|
On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. Show nested quote +These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson
Ok first off:
Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing.
Second:
The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic.
Third:
I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
|
On July 09 2010 15:25 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson Ok first off: Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing. Second: The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic. Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
|
On July 10 2010 01:51 Helios.Star wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 15:25 MadVillain wrote:On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson Ok first off: Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing. Second: The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic. Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous. Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
Global warming isn't like you're placing the Earth in a microwave and then everything heats up equally. There's bound to be fluctuations in temperature around the world; Some places might be "colder" than others. This happens all the time, even without taking into account global warming.
But overall temperate has been going up which means if you took the temperature of every area on Earth, overall trends show a marked increase in temperature. The only real argument I see in this debate is if this change is significant enough from normal expected values. The research so far points to that being true.
|
On July 10 2010 02:02 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 01:51 Helios.Star wrote:On July 09 2010 15:25 MadVillain wrote:On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson Ok first off: Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing. Second: The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic. Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous. Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up. Global warming isn't like you're placing the Earth in a microwave and then everything heats up equally. There's bound to be fluctuations in temperature around the world; Some places might be "colder" than others. This happens all the time, even without taking into account global warming. But overall temperate has been going up which means if you took the temperature of every area on Earth, overall trends show a marked increase in temperature. The only real argument I see in this debate is if this change is significant enough from normal expected values. The research so far points to that being true.
So if some places are still staying cooler while others warm up, is "Global Warming" nothing more than just a name? Even if it didn't heat up evenly, wouldnt there still be some increase in temperature? I still dont understand WHY some places would be staying "colder" while others arent. Is the CO2 just sitting above the places its produced and not dispersing evenly (this happens with volcanic ash and nuclear fallout, why not atmospheric gas)? If CO2 is the cause, then why wouldnt decaying plants, volcanic emissions, animal (cow) emissions, and just 7 billion people breathing even everything out temperature wise?
|
Sweden1661 Posts
On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. Show nested quote +These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson
You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me).
However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at.
(Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.)
Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it.
Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person.
|
On July 10 2010 02:13 Helios.Star wrote:
So if some places are still staying cooler while others warm up, is "Global Warming" nothing more than just a name? Even if it didn't heat up evenly, wouldnt there still be some increase in temperature? I still dont understand WHY some places would be staying "colder" while others arent. Is the CO2 just sitting above the places its produced and not dispersing evenly (this happens with volcanic ash and nuclear fallout, why not atmospheric gas)? If CO2 is the cause, then why wouldnt decaying plants, volcanic emissions, animal (cow) emissions, and just 7 billion people breathing even everything out temperature wise?
You raise a few good questions in this post, which as far as I could tell hadn't been addressed at the time of this writing. Hopefully my response will help shed some light, although I always hope people don't take my word for it and continue to do their own research from reliable sources (e.g. journal literatures, not necessarily news sites or anything with ".org" in the name).
A) No. Global warming is more than "just a name" (although the proper term is "climate change" for a reason: the entire globe doesn't warm homogenously). You just aren't considering that it is an average value, not a uniform one. Consider this very simple analogy: Planet A is made up of Location 1 and Location 2. Location 1 is 30 degrees while Location 2 is 40 degrees. The average temperature of Planet A is 35 degrees. Then: climate change of some sort! Planet A's average temperature is 45 degrees! A proportionately enormous change in the average. However, to get there, Location 2 cooled down by 5 degrees to be 35 degrees, while Location 1 heated up by 25 degrees to be 55 degrees--averaging out to a net increase of 10 degrees globally. That ended up being more convoluted than I intended, so I apologize--but hopefully it's understandable.
One of the main reasons for non-uniformity in warming trends is that there is unequal heating in the northern and southern hemispheres. Water has a much higher specific heat than land of any sort does (a phenomenon that can easily be verified by observing coastal weather). The northern hemisphere has over twice the total landmass of the southern hemisphere. On a hemisphere-to-hemisphere basis, net influence of solar radiation is greater on the north half of the globe than the south.
B) As for carbon dioxide migration from a volcano versus that from industrial sources: this isn't necessarily true. C0(2) migration in the atmosphere is obviously highly dependent upon local jet stream elevation, prevailing winds, current weather, etc. However, one thing I can touch upon is that relating volcano emissions to car emissions is a bit disingenuous. It's like the difference between a point source and a non-point source. Again using an oversimplification to illustrate, consider one volcano emitting 2000 tons of CO(2) in a day, versus two thousand cars emitting 2 ton of CO(2) in a day. The volcano, of course, is stationary. The very reason the cars are emitting CO(2) is that they are moving. Hence, although the immediate local concentration of carbon dioxide over the volcano is much greater, the cars, although not having a centralized location of emission, emit twice as much net carbon dioxide (and over a much greater area).
C) I'm unsure of what you're saying here--what is evening out temperature wise? The entire globe? If it was elaborated upon then I would respond to it.
This should be clear, but as a disclaimer obviously none of these numbers in the 'examples' are real values; all of them were just pulled out of my ass for the purpose of illustration.
|
On July 10 2010 04:23 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person.
You don't understand how simple statistics is. You set up your null hypothesis, your data set, you put it into your TI83 calculator using the correct statistical test, then the calculator gives you P=......... Assuming the earth is some 100 million years old, we would need a sample of 10 million years to have a scientifically significant data set with a 95% confidence interval. Looking at 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years is utterly insignificant. All of it is shitty science.
Scientists can't tell what the temperature will be tomorrow with 95% confidence, but they can tell what it will be in 50 years. When Mt.St.Helens blew up, they predicted that all the volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and produce a mini-ice age. They also said there would be no forest growth at the mountain for 50 years. We don't know all the variables that create weather, and in what proportion they work.
I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
|
On July 10 2010 01:51 Helios.Star wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 15:25 MadVillain wrote:On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson Ok first off: Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing. Second: The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic. Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous. Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
As temperatures rise, more water evaporates, especially in tropical regions. Some of this water vapor ends up drifting to the poles, where it falls as snow/ice.
I forget offhand why this happens more at the south pole than the north pole...
|
Sweden1661 Posts
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 04:23 KlaCkoN wrote:On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person. You don't understand how simple statistics is. You set up your null hypothesis, your data set, you put it into your TI83 calculator using the correct statistical test, then the calculator gives you P=......... Assuming the earth is some 100 million years old, we would need a sample of 10 million years to have a scientifically significant data set with a 95% confidence interval. Looking at 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years is utterly insignificant. All of it is shitty science. Scientists can't tell what the temperature will be tomorrow with 95% confidence, but they can tell what it will be in 50 years. When Mt.St.Helens blew up, they predicted that all the volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and produce a mini-ice age. They also said there would be no forest growth at the mountain for 50 years. We don't know all the variables that create weather, and in what proportion they work. I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
Like i've said to other people, if you are so sure, and if it's that simple then write it up and submit to nature! Climate change is _the_ topic at the moment and if you are right you are going to be famous.
Of course that's not going to happen =p What I don't understand is why lay people consider themselves entitled to an opinion on this particular scientific topic and no other. Well evolution is a pretty big example I guess but it is quite easy to understand why that is so - with religion in the mix and all.
I mean you suddenly wouldn't get the idea (I hope) that the theory of wave particle duality is crappy conspiracy theory and that newton was right all along would you?
|
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 04:23 KlaCkoN wrote:On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote:On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.
-Robert Anton Wilson You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person. You don't understand how simple statistics is. You set up your null hypothesis, your data set, you put it into your TI83 calculator using the correct statistical test, then the calculator gives you P=......... Assuming the earth is some 100 million years old, we would need a sample of 10 million years to have a scientifically significant data set with a 95% confidence interval. Looking at 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years is utterly insignificant. All of it is shitty science.
Yep, better revoke a few thousand PhDs (it takes about twenty thousand hours of study to get a PhD) because none of them have ever taken a high school statistics course. Plus, your knowledge of statistics is horrific.
Nobody who knows anything about statistics would suggest that you require a sample of ten million to make reasonable conclusions about a population of ten million; in fact, when the population itself hits the upper end it doesn't matter how large the population is: the amount of samples to achieve a certain confidence depends on the standard deviation of your sample.
Finally, we're looking for recent trends, meaning we don't need all one hundred million years of data to make conclusions about the next thousand; if we were predicting climate over the next hundred million years you might have a point, but you don't since just about nobody is looking past the next five hundred years. Analysis temperature records reject the null (no trend) hypothesis for warming over the last hundred years with extremely high significance.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/World_population_history.svg/500px-World_population_history.svg.png)
But people have been around for tens of thousands of years, and this is only fifty years of data. Maybe population isn't going up after all.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Scientists can't tell what the temperature will be tomorrow with 95% confidence, but they can tell what it will be in 50 years.
Weather is different from climate. Long-term behavior of a system is different from short-term chaotic behavior. They can't tell you if it will rain in week but they can sure as fuck tell you that July will, on average (in the northern hemisphere,) be warmer than January.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
When Mt.St.Helens blew up, they predicted that all the volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and produce a mini-ice age.
Citation required.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
They also said there would be no forest growth at the mountain for 50 years.
Citation required.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
Just like how there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 400,000 years.
|
If Keynes were alive today reagan supports would say he was a fraud because he often went to extremes of dickishness to prove a point.
I think it's actually pretty funny that this researcher was so pissed off about deniers.
As for this discussion, how many legitimate scientific peer review journals publish articles that take as their fundamental assumption that climate change is not real?
If you think you can do real statistical analysis on a graphing calculator you are a complete tool. It's true, you can solve a 16 by 16 matrix on a ti-83 (or 89 if youre not poor lolololol) but it takes supercomputers to solve real matrices.
|
its natural cycles it has occured many times before nothing humanity can do to stop it only lessen the effect so green technologys arnt a bad idea shows some respect for your mother 'living planet' you think she doesnt have feelings. Karma is a good word to explain the coming 5yrs humanity mostly deserves what they gonna get.
|
You should all be concerned what a pole shift brought on by a second sun and comet cluster is gonna do to the earth... I can say this with 99% certainy that when these events do occur it is likely anyone will survive if some do survive it will be small groups. We estimate about 72% of population will die in the first week.
|
On July 12 2010 04:53 Maji wrote:
You should all be concerned what a pole shift brought on by a second sun and comet cluster is gonna do to the earth... I can say this with 99% certainy that when these events do occur it is likely anyone will survive if some do survive it will be small groups. We estimate about 72% of population will die in the first week.
I don't think magnetic pole shifts have been proven to be dangerous.
|
On July 12 2010 04:53 Maji wrote:
Radiation: What you Feel and what you think is radiated from you. So we will give a example you project specific emotions and thoughts in which then affects those around you therefore affecting your own experience.
Attraction: What you Feel and what you think is attracted too you. Attraction is the processes in which based on polarization 'choices' wether it be negative or positive interpetion of events and responses, those same emotions and thoughts being projected will be attracted to you.
Reflection: What you Feel and what you think is reflected back onto you. Law of Reflection states that what is sent our will be sent back, hence Reflection means that you project emotions and thoughts based on type sent will affect you in long run.
Why are you predicting Earth's doom when you believe that anything you believe is going to happen
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Some of you have to keep up with the latest lingo. AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is now CAGCC (catastrophic antropogentic global climate change). Remember that it's name of the IPCC. CAGCC is nearly unprovable but can't be disproved either. Since it's so vague it has to be backed up with the precautionary principle and widespread fear of the unknown risks.
CAGCC might be happening but I'd worry about cloud patterns, rainfall rates, and evaporation patterns more than temperature or CO2. The "science is settled" crowd are a bunch of pompous self-righteous holier-than-thou charlatans.
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true. Just like how there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 400,000 years.
Correlation is not causation. Rather it looks like the causation is the other way around with CO2 lagging temperature changes by a few centuries. current CO2 concentrations are also very low by geological standards.
|
On July 12 2010 04:43 Maji wrote:
its natural cycles it has occured many times before nothing humanity can do to stop it only lessen the effect so green technologys arnt a bad idea shows some respect for your mother 'living planet' you think she doesnt have feelings. Karma is a good word to explain the coming 5yrs humanity mostly deserves what they gonna get.
You make my brain hurt. At least you used a period and a capital this time. You are making progress ^.^.
BTW, Maji, I have a theory. Global Warming is caused by all the bad karma we have from electing Obama. What do you think?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Nobody who knows anything about statistics would suggest that you require a sample of ten million to make reasonable conclusions about a population of ten million; in fact, when the population itself hits the upper end it doesn't matter how large the population is: the amount of samples to achieve a certain confidence depends on the standard deviation of your sample.
You need a representative sample. Sampling procedure must be rigorously defended or they put the entire conclusion at risk.
Statistical significance as a test (5% rule) against a null hypothesis is highly misunderstood and sometimes not a very good metric. Statistics should be a method of last resort to prove anything since there is always the risk of being wrong.
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Finally, we're looking for recent trends, meaning we don't need all one hundred million years of data to make conclusions about the next thousand; if we were predicting climate over the next hundred million years you might have a point, but you don't since just about nobody is looking past the next five hundred years. Analysis temperature records reject the null (no trend) hypothesis for warming over the last hundred years with extremely high significance.
Predictive models must prove their predictive capacity. The standard proving method is to use current data to prove a future event. Since that might be too late for climate change which happens to invoke the PP (precautionary principle), the test of the predictive models should be a double blind prediction and validation using data sets from two different time periods. I don't recall ever seeing that done.
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:But people have been around for tens of thousands of years, and this is only fifty years of data. Maybe population isn't going up after all.
Climate Change might have more to do with human population sprawl or human population density rather than human carbon dioxide production. The human population signal is much stronger than the global carbon dioxide signal, but climate science has an obsession with carbon dioxide.
|
how did this thread get de-derailed?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
It's derailed because it's related to a highly politically charge subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
