Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Global warming alarmists change some assumptions in their computer models and claim global warming twice as great as before. With bonus spiffy color graphs   (popsci.com) divider line 523
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11066 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 7:20 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-26 08:58:56 PM  
Rising Ape: Ah, good old Brockway and his graph. As predictable as it is hilarious. Here's a better one:

[graph of data from last century and the century before last, LOLZ!]


Because nothing tells us whether global warming is happening NOW better than comparing it to data from 1880. LOLZ!

What's even funnier is that your own graph shows the 5-year moving average is now declining. LOLZ!
 
2009-05-26 08:59:30 PM  
I did a little digging, but I'm currently not well enough to actually dive into the simulation.

The simulation system looks to be reasonably complete and complex. You can find an introduction to the simulation model here (new window).

In short, this simulation models hard science effects (climate), soft science effects (economics), and system effects (ecology).

Having worked in ecological modeling from a chemistry perspective before, that's a very tough nut to crack. I haven't kept up on it, but even micro systems with well-defined parameters are hard nuts to crack.

I'm also not convinced about any economics model at this point. One of the issue I've seen in all models is determining a 'change point' - where actors in the model radically change their approaches to reduce cost or increase profits. Another issue I've seen in all models is the underestimation of people / corporations subverting laws and regulations. This subversive capability can either be purposely left in (loopholes), or discovered (laws crafted by non-economists).

Finally, the reporting of this result is a bit poor. They have described a 90% probability from the 400 base samples from their model. In short, this says a lot about consistency of the model, and a possibly something about the reliability of the model's applications to real world situations. If you use the same logical model but drop 400 marbles on a hypersurface describing global warning, there's a 90% probability that the 400 marbles will eventually land in this narrow space on the hypersurface.

To me, that's pretty telling that they have a self-consistent model. Does it have anything to do with reality? I don't know. There are links here (new window) and here (new window) to help determine that.

I would also like to see their sample base, to make sure that the 400 starting marbles were well-distributed and not in some local minimum or maximum.

Finally, here is a link to their current sponsors (new window). There are oil, energy, and car companies on the list. What their goal and purpose for funding this research is, I have no idea. However, they are sponsors.

All in all, the presentation, sloppy reportage, and attempt at making science "accessible" was certainly not well carried out by this group. Other than that, I'll have to read the paper and assumptions built into the model.

/ no, I'm not a climatologist, economist, ecologist
// have worked in fields of chemistry and sociology simulations
/// currently an (unemployed) computer systems architect - hence this screed on fark
 
2009-05-26 09:00:24 PM  
MrSteve007: Global warming or not - why shouldn't we as a nation focus on doing more with less resources and focus on conservation?

Seems like a pretty good way to fight wildly shifting energy costs, reductions in fresh water availability and that whole clean air, land and ocean thing. What a concept!


Well-said. Don't forget, along with that, all of the economic and security reasons why reducing our oil dependence is a good thing.
 
2009-05-26 09:02:03 PM  
joethebastard: Brockway: But hey, why let a little thing like the, you know, actual scientific data get in the way of your religion, Chicken Little.

if you're looking for an effect that's only visible on long timescales, why are you restricting your data to short ones?


Oh, I see. How many years would you like? Just tell me the number of years that is proper, and feel free to cite peer-reviewed articles in relevant scientific journals that support the number you chose.
 
2009-05-26 09:02:35 PM  
Brockway: What's even funnier is that your own graph shows the 5-year moving average is now declining. LOLZ!

I'm glad we can all laugh together. Because it's hilarious that you think "global warming" means "each year must be warmer than the year before it"!

LOLZ OMG
 
2009-05-26 09:03:07 PM  
I personally believe that the most fanatical climate doomsayers are just reimprinting their Christian childhoods on a new belief structure. The zombie Jesus story has just been replaced with the carbon boogeyman. Same apocalyptic imagery, same guilt complex, same lack of individual thought. I see the politicians, who were pretty slow on the uptake, I might add, finally seeing this as the huge power grab that it could be. Think Catholic church circa 1200, these politicians will be all up in your biz, it every way, and will claim the moral high ground while doing so! Politicians LOVE having something to save you from, your fear gives them power. Boogga boooga boooga CARBON!
 
2009-05-26 09:04:09 PM  
Brockway: Oh, I see. How many years would you like? Just tell me the number of years that is proper, and feel free to cite peer-reviewed articles in relevant scientific journals that support the number you chose.

It's a long-term trend: more is always better.

Where's your peer-reviewed article claiming that if GW is happening, it will be visible in an eight year chunk of data?
 
2009-05-26 09:06:20 PM  
As a public service announcement, I would like to tell all the 20-somethings reading this, that the A/C in cars used to be ICE FARKING COLD.

Thanks, hole in the ozone layer scare. Thanks for farking that right up.
 
2009-05-26 09:07:24 PM  
BlorfMaster: sure was hot out yesterday.

must be global warming.


Frost warning last night. Maybe close tonight. *sighs* I wanted to get a couple of my plants out to make room for their clones. I, for one, welcome global warming.

I'm still pretty sure that I have no belief in global warming or, these days termed, global climate change in the manner that they want me to believe. I don't know if it is man-made, bad, going to cause harm, or is in any way unusual for the planet. I don't think they know either but they love to pretend they do.
 
2009-05-26 09:08:43 PM  
Schmea: I'm assuming NASA can be considered a neutral party. What do they have to gain by promoting either agenda?

It keeps the scientists who work there in hookers and blow.
 
2009-05-26 09:11:06 PM  
Mykeru: Science? Who needs it?

If there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's that learnin' things never taught me nothin'. And books is the worst.
 
2009-05-26 09:12:50 PM  
joethebastard: MrSteve007: Global warming or not - why shouldn't we as a nation focus on doing more with less resources and focus on conservation?

Seems like a pretty good way to fight wildly shifting energy costs, reductions in fresh water availability and that whole clean air, land and ocean thing. What a concept!

Well-said. Don't forget, along with that, all of the economic and security reasons why reducing our oil dependence is a good thing.


Because it's giving up. We should be looking for ways to solve problems in a way that people don't have to marginalize their lifestyles. Increase the resources. No hairshirts please.

Getting away from oil is a good idea from the geo-political problems it brings and the mess it makes. Cleaning up the air etc is great. Doing it by making people live mousy little lives is unpalatable.

"For the good of the planet we are removing all private domicles and moving all of you into barracks, well , except for us elites. You'll be allowed one bag and you may shower on alternet Tuesdays. That is all"

Farfetched and hyperbolic, yep.
 
2009-05-26 09:16:22 PM  
Of course, when it actually ends up getting cooler in the next few years, as it has in the last few, it's STILL evidence of global warming because it's obvious that we're entering an ice age and it's not cooling as fast as it should be.
 
2009-05-26 09:17:24 PM  
whatshisname: Schmea: I'm assuming NASA can be considered a neutral party. What do they have to gain by promoting either agenda?

It keeps the scientists who work there in hookers and blow.


They're just human.

How many people had ever heard of Dr. Hanson till this came out. He's a celebrity now. There is no way he could ever come out and say. 'Whoops my bad. I blew that one!!!'. He'd be a nobody.
 
2009-05-26 09:18:08 PM  
CujoQuarrel: Because it's giving up. We should be looking for ways to solve problems in a way that people don't have to marginalize their lifestyles. Increase the resources. No hairshirts please.

Awww, people will have to give up SUVs and suburban sprawl? Let me dig out my violin...

"For the good of the planet we are removing all private domicles and moving all of you into barracks, well , except for us elites. You'll be allowed one bag and you may shower on alternet Tuesdays. That is all"

Farfetched and hyperbolic, yep.


Yeah... "hyperbolic" is an excellent description of your post.
 
2009-05-26 09:18:16 PM  
CujoQuarrel: And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.


Isn't 'B' an invalid hypothesis? Shouldn't you need to provide what you think caused climate change in the past. Otherwise it can't be proven wrong.

Even claiming it's cyclic needs some proof. Milankovitch cycles have problems. Just because something happened more than once in the past doesn't mean something is cyclic.

/Personal hypothesis is most significant climate change (such as ice ages) follows large meteor strike events. And aren't cyclic at all.
 
nfw
2009-05-26 09:19:47 PM  
MrSteve007: Global warming or not - why shouldn't we as a nation focus on doing more with less resources and focus on conservation?

Seems like a pretty good way to fight wildly shifting energy costs, reductions in fresh water availability and that whole clean air, land and ocean thing. What a concept!

Cast in point - The Pacific Northwest hasn't increased energy consumption in 30 years, and the Seattle area hasn't increased total water consumption amount since the early 1960's - even though we've doubled in population size. We're doing pretty good with conservation while having thriving businesses.


Conservation is good, paying quacks with taxpayer dollars is not.
 
2009-05-26 09:20:10 PM  
This thread makes me really sad. Anti-intellectualism in America is really depressing.
 
2009-05-26 09:21:20 PM  
MentalMoment: CujoQuarrel: And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.

Isn't 'B' an invalid hypothesis? Shouldn't you need to provide what you think caused climate change in the past. Otherwise it can't be proven wrong.

Even claiming it's cyclic needs some proof. Milankovitch cycles have problems. Just because something happened more than once in the past doesn't mean something is cyclic.

/Personal hypothesis is most significant climate change (such as ice ages) follows large meteor strike events. And aren't cyclic at all.


Well, we know it did change don't we? Long before humanity was around. Why are we so sure this time it is humanity causing it this time?
 
2009-05-26 09:23:20 PM  
attackingpencil: This thread makes me really sad. Anti-intellectualism in America is really depressing.

So is this to imply that any time someone disagrees with you they are an anti-intellectual?
 
2009-05-26 09:24:54 PM  
CujoQuarrel: Well, we know it did change don't we? Long before humanity was around. Why are we so sure this time it is humanity causing it this time?

Because we have a qualitative model as to why it should, and the available data correlates nicely.

Is it possible that it's just an extremely improbable correlation, with no actual causation? Of course. But that probability has gotten smaller and smaller as more data becomes available.
 
2009-05-26 09:26:35 PM  
Kevin72: To Jon Snow, the sun, the sun, the sun.

To Kevin72, it isn't the sun, the sun, the sun[1][2][3][4][5][6][7].
 
2009-05-26 09:27:30 PM  
CujoQuarrel: attackingpencil: This thread makes me really sad. Anti-intellectualism in America is really depressing.

So is this to imply that any time someone disagrees with you they are an anti-intellectual?


No, those who listen to wingnuts that have no evidence for some type of conspiracy or base their beliefs on no evidence are anti-intellectual.
 
2009-05-26 09:29:03 PM  
Brockway: Except for that inconvenient truth that even according to NOAA's own data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for COOLING (note slope on trendline equation), not warming.

*insert suspicious looking graph here*

But hey, why let a little thing like the, you know, actual scientific data get in the way of your religion, Chicken Little.


Okay, I don't know whether your post was a troll or not, but just in case it wasn't:

your graph...

1. states "this century" at the top and states "month number" at the bottom... and only counts to 10 instead of 12 (like it would if it was for months. odd.
2. is not linked directly from noaa's site
3. still contains a url to the source data at the bottom of the pic

... which both aroused my suspicions, and gave me the means to fact check with the real data.

So, naturally, i took the data from the url in the pic (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_19 0 1-2000mean.dat) and graphed it in excel just go see if the trends matched.

Result:

Link (new window)

Conclusion: try checking your information for accuracy first before using it to support your argument.
 
2009-05-26 09:30:20 PM  
olddinosaur: Anyone who still believes in global warming is advised to google Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and one of the most distingiushed scientists in the world.

Really? What's his field? What degrees does he hold? What has he published? If you're going to make an appeal to authority, make it a good one. Science adviser to Thatcher is a political position, what's his cred as a scientist?
 
2009-05-26 09:30:25 PM  
wooo jon snow is here!
 
2009-05-26 09:30:51 PM  
Excellent headline, Subby, +1 truth.

C'mon, farkers,you AGW alarmists talk about "scientific evidence," and then when anyone pulls some up showing what you don't want to hear (i.e. Al Gore is full of it) you ignore it.

Pathetic.

/Lives in Florida, will let you know when it's time to panic.
//DON'T PANIC
 
2009-05-26 09:31:36 PM  
joethebastard: CujoQuarrel: Well, we know it did change don't we? Long before humanity was around. Why are we so sure this time it is humanity causing it this time?

Because we have a qualitative model as to why it should, and the available data correlates nicely.

Is it possible that it's just an extremely improbable correlation, with no actual causation? Of course. But that probability has gotten smaller and smaller as more data becomes available.


And again. Correlation does not mean causation. Temperature could be driving the CO2. Or a third something could be driving both.

And I've not heard of that model being able to make a perdiction correctly yet. If I have one set of points that I write a model for it WILL fit those points. Because I will tweak the inputs till it does. It's only if you can take the model and predict accurately with it that you can actually have any faith in it. The problem is we only have one set of data.

Now if they had , say , taken the data pre 1970 and used it to predict 1971 on with some accuracy that would be one thing. But I don't believe that to be the case.
 
2009-05-26 09:34:56 PM  
thepatriotaxe.com
 
2009-05-26 09:36:20 PM  
CujoQuarrel: And again. Correlation does not mean causation.

Yeah, I just pointed that out to you. Good job.

Temperature could be driving the CO2.

And what's driving the temperature?

Or a third something could be driving both.

like?
 
2009-05-26 09:36:34 PM  
olddinosaur: Anyone who still believes in global warming is advised to google Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and one of the most distingiushed scientists in the world.

Ah yes, Chris Monckton. Journalist by training, politician for a time, and full time whackaloon. Author of zero refereed papers in scientific journals. Serial fabricator[1][2]. Calls the President of the US "Osamabamarama"[3].

"[O]ne of the most distingiushed[sic] scientists in the world"?

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.
 
2009-05-26 09:37:33 PM  
*edit* noticed the graph is cherry-picking the data that is just from "this century." Lame.
 
2009-05-26 09:37:45 PM  
joethebastard: CujoQuarrel: And again. Correlation does not mean causation.

Yeah, I just pointed that out to you. Good job.

Temperature could be driving the CO2.

And what's driving the temperature?

Or a third something could be driving both.

like?


The sun?
 
2009-05-26 09:39:14 PM  
Trayal:
1. states "this century" at the top and states "month number" at the bottom... and only counts to 10 instead of 12 (like it would if it was for months. odd.


Only counts to 10? WTF? Dude, it counts all the months so far this century, since it is a graph of (TA DA!) the temperature trend this century. What it does is to have the major division every 10 months, because guess what...TA DA!, the number of months doesn't change with a change in arbitrary major division selection, Einstein.

2. is not linked directly from noaa's site

Because FARK, hurrr, durrr, FARK doesn't allow linking to FTP, genius, hurr, durrr.

3. still contains a url to the source data at the bottom of the pic

Because it's an inclusion of (ta da!) source citation, since FARK doesn't allow link to FTP, genius.

Conclusion: try checking your information for accuracy first before using it to support your argument.

Conclusion, you should try being less stupid next time.
 
2009-05-26 09:39:22 PM  
CujoQuarrel: The sun?

doesn't correlate with the data. jon snow linked some good articles on the topic.

any other uninformed suggestions?
 
2009-05-26 09:42:33 PM  
all_arm: unlike the Brockways of the world who derive great pleasure from ignoring science to suit their viewpoints.

LOLZ! Yeah, because quoting the data straight from the NOAA website, and including the URL for the underlying data right on the graph is "ignoring science".

/LOLZ!
 
2009-05-26 09:44:07 PM  
Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Don't forget earth's magnetic field, which has been decreasing, increasingly rapidly, probably in preparation for a reversal.

Think it's toasty now? Woo buddy, just wait. You're gonna wish like crazy for cloud cover.


Sorry, no[1]. It's nice to see the "magnetic flip" canard though. It beats all of the SUN SUN SUN nonsense I usually hear.
 
2009-05-26 09:46:31 PM  
Brockway: all_arm: unlike the Brockways of the world who derive great pleasure from ignoring science to suit their viewpoints.

LOLZ! Yeah, because quoting the data straight from the NOAA website, and including the URL for the underlying data right on the graph is "ignoring science".

/LOLZ!


Since you purposefully leave out the data that would show how wrong you are, and ignore the people who point it out, "ignoring science" seems about right.
 
2009-05-26 09:47:20 PM  
joethebastard: Brockway: What's even funnier is that your own graph shows the 5-year moving average is now declining. LOLZ!

I'm glad we can all laugh together. Because it's hilarious that you think "global warming" means "each year must be warmer than the year before it"!

LOLZ OMG


Each year? LOLZ! Perhaps you'd prefer this 'fixed-year' exercise, where no year is compared to the year before it:

What year was warmer according to NOAA/NASA 2008 or 2001?
What year was warmer according to NOAA/NASA 2008 or 2002?
What year was warmer according to NOAA/NASA 2008 or 2003?
What year was warmer according to NOAA/NASA 2008 or 2004?
What year was warmer according to NOAA/NASA 2008 or 2005?
What year was warmer according to NOAA/NASA 2008 or 2006?

/LOLZ!
 
2009-05-26 09:48:08 PM  
Here's my theory about global warming:

Everyone in this thread who complains about scientists and grant money has precisely ZERO experience in science or the grant-writing process.

Prove me wrong.
 
2009-05-26 09:48:37 PM  
Make sure to forward the "You cant have what we have, because its too environmentally expensive." message to all the developing industrial nations of Asia and South America . I'm sure they'll understand.

Get off my planet, I have to mow.

BTW. If you check the yellow pages you can find plenty of places that write grants as a full time job, you don't have to know dick to get one, especially is your myopia is a popular brand of myopia.
 
2009-05-26 09:48:52 PM  
What Global warming may look like:
img38.imageshack.us
 
2009-05-26 09:49:18 PM  
CujoQuarrel: Well, we know it did change don't we? Long before humanity was around. Why are we so sure this time it is humanity causing it this time?

Still have to ask what is the cause for the change now if not humans. The question still assumes something is causing the change without identifying what it is.

C02 has been shown to be a green-house gas back in the 17th century. And it stays in the atmosphere a long time (50-200 years).

Since the industrial revolution humans have been digging up carbon that's been buried for eons, burn it, and blowing the exhaust into the atmosphere. We also build a lot of concrete structures.

While we are only responsible for a minor about of C02 (4%) it is a recent addition to what was going into the atmosphere from natural emissions.

Bacteria (also a hypothesis) once changed the Earth's atmosphere far, far in the past. So an organism's size doesn't prevent it from affecting the climate. Just a need for significant numbers.

Something may be causing climate change now (solar hasn't increased over the decades). But until one or more causes are identified, human cause is the most likely candidate.
 
2009-05-26 09:49:25 PM  
Brockway - so you freely admit to deceptive cherry picking of data by citing an entire data set, but only presenting a tiny subset that's too limited to show the overall trend.

Gotcha.
 
2009-05-26 09:50:33 PM  
joethebastard:
Since you purposefully leave out the data that would show how wrong you are, and ignore the people who point it out, "ignoring science" seems about right.


Add another FARK double-genius who can't distinguish between the following two statements:

1. The world has NEVER warmed.
2. The world is not NOW warming.
 
2009-05-26 09:51:56 PM  
Still waitin on my ICE AGE. All you hippies said it would be here by now.

Catalytic converters must have stopped it dead in its tracks, just like my wrangler.
 
2009-05-26 09:52:17 PM  
Trayal: Brockway - so you freely admit to deceptive cherry picking of data by citing an entire data set, but only presenting a tiny subset that's too limited to show the overall trend.

Uhm, it's 100% of the data from this century. I don't really know how 100% is cherry-picking, but oh well.
 
2009-05-26 09:52:49 PM  
Brockway: Each year? LOLZ! Perhaps you'd prefer this 'fixed-year' exercise, where no year is compared to the year before it:

maybe we should look at the whole dataset and look for trends:

upload.wikimedia.org

OH HEY LOOK A TREND!
 
2009-05-26 09:53:32 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: Here's my theory about global warming:

Everyone in this thread who complains about scientists and grant money has precisely ZERO experience in science or the grant-writing process.

Prove me wrong.


Prove yourself right. You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
 
2009-05-26 09:53:49 PM  
i486.photobucket.com

I can't believe people actually buy into this crap. Yep, enjoy your double-sized electric bill. At least we'll keep the temp. from climbing a tenth of a degree in 50 years, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report