Oooh, the earth has a "fever"
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
No. I gave my opinion
didn't sound like it at the time.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Can you prove that it isn't bull?
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
didn't sound like it at the time.
You only quoted part of the sentence, here's the whole sentence: The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
Chris Losinger wrote:
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't.
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true? This statement is false.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Medieval Climate Optimum
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else) ?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Holocene climatic optimum
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else)
The graph is distorted to support the "hockey stick" theory of temperature. In fact few scientists today--even those that believe in man-made global warming--believe that the current temperatures exceed that of the Medieval Climate Optimum (which is why the are currently saying "past 400 years".) However, my point still stands; to label the current climate as "unusual" is clearly false. Even IF the MCO did not have as drastic upward temperature climb, it demonstrates that rapid change is possible. The "Little Ice Age" also points out that an even more drastic decline happened--if the temperature can go down that quickly, why can't it go up even faster? The conceit of the global warmists is that the earth is static and unchanging and that there is some sort of optimum temperature. ALL the evidence is to the contrary--over its history the temperature of the earth has changed drastically and will continue to change. One problem is statistical and quite annoying; 1977 was a very cool year. This is why 25 years has been chosen as the range of increase, rather than 30 or 20. You pick either of the latter and suddenly the temperature change isn't so drastic after all. This is scientific cherry picking at the worse. By the way, if you examine the Medieval Climate Optimum, you'll find it coincided with a peak in solar intensity. Such a peak is happening right now as well. (Temperatures at the north pole in Mars have also risen, giving more evidence to a strong solar cause of recent global warming.) (http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm[^].)
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years.
It doesn't matter. The geologic evidence points to higher temperatures than exist today. While the exact temperature cannot be determined, the evidence for drastic temperature changes is undeniable; things such as the formation of peat bogs in Ireland and England support this thesis. We also know that the earth has gone through several ice ages. Saying we don't have "detailed data" doesn'
-
To get it out in the open, I'm agnostic, but I have to quote SETI here, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. But you'd have to be nuts to believe that evolution isn't playing a part in this. Regardless of whether there is a creator, in fact, I'd have less respect for a creator that didn't use evolution as a tool else he/she/it would just be a puppet master. And who's to say that this same creator doesn't want us to pay for our mistakes. Its our ball o mud and if we screw it up so be it. Funny thing is I agree with the scientists, I just think its naive to think that just because their methods are improving that they've got it figured out. I hear more and more about how they were wrong about this and that. Brain cells weren't supposed to be able to regenerate, then they changed their mind, because their data changed. Face it, no matter how much we think of ourselves we're still infants trying to figure it out. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
absence of proof isn't proof of absence
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
then they changed their mind, because their data changed.
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change.
Uh, no. The data pretty much shows that there have been periods where the rate of change has been more rapid. The descent into the Little Ice Age was, by accounts of contemporaries, quite rapid. The failure of the Viking settlement in Greenland as well as sea reports from the Vikings supports this. The bottom line is rapid change is common and ordinary GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING. Statistically, there is another problem. 1977 was a cold year. Using this as a basis creates the statistical impression that the temperature ON AVERAGE has changed more than it has than if 1955 were used or 1985. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
didn't sound like it at the time.
You only quoted part of the sentence, here's the whole sentence: The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
Chris Losinger wrote:
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't.
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true? This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
you didn't say "i think their data is bull" or "IMO, their data is bull". but, if you insist it was just opinion, there's really no point in arguing the point. on the other hand, the people who published that study did back up their data, and we can all go look at it and try to refute it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true?
no, why would i? but i do think people who study something for a living know more about it than people who don't. when your tooth hurts, do you call a barber or a dentist ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
absence of proof isn't proof of absence
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
then they changed their mind, because their data changed.
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Ok, so if you can't prove it its meaningless? They can't prove that these methods for guessing what the temperature was 1000 years ago are absolutely 100% correct so its meaningless. You just typed it. They are confident, but that's not proof. And by the way, I think global warming is very real and not desirable, and that is only my opinion because we don't have absolute proof. But the point here is whether their methods are accurate, and we can't know. We're talking about a time where we don't have conclusive data for. We are guessing. But we're confident. Unfortunately confidence cannot be substituted for proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it.
Heh heh... that's what I mean. Its not proven if it turns out false. Its a best guess of the time. This statement is false.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else)
The graph is distorted to support the "hockey stick" theory of temperature. In fact few scientists today--even those that believe in man-made global warming--believe that the current temperatures exceed that of the Medieval Climate Optimum (which is why the are currently saying "past 400 years".) However, my point still stands; to label the current climate as "unusual" is clearly false. Even IF the MCO did not have as drastic upward temperature climb, it demonstrates that rapid change is possible. The "Little Ice Age" also points out that an even more drastic decline happened--if the temperature can go down that quickly, why can't it go up even faster? The conceit of the global warmists is that the earth is static and unchanging and that there is some sort of optimum temperature. ALL the evidence is to the contrary--over its history the temperature of the earth has changed drastically and will continue to change. One problem is statistical and quite annoying; 1977 was a very cool year. This is why 25 years has been chosen as the range of increase, rather than 30 or 20. You pick either of the latter and suddenly the temperature change isn't so drastic after all. This is scientific cherry picking at the worse. By the way, if you examine the Medieval Climate Optimum, you'll find it coincided with a peak in solar intensity. Such a peak is happening right now as well. (Temperatures at the north pole in Mars have also risen, giving more evidence to a strong solar cause of recent global warming.) (http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm[^].)
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years.
It doesn't matter. The geologic evidence points to higher temperatures than exist today. While the exact temperature cannot be determined, the evidence for drastic temperature changes is undeniable; things such as the formation of peat bogs in Ireland and England support this thesis. We also know that the earth has gone through several ice ages. Saying we don't have "detailed data" doesn'
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The graph is distorted to support the "hockey stick" theory of temperature
how so ? the scale is consistent in both axes.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
which is why the are currently saying "past 400 years
the study in question goes back 1200.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
However, my point still stands; to label the current climate as "unusual" is clearly false.
that's why i never did that - and that's why i keep saying things like "rate of change". :sigh:
Joe Woodbury wrote:
This is why 25 years has been chosen as the range of increase, rather than 30 or 20.
what "25 years"? this is the study we're talking about: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf[^]
Joe Woodbury wrote:
It doesn't matter.
it certainly does. you can't see 50-100 year changes on a graph like that, and it's doubtful the measurements used to create it have the kind of resolution needed to produce anything you can compare with the kind of records we have for the last 150 or so years.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
We also know that the earth has gone through several ice ages. Saying we don't have "detailed data" doesn't make that any less true.
it's a good thing i'm not arguing otherwise!
Joe Woodbury wrote:
the earth was very likely warmer, sometimes much warmer, on average in the past than it is now
O. M. G. i have never, ever, not once, in this thread, said anything about the "average" temperature. i'm gonna say it one last time: rate of change. maybe something similar to what's happening now happened thousands of years ago. but we do not have the data to show it. we don't have the accuracy to show the kind of changes we're seeing now. again, might have happened / can't prove it / don't have the data / rate of change. Cleek | Imag
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
you didn't say "i think their data is bull" or "IMO, their data is bull". but, if you insist it was just opinion, there's really no point in arguing the point. on the other hand, the people who published that study did back up their data, and we can all go look at it and try to refute it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true?
no, why would i? but i do think people who study something for a living know more about it than people who don't. when your tooth hurts, do you call a barber or a dentist ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
you didn't say "i think their data is bull" or "IMO, their data is bull"
No I said my comment was my opinion. That pretty much says it all. If you call something bull, it is your opinion whether true or not, whether you prefaced your comment with I think or not. It is your opinion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
on the other hand, the people who published that study did back up their data, and we can all go look at it and try to refute it.
And if you read the report they said they were confident of the data. That isn't proof. That's confidence. That's trust. That's faith. But not proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but i do think people who study something for a living know more about it than people who don't.
That's why I said it was an "educated" guess, but a guess it is. This statement is false.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Ok, so if you can't prove it its meaningless? They can't prove that these methods for guessing what the temperature was 1000 years ago are absolutely 100% correct so its meaningless. You just typed it. They are confident, but that's not proof. And by the way, I think global warming is very real and not desirable, and that is only my opinion because we don't have absolute proof. But the point here is whether their methods are accurate, and we can't know. We're talking about a time where we don't have conclusive data for. We are guessing. But we're confident. Unfortunately confidence cannot be substituted for proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it.
Heh heh... that's what I mean. Its not proven if it turns out false. Its a best guess of the time. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ok, so if you can't prove it its meaningless?
not quite. existence and accuracy are not even close to the same thing. existence is binary, accuracy is 100% relative. you can get meaningful use out of a measurement that isn't 100% accurate (ever buy a sub that's exactly 12.00000" long?). in fact, nothing is 100% accurate. nothing can exist 50%.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
They can't prove that these methods for guessing what the temperature was 1000 years ago are absolutely 100% correct so its meaningless.
that simply doesn't follow from what i wrote.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
We are guessing
but we are not guessing. we are measuring as best we can.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Unfortunately confidence cannot be substituted for proof.
entirely true. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you didn't say "i think their data is bull" or "IMO, their data is bull"
No I said my comment was my opinion. That pretty much says it all. If you call something bull, it is your opinion whether true or not, whether you prefaced your comment with I think or not. It is your opinion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
on the other hand, the people who published that study did back up their data, and we can all go look at it and try to refute it.
And if you read the report they said they were confident of the data. That isn't proof. That's confidence. That's trust. That's faith. But not proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but i do think people who study something for a living know more about it than people who don't.
That's why I said it was an "educated" guess, but a guess it is. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
No I said my comment was my opinion.
yes, after you didn't say it was. but i already said i'm not interested in arguing that.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
And if you read the report they said they were confident of the data
they said a lot more than that.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
That isn't proof. That's confidence. That's trust. That's faith. But not proof.
ok, prove anything. prove i exist. prove the sun will come up tomorrow - don't forget to account for quantum randomness. or, in other words: what kind of measurements would you accept as being fact ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ok, so if you can't prove it its meaningless?
not quite. existence and accuracy are not even close to the same thing. existence is binary, accuracy is 100% relative. you can get meaningful use out of a measurement that isn't 100% accurate (ever buy a sub that's exactly 12.00000" long?). in fact, nothing is 100% accurate. nothing can exist 50%.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
They can't prove that these methods for guessing what the temperature was 1000 years ago are absolutely 100% correct so its meaningless.
that simply doesn't follow from what i wrote.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
We are guessing
but we are not guessing. we are measuring as best we can.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Unfortunately confidence cannot be substituted for proof.
entirely true. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
but we are not guessing. we are measuring as best we can.
Ummm.. that is guessing. Its based on scientific assumptions. Its assumed that the tree rings are going to mean what they infer from them, when that's not guaranteed. So its "educated" guessing. The keyword here is confidence. That connotes guessing but educated guessing. But it still isn't proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
existence and accuracy are not even close to the same thing.
You bring up an interesting point here. Accuracy, if you state something and it isn't accurate, regardless of the degree of accuracy, then it is guessing. Estimating or Guestimating if you like, but a guess all the same. This statement is false.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change.
Uh, no. The data pretty much shows that there have been periods where the rate of change has been more rapid. The descent into the Little Ice Age was, by accounts of contemporaries, quite rapid. The failure of the Viking settlement in Greenland as well as sea reports from the Vikings supports this. The bottom line is rapid change is common and ordinary GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING. Statistically, there is another problem. 1977 was a cold year. Using this as a basis creates the statistical impression that the temperature ON AVERAGE has changed more than it has than if 1955 were used or 1985. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The descent into the Little Ice Age was, by accounts of contemporaries, quite rapid.
it's in the study.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The bottom line is rapid change is common and ordinary GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING
show me a comparable increase, given the same resoultion of data, and not some interpolated line based on two data points measured from an ice core estimated 8000 at years old.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Statistically, there is another problem. 1977 was a cold year. Using this as a basis creates the statistical impression that the temperature ON AVERAGE has changed more than it has than if 1955 were used or 1985.
put the zero anywhere you like, the graph still looks the same. we're talking about rate of change, not absolute temperature. the baseline is irrelevant. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
No I said my comment was my opinion.
yes, after you didn't say it was. but i already said i'm not interested in arguing that.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
And if you read the report they said they were confident of the data
they said a lot more than that.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
That isn't proof. That's confidence. That's trust. That's faith. But not proof.
ok, prove anything. prove i exist. prove the sun will come up tomorrow - don't forget to account for quantum randomness. or, in other words: what kind of measurements would you accept as being fact ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
they said a lot more than that.
So, that doesn't refute my point.
Chris Losinger wrote:
ok, prove anything. prove i exist. prove the sun will come up tomorrow - don't forget to account for quantum randomness. or, in other words: what kind of measurements would you accept as being fact ?
Good point. If you can't prove it you can't call it fact. But I'm not hung up on facts. I don't need to prove a creator's existence, I'll find out when the time comes, good enough for me, some have experience which they call fact, that's subjective. But if you can't prove those things, just like they can't prove that their confident data is fact, then it isn't fact. Its assumption, its guessing. And since you bring up quantum randomness, remember that the observed behaves according to the intent of the observer. So this data could very well be meaningless except to those who are seeking it. I would accept as fact that they measured an old tree. I would not accept as fact the inference they make based on that tree about the age in which it existed. I might trust their findings, but they aren't facts. This statement is false.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The graph is distorted to support the "hockey stick" theory of temperature
how so ? the scale is consistent in both axes.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
which is why the are currently saying "past 400 years
the study in question goes back 1200.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
However, my point still stands; to label the current climate as "unusual" is clearly false.
that's why i never did that - and that's why i keep saying things like "rate of change". :sigh:
Joe Woodbury wrote:
This is why 25 years has been chosen as the range of increase, rather than 30 or 20.
what "25 years"? this is the study we're talking about: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf[^]
Joe Woodbury wrote:
It doesn't matter.
it certainly does. you can't see 50-100 year changes on a graph like that, and it's doubtful the measurements used to create it have the kind of resolution needed to produce anything you can compare with the kind of records we have for the last 150 or so years.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
We also know that the earth has gone through several ice ages. Saying we don't have "detailed data" doesn't make that any less true.
it's a good thing i'm not arguing otherwise!
Joe Woodbury wrote:
the earth was very likely warmer, sometimes much warmer, on average in the past than it is now
O. M. G. i have never, ever, not once, in this thread, said anything about the "average" temperature. i'm gonna say it one last time: rate of change. maybe something similar to what's happening now happened thousands of years ago. but we do not have the data to show it. we don't have the accuracy to show the kind of changes we're seeing now. again, might have happened / can't prove it / don't have the data / rate of change. Cleek | Imag
Chris Losinger wrote:
how so ? the scale is consistent in both axes.
Through distorted statistical sampling and extrapolation.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the study in question goes back 1200.
Which conveniently avoids the Medieval Climate Optimum for obvious reasons.
Chris Losinger wrote:
what "25 years"?
25 years is the oft quoted time frame used by proponents of man-made global warming.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it certainly does. you can't see 50-100 year changes on a graph like that, and it's doubtful the measurements used to create it have the kind of resolution needed to produce anything you can compare with the kind of records we have for the last 150 or so years.
Now you're just making a fool of yourself. You argue that the rate of change in the past x years exceeds all that in history, but then dismiss any data that is previous that the "last 150 or so years." You can't have it both ways. But it doesn't matter in geologic terms. We know that temperatures were lower during the past ice age. To believe otherwise, is to be deliberately ignorant. We know temperatures were significantly higher about 7000 years ago; hence the formation of peat bogs in northern climes. To argue that since we don't know the exact temperature, therefore the preponderance of evidence for frequent climate change must be dismissed is silly. It's also hypocritical since by point of fact, we don't have really good climate data going back more than few decades at the most.
Chris Losinger wrote:
O. M. G. i have never, ever, not once, in this thread, said anything about the "average" temperature. i'm gonna say it one last time: rate of change.
Likewise, the rate of change now is NOT unusual. The rate of change leading into and out of the Little Ice Age vastly exceeded the rate of change today which is why very few legitimate scientists even argue that point.
Chris Losinger wrote:
maybe something similar to what's happening now happened thousands of years ago. but we do not have the data to show it.
YES WE DO. Please read up on ice cores and tree ring data. Read up on fossils. NO legitimate scientist is arguing with rate of change since they would look very foolis
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
but we are not guessing. we are measuring as best we can.
Ummm.. that is guessing. Its based on scientific assumptions. Its assumed that the tree rings are going to mean what they infer from them, when that's not guaranteed. So its "educated" guessing. The keyword here is confidence. That connotes guessing but educated guessing. But it still isn't proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
existence and accuracy are not even close to the same thing.
You bring up an interesting point here. Accuracy, if you state something and it isn't accurate, regardless of the degree of accuracy, then it is guessing. Estimating or Guestimating if you like, but a guess all the same. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ummm.. that is guessing. Its based on scientific assumptions. ... But it still isn't proof.
ugh. ok, you've reduced the argument to nothing. there is nothing that can't be said to be an educated guess at best. you choose to believe that people are lying about the temperature data... i gotta go have a life. cheers :beer: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ummm.. that is guessing. Its based on scientific assumptions. ... But it still isn't proof.
ugh. ok, you've reduced the argument to nothing. there is nothing that can't be said to be an educated guess at best. you choose to believe that people are lying about the temperature data... i gotta go have a life. cheers :beer: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
you choose to believe that people are lying about the temperature data... i gotta go have a life.
I don't think they are lying. I think they are doing the best they can, and might even be accurate. But to say that it's fact because they're good at it, is as dangerous as saying there is a creator because some logically deduce it or have had an experience which leads them to that conclusion. Both are at best assumptions. When I said that the data is bull, I was saying that in contrast to the headlines. This of course is a side effect of being agnostic. It extends to all belief systems, including science.
Chris Losinger wrote:
cheers
Cheers This statement is false. -- modified at 19:43 Friday 23rd June, 2006
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The descent into the Little Ice Age was, by accounts of contemporaries, quite rapid.
it's in the study.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The bottom line is rapid change is common and ordinary GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING
show me a comparable increase, given the same resoultion of data, and not some interpolated line based on two data points measured from an ice core estimated 8000 at years old.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Statistically, there is another problem. 1977 was a cold year. Using this as a basis creates the statistical impression that the temperature ON AVERAGE has changed more than it has than if 1955 were used or 1985.
put the zero anywhere you like, the graph still looks the same. we're talking about rate of change, not absolute temperature. the baseline is irrelevant. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
show me a comparable increase, given the same resoultion of data, and not some interpolated line based on two data points measured from an ice core estimated 8000 at years old.
This is utter nonsense and you know it. The resolution of data this year is vastly different than from 150 years ago. That's why there is a margin of error. If, for example, I know a certain creature only lives in, or a certain event only happens in, a narrow temperature band and I find evidence of that event, I can extrapolate the the temperature was in a certain range in that area at that time. A margin of error will be applied to that range. So, if I say event A happens at 35 degrees, plus/minus 5 degrees and event B happens at 70 degrees, plus/minus 10 degrees, that shows a drastic change in temperature between event A and B. If I furthermore, find that ice core samples support that something did happen between event A and event B, I can come to very good conclusions. On a contemporary level, you wildly over estimate the "resolution of data" for the past 150 years and wildly underestimate how much extrapolating is done with that data.
Chris Losinger wrote:
put the zero anywhere you like, the graph still looks the same. we're talking about rate of change, not absolute temperature. the baseline is irrelevant.
Good grief, you don't understand basic math at all, do you? Take four points: 20, 10, 20, 30. If I make the base line the second point, 10, the rate of change from it to the last point is higher than if I make the base line the first point, or 20. If I then add a fifth point of 20, I can cherry pick points to make a case for change or no change at all. I can even make a case for negative change. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
how so ? the scale is consistent in both axes.
Through distorted statistical sampling and extrapolation.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the study in question goes back 1200.
Which conveniently avoids the Medieval Climate Optimum for obvious reasons.
Chris Losinger wrote:
what "25 years"?
25 years is the oft quoted time frame used by proponents of man-made global warming.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it certainly does. you can't see 50-100 year changes on a graph like that, and it's doubtful the measurements used to create it have the kind of resolution needed to produce anything you can compare with the kind of records we have for the last 150 or so years.
Now you're just making a fool of yourself. You argue that the rate of change in the past x years exceeds all that in history, but then dismiss any data that is previous that the "last 150 or so years." You can't have it both ways. But it doesn't matter in geologic terms. We know that temperatures were lower during the past ice age. To believe otherwise, is to be deliberately ignorant. We know temperatures were significantly higher about 7000 years ago; hence the formation of peat bogs in northern climes. To argue that since we don't know the exact temperature, therefore the preponderance of evidence for frequent climate change must be dismissed is silly. It's also hypocritical since by point of fact, we don't have really good climate data going back more than few decades at the most.
Chris Losinger wrote:
O. M. G. i have never, ever, not once, in this thread, said anything about the "average" temperature. i'm gonna say it one last time: rate of change.
Likewise, the rate of change now is NOT unusual. The rate of change leading into and out of the Little Ice Age vastly exceeded the rate of change today which is why very few legitimate scientists even argue that point.
Chris Losinger wrote:
maybe something similar to what's happening now happened thousands of years ago. but we do not have the data to show it.
YES WE DO. Please read up on ice cores and tree ring data. Read up on fossils. NO legitimate scientist is arguing with rate of change since they would look very foolis
Joe Woodbury wrote:
25 years is the oft quoted time frame used by proponents of man-made global warming.
i'm talking about a specific study here.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Now you're just making a fool of yourself. You argue that the rate of change in the past x years exceeds all that in history, but then dismiss any data that is previous that the "last 150 or so years."
i'm saying we don't have comparable data to argue that what we're experiencing now is the same thing that happened 12,000 years ago (or whenever). the data we do have shows that what's happening now is unusual in the time span that we can reliably measure, and is still unusual for time spans we can not-quite-as-reliably measure.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The rate of change leading into and out of the Little Ice Age vastly exceeded the rate of change today which is why very few legitimate scientists even argue that point.
citation please. also note the study in question deals with the LIA.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
YES WE DO. Please read up on ice cores and tree ring data. Read up on fossils.
ugh. right now, we can accurately measure worldwide temperature every millsecond if we want to. for the past 200 years or so, we've been able to measure it every minute. when you're talking about ice core samples and tree rings, we start getting into resolutions on the scale of years. when you get to fossils, the time scales are millennia at best. surely you can see the qualitative difference trends based on 1/day samples vs. those based on 1/1000 year samples ?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
You are arguing that unless you can accurately measure temperature of a specific period then that period cannot be used to prove or disprove theories of global warming.
i'm saying the data we do have suggests something is happening that we don't (and can't, due to resolution and accuracy) see in the older data. if we had better ways of measuring older temp changes, we could definitively show that this is nothing new. but we simply don't have comparable sampling rates or accuracies, when you start talking about thousands of years ago.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
On a wider basis, the temperatures taken 150 years ago were a much smaller
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
show me a comparable increase, given the same resoultion of data, and not some interpolated line based on two data points measured from an ice core estimated 8000 at years old.
This is utter nonsense and you know it. The resolution of data this year is vastly different than from 150 years ago. That's why there is a margin of error. If, for example, I know a certain creature only lives in, or a certain event only happens in, a narrow temperature band and I find evidence of that event, I can extrapolate the the temperature was in a certain range in that area at that time. A margin of error will be applied to that range. So, if I say event A happens at 35 degrees, plus/minus 5 degrees and event B happens at 70 degrees, plus/minus 10 degrees, that shows a drastic change in temperature between event A and B. If I furthermore, find that ice core samples support that something did happen between event A and event B, I can come to very good conclusions. On a contemporary level, you wildly over estimate the "resolution of data" for the past 150 years and wildly underestimate how much extrapolating is done with that data.
Chris Losinger wrote:
put the zero anywhere you like, the graph still looks the same. we're talking about rate of change, not absolute temperature. the baseline is irrelevant.
Good grief, you don't understand basic math at all, do you? Take four points: 20, 10, 20, 30. If I make the base line the second point, 10, the rate of change from it to the last point is higher than if I make the base line the first point, or 20. If I then add a fifth point of 20, I can cherry pick points to make a case for change or no change at all. I can even make a case for negative change. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Good grief, you don't understand basic math at all, do you?
quit it with the ad hom.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
If I make the base line the second point, 10, the rate of change from it to the last point is higher than if I make the base line the first point, or 20.
but nobody is doing that here. put your zero anywhere you want, normalizing the data doesn't change anything here: the points don't change relative to each other. because a constant doesn't affect the slope of a line, delta-Temp is not affected by the baseline. and this is delta-T on a large timescale. this study isn't basing their results on 1977 or any other cherry picked year. don't drag other arguments into this. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker