystery to me. Its scientific inference. At best an educated guess. Its the headline that makes me laugh. Its trying to give in to the fear of global warming, which I'm not refuting, but this data is bull. The headlines state it as fact, while you need to dig through 150 some odd pages to get the fact that they are guessing. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
but this data is bull
feel free to prove it - scientifically, of course. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
no matter how much testing happens, i predict people will still say "no way. you're wrong".
Human history guarantees it. On the flip side, if further testing "proves" global warming or human causes are false there will be some who say "no way. you're wrong". It's the nature of the beast. What we need is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other. It won't shut-up the extremists on either side but it will swing enough public opinion to put it to rest. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
What we need is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other
won't matter. take, for example, evolution. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
What we need is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other
won't matter. take, for example, evolution. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
but this data is bull
feel free to prove it - scientifically, of course. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it. ;) In math we used to muse over how complex the proof was that 1 + 1 = 2. Yet we all know it is. To actually prove it quid pro quo requires quite a bit. So the scientists here haven't proved anything, they are sharing their theories, and they might be good ones. But that still doesn't detract from the fact that the headlines are misleading. This statement is false.
-
The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it. ;) In math we used to muse over how complex the proof was that 1 + 1 = 2. Yet we all know it is. To actually prove it quid pro quo requires quite a bit. So the scientists here haven't proved anything, they are sharing their theories, and they might be good ones. But that still doesn't detract from the fact that the headlines are misleading. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The onus is on them not me
bullsh!t. you made an assertion about the validity of their data. prove your assertion.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
To actually prove it quid pro quo requires quite a bit.
too bad. prove your assertion. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
won't matter. take, for example, evolution.
It's still early... we'll talk again after a few more centuries of "enlightenment". ;P "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
we'll talk again after a few more centuries
of course, if the climatologists now are right, we might not have centuries. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish.
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved? What if a creator was involved? Is science a search for truth or only politically correct answers?
Steve Holle wrote:
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved?
if you can provide some scientific evidence for this "creator", we can talk about his place in science.
Steve Holle wrote:
What if a creator was involved?
excellent question. but until there is some evidence, that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker