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.

(Science Blogs)   Good news: The climate "hockey stick" is a misnomer. Bad news: It should actually be the climate "reaper scythe." EVERYBODY PANIC   (scienceblogs.com) divider line 221
    More: Scary, hockey sticks, Grim Reaper, misnomer, climate  
•       •       •

4263 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 1:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-22 01:29:01 PM
Aw, H - E double hockey sticks.
 
2013-03-22 01:40:34 PM

TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:



scienceblogs.com

Reality:
models.weatherbell.com
 
2013-03-22 01:43:27 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-22 01:47:42 PM
I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.
 
2013-03-22 01:53:22 PM
If we start changing the way we live to combat climate change what are future generations going to spend their time doing? I'll tell you what: killing their predecessors. We should leave this hornet's nest alone for the next generation to deal with because I don't know about you but I'm not going to go around fixing things for my progeny.
 
2013-03-22 01:56:52 PM
That's awesome.  This is weapons grade Swine Flu panic level derp
 
2013-03-22 02:08:38 PM
We are having an unusually chilly day here in KC today so therefore there is no global warming.
 
2013-03-22 02:11:15 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-22 02:11:26 PM

nekom: I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.


I"m sure it's actually something simple. I think there's even a Python class where they just import earth_env and it's all ready to go. I totally put my full faith in what they say is going to happen.
 
2013-03-22 02:16:14 PM
I am not any sort of global warming denier, but here's where that graph was:

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-03-22 02:16:16 PM
The ONLY reliable world wide temperature graph is based on satellite measurement.. and we only have data back to 1979

<img src="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_F eb_2013_v5.5.png">Yes, it's gone up a little.  No it is not smooth.
 
2013-03-22 02:18:21 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


Are you limiting analysis to four years in an effort to mock climate change denialists, or are you being willfully dishonest?
 
2013-03-22 02:18:22 PM
Maybe George W. Bush was right -- we need to wipe out entire countries if we're going to survive.
 
2013-03-22 02:18:39 PM

dognose4: The ONLY reliable world wide temperature graph is based on satellite measurement.. and we only have data back to 1979


I'm sure that your PHD in geophysics give you the authority to make such a blanket statement.
 
2013-03-22 02:24:12 PM
www.skepticalscience.com

I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...
 
2013-03-22 02:29:41 PM

T-Servo: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x334]

I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...


If this trend keeps going for a million years, the temperature of the earth will be enough to melt steel!
STEEL!

/OMFGPANIC!
 
2013-03-22 02:29:58 PM
oi46.tinypic.com
Wake up, gweeple
 
2013-03-22 02:33:44 PM

nekom: I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.


DENIER!

Send him and his family to the Re-Education Camp!
 
2013-03-22 02:38:47 PM
This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


suyts.files.wordpress.com
 
Bf+
2013-03-22 02:40:35 PM
static5.businessinsider.com
Looks a little skewed to me.
 
2013-03-22 02:43:16 PM

Giltric: This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


[suyts.files.wordpress.com image 850x389]


"On an alchohol [sic] thermometer"? What the hell does that even mean? And why the hell would you use a bar graph?

And if you're going to try to drown out the actual changes that have occurred, why not go whole farking hog and use Kelvin? What the hell relevance does 0° F have to the discussion?
 
2013-03-22 02:45:37 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-22 02:49:57 PM

dognose4: The ONLY reliable world wide temperature graph is based on satellite measurement.. and we only have data back to 1979

<img src="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_F eb_2013_v5.5.png">Yes, it's gone up a little.  No it is not smooth.


Whats so special about spess that temperature proxies measured there are infinitely more reliable than bits of mercury inside tubes, ice cores, tree rings, coral rings, pollen, and sedimentary deposits?
 
2013-03-22 02:52:25 PM
Now that is how you troll, folks.
 
2013-03-22 02:52:49 PM
Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:
 
2013-03-22 03:00:16 PM
Dinki:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 813x555]

That explains last year's droughts.
 
2013-03-22 03:00:56 PM

legion_of_doo: T-Servo: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x334]

I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...

If this trend keeps going for a million years, the temperature of the earth will be enough to melt steel!
STEEL!

/OMFGPANIC!


upload.wikimedia.org

Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Its relative proximity to the sun (0.7 AU) allowed the runaway greenhouse effect to start without an industrial revolution on its surface.

Average temperature 462° C.
 
2013-03-22 03:03:09 PM

RminusQ: Giltric: This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


[suyts.files.wordpress.com image 850x389]

"On an alchohol [sic] thermometer"? What the hell does that even mean? And why the hell would you use a bar graph?

And if you're going to try to drown out the actual changes that have occurred, why not go whole farking hog and use Kelvin? What the hell relevance does 0° F have to the discussion?



Do you have a chart in kelvin for the same period as the chart I posted?
 
2013-03-22 03:08:01 PM

kingoomieiii: Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Its relative proximity to the sun (0.7 AU) allowed the runaway greenhouse effect to start without an industrial revolution on its surface.

Average temperature 462° C.


monsterminions.files.wordpress.com

What the hell do you have against Venusians?
 
2013-03-22 03:08:03 PM
I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.
 
2013-03-22 03:17:04 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


One wonders why your "reality" chart starts in 2009.
 
2013-03-22 03:18:04 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.
 
2013-03-22 03:18:46 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


No, they understand it quite well.
 
2013-03-22 03:19:21 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: nekom: I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.

DENIER!

img826.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-22 03:19:30 PM

give me doughnuts: I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.


Couldn't resist. Too easy.
 
2013-03-22 03:19:47 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


This assumes that CO2 is always good for plant growth, and in a linear fashion. It's not.

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com

It's kind of like saying that if you feed a child more calories they'll become adults faster.
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-22 03:24:13 PM
Wow someone is trying too hard for a research grant...
 
2013-03-22 03:26:22 PM

FloydA: DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x378]


Wow. She's trolling Tom Wopat.
 
2013-03-22 03:27:48 PM

Smidge204: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

This assumes that CO2 is always good for plant growth, and in a linear fashion. It's not.

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 585x470]

It's kind of like saying that if you feed a child more calories they'll become adults faster.
=Smidge=


To be fair if you did include more oxygen in their environment they'll get bigger. Just like ancient bugs were bigger during periods where Earth's had a larger percentage of O2.

http://theamericanscholar.org/when-bugs-were-bigger/

And everyone knows children and bugs are analogous. Just like Pirates and global warming!
 
2013-03-22 03:31:48 PM
monsterminions.files.wordpress.com

Imagine if you will...

A man submits his Ph.D thesis, and it's filled with all manner of data and graphs.
This is later published in the journal  Science,but the graphs have changed.  How is this possible?  Why was this done?
When talking with the press, which version is shown?
 
2013-03-22 03:37:18 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.
 
2013-03-22 03:37:48 PM
Mr climate scientist, how big is global warming?
emptysuit.files.wordpress.com

thank you, climate scientist
 
2013-03-22 03:39:28 PM
I wonder if Mr Laden knows that his goldfish have died.
 
2013-03-22 03:39:51 PM
The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military
 
2013-03-22 03:41:35 PM
So what's the solution?
 
2013-03-22 03:44:58 PM

T-Servo: The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military


Thanks for that. Hopelessly naive, but probably the best you could do. Bless.
 
2013-03-22 03:59:35 PM

Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere.


Guess what, climate modelers know this and it's already in the models.  If it weren't, they'd predict even more warming than they do.

And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:

Beyond 100% CO2?  What the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-03-22 03:59:58 PM

give me doughnuts: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.


In all seriousness - it's pretty much word-for-word something I heard said in earnest on a local conservative Christian radio station, from a self-claimed "climate scientist" they had on. I figured if share the wisdom some of our fellow countrymen are being fed on their morning commute.
 
2013-03-22 04:03:05 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: give me doughnuts: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.

In all seriousness - it's pretty much word-for-word something I heard said in earnest on a local conservative Christian radio station, from a self-claimed "climate scientist" they had on.


There've been propaganda videos to that effect for over 20 years ...
 
2013-03-22 04:03:22 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: give me doughnuts: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

I'm sure you'll get some bites with that.

In all seriousness - it's pretty much word-for-word something I heard said in earnest on a local conservative Christian radio station, from a self-claimed "climate scientist" they had on. I figured if share the wisdom some of our fellow countrymen are being fed on their morning commute.


A Christian said "don't jump under that bus!"

Well, that got rid of him.
 
2013-03-22 04:08:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: T-Servo: The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Thanks for that. Hopelessly naive, but probably the best you could do. Bless.


Ouch, coming from someone who only responds with cartoons in a science thread, that cuts pretty deep.
 
2013-03-22 04:10:24 PM
A made up science designed to perpetuate itself.
 
2013-03-22 04:11:44 PM

George Walker Bush: A made up science designed to perpetuate itself.


There, there. The evil scientists will be gone soon.
 
2013-03-22 04:19:43 PM

T-Servo: THE GREAT NAME: T-Servo: The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Thanks for that. Hopelessly naive, but probably the best you could do. Bless.

Ouch, coming from someone who only responds with cartoons in a science thread, that cuts pretty deep.


That's... that's sarcasm isn't it! I'm very impressed. They said Americans couldn't do sarcasm, but you've proven them all wrong.
 
2013-03-22 04:21:16 PM

aerojockey: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

i.imgur.com

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.
 
2013-03-22 04:23:17 PM

FLMountainMan: So what's the solution?


Stop being carbon neutral, inhale twice for every exhale.
 
2013-03-22 04:23:39 PM

SVenus: aerojockey: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

[i.imgur.com image 625x389]
Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.


This experiment needs repeating with the genus cannibis sativa.
 
2013-03-22 04:30:18 PM

bmongar: We are having an unusually chilly day here in KC today so therefore there is no global warming.


Also, scientists speak colloquially to each other when they don't know their email is going to be stolen.
 
2013-03-22 04:33:25 PM
This is the real scythe curve, sort of:

upload.wikimedia.org

In this curve, human population is used as a proxy for 1) CO2 production by breathing (300 kg per annum); 2) CO2 equivalent production by human activities (as human energy use grows from 2,000 Kilocalories a day in the form of food to hundreds of thousands of Kilocalories a day in the form of food, animal labor, wind, water, solar, wood, dung, coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc.)

It should be noted that simply showing the exponential growth of human population is not the whole story.

Before the use of fire and the domestication of dogs, humans used 2,000 Kilocalories (average) of food energy a day. That was all. They produced 300 kg per person (average) a year of CO2. Even with the massive increase in population, those who still live like apes are not a problem. Neither are those who produce say, 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent a year (some of the billions who live on less than $2 a day). Almost all of the damage is done by those of us who are produced many tonnes of CO2 equivalent, to a total of over 30 billion tonnes a year.

To measure the real "hockey stick" you have to take this real hockey stick and multiply it by average energy use and thus pollution production per capita. It is only in the last two centuries that the number of people times the average tonnage of pollution produced per capita has become a problem.

In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time? Over, we are doomed to a nasty fall. Under, we will have to adjust our growth expectations and learn to live with a population that is no longer growing, and aging, often in poverty, but at least no longer growing exponentially.

If we don't over do it, we may survive, older but wiser. If we do over do it, we will survive, older but mostly deader.

The Reverend Thomas Malthus (we must stop growing) and John M. Keynes ("in the long run, we are all dead.") may combine forces against the perpetual optimism and cancerous growth of free market entrepreneurs, who are the rear-guard against sanity and frugality.

In any case, we will have to learn how to do more with less, because we have already made mince-meat of many world resources. 95% of the big fish are gone. More than 99% of the big mammals are gone. Big tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels will eventually go because people will either go green and go clean, or they will die from the consequences of wasting our finest farm land and some of our best people.

We will be short on water, but perhaps not desperately so. We will be short on some resources, but have plenty of others. Mining garbage dumps may become highly profitable. We are already sticking in straws and sucking out methane gas.

We can not count on the world warming by 1 degree (now impossible) or staying the same. We probably can hope for less than 8C, which would be catastrophic. I expect about 4.5 degrees here in Ottawa (because that figure hasn't changed much in the thirty years I've been here). I've seen what 4.5 degrees look like. It looks like my electricity bill in August--three times what it is in the lowest months of the year.

It looks like my food bill today versus a few years ago--about three times as high. It looks like my cable bill ($85 instead of the $11 phone bill I had when I moved in).

"The future is grave but it is not desperate", to quote a French General on the military situation. We have surrendered without a fight to a difficult future, but we have not lost the war on humanity and the environment just yet.

I expect that just staying in place is going to take all the running we can do. It is the Red Queen's end game. We'll have to run much harder than as hard as we can to get anywhere.

In other words, I think the guy who drew this temperature curve was crazy pessimistic. But was he crazy pessimistic enough?
 
2013-03-22 04:40:29 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


Not sure if joking.

But just in case you are, let me remind you of why every plant and goldfish you ever had died: you over-watered the plants (or forgot to water them at all) and over-fed the goldfish until the tank or bowl was a toxic sea of green sludge with goldfish so desperate for oxygen they were gasping for air.

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, as Dick Cheney said of education and its role in creating Democrats out of potential Republicans as incomes rise (and waistbands expand to the snapping point).

I always think of the goldfish bowl when people say CO2 is plant food. So is plant food. Deadly, deadly plant food. Ever see what a dog turd does to a lawn? Burns the vicinity down to bare earth thanks to the rich load of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, etc. which it provides.
 
2013-03-22 04:41:47 PM
Please, people.

Use winky icons.  ; )

I can't tell the jokers to the left of me from the fools to the right of me.
 
2013-03-22 04:42:10 PM
just thoughts (no snark intended)

if the world temperature goes up
shouldnt we expect more moisture in the air?
    if so shouldnt we see an increase of air pressure over time?

as world temperature goes up
  shouldnt we expect expansion of the layers of atmosphere?
  is the timberline going up or down or staying the same ?
 
2013-03-22 04:46:57 PM
Great. Another thread full of "Joe Sixpacks" who have been told by their politician that are all corrupt.

Them edumucated folk are out to git yer money!! Don't listen to their fancy math and science talk ... god made this here earth for you to do what ever you want! Freedom!!!

Ye-farking-haw ... the mouth-breathers have spoken.
 
2013-03-22 04:47:45 PM

Farking Canuck: Great. Another thread full of "Joe Sixpacks" who have been told by their politician that

scientists are all corrupt.

FIFM
 
2013-03-22 04:50:01 PM
It's spring and I still have 2 feet of snow in my backyard.  Bring it on.
 
2013-03-22 04:50:06 PM

Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:


The planet Venus would like a word with you
 
2013-03-22 04:52:29 PM
kingoomieiii: Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Its relative proximity to the sun (0.7 AU) allowed the runaway greenhouse effect to start without an industrial revolution on its surface.

Average temperature 462° C.
upload.wikimedia.org


Whine whine whine...
It may be hot, but at least the humidity is really low, it's never windy & the temp is consistent...even on the poles.
Have you ever wished there were more hours in the day? Venus has you covered.
Get drunk and fall off the bar you were stripping on? Not to worry; you'll probably reach terminal velocity before you hit the ground.
 
2013-03-22 04:53:42 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


The problem is that this CO2 increase may well be accompanied by alternating drought, flood, heat waves, and waves of new parasites. Not good for crops. We may well be heading for a future where outdoor food production is no longer viable.
 
2013-03-22 04:58:35 PM

brantgoose: In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time?


You're treating Earth as a homogenous population. The question of whether we're over- or under-capacity (in terms of food and resources) is really a nation-by-nation question. The US has enough food for its population. North Korea is over its food-growing capacity. Whether these differences result in bloody conflict and destruction is a complex question not easily answered by simple statistical extrapolation.

Minor quibble side note: It's a "logistic" curve, not "logistics". Logistics has to do with military supplies and transportation.
 
2013-03-22 05:02:24 PM

draypresct: The US has enough food for its population.


For now. The climate change might do something about that.
 
2013-03-22 05:05:29 PM
In less than 100 years earth will be hotter than the sun!
 
2013-03-22 05:06:07 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I'm not sure how anyone with any brain cells can read the linked article/chart (top) without bursting out laughing. Look at the y axis. "Temperature Change Relative to 1961-1990 Mean". Surely this blog is a joke... no one could be that stupid, could they?

Yes, 1961 to 1990 was a magical time of perfect climate! All other times must be judged against it! We hath commanded it!
 
2013-03-22 05:08:16 PM

Dinki: DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 813x555]


I want to make a GIF that expands from 1970 to 2010 to show the drop in temperature in the 1000 year preceding that time.

In short, your GIF is amusing ironic. I'm not sure if you realize this and are trolling, or if you're a derp and don't know.
 
2013-03-22 05:12:49 PM

RminusQ: Giltric: This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


[suyts.files.wordpress.com image 850x389]

"On an alchohol [sic] thermometer"? What the hell does that even mean? And why the hell would you use a bar graph?

And if you're going to try to drown out the actual changes that have occurred, why not go whole farking hog and use Kelvin? What the hell relevance does 0° F have to the discussion?


Wow that was an incredibly useful method to identify idiots like RminusQ here. Good job Giltric.

I'll try to use only small words so you can understand RminusQ. Thermometers use alcohol in them because mercury is toxic. When the ball of fire in the sky wakes up from nappy time, it heats the alcohol and makes it expand through the glass tube. The other graphs are scaled based on an deviation from the "average" where the average whatever temperature that particular leftist pulled out of their ass and decided was the ideal temperature. When instead of focusing on the deviation from the average you focus on the raw temperature data, the difference in temperature is so incredibly minuscule that you can't even really see it with the human eye on a chart.
 
2013-03-22 05:15:29 PM

Uncle Tractor: draypresct: The US has enough food for its population.

For now. The climate change might do something about that.


Production capacity could be cut in half and the US would still be OK.


/other locales my be less fortunate.
 
2013-03-22 05:15:43 PM

Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:


While what you said is true, the hockey stick chart is fake for another reason. That model was specifically constructed to give that particular output. You could put in baseball scores or lottery numbers and the model would output the same chart every single time.
 
2013-03-22 05:19:02 PM

SVenus: aerojockey: Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.


I can't tell from their short perspective piece, but I'm guessing that those plants were grown in the lab or under field conditions that are CO2-limited, not light- or nutrient-limited, unlike conditions in many real fields throughout the world.
 
2013-03-22 05:31:30 PM

Ambitwistor: SVenus: aerojockey: Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

I can't tell from their short perspective piece, but I'm guessing that those plants were grown in the lab or under field conditions that are CO2-limited, not light- or nutrient-limited, unlike conditions in many real fields throughout the world.


It's extra funny because he was replying to someone who said CO2 is almost never the limiting factor in plant growth.

Then, of course, these folks cite one thing that might be a benefit while forgetting all the downsides.  Drought, for example, will put a big damper on plant growth due to extra CO2.
 
2013-03-22 05:33:41 PM

Bullseyed: Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:

While what you said is true, the hockey stick chart is fake for another reason. That model was specifically constructed to give that particular output. You could put in baseball scores or lottery numbers and the model would output the same chart every single time.


Citation needed.

These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-03-22 05:56:21 PM

FLMountainMan: So what's the solution?


We return to the caves. Oh, wait, wood fires create carbon dioxide.  OK, scratch the fires. We can all snuggle together to keep warm. The people on the outside will feed the lions, bears, etc. and those on the inside will survive.
 
2013-03-22 06:07:50 PM

draypresct: brantgoose: In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time?

You're treating Earth as a homogenous population. The question of whether we're over- or under-capacity (in terms of food and resources) is really a nation-by-nation question. The US has enough food for its population. North Korea is over its food-growing capacity. Whether these differences result in bloody conflict and destruction is a complex question not easily answered by simple statistical extrapolation.

Minor quibble side note: It's a "logistic" curve, not "logistics". Logistics has to do with military supplies and transportation.


"North Korea is over its food-growing capacity "

Ummmmm......  Wow. That's one hell of a misdirect there, Alice. Beautiful euphemism. Reality check: Could, just possibly, the reason that NK's population exceeds it's food-growing capacity is that it is a totalitarian hell-hole where privately owned farms and therefore private incentive don't exist?
 
2013-03-22 06:12:02 PM

Dinki: DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I love when people post this graph. You do know the 70s were considered a local minimum, cooler than the previous and post decades. You are just as bad as those who deny any warming.
 
2013-03-22 06:13:30 PM

T-Servo: I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...


Yes. The laws of physics. Such as absorption beimg logarithmic, not linear.
 
2013-03-22 06:15:28 PM
Here's my personal belief:

1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. But who cares?

That is, I don't think global warming will harm the average middle class American citizen much at all.  Sure, if you are a subsistance farmer in Africa you're probably farked.  Same goes for a bunch of different species of plants and animals that can only survive in a very narrow climate band.  Maybe rising sea levels will take out a few million dollar beachfront homes.  But the world will survive and even prosper.  It could even be a good thing for some people (farmers in colder climates, for example).

This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it.  You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax.  Yeah, that ain't happening.
 
2013-03-22 06:26:23 PM

Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.


Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.
 
2013-03-22 06:35:15 PM

Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.


There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.
 
2013-03-22 06:37:49 PM

Geotpf: Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.


[Propaganda Detected]

[Citation Needed]

Why is stopping AGW the only option. What is wrong with mitigating some of the more extreme effects?
 
2013-03-22 07:12:09 PM

nekom:

I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.

"Science" is also pretty confident that the planet is cooling.  And, to complete the trifecta, "science" is also pretty confident that the planet is staying at the same temperature.  Oddly enough, all three of these statements are correct.  Which one you wish to believe depends upon the time scale you are using.  The temperature has remained essentially constant for the last 16 years.  Over the last three hundred years, the planet has been warming, and over the last 8000 years, the planet has been cooling.
 
2013-03-22 07:15:15 PM
Geotpf
1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. But who cares?


Uhhh... people who want the Earth to remain inhabitable for our descendants?
 
2013-03-22 07:15:59 PM

Farking Canuck: What is wrong with mitigating some of the more extreme effects?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

You don't want global temperatures to reach a tipping point.
 
2013-03-22 07:21:27 PM

T-Servo:

The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Yes, when you make up the details, you can make a very stupid straw man, and laugh at it.  On the other hand, there are only a handful of corrupt scientists - a dozen or fewer.  And a WHOLE bunch of corrupt politicians...  but I repeat myself.
 
2013-03-22 07:29:08 PM

brantgoose:

I always think of the goldfish bowl when people say CO2 is plant food. So is plant food. Deadly, deadly plant food. Ever see what a dog turd does to a lawn? Burns the vicinity down to bare earth thanks to the rich load of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, etc. which it provides.

I've always said you can't tell shiat from carbon dioxide.  Thanks for the confirmation, and the load of natural fertilizer in your post...
 
2013-03-22 07:44:50 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.
 
2013-03-22 07:53:55 PM

brantgoose: In other words, I think the guy who drew this temperature curve was crazy pessimistic. But was he crazy pessimistic enough?



doom gloom and the dyers on the eve
 
2013-03-22 08:32:10 PM
This is total bullshiat. But go ahead, find a link to something reputable.

Out here in the real world, solutions to AGW take into account future energy consumption and standards of living. The "wedge" strategy is a good example.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
 
2013-03-22 08:35:46 PM

Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-22 08:38:51 PM

SunsetLament: Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.


Time isn't a scientific publication and those articles were about rising prices of heating fuels anyway. The scientific community was publishing papers about global warming even then.
 
2013-03-22 08:54:56 PM

FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.


Trolling Wopat. Attention! Wopat, please report to conduct a fisting.
 
2013-03-22 09:01:07 PM

FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x414]


You OK Floyd? Now I ain't complaining, but there's suddenly a lot of girly arse in my GW thread. :)
 
2013-03-22 09:04:25 PM
Just explain to your grandchildren that the climate problems they face in 30 years are just fearmongering. They'll thank you.
 
2013-03-22 09:09:26 PM

SunsetLament: Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.


Another idiot who get's their science from the media. I'm sure you have a lot to offer to the conversation.
 
2013-03-22 09:27:29 PM

RedVentrue: FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x414]

You OK Floyd? Now I ain't complaining, but there's suddenly a lot of girly arse in my GW thread. :)



From Thread # 7655664

"The anti-science position can be summarized as follows: "climate is not changing, and if it is, it's not our fault, and if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it, and if we could do something about it it would cost to much anyway."

This is an incredibly stupid argument, so the only appropriate response to it is mockery.  I propose that rather than insults, we just post (SFW) pictures of pretty posteriors in reply to climate change deniers.  That way, at least the non-stupid people will get some benefit from the thread.  What do you say? "


The type of people who want to pretend that we don't have to worry about climate change are, to be blunt, stupid.  They are simply not capable of engaging in productive discussion.  Anyone who denies that cumulative pollution is a problem is just a f**king idiot who is demonstrably not qualified to talk about the subject and simply not worth listening to.

So, my proposal is that those of us who have at least some modicum of interest and intellectual capacity should discuss possible responses to the problem with each other.  When a denier or some other moron shows up and starts blathering about whatever Fox News told him to say, we shouldn't bother to respond, since it's pointless.  Deniers will not be swayed by evidence and logic.  So instead, just post a picture of an attractive butt.  Spending time actually trying to explain science to the people who deny climate change is a waste of time- they are either too stupid or too dishonest to grasp the concepts.  An eloquent, detailed, empirically supported, and thoroughly cited explanation won't change their mind, because their opinions are not based on facts, evidence or logic.  A picture of a nice butt  also won't change their minds, so it is exactly as effective, but has the added benefits of (1) being much more enjoyable for the rest of us to look at, and (2) being much quicker to post.
 
2013-03-22 10:04:35 PM
So here's the bottom line: it's too late to do anything about it. Really. No industrialized nation is going to undertake the drastic CO2 cuts necessary to level off global warming. And even if we do, and Europe does, China, Russia, Brazil, India etc. sure as hell won't. So the whole "is global warming real" debate is largely academic. Because nothing's going to change.

/fatalism
 
2013-03-22 10:11:47 PM

kazikian: So here's the bottom line: it's too late to do anything about it. Really. No industrialized nation is going to undertake the drastic CO2 cuts necessary to level off global warming. And even if we do, and Europe does, China, Russia, Brazil, India etc. sure as hell won't. So the whole "is global warming real" debate is largely academic. Because nothing's going to change.

/fatalism


Wow ... the deniers all seem to be singing a new tune today. Did a Fox News memo go out saying: "We are utterly failing when we debate science so, from now on, just whine about not being able to do anything!"
 
2013-03-22 10:26:17 PM

MyRandomName: T-Servo: I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...

Yes. The laws of physics. Such as absorption beimg logarithmic, not linear.


Most environmental systems are non-linear, and I never claimed otherwise. What's your point?
 
2013-03-22 11:09:19 PM

Farking Canuck: kazikian: So here's the bottom line: it's too late to do anything about it. Really. No industrialized nation is going to undertake the drastic CO2 cuts necessary to level off global warming. And even if we do, and Europe does, China, Russia, Brazil, India etc. sure as hell won't. So the whole "is global warming real" debate is largely academic. Because nothing's going to change.

/fatalism

Wow ... the deniers all seem to be singing a new tune today. Did a Fox News memo go out saying: "We are utterly failing when we debate science so, from now on, just whine about not being able to do anything!"


I am not a denier. I believe in global warming. I have no idea how bad it'll get, but I keep my options open; could be nothing, could be the end of the world, could be margaritas for me in December. I really don't know. What I do know is it's too late to change things. No one will agree to a truly drastic CO2 cut, and any minor gains we do achieve will be just that: minor. In sum: "we don't need no water, let the motherfarker burn. Burn, motherfarker, burn."
 
2013-03-22 11:45:33 PM

kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things


I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.
 
2013-03-22 11:56:40 PM

Farking Canuck: kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things

I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.


Also directly contrary to what American culture has been about for the last century or so.  Until relatively recently, any sort of challenge was met with the decision to try damn hard to succeed.  Sad to see really.

bindlestiff2600: just thoughts (no snark intended)

if the world temperature goes up
shouldnt we expect more moisture in the air?
    if so shouldnt we see an increase of air pressure over time?

as world temperature goes up
  shouldnt we expect expansion of the layers of atmosphere?
  is the timberline going up or down or staying the same ?


The problem with your first question is that water is a self-correctly issue.  Simply: it rains out.  There will be a small increase in water vapor in the troposphere, but not enough to increase air pressure much.  As I recall, the Troposphere is expected to expand somewhat as average temperature increases.
 
2013-03-23 12:03:14 AM
Zafler:

Also directly contrary to what American culture has been about for the last century or so.

Exactly. That's where I was going with my modern reinterpretation of the famous JFK quote earlier in the thread.
 
2013-03-23 12:33:23 AM

FloydA: RedVentrue: FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x414]

You OK Floyd? Now I ain't complaining, but there's suddenly a lot of girly arse in my GW thread. :)


From Thread # 7655664

"The anti-science position can be summarized as follows: "climate is not changing, and if it is, it's not our fault, and if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it, and if we could do something about it it would cost to much anyway."

This is an incredibly stupid argument, so the only appropriate response to it is mockery.  I propose that rather than insults, we just post (SFW) pictures of pretty posteriors in reply to climate change deniers.  That way, at least the non-stupid people will get some benefit from the thread.  What do you say? "

The type of people who want to pretend that we don't have to worry about climate change are, to be blunt, stupid.  They are simply not capable of engaging in productive discussion.  Anyone who denies that cumulative pollution is a problem is just a f**king idiot who is demonstrably not qualified to talk about the subject and simply not worth listening to.

So, my proposal is that those of us who have at least some modicum of interest and intellectual capacity should discuss possible ...


So it's an arse diversion technique?
 
2013-03-23 12:34:01 AM

nekom: I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.


Can you at least accept the possibility that perhaps our actions are having some measurable effect on the world around us? If so, could you realistically argue that the effects of our actions are positive, overall?
 
2013-03-23 02:13:15 AM

Baryogenesis:

These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.

Really?  You think so?  I LOVE that technique of putting ninety squiggling lines on a chart and saying "SEE?" although it shows pretty much nothing.  If you look separately, the ones with Mann, Jones, and Briffa involved do, 'cause they're all cheating on the same game, with the same data.  But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle, as corrected:
www.drroyspencer.com

Lest one think that this is a flier somehow, the following is from Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.  It uses different data.  The one constant is that the crappy tree-ring data is left out, rather than given extra weight, as Mann did.  Observe the similarity with Loehle's work:


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

Now, let's look at the two together:


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-23 02:29:27 AM

FloydA:

i105.photobucket.com

FloydA - the only worthwhile ass-poster on the thread.  That is all.
 
2013-03-23 02:40:31 AM

robhidalgo:

nekom: I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.

Can you at least accept the possibility that perhaps our actions are having some measurable effect on the world around us? If so, could you realistically argue that the effects of our actions are positive, overall?

First question: Yes.  Not what's claimed, but measurable.

Second question: No freaking way.  We are over-fishing, over-planting, over-consuming, over-excreting, over-polluting, and the summary problem: we are over-breeding.  About the only GOOD thing we're doing is releasing carbon dioxide into the air.  We were, pre-industry, only about 50% away from a major extinction event.  In other words, if we had done something which dragged half of the carbon dioxide out of the air, instead of increasing it, a good percentage of life on Earth would have died.

 
2013-03-23 02:41:16 AM
George Walker Bush 2013-03-22 04:10:24 PM
(farky'd as: Miserable Failure)

*pppfffrrrrrrtt*


Go paint.
 
2013-03-23 04:15:02 AM

GeneralJim: But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle


LOL.  The paper that didn't pass peer review for any reputable journal, was widely panned and ended up in the junk journal  Energy and Environment? Yeah, typical denier bullshiat, as always.  Find the one (discredited) paper that aligns with your view and hold it up as the only correct one (with no explanation why) despite its internal problems and dozens of better papers that contradict it.

For those who don't know, one of the main reasons the Loehle paper was panned was that many of the proxies used were of low resolution (error bars +/- 400 years on one data set).
 
2013-03-23 06:20:52 AM

Farking Canuck: kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things

I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.


Your mom's pathetic and idiotic.

QED, biatch.
 
2013-03-23 06:34:33 AM

Farking Canuck: kazikian: What I do know is it's too late to change things

I really don't care what you call yourself. You are still propagating the anti-science mantra of "do nothing".

It is pathetic and idiotic.


You again.

Saying "do nothing" about global warming is not even remotely anti-science. You obviously have no idea what science is. You think it's some kind of religion or political movement. Seriously, unless you can prove otherwise, you are not qualified to define "science" and I will be pointing this out whenever you imply such on Fark.

/NAME studied philosophy of science at university. csb.
 
2013-03-23 06:40:11 AM

Farking Canuck: Farking Canuck: Great. Another thread full of "Joe Sixpacks" who have been told by their politician that scientists are all corrupt.

FIFM


You really are a prick, aren't you. Not all intellectuals need to seperate themselves from the general population using elitism. Those that do are usually fakers anyway. Like you, I suspect. Go meet some real people and get over yourself.
 
2013-03-23 08:53:05 AM

Baryogenesis:

GeneralJim: But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle

LOL.  The paper that didn't pass peer review for any reputable journal, was widely panned and ended up in the junk journal  Energy and Environment? Yeah, typical denier bullshiat, as always.  Find the one (discredited) paper that aligns with your view and hold it up as the only correct one (with no explanation why) despite its internal problems and dozens of better papers that contradict it.

For those who don't know, one of the main reasons the Loehle paper was panned was that many of the proxies used were of low resolution (error bars +/- 400 years on one data set).

Typical alarmist crap.  Tree rings -- which are heavily weighted in the Mann study, and cherry-picked by Briffa, are no good as a proxy for temperatures.  Tree ring width shows that, in the normal growing times, the tree grew more.  The same tree ring widths are ALSO used as a proxy for rainfall.  Cold and rainy gives the same results as hotter and dryer.

And that is not the only problem with them...  If you have a situation where days are warmer, and nights are cooler, let's assume by the same amount, it shows as warmer.  Trees don't grow at night, so if a temperature shift is not the same during the day and night, tree rings give false results.  Trees also do not grow during the winters, so any temperature changes that happen in the winter simply do not show up.

This is the process of the warmer alarmist hoax -- any science that does not agree with the group-think is shunned.  Any journal that publishes papers not in agreement with the group think are punished and berated.  And, any scientist who does not toe the line is shunned, finds it impossible to get funding for research, and is sometimes fired.  Intimidation has no place in science.

Observe what we know about Keith Briffa's data.  The closer we get to the present, the more data collection is done -- that's the general rule.  But Briffa's data set drops off precipitously, down to ten, and then to five trees, which alone determine his temperature line.  And the "hockey stick" only shows up when the number of trees are dropped.  So, the question arises: how do the trees that were dropped chart out?   Well, like this:

www.climate-skeptic.com

Read about the fraudulent practices of this circle-jerk of scientists HERE.

 
2013-03-23 09:11:24 AM
But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.
 
2013-03-23 09:45:56 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: draypresct: brantgoose: In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time?

You're treating Earth as a homogenous population. The question of whether we're over- or under-capacity (in terms of food and resources) is really a nation-by-nation question. The US has enough food for its population. North Korea is over its food-growing capacity. Whether these differences result in bloody conflict and destruction is a complex question not easily answered by simple statistical extrapolation.

Minor quibble side note: It's a "logistic" curve, not "logistics". Logistics has to do with military supplies and transportation.

"North Korea is over its food-growing capacity "

Ummmmm......  Wow. That's one hell of a misdirect there, Alice. Beautiful euphemism. Reality check: Could, just possibly, the reason that NK's population exceeds it's food-growing capacity is that it is a totalitarian hell-hole where privately owned farms and therefore private incentive don't exist?


The entire point of my post was to illustrate that Earth is not homogenous in terms of food resources, and that treating it as such is an ovesimplification. Different regions have different resources. The reasons for these differences can be political and/or geographic and/or economic and/or random chance.

The tone of your post indicates you don't believe differences exist, and that North Korea is somehow an unfair example. Can you support your apparent position; namely that food resources are equally available to all?

To be honest, I thought the original oversimplification was either an oversight or a deliberate summary in order to keep their post from getting too long. I didn't actually think I'd run into someone who thought that food is equally available worldwide.

/I know, welcome to the politics tab.
 
2013-03-23 09:47:57 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.
Really?  You think so?  I LOVE that technique of putting ninety squiggling lines on a chart and saying "SEE?" although it shows pretty much nothing.  If you look separately, the ones with Mann, Jones, and Briffa involved do, 'cause they're all cheating on the same game, with the same data.  But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle, as corrected:

Lest one think that this is a flier somehow, the following is from Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.  It uses different data.  The one constant is that the crappy tree-ring data is left out, rather than given extra weight, as Mann did.  Observe the similarity with Loehle's work:

Now, let's look at the two together:


If there was a link I missed, I apologize, but why did the first graph you posted have a dotted line starting a little before 1950? Usually, dotted lines connote extrapolation.
 
2013-03-23 11:51:47 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.
Really?  You think so?  I LOVE that technique of putting ninety squiggling lines on a chart and saying "SEE?" although it shows pretty much nothing.  If you look separately, the ones with Mann, Jones, and Briffa involved do, 'cause they're all cheating on the same game, with the same data.  But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle, as corrected:
[www.drroyspencer.com image 528x336]
Lest one think that this is a flier somehow, the following is from Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.  It uses different data.  The one constant is that the crappy tree-ring data is left out, rather than given extra weight, as Mann did.  Observe the similarity with Loehle's work:
[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 782x417]
Now, let's look at the two together:
[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 557x327]



Now, let's look at the two together with Mann 2008 so we can actually make comparisons. Let's also tack on the instrumental record:

www.skepticalscience.com

There's differences between different reconstructions, of course, but nothing all that radical.
 
2013-03-23 11:53:20 AM

draypresct: The tone of your post indicates you don't believe differences exist, and that North Korea is somehow an unfair example.


No, the tone of his post indicates it's not a matter of simple overpopulation, as you did indeed imply.

He does not disagree, only states that the problem is a complicated one, not to be judged only by food/population ratios.

NK is a "special case", in that you're comparing it to the US which has a completely different political state.  NK's drastic over population in comparison to it's existing food could be remedied by a regime change, and as such, NK is not a proper example of a place that's simply reproduced outside of it's means.

But even if it were apt, it would be comparable to any major city in the US.  If distribution is not allowed in the consideration, every City, Denver to NY are just as bad.

Defining by nationality is kind of misleading as it were.  You'd need to expand to a clearly definable region.

Take Denver, and the landmass that's required to feed it and use that as a base.

That exists on most places on the globe, but specific people/governments inhibit the process of getting them all fed.
Not so much just the nature of the land and the tendency for people to mindlessly over-breed.

Or, more simply.  The shortages of food are commonly a problem created by management, an artificial problem, not a problem of numbers of food/people as a natural state.

If you want to illustrate a specific point, I'd suggest you find a sample other than NK.  Regions more oriented in Africa maybe..what there's tyranny and oppression there as well?  Shirley, you jest.

We're not overtaxing the planet, we're overtaxing man's ability and desire to manage it efficiently..
 
2013-03-23 12:03:33 PM

GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.


This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:21 PM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: GeneralJim: But, if you skip tree-rings, which SUCK as temperature proxies, here's what you see, with 18 averaged proxies for temperature, from Loehle

LOL.  The paper that didn't pass peer review for any reputable journal, was widely panned and ended up in the junk journal  Energy and Environment? Yeah, typical denier bullshiat, as always.  Find the one (discredited) paper that aligns with your view and hold it up as the only correct one (with no explanation why) despite its internal problems and dozens of better papers that contradict it.

For those who don't know, one of the main reasons the Loehle paper was panned was that many of the proxies used were of low resolution (error bars +/- 400 years on one data set).
Typical alarmist crap.  Tree rings -- which are heavily weighted in the Mann study, and cherry-picked by Briffa, are no good as a proxy for temperatures.  Tree ring width shows that, in the normal growing times, the tree grew more.  The same tree ring widths are ALSO used as a proxy for rainfall.  Cold and rainy gives the same results as hotter and dryer.
And that is not the only problem with them...  If you have a situation where days are warmer, and nights are cooler, let's assume by the same amount, it shows as warmer.  Trees don't grow at night, so if a temperature shift is not the same during the day and night, tree rings give false results.  Trees also do not grow during the winters, so any temperature changes that happen in the winter simply do not show up.This is the process of the warmer alarmist hoax -- any science that does not agree with the group-think is shunned.  Any journal that publishes papers not in agreement with the group think are punished and berated.  And, any scientist who does not toe the line is shunned, finds it impossible to get funding for research, and is sometimes fired.  Intimidation has no place in science.Observe what we know about Keith Briffa's data.  The closer we get to the present, the more data coll ...


Luckily, we can look at Mann's reconstruction with and without tree ring data:

i55.tinypic.com
There are differences, of course, but not all that much. Of course, you have had the above pointed out to you repeatedly over the course of several years.
 
2013-03-23 12:11:51 PM

Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers


irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.
 
2013-03-23 12:19:42 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.


By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317
 
2013-03-23 12:31:55 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.


not a democracy
not democratic

Oops!  Hate it when I fall victim to changing my mind and poor editing.

Anyhow, I think a lot of people misunderstand a popular theory.(from the applicable wiki)

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

I find it amusing that amid constant claims of how we don't understand science, they themselves prove pretty consistently that they do have that flaw.
 
2013-03-23 12:42:53 PM
oi50.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-23 12:44:43 PM

Smidge204: It's kind of like saying that if you feed a child more calories they'll become adults faster.


Of course they won`t get to be adults faster but they will be bigger and that is what is important if you are eating them as opposed to trying to use them for a faster breeding program...
 
2013-03-23 12:50:48 PM

draypresct: Can you support your apparent position; namely that food resources are equally available to all?


Without getting into whatever this might be about, I would say that food resources ARE equally available to all, you just need the cash to buy it and maybe have it shipped or flown in.

Now as to how the cash is distributed...
 
2013-03-23 12:54:42 PM

LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]


A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.
 
2013-03-23 01:17:48 PM
Now Dr Benjamin Santer says temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes. This is fair enough.

That`s not far away.

On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
 

1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer's 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)

If the current trend continues for 12 months the world is not warming. (at least according to RSS, HadCrut3 would agree 4 months later)

I`ll just leave that there.

Carry on arguing.
 
2013-03-23 01:29:04 PM

dready zim: Now Dr Benjamin Santer says temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes. This is fair enough.

That`s not far away.

On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
 

1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer's 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)

If the current trend continues for 12 months the world is not warming. (at least according to RSS, HadCrut3 would agree 4 months later)

I`ll just leave that there.

Carry on arguing.


A very good point, well made. It is interesting to compare 3 numbers:

15 years (HadCrut3 cooling period)
20 years (approx warming period that preceded the cooling)
17 years (some climatist's line-in-the-sand saying what should be acted on versus ignored)

What will he say in 5 years' time?
 
2013-03-23 02:29:46 PM
THE GREAT NAME:

What will he say in 5 years' time?

Depends on his need for grant money, attention.

Just sayin'.  Scientists are not the most reliable sort.  Which is why all good science is based on repeatable tests and proof, not reputation or the practitioner, amount of practitioners  manipulated and questionable data, politics, emotion, evidence, fear.

Disclaimer: Evidence is not necessarily factual information.  Technically speaking, the bible is evidence for the existence of god.  If I say there is an elephant in my kitchen, that is considered evidence.
 
2013-03-23 04:07:08 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.


True enough, but to get an accurate assessment of state of knowledge on a topic, one needs to look at more than just a few carefully-selected papers.
 
2013-03-23 04:13:30 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.

By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317



The range of estimates unsurpisingly emerges from the range of estimates given in different papers - which is why reviews like the one I linked to (as well as the IPCC) are useful in this regard.

That aside, you stating that I lied does not make it so. The reasoning that I provided in that thread still stands - and notably not addressed by you in a rational manner.
 
2013-03-23 04:32:23 PM

THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]

A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.


It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And use of green font for sarcasm is quite popular on random web pages
 
2013-03-23 04:34:38 PM

LewDux: THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]

A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.

It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And use of green font for sarcasm is quite popular on random web pages


Prove it.
 
2013-03-23 04:37:52 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.

By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


The range of estimates unsurpisingly emerges from the range of estimates given in different papers - which is why reviews like the one I linked to (as well as the IPCC) are useful in this regard.


The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?
 
2013-03-23 04:56:38 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: But this is the way it goes...  Right now, we are seeing a spate of papers which are OBSERVING and MEASURING the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  They are finding that it's not very sensitive, and that warming for doubling carbon dioxide should be less than 1.0 K.  And, as has been the case all along, the exposure of these facts produces ever more serious and ever more urgent predictions from the warmer alarmist community.  It's DEATH, you have to act THIS VERY MINUTE.  All signals of a scam.

This is of course, only true if you only look at less than a handful of very carefully selected papers. The large majority of papers (as, for example, compiled by a review paper by Knutti & Hegerl (2008)) on the subject remain consistent with a most likely value of climate sensitivity of 3° C, with a likely range of 2-4.5° C.

By "consistent" you mean that a vast majority of papers do not mention the 2-4.5 degree range, which is really an IPCC claim anyway.

Also: you are a liar. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


The range of estimates unsurpisingly emerges from the range of estimates given in different papers - which is why reviews like the one I linked to (as well as the IPCC) are useful in this regard.

The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?



Climate sensitivity, while it does have "narrow technical" aspects to it, is a very important part of what future warming may be. It is the reason why the most used unit of reporting climate sensitivity is how much (longer-term) warming we would expect to see given a doubling of CO2 concentration.

That aside, I urge to you to consider the possibility that ignorance of a topic on your part does not mean lying on my part. The review paper I linked to a few posts ago is a good one since it also incorporates a basic overview of the topic. I highly suggest you read it. If you can't find the paper on your own, I can put up a copy for you somewhere.
 
2013-03-23 05:18:36 PM

THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: THE GREAT NAME: LewDux: [oi50.tinypic.com image 600x300]

A random comment by a random guy on a random web page which, at the age of 30, you nonetheless could not tell from fact.

How pathetic.

It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And use of green font for sarcasm is quite popular on random web pages

Prove it.



I didn't know about this myself, but it appears to be quite real. It's mentioned in a few places, from knowyourmeme to wikipedia.

I thought the negative connotation of green text was limited to green ink, but there you go.
 
2013-03-23 06:24:03 PM

THE GREAT NAME: What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippies of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?


Some of them got some money. If you want to have some fun, get 3 hippies and give all three a collective sum of money and ask them to do `something worthwhile` with it.

Then sit back and get the popcorn out.
 
2013-03-23 06:31:16 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.


You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.
 
2013-03-23 09:29:52 PM

draypresct:

If there was a link I missed, I apologize, but why did the first graph you posted have a dotted line starting a little before 1950? Usually, dotted lines connote extrapolation.
That's the instrument readings patched in.  I can't say I like the practice, but climatology seems to do it all the time.  Two totally different methodologies on the same graph is not normally the way disparate data are presented.  Good call.
 
2013-03-23 10:27:26 PM

THE GREAT NAME:

The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?

Almost that entire generation sold out, plain and simple.  As for THIS guy...  lying is his specialty.  He goes for the subtle lies, ones that take a full explanation to expose.  His apparently favorite it to misrepresent the statements of opponents.  A close second is to misrepresent the point of studies, as he has done here.  Both of these types of lies are done politely, of course.  And, sadly, that kind of crap DOES work well with people who either don't know, or don't care to look into the statements made -- which together comprise close to all Fark readers.  And then, in the textbook Alinsky Flip, after his lies, he questions the honesty of the people to whom he is replying.  He's my ignore list.

The APPLICABLE science in this are studies illustrating the RELATIONSHIP between changes in carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.  Those are few and far between, and since the definition and confirmation of the Svensmark Effect, those studies which are NOT based upon model runs have shown a very low climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  Oddly enough, the new estimates almost all fall within the boundaries laid out by Miskolczi, who used mathematics to PROVE his point.

This fact goes to PROVE the political nature of the warmer alarmists' argument.  In essence, all this latest information does is prove all of the assertions of the warmer alarmist crowd -- EXCEPT that the warming will be very much smaller than they expected.  This is, scientifically, great news.  The ideas were correct, except for a few initial guesses, and a potential problem for the planet is not going to happen.  But the warmers HATE it.  The reason must be that the political driver behind this, the desire of governments for more power, and well-nigh complete control over all business activity on the planet is clearly not necessary.

So, the warmers fight the new information as if it disproved all of their ideas -- they deny the science, attack the researchers, and smear anyone who brings it up.  Their latest mass tactic is "you misunderstand the science."  Rather humorous, given how simply the conclusions are put in most of these papers.

 
2013-03-23 11:07:20 PM

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME:

The "large majority" of papers do not give a prediction of overall future warning at all - they address specific narrow technical points. Once again, you have been caught lying. What is it about hippies and lying anyway? I'm sure the original hippied of the 60s were more honest. What went wrong?

Almost that entire generation sold out, plain and simple.  As for THIS guy...  lying is his specialty.  He goes for the subtle lies, ones that take a full explanation to expose.  His apparently favorite it to misrepresent the statements of opponents.  A close second is to misrepresent the point of studies, as he has done here.  Both of these types of lies are done politely, of course.  And, sadly, that kind of crap DOES work well with people who either don't know, or don't care to look into the statements made -- which together comprise close to all Fark readers.  And then, in the textbook Alinsky Flip, after his lies, he questions the honesty of the people to whom he is replying.  He's my ignore list.


The alternate (and most likely) explanation is that I tend to present evidence to back up my claims - something that is antithetical to those who rely on intentional ignorance to maintain their opinions. As an example:


GeneralJim: The APPLICABLE science in this are studies illustrating the RELATIONSHIP between changes in carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.  Those are few and far between, and since the definition and confirmation of the Svensmark Effect, those studies which are NOT based upon model runs have shown a very low climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  Oddly enough, the new estimates almost all fall within the boundaries laid out by Miskolczi, who used mathematics to PROVE his point.


Contrary to GeneralJim's claim here, mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity include observationally-based and constrained approaches, such as some of those reviewed by the IPCC AR4:

i46.tinypic.com
Figure 9.20. Comparison between different estimates of the PDF (or relative likelihood) for ECS (°C). All PDFs/likelihoods have been scaled to integrate to unity between 0°C and 10°C ECS. The bars show the respective 5 to 95% ranges, dots the median estimate. The PDFs/likelihoods based on instrumental data are from Andronova and Schlesinger (2001), Forest et al. (2002; dashed line, considering anthropogenic forcings only), Forest et al. (2006; solid, anthropogenic and natural forcings), Gregory et al. (2002a), Knutti et al. (2002), Frame et al. (2005), and Forster and Gregory (2006), transformed to a uniform prior distribution in ECS using the method after Frame et al. (2005). Hegerl et al. (2006a) is based on multiple palaeoclimatic reconstructions of NH mean temperatures over the last 700 years.

This has been pointed out to GeneralJim here on many occasions. As I stated above, he is only able to maintain his opinion in the absence of easily found information - hence his necessity of ignoring said information (and those who post it).


GeneralJim: This fact goes to PROVE the political nature of the warmer alarmists' argument.  In essence, all this latest information does is prove all of the assertions of the warmer alarmist crowd -- EXCEPT that the warming will be very much smaller than they expected.  This is, scientifically, great news.  The ideas were correct, except for a few initial guesses, and a potential problem for the planet is not going to happen.  But the warmers HATE it.  The reason must be that the political driver behind this, the desire of governments for more power, and well-nigh complete control over all business activity on the planet is clearly not necessary.

So, the warmers fight the new information as if it disproved all of their ideas -- they deny the science, attack the researchers, and smear anyone who brings it up.  Their latest mass tactic is "you misunderstand the science."  Rather humorous, given how simply the conclusions are put in most of these papers.


The fact that GeneralJim seems to be ignorant of this basic and easily-checked aspect of the science on which he posts at length shows how little he actually considers the evidence involved and how irrationally he approaches it. It appears it is he who has the need to "fight the new information" - such as ignoring posters who present said information.
 
2013-03-23 11:23:13 PM

Baryogenesis:

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.

No, that point does NOT remain.  Yes, there are TONS of evidence showing that, over the past three hundred years (since before the industrial revolution) the planet has been warming, on average.  And, yes, there are tons of evidence showing that the carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing, mankind being the cause of most of that increase.  There are lots of evidence for a correlation -- if you limit yourself to the last 150 years.  It's that causation thing you don't have.  Piling on more tons of data showing the temperature increasing, or showing human release of carbon dioxide, does NOTHING to bolster the relationship.

As a matter of fact, if you do NOT restrict the observations to the last 150 years, but go back even 300 years, it's clear that we are in the same warming trend that has gone on for 300 years, and to which the industrial revolution, with its carbon dioxide release, has made no appreciable difference.  Going back further also shows less and less correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.  If natural changes in carbon dioxide levels have little to no effect on temperature, man-made changes in carbon dioxide levels would be expected to have little to no effect on temperature.

 
2013-03-24 01:18:50 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.
No, that point does NOT remain.  Yes, there are TONS of evidence showing that, over the past three hundred years (since before the industrial revolution) the planet has been warming, on average.  And, yes, there are tons of evidence showing that the carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing, mankind being the cause of most of that increase.  There are lots of evidence for a correlation -- if you limit yourself to the last 150 years.  It's that causation thing you don't have.  Piling on more tons of data showing the temperature increasing, or showing human release of carbon dioxide, does NOTHING to bolster the relationship.
As a matter of fact, if you do NOT restrict the observations to the last 150 years, but go back even 300 years, it's clear that we are in the same warming trend that has gone on for 300 years, and to which the industrial revolution, with its carbon dioxide release, has made no appreciable difference.  Going back further also shows less and less correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.  If natural changes in carbon dioxide levels have little to no effect on temperature, man-made changes in carbon dioxide levels would be expected to have little to no effect on temperature.


people.virginia.edu
Yet again I should point out that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on the kind of simplistic kind of correlation you're describing.
 
2013-03-24 01:37:33 AM

Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.


Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?

It's NOT pink...IT'S LIGHT RED!!!

You really have no idea how stupid you are, do you?

As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.

Anyhow..
On to more debunking of inanity:

Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.
I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.

It's as if I'm an atheist because I find the idea of God to be preposterous, and you keep asking me for proof and evidence.(rather exactly like that) What proof or evidence could I give?

The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?

Meh, with the extensive reading I've done, I'm not convinced.

Also
Seeing as how government and politics are heavily involved, on both sides of the argument....
And how money is involved, again, on both sides...

To deny that there isn't money and power involved in change or status quo is to be blatantly naive.  That's why I never got into the conspiracy claims, they could just as easily be true for either part of the argument.  It's a blade that cuts both ways.

Anyone who isn't skeptical is asking for it.  You're falling victim to blind faith just as much as SteveB or Skinnyhead ever did, the only difference is the subject matter.
 
2013-03-24 01:42:22 AM

omeganuepsilon: if an we can


and if we can

Meh, I'm tired.

G'night you god damned dirty hippies!

/figure of speech only
//repurposed from Planet of the Apes
 
2013-03-24 03:28:42 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.

Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?


What Baryogenesis is pointing out isn't an appeal to popularity - the primary criterion is still the evidence itself instead of just the number of papers (while both exist in this case).You can think of it as corroboration and replication if it helps.


omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.


When one talks about a consensus on this topic, one is referring to the basics like the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that. While you're quite right to point out that such does not  necessarily make it true, it's also a very good (if not the best) heuristic we have.


omeganuepsilon: Anyhow..
On to more debunking of inanity:

Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.
I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.


You may have misunderstood. The idea that Baryogenesis is putting forward is that in order to get an accurate idea of the state of knowledge on a topic, looking at a small subset of papers isn't enough - one must also state why the rest of the literature is somehow invalid ("wrong or could [be] missing something important"). I don't think he's calling you out on anything you should be providing evidence for.


omeganuepsilon: The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?

Meh, with the extensive reading I've done, I'm not convinced.


While the principle you're outlining is sound, keep in mind that such agnosticism has a caveat in terms of the amount and quality of information it is based on. What this means is that said while agnosticism is prudent in the face of uncertainty, said uncertainty may be due to the state of one's own limited knowledge rather than an accurate reflection of the state of extant knowledge. What you should ask yourself is whether your "extensive reading" is sufficient to make an accurate assessment of the scientific literature.  Have you read what you think is a representative amount of the literature? Do you have sufficient background knowledge to understand said literature? Do you have even access to the majority of scientific literature in the first place? Etc, etc.


omeganuepsilon: Also
Seeing as how government and politics are heavily involved, on both sides of the argument....
And how money is involved, again, on both sides...

To deny that there isn't money and power involved in change or status quo is to be blatantly naive.  That's why I never got into the conspiracy claims, they could just as easily be true for either part of the argument.  It's a blade that cuts both ways.

Anyone who isn't skeptical is asking for it.  You're falling victim to blind faith just as much as SteveB or Skinnyhead ever did, the only difference is the subject matter.


While I do agree with the idea of refraining from the conspiracy claims or other sorts of source derogation, keep in mind the possibility that others (especially those with a strong scientific background) may not be relying on blind faith.  Do not assume that gaps in your knowledge mean gaps in other people's knowledge.
 
2013-03-24 04:58:46 AM

omeganuepsilon:

As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
 
2013-03-24 06:10:37 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.

Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?


As Damnhippy freak pointed out, those papers build upon, refine, confirm and support one another.  Each paper is a bit of research, a bit of evidence and there are a lot of papers which support AGW which means there is a lot of evidence.  More evidence is better than less.  Continual confirmation of AGW from different authors, with different methods, in different fields means the evidence is strong.  It's 10,000 data points all pointing to the same thing which is much better than a few dozen.

Again, those papers represent an accumulation of evidence, not of opinion.  Or to put it another way, you're looking for the correct answer whatever that may be.  How would we identify the paper that came up with the correct answer? We can't just say this one paper is right.  It's not going to glow a beautiful white light.  You can't just look at it and know.  It would need to be confirmed/replicated.  That's what these references to the body of literature are about.  The basic idea of human caused global warming is correct because it is continually confirmed by more and more papers.


omeganuepsilon: Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.


No, I'm saying that all the evidence built up in favor of AGW could be wrong, but if that's the case then it has to be shown to be wrong.  Otherwise, those thousands of papers are strong evidence for ACC/AGW.  As long as you aren't saying anything is wrong without backing it up with an explanation then you're fine.  No, you're doing something different.

omeganuepsilon: I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.


Ah, there's what you're doing.  Yes, you're saying you're skeptical, but you can't quite explain the exact nature of said skepticism.  It's a neat trick.  You can play a game where no amount evidence presented is enough because you'll never plainly state the threshold for being convinced.  It's like moving invisible goal posts.  You use that game every time someone brings up the fact that nearly every paper published on climate change supports ACC/AGW.  You sorta casually brush aside those mountains of papers without giving any reason at all.  That's the problem.  Oh no, you're not *technically* disagreeing with any of them so you never have to support your position.  Like I said, neat trick.

What standard of proof are you using?  What sort of evidence would you need to see to change your mind? What specific part(s) of AGW do you find unconvincing?  I've seen you post some vague criticisms of statistical methods employed in some papers, but you don't appear to have the background in statistics to make a substantial challenge on that front.  Is there anything else?  Dark matter is a good example.  It's completely reasonable to say "I'm skeptical of dark matter.  I'm going to wait until they detect WIMPs before I make up my mind."  There's a specific objection central to proving the existence of dark matter.  What is your AGW equivalent?

Agnoticism/skepticism is a fine position when there is a lack of evidence or in the face of competing theories (in the scientific sense of the word).  The more evidence at our disposal the more suspicious it looks when you casually dismiss most it out of hand, the more it looks like you're only claiming to be a skeptic.


omeganuepsilon: The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?


This is exactly why I think you're blowing smoke.  Evidence for all of that has been provided by decades of climate research and accepted by every major scientific body in the world.  Why is it good enough for them, but not good enough for you?  Are they all idiots?  Have they all been duped? Surely they would have found a substantial objection if there was one to find.

The last part in bold is a political argument and not relevant to the science of AGW.  It is, no doubt, an important question, though.

Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.
 
2013-03-24 06:28:53 AM
Well good luck trying to convince China and India that this isn`t just a chance to get ahead by polluting the fark out of the planet to gain a bit of extra productivity.

It`s like arguing about the position of the cutlery on the titanic. Put it where you like, unless you get China and India on board you are still sunk if things are how you say.
 
2013-03-24 06:57:30 AM

LewDux: It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age


And someone gave you smartest vote! What's the planet is coming to?
 
2013-03-24 07:26:46 AM

Baryogenesis: What's your threshold for 'proof'?


I take it you want the minimum proof required as you say threshold. Well science at it`s heart is all about accurate, repeatable predictions regarding experimental results. It`s not possible to have another earth to use as a control so the repeatable part goes out of the window so all that is left is accurate predictions.

This leads to the conclusion that there needs to be specific temperature predictions made in the past that are accurate in the present accompanied by a prediction for the rate of warming made in the past that is accurate in the present as a minimum test for whether the theory holds up.

As we are dealing with climate scale trends then the prediction must have been made 17 years ago or longer to establish a trend separate from noise.

That would be a start. Should be easy.
 
2013-03-24 07:44:38 AM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.


I'm pretty sure of that too. When you look at the advocates that produce the high sensitivity predictions, there's only about 20 of them.

Surveys that claim high support are cheating by asking only the questions on which there is agreement, eg whether the greenhouse effect is real. To place scientists who answer yes to that question in the warmer camp is utter fraud.

IPCC reports use the same techniques plus one more: a lot of the scientists they cite are really just environmental activists, with no scientific training whatsoever.
 
2013-03-24 07:45:35 AM

LewDux: LewDux: It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And someone gave you smartest vote! What's the planet is coming to?


Welcome to the "redefined" peer review process lol!
 
2013-03-24 12:01:46 PM

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I never said it doesn't exist, every religion has it's bible.  I'm also not ignoring evidence, I find the evidence dubious.

That's what most of my post was about and you're still trying to paint me as something that I am not.

You're either lying through your teeth or have the amazing capacity to actively fool yourself, or the ever possible troll who just wants to get my goat, or you're so ignorant that it's a wonder you are smart enough to use a computer and make a fark account.  Given all those alternatives, it's also possible that you're some combination of them as well.
 
2013-03-24 12:22:02 PM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.


Yet another example of how little GeneralJim actually critically examines the evidence he attempts to use. The paper in question surveyed only a professional organization composed of those working in the petroleum industry and related fields, while the bit he quoted is editorializing by the blogger reporting on the paper. In fact, said paper undercuts the point he is trying to make - by trying to tease out the discursive basis of 'defensive institutional work', it details how members of such an organization (with such self-interest) can form their opinion in ways other than in regards to the scientific evidence.
 
2013-03-24 12:33:00 PM

THE GREAT NAME: GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

I'm pretty sure of that too. When you look at the advocates that produce the high sensitivity predictions, there's only about 20 of them.


Including co-authors, there's probably more than that working on "high sensitivity predictions" alone, never mind the rest of climatology.


THE GREAT NAME: Surveys that claim high support are cheating by asking only the questions on which there is agreement, eg whether the greenhouse effect is real. To place scientists who answer yes to that question in the warmer camp is utter fraud.


You're quite right to point out that the specific question asked matters. However, such questions are openly stated and can't be considered fraud. Yet again, don't confuse gaps in your knowledge with deception on the part of others.


THE GREAT NAME: IPCC reports use the same techniques plus one more: a lot of the scientists they cite are really just environmental activists, with no scientific training whatsoever.


[citation needed], and somewhat absurd. To be a scientist in this context involves some sort of formal output in terms of the scientific literature (not grey literature) - such requires some form of scientific training.
 
2013-03-24 12:57:19 PM

dready zim: Baryogenesis: What's your threshold for 'proof'?

I take it you want the minimum proof required as you say threshold. Well science at it`s heart is all about accurate, repeatable predictions regarding experimental results. It`s not possible to have another earth to use as a control so the repeatable part goes out of the window so all that is left is accurate predictions.

This leads to the conclusion that there needs to be specific temperature predictions made in the past that are accurate in the present accompanied by a prediction for the rate of warming made in the past that is accurate in the present as a minimum test for whether the theory holds up.


Keep in mind that scientific endeavour is somewhat more than just predictions (as a part of hypothesis testing) and repeatability (not to be confused with replicability). What you're describing are very useful ideas, but a bit too simple compared to what actually occurs in science, such as activities that could be called description. This is one of the reasons why a more basic idea, such as  falsifiabilityis instead used, but even that frays at the edges. It's an interesting topic to be sure, but I urge caution in applying somewhat abstracted ideas to the messy job of empirical inquiry.


dready zim: As we are dealing with climate scale trends then the prediction must have been made 17 years ago or longer to establish a trend separate from noise.

That would be a start. Should be easy.


It is. For example:
i46.tinypic.com
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate176 3 .html

Let me know if you wish to discuss it further, or if you can't get a hold of the paper (I'll put if up for you somewhere).
 
2013-03-24 01:04:30 PM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never said it doesn't exist, every religion has it's bible.  I'm also not ignoring evidence, I find the subset of evidence that I am aware of, have been willing and able to access, and have the ability to understanddubious.

That's what most of my post was about and you're still trying to paint me as something that I am not.

You're either lying through your teeth or have the amazing capacity to actively fool yourself, or the ever possible troll who just wants to get my goat, or you're so ignorant that it's a wonder you are smart enough to use a computer and make a fark account.  Given all those alternatives, it's also possible that you're some combination of them as well.



Maybe the bit in bold that I added would make what Baryogenesis is saying more clear. These are caveats that we all operate with. If you don't wish to address or parse everything that Baryogenesis said, IMHO this is the most salient bit:

Baryogenesis: Agnoticism/skepticism is a fine position when there is a lack of evidence or in the face of competing theories (in the scientific sense of the word).  The more evidence at our disposal the more suspicious it looks when you casually dismiss most it out of hand, the more it looks like you're only claiming to be a skeptic.

 
2013-03-24 01:58:26 PM

Damnhippyfreak: IMHO this is the most salient bit:


IMHO it's the least salient bit, because I'm not dismissing it out of hand.  I've outlined very clearly why some things are dubious, albeit a small sample, directly to Baryo at his request.  If anyone is dismissing things out of hand, it is that guy.

As where you may employ fallacies and be dishonest on occasion, you don't continually stalk and harrass me with such things.  You at least keep it localized and can, at some points(as you kind of are in this thread), respond rationally without fabricating whole cloth the cloak that you want me to wear(though you do seem to fall into simply trusting what Baryo keeps saying about me).

As to what I find dubious.  In the process of science, say equations, if there is a small part that's suspect or wrong, the whole thing is highly suspect or wrong.
(as a simple example to illustrate the point.
If 1+3 is postulated to equal 5, as a small part of a very long equation, it throws off the whole equation.
For example
( 1 + 3 ) * 6 = 30

If you build a computer from scratch on a breadboard, but leave out random bits you accidentally knocked to the floor, you have something that is not going to function correctly if at all.

On top of that, when you start number crunching the way they do, averaging thousands of global numbers into a single digit, you're losing any rights to pinppoint accuracy, indeed, any reasonable meaning at all.

Did you know that having 2 legs makes you above average?
We simply MUST do something about that.

Plans based on an average, are, on average, wrong.

To further illustrate the point:

www.dartmouth.edu
and:

http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/

http://hbr.org/2002/11/the-flaw-of-averages/ar/1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveparrish/2012/10/03/the-flaw-of-aver ag es/

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/08/finance_and_the.html

www.investmentintelligence.ie

Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely large amount of highly variable numbers can lead to catastrophic failures in assumption.
 
2013-03-24 02:32:53 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: IMHO this is the most salient bit:

IMHO it's the least salient bit, because I'm not dismissing it out of hand.  I've outlined very clearly why some things are dubious, albeit a small sample, directly to Baryo at his request.  If anyone is dismissing things out of hand, it is that guy.

As where you may employ fallacies and be dishonest on occasion, you don't continually stalk and harrass me with such things.  You at least keep it localized and can, at some points(as you kind of are in this thread), respond rationally without fabricating whole cloth the cloak that you want me to wear(though you do seem to fall into simply trusting what Baryo keeps saying about me).

As to what I find dubious.  In the process of science, say equations, if there is a small part that's suspect or wrong, the whole thing is highly suspect or wrong.
(as a simple example to illustrate the point.
If 1+3 is postulated to equal 5, as a small part of a very long equation, it throws off the whole equation.
For example
( 1 + 3 ) * 6 = 30

If you build a computer from scratch on a breadboard, but leave out random bits you accidentally knocked to the floor, you have something that is not going to function correctly if at all.

On top of that, when you start number crunching the way they do, averaging thousands of global numbers into a single digit, you're losing any rights to pinppoint accuracy, indeed, any reasonable meaning at all.

Did you know that having 2 legs makes you above average?
We simply MUST do something about that.

Plans based on an average, are, on average, wrong.

To further illustrate the point:

[www.dartmouth.edu image 359x478]
and:

http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/

http://hbr.org/2002/11/the-flaw-of-averages/ar/1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveparrish/2012/10/03/the-flaw-of-aver ag es/

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/08/finance_and_the.html

[www.investmentintelligence.ie image 430x327]

Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely larg ...



While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic. I've got what I think is a funny quote about this in my profile:

The average human has one breast and one testicle. -Des McHale.

The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

I'm sorry, but you may be proving Baryogenesis' contention correct that you tend to post "vague criticisms of statistical methods". If this is an example of the level of detail that you're using to base your assessment of the science behind anthropogenic climate change to be "dubious", then I highly suggest that such assessment is based on a very limited and superficial understanding of said said science.  That's not meant as a put-down, but instead as encouragement to read a bit deeper into the subject.
 
2013-03-24 04:02:04 PM

Damnhippyfreak: While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic.


1. You are correct, It is important, the broken clock just struck.  One could call it fundamental.  Basic, yes, but provides the foundation for further extrapolation and correlation, in the attempt to establish causation.

2. It is obvious you don't understand.

As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.

What's even more entertaining, is that while you admit it's important, you also state that you don't know how it applies, and blame my (supposed) limited and superficial understanding.

Project much?(rhetorical, it's obvious that you do)

You flat out state that you don't understand, how unsure you really are, but it directly turned it around so that it now appears to be my flaw, my fault, my error.

You seem to be of the Belief that you're infallible, a common self deception amongst true believers.
It's easy when you don't hold yourself up to the same standards as you do others.

It's almost cute how you and bary will actually agree on a specific point I make now and again, yet try to make it look like I'm some sort of heretic.  It's like you're almost self aware and sentient beings, on the very brink of approaching that 3 digit IQ barrier, but then fall under the (for you)intense pressure of being responsible for what you've stated.
 
2013-03-24 05:03:48 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic.

1. You are correct, It is important, the broken clock just struck.  One could call it fundamental.  Basic, yes, but provides the foundation for further extrapolation and correlation, in the attempt to establish causation.

2. It is obvious you don't understand.

As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.


Wow. In this case, you may have a beef with any science that uses numbers as the use of averages is ubiquitous. In fact the problem you described in terms of loss of information is common to any mathematical operation (unsurprising since an average is calculated by sum and division). For example, you lose information with addition - ifyou state thatyou are carrying a sum total of three oranges in your two handsyou lose information as to the distribution of said oranges - whether it's two in one hand and one in the other, or all three in one hand. The problem that you're talking about isn't something specific to climatology, but is inherent in any use of operators - and therefore inherent in any meaningful use of numbers.

What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.


omeganuepsilon: What's even more entertaining, is that while you admit it's important, you also state that you don't know how it applies, and blame my (supposed) limited and superficial understanding.


people.virginia.edu

What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.


omeganuepsilon: Project much?(rhetorical, it's obvious that you do)

You flat out state that you don't understand, how unsure you really are, but it directly turned it around so that it now appears to be my flaw, my fault, my error.


My uncertainty had to do with the lack of a link from the general principle you stated to support for an specific argument about climate. I am aware that said general principle is pretty much universal, and not specific to climatology, therefore the link wasn't clear.


omeganuepsilon: You seem to be of the Belief that you're infallible, a common self deception amongst true believers.
It's easy when you don't hold yourself up to the same standards as you do others.

It's almost cute how you and bary will actually agree on a specific point I make now and again, yet try to make it look like I'm some sort of heretic.  It's like you're almost self aware and sentient beings, on the very brink of approaching that 3 digit IQ barrier, but then fall under the (for you)intense pressure of being responsible for what you've stated.


In no way have I suggested that I am somehow infallible. However, it does not take much to see that your knowledge on this topic is extremely limited. Again, not meant as a put-down, but an honest assessment meant to suggest the need for further reading on your part. Again I respectfully suggest if what you've outlined is an example of the level of detail that you're using to base your assessment of the science behind anthropogenic climate change to be "dubious", then I highly suggest that such assessment is based on a very limited and superficial understanding of said said science.

Come on now - it appears you value self-awareness. What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?
 
2013-03-24 05:58:43 PM

Damnhippyfreak: What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.


No, only "sciences" that attempt to glean useful information from using the same method, the sciences that claim precision can be garnered from averaging such a large data pool.

The "science" of polls such as FOX news reports on, yeah.  Dubious indeed.

Damnhippyfreak: What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.


Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".
Again, if you say 1+3 = 5, any equation you include that error in is going to be wrong.

That "It does not follow" is irrelevant, because I'm not saying "all" evidence is dubious(speaking of wookie argument..).  You've always got shrinking glaciers, and other things that are irrelevant(to the flaw I am pointing out) to fall back on.

Damnhippyfreak: My uncertainty had to do with the lack of a link from the general principle


Do you really need a citation that 1+3 does not equal 5?
Or how that it will affect the rest of the equation to include the answer?
That goes beyond the ordinary and into extraordinary incredulity.  Or extraordinary stupidity, in this case, if you prefer.

Damnhippyfreak: What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?


That you are a contrarian nitwit.

I've explained it.  If you can't understand, either give up the trolling, admit fault, or the most likely...continue as you were in denying reality.  There's a word for that last one:  Delusion.

You recommend a better education for my supposed lack thereof, but I suggest some serious psychotherapy for your very evident mental state.
Likewise, I'm not being mean here, just stating the apparent.  Seriously, you either need more drugs, or less drugs.  Who know's, maybe all professionals can do for you is a lobotomy.  Either way, whatever help you get would be best for those around you.
 
2013-03-24 06:58:57 PM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never said it doesn't exist, every religion has it's bible.  I'm also not ignoring evidence, I find the evidence dubious.

That's what most of my post was about and you're still trying to paint me as something that I am not.

You're either lying through your teeth or have the amazing capacity to actively fool yourself, or the ever possible troll who just wants to get my goat, or you're so ignorant that it's a wonder you are smart enough to use a computer and make a fark account.  Given all those alternatives, it's also possible that you're some combination of them as well.


Exactly what I expected.  See, when you say the evidence is dubious, but then don't explain exactly which papers and exactly why they are dubious then you might as well just be ignoring them.  You're giving a hollow answer.   I gave you a simple task to show your honesty as a skeptic and you didn't even attempt it.  Dready zim came up with a specific stance and I didn't even pose the question to him.  I keep giving you the chance to explicitly explain yourself so you don't have these problems.  If you would just come right out and say exactly what your beefs are then we would need this back and forth.  But as I said before, you won't do that because you wouldn't be able to play this little game where you constantly move invisible goal posts and complain you're being misrepresented.

Baryogenesis: But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


C'mon omega, you keep saying you're tired of your positions being misrepresented.  Explain in detail exactly what is dubious.  Again, your lack of knowledge of statistics and their uses isn't an argument.

Actually, that reminds me.  You sort of accidentally hit on an interesting point.  Global warming is just a subset of global climate change.  Obviously, every place on Earth isn't going to increase in temperature by exactly +2C (or +3, 4, 5 etc).  Some places, like those in the high latitudes, will warm more than the global average and some other places may even cool.  The total impact of climate change will include much more than temperature increases.  Indeed, the issue is much more complex than a simple average will get across.  However, that doesn't mean said average is wrong or useless, merely that we have to understand what it's telling us and when, where and how to apply it.
 
2013-03-24 07:15:02 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.

No, only "sciences" that attempt to glean useful information from using the same method, the sciences that claim precision can be garnered from averaging such a large data pool.

The "science" of polls such as FOX news reports on, yeah.  Dubious indeed.


Which is any science that uses averages, or indeed any that uses numbers at all (because of the loss of information from mathematical operations, as outlined in the post you're responding to). Averages do enhance precision (in relation to the value of interest) by minimizing the effect of unwanted variation within the pool being averaged.  Again, what you're saying applies to most if not all sciences, and according to you would render them "dubious". Think about this for a second - the speed of light in a vacuum, the atomic mass of hydrogen, the tensile strength of steel - all derived through repeated and averaged measurement and therefore science based on these "dubious" according to your argument.

Come on now. You're stating that climate science is "dubious" because it uses averages. Say that to yourself out loud, say it to a friend or colleague, if you dare. Think about it for a bit.


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.

Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".
Again, if you say 1+3 = 5, any equation you include that error in is going to be wrong.

That "It does not follow" is irrelevant, because I'm not saying "all" evidence is dubious(speaking of wookie argument..).  You've always got shrinking glaciers, and other things that are irrelevant(to the flaw I am pointing out) to fall back on.


All science relies on the idea that the data it uses is accurate (given specific caveats and limitations, of course). What you're talking about is yet again a very general principle that is not somehow specific to climatology - it's a valid argument in of itself, but it does not support your claim about anthropogenic climate change.


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?

That you are a contrarian nitwit.

I've explained it.  If you can't understand, either give up the trolling, admit fault, or the most likely...continue as you were in denying reality.  There's a word for that last one:  Delusion.

You recommend a better education for my supposed lack thereof, but I suggest some serious psychotherapy for your very evident mental state.
Likewise, I'm not being mean here, just stating the apparent.  Seriously, you either need more drugs, or less drugs.  Who know's, maybe all professionals can do for you is a lobotomy.  Either way, whatever help you get would be best for those around you.


An honest and rational answer would have been more appropriate here. I yet again suggest you use your self awareness to ask yourself what your answer here says about your approach towards this topic. You've been caught putting forward a somewhat absurd argument. Man up and face it instead of throwing a tantrum.
 
2013-03-24 07:20:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely large amount of highly variable numbers can lead to catastrophic failures in assumption.


And with one flurry of typing omega discredited all of statistics and any field that utilizes statistics including, climate science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics!

Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature. Cite specific problems within specific papers. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.
 
2013-03-24 08:22:52 PM

Damnhippyfreak: It is. For example:


i46.tinypic.com

Now, to me, if I look at this graph, the red line really does not look like it is following the line marked `IPCC (1990) prediction`. It seemed to for a while but it looks like it has started to deviate and the deviation is increasing. The years after 2010 have not been warmer either so the graph would look even more that way if they were included. If this is the case then the prediction is not a good one in my opinion. I`m thinking the next 12-18 months will be very interesting in the field of climate science if current temperatures continue into significance...
 
2013-03-24 09:35:24 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Which is any science that uses averages, or indeed any that uses numbers at all (because of the loss of information from mathematical operations, as outlined in the post you're responding to)


Averages as a specific problem =/= all use of numbers.

Ergo, your "most if not all sciences" bit goes right out the window.  You're painting "science" with a very broad(and innacurate) brush here.  Chemistry to physics to electronics etc all use very precise math and not very much in the way of "averages" as a proof.  Unless you want to count 1+3 = 4 as being a 100% average or some other inane factoid.

Damnhippyfreak: Think about this for a second - the speed of light in a vacuum, the atomic mass of hydrogen, the tensile strength of steel - all derived through repeated and averaged measurement and therefore science based on these "dubious" according to your argument.


These "dubious" what?

No wonder you can't grasp the concept that a flaw in basic reasoning can taint a whole study.

Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.


Because basic math is so hard to understand you need literature on it?

Calling you "above average" for having 2 whole legs needs scientific literature?

Jesus you guys are dense.

Baryogenesis: And with one flurry of typing omega discredited all of statistics and any field that utilizes statistics including, climate science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics!


Averages =/= All statistics

You are both making the same mistakes in logic here.

Averages are ok for figuring out a rough trend.  The key word there is rough.
The process is not what's flawed.  The application of it is what can be, and in this case is, flawed.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misleading+averages

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misuse+of+average

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

http://www.statsconsult.com/Articles/Misuse%20of%20statistics.pdf

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/ed-lotterman/even-a-simpl e- average-can-be-misused/article_9891f374-bdd2-11e0-a5be-001cc4c002e0.ht ml

From the above:
But supporting such basically sound positions with misleading use of some number is more likely to make knowledgeable readers shy away from one's argument than agree with it. And it certainly does not raise the level of public understanding.

Well that last sentence is very true if you guys are representative of the public.

As for knowledgeable people disagreeing with a principle, it's because when people lie/cheat/steal to get their way, we find it repulsive.  You two should know what being repulsive is like.
 
2013-03-24 10:48:34 PM

omeganuepsilon: The application of it is what can be, and in this case is, flawed.


Wait, I think I addressed this. Oh yes, here it is:

Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature. Cite specific problems within specific papers. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills


Tell us, with all your vast knowledge of statistics, exactly where these flaws are.  We're gonna need more than "averages are teh worstest!!!1!" to take you seriously.  You can name all sorts of problems, but it doesn't mean anything until you identify those problems within the field of climate science.  You haven't even been able to articulate an example within the subject of global warming.  Heck, I even threw you a bone on that very point and you didn't even realize it (high latitudes generally experience more warming than low latitudes).

Here's an example of what I mean.  "Paper X took the temperature anomaly from a station at the north pole and a station at the equator, did an unweighted average and called it good!"  You know, a specific criticism of a specific paper making a specific mistake in their uses of averages.

Right now, it just looks like you think all the stations across the globe are just added together and divided by N.  But again, who knows, you won't actually articulate a specific position or criticism.


I think I'll keep posting this:

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


until you can actually put forth any kind of substantial reply.  I won't be holding my breath.  You'll never give specific answers to the questions in that paragraph because you're an intellectual coward.
 
2013-03-24 11:15:14 PM

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: It is. For example:

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x375]

Now, to me, if I look at this graph, the red line really does not look like it is following the line marked `IPCC (1990) prediction`. It seemed to for a while but it looks like it has started to deviate and the deviation is increasing. The years after 2010 have not been warmer either so the graph would look even more that way if they were included. If this is the case then the prediction is not a good one in my opinion. I`m thinking the next 12-18 months will be very interesting in the field of climate science if current temperatures continue into significance...


Not quite. You have to read the paper to make sense of the graph. Part of the problem the graph is trying to come to grips with is the fact that the 1990 IPCC FAR only included greenhouse gas forcing in the prediction highlighted, and therefore if you include natural variation the margins become fairly wide (you can get a sense of how wide it would be from the huge range covered by 'unforced variation' in the graph). This is so wide that the observations fall well within the range of predictions. So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.
 
2013-03-24 11:22:41 PM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: Which is any science that uses averages, or indeed any that uses numbers at all (because of the loss of information from mathematical operations, as outlined in the post you're responding to)

Averages as a specific problem =/= all use of numbers.

Ergo, your "most if not all sciences" bit goes right out the window.  You're painting "science" with a very broad(and innacurate) brush here.  Chemistry to physics to electronics etc all use very precise math and not very much in the way of "averages" as a proof.  Unless you want to count 1+3 = 4 as being a 100% average or some other inane factoid.


As I argued previously (and that you didn't address), they are the same in regards to the problem of information loss you're basing your argument on:

Damnhippyfreak: Wow. In this case, you may have a beef with any science that uses numbers as the use of averages is ubiquitous. In fact the problem you described in terms of loss of information is common to any mathematical operation (unsurprising since an average is calculated by sum and division). For example, you lose information with addition - if you state that you are carrying a sum total of three oranges in your two hands you lose information as to the distribution of said oranges - whether it's two in one hand and one in the other, or all three in one hand. The problem that you're talking about isn't something specific to climatology, but is inherent in any use of operators - and therefore inherent in any meaningful use of numbers.


When you talk about "very precise math", you're talking about the exact same mathematical operators that are used to calculate an average - again, an average is simply a sum and a division and produce the exact same loss of information that you're talking about. Simply put, averages are "very precise math".


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: Think about this for a second - the speed of light in a vacuum, the atomic mass of hydrogen, the tensile strength of steel - all derived through repeated and averaged measurement and therefore science based on these are "dubious" according to your argument.

These "dubious" what?

No wonder you can't grasp the concept that a flaw in basic reasoning can taint a whole study.


Sorry about the phrasing - it makes more sense with 'are' included in there. The point stands - your argument would have science based on measurements such as these somehow rendered "dubious".
 
2013-03-24 11:39:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.

Because basic math is so hard to understand you need literature on it?

Calling you "above average" for having 2 whole legs needs scientific literature?

Jesus you guys are dense.



You may have missed the point - Baryogenesis is addressing the specific bit he quoted:

omeganuepsilon: Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely large amount of highly variable numbers can lead to catastrophic failures in assumption.


The idea is that you're positing a potential assumption in climatology, without actually providing any evidence that it did happen. It's the same point that I was trying to make to you when I was saying this:

Damnhippyfreak: What you're talking about is yet again a very general principle that is not somehow specific to climatology - it's a valid argument in of itself, but it does not support your claim about anthropogenic climate change.



omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: And with one flurry of typing omega discredited all of statistics and any field that utilizes statistics including, climate science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics!

Averages =/= All statistics


Actually, if you recognize that a statistic attempts to approximate a parameter, more than one measurement of anything will necessitate the need for averages. You've backed yourself into a bit of a corner here - any science that uses numbers in empirical investigation or measures anything is going to use averages in order to increase accuracy.


omeganuepsilon: Averages are ok for figuring out a rough trend.  The key word there is rough.
The process is not what's flawed.  The application of it is what can be, and in this case is, flawed.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misleading+averages

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misuse+of+average

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

http://www.statsconsult.com/Articles/Misuse%20of%20statistics.pdf

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/ed-lotterman/even-a-simpl e- average-can-be-misused/article_9891f374-bdd2-11e0-a5be-001cc4c002e0.ht ml


If the bit in bold represents you attempting to back off your somewhat absurd argument, then I welcome it. Unfortunately you're also left with trying to make the case that climate science is somehow misusing averages, something you've failed to do with both me and Baryogenesis pointing out a link.


omeganuepsilon: From the above:
But supporting such basically sound positions with misleading use of some number is more likely to make knowledgeable readers shy away from one's argument than agree with it. And it certainly does not raise the level of public understanding.

Well that last sentence is very true if you guys are representative of the public.

As for knowledgeable people disagreeing with a principle, it's because when people lie/cheat/steal to get their way, we find it repulsive.  You two should know what being repulsive is like.


Indeed, and in the same vein, more knowledgeable readers, such as me and Baryogenesis are very much shying away from your argument. You're misusing a basic principle in order to attempt to prove a specific point - and people like us who know better do, in fact find at a bit repulsive. Man up and get out of that hole you've dug for yourself. Many people, including myself, think it's a good thing when one abandons a flawed argument instead of digging your heels in.
 
2013-03-24 11:46:51 PM

Baryogenesis: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.


Again, how I "need" to educate you. Or alternatively:
How I need to educate you.

 Sorry Sparky, that's not how it works. Fark's design isn't friendly to a direct and interactive teaching sort of scenerio. The best I am willing to do is deliver general concepts.  If you refuse to read as directed or follow links, the failure is on your part, not mine.  That is how you folks readily handle incoming questions, "Go find out for yourself, seek more education, hit up google..."etc.  Does it not work both ways?

Read the climate paper methodology reports. Some sites don't present them very well, you may have to click through several pages, but Berkeley made it fairly easy, and I know you know how to get to that website, you constantly linked it when you were trying to call me stupid for agreeing with them on some points.
Here's a hint, they average a LOT of data, and sometimes lead those results of averages into another more encompassing average.  Each stage of which can compound errors or nullify abnormalities(right along with useful data)


Now refer to my links on how averages can be misused(with or without intent) or extrapolated from.

And that's it.  It's simple, even you could do the required reading within a day.  Now, your ability to be honest about it, that's an entirely different matter.

You consistently attack me as If I'm bound by law to validate my opinions, to hold your hand while I teach you basic scientific method and ways people misuse or even abuse it.  I don't expect change.

It's there if you want to read it. If, if not, try farking off.
/sincerely wish you would hold your breath, your IQ couldn't possibly suffer from it.

The science as pertains to this topic is not above problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues

Not to say all of those issues apply, but many are distinct possibilities.

Combine that with the fact that earth's environment is a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part.  I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)
 
2013-03-24 11:52:17 PM

Damnhippyfreak: you've failed to do with both me and Baryogenesis


Only because you're both extremely dense.  Like two peas packed into a very very tiny pod. No room for incoming information, hell, you barely have enough room to give dutch rudders.
 
2013-03-25 12:03:21 AM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: you've failed to do with both me and Baryogenesis

Only because you're both extremely dense.  Like two peas packed into a very very tiny pod. No room for incoming information, hell, you barely have enough room to give dutch rudders.



This kind of irrational and somewhat childish response only proves Baryogenesis right:

Baryogenesis: You'll never give specific answers to the questions in that paragraph because you're an intellectual coward.

 
2013-03-25 12:32:23 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.

Again, how I "need" to educate you. Or alternatively:
How I need to educate you.

 Sorry Sparky, that's not how it works. Fark's design isn't friendly to a direct and interactive teaching sort of scenerio. The best I am willing to do is deliver general concepts.  If you refuse to read as directed or follow links, the failure is on your part, not mine.  That is how you folks readily handle incoming questions, "Go find out for yourself, seek more education, hit up google..."etc.  Does it not work both ways?


No, that's not how that works.  *You* are the one accusing climate scientists of misusing statistics and averages to make their point.  You're the one calling into question the data so the onus is on you to show that it is flawed in some way.

See, these are the points you are making:

 

omeganuepsilon: Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".


omeganuepsilon: And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd


You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.  By the way, that last quote is just an argument from ignorance.  You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.

But feel free to explain why all those climate scientists continue to use global average temperature despite its obvious absurdity.  Maybe you could send them a letter.

Oh, I almost forgot to include this bit.

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


When are you going to address the points I made there?
 
2013-03-25 01:04:22 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.

Again, how I "need" to educate you. Or alternatively:
How I need to educate you.

 Sorry Sparky, that's not how it works. Fark's design isn't friendly to a direct and interactive teaching sort of scenerio. The best I am willing to do is deliver general concepts.  If you refuse to read as directed or follow links, the failure is on your part, not mine.  That is how you folks readily handle incoming questions, "Go find out for yourself, seek more education, hit up google..."etc.  Does it not work both ways?

Read the climate paper methodology reports. Some sites don't present them very well, you may have to click through several pages, but Berkeley made it fairly easy, and I know you know how to get to that website, you constantly linked it when you were trying to call me stupid for agreeing with them on some points.
Here's a hint, they average a LOT of data, and sometimes lead those results of averages into another more encompassing average.  Each stage of which can compound errors or nullify abnormalities(right along with useful data)

Now refer to my links on how averages can be misused(with or without intent) or extrapolated from.


omeganuepsilon: Not to say all of those issues apply, but many are distinct possibilities.


You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science. Again, if you're relying on some sort of mistrust of averages in general, the list of sciences you would have a problem with is comprehensive, for lack of a better word.


omeganuepsilon: And that's it.  It's simple, even you could do the required reading within a day.  Now, your ability to be honest about it, that's an entirely different matter.

You consistently attack me as If I'm bound by law to validate my opinions, to hold your hand while I teach you basic scientific method and ways people misuse or even abuse it.  I don't expect change.


The idea of the 'burden of proof' is applicable here. It's your contention and claim, it is up to you to back it up.
 
2013-03-25 01:13:53 AM

Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?


I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.

Baryogenesis: You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.


Of course you call it brilliant, I took it directly from your playbook.

Baryogenesis: You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.


There's no "figuring out" needed.  I've paraphrased the problems with averages(when used for specific purposes) numerous times and included all sorts of links.

Also, All this started because you asked me why I don't buy X.  I stated my reasons(as noted), and you now question my reasons, etc etc.

Why do you believe the world will end? Facetious, yes, I know, but state all the plethora of data and methodology and correlation/causation that back up your stand point.

What's that?  You don't want to, because cumulatively, you already have?  Gee, go figure.  I ask a question and you link to Berkeley's home page....Can't handle your own medicine?

You clearly and consistently don't abide by your own words of what "needs" to be done, why should I?  Why the double standard?

Yes, it's very clear you have an excellent grasp on all the data and scientific principles ever, are fair, honest, and respectable.  Why, however did I ever have any doubt!?!
/sarcasm
 
2013-03-25 01:38:22 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.


Highly doubtful given that you most likely do not have access to the vast majority of scientific information. You may be trying to dodge the question.


omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.

Of course you call it brilliant, I took it directly from your playbook.


'No U' isn't as strong of a response as you may think.


omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.

There's no "figuring out" needed.  I've paraphrased the problems with averages(when used for specific purposes) numerous times and included all sorts of links.


Unfortunately those "specific purposes" don't necessarily include climate science. The problem is that you've stated your reasons, but you're refusing to actually link it to the science surrounding climate change. I posted this earlier, and I believe it's still apt in this context:

people.virginia.edu:

omeganuepsilon: Why do you believe the world will end? Facetious, yes, I know, but state all the plethora of data and methodology and correlation/causation that back up your stand point.

What's that?  You don't want to, because cumulatively, you already have?  Gee, go figure.  I ask a question and you link to Berkeley's home page....Can't handle your own medicine?

You clearly and consistently don't abide by your own words of what "needs" to be done, why should I?  Why the double standard?

Yes, it's very clear you have an excellent grasp on all the data and scientific principles ever, are fair, honest, and respectable.  Why, however did I ever have any doubt!?!
/sarcasm


You're flailing about here. The unfortunate thing is that if you would put a fraction of the effort you're expending in trying to avoid clearly stating a line of reasoning into actually educating yourself, you would be much better off.
 
2013-03-25 01:50:56 AM

Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.


I "seem" to because you're reading with one eye tied behind your back.

You even acknowledged the concept above, but then turned around with this gem...

Damnhippyfreak: The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

So all that work with collecting temps and heavily processing them is, irrelevant?  Not evidence?  Baryo would like a word with you on that.

Indeed, so would IPCC, NOAA, Berkeley and whatever others.

Without a "rate" of warming, there's little to correlate with the other principles involved, and your whole dire future scenario falls apart.  That is a major support leg you're trying to make non-existant there.(here's where I expect you to kick the backpedaling into high gear "not the graphs themselves but the numbers!" or some such nonsense.

Are you sure you're not playing double agent?  I mean, you already gave "your" side a bad image, but a lot of zealots end up doing that gag as a matter of course, baryo, for example. I mean, your name even fits the stereotype..

But to totally write off a major chain of evidence in such a fashion...

Just, Wow!

Anyhow, 'night creeps.
 
2013-03-25 01:51:25 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.


Lol.  ALL OF IT!  Riiiight.

What is your standard?  What threshold needs to overcome?  What does "proof" mean to you?

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.

Of course you call it brilliant, I took it directly from your playbook.


Nice of you to freely admit that you don't understand the statistics you're attempting to criticize.

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.

There's no "figuring out" needed.  I've paraphrased the problems with averages(when used for specific purposes) numerous times and included all sorts of links.


Oh yes, you've told me that averages can be misused, but you haven't explained if that's actually happening among climate scientists.  Here, I'll quote damnhippyfreak:

Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.


Again, omega, you need to move from "averages can be used to mislead" to "climate scientists have misled with bad statistics like in papers X, Y, Z".  You still haven't made a specific objection to climate science in particular.

omeganuepsilon: Also, All this started because you asked me why I don't buy X.  I stated my reasons(as noted), and you now question my reasons, etc etc.


No, you've stated a single abstract reason, but failed to show how it is impacting climate science specifically.

omeganuepsilon: Why do you believe the world will end? Facetious, yes, I know, but state all the plethora of data and methodology and correlation/causation that back up your stand point.


I don't think the world will end.  Perhaps you'd like to ask a different question?  I'd be happy to support my position which is something you are continually unable to do.

omeganuepsilon: I ask a question and you link to Berkeley's home page....Can't handle your own medicine?


Ooh, except I linked to a climate group.  You're linking to let me google that for you.  I understand that you don't like averages.  I'm asking how that specifically impacts climate science.  Berkeley Earth explained their temperature averaging technique, I figured you'd be more likely to read that than something from NASA, NOAA or HadCRUT.  Their results are in great agreement with the aforementioned NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT.  Would you care to point out the flaws in their methodology?  What, exactly, is the averaging problem you're harping about?
 
2013-03-25 01:55:05 AM

Damnhippyfreak: You're flailing about here


Only because you're so thick I can't get the concept across(doesn't help that you refuse to read the methodology reports and see the blatant similarities of troubled employment of averages).  I've already stated I'm not a teacher, but now I know the unique challenges of a special ed teacher.
 
2013-03-25 02:05:06 AM

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.

Highly doubtful given that you most likely do not have access to the vast majority of scientific information. You may be trying to dodge the question.


The bottom line:

models.weatherbell.com

/yes, I know it's just month to date
//how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?
 
2013-03-25 02:14:50 AM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You're flailing about here

Only because you're so thick I can't get the concept across(doesn't help that you refuse to read the methodology reports and see the blatant similarities of troubled employment of averages).  I've already stated I'm not a teacher, but now I know the unique challenges of a special ed teacher.


I've read through a few papers (I'm not going to arrogantly lie and tell you I've seen ALL THE EVIDENCE) and I don't see a problem.  You're the one telling us it's a problem that invalidates everything built upon it ( 

omeganuepsilon: As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.

) so it's you who need to show the error.

So, what is the problem?  It should be easy to point out, right?  You've read ALL THE EVIDENCE.  C'mon, point out the error(s).  Telling me to "study it out" isn't an argument.  It's your position so it's your job to provide the support for it.

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


Hey, are you ever going to answer my questions?
 
2013-03-25 02:36:00 AM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.

I "seem" to because you're reading with one eye tied behind your back.

 That or you're not actually making the case for it. Again, you're trying to apply a general principle, with caveats that it might be occurring to a specific field. One can state that all sorts of things have the "distinct possibility" of occurring - that's a poor substitute for showing that it actually occurs. Simply put, that averages can be misused does not mean they are being misused in this case.

omeganuepsilon: You even acknowledged the concept above, but then turned around with this gem...

Damnhippyfreak: The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

So all that work with collecting temps and heavily processing them is, irrelevant?  Not evidence?  Baryo would like a word with you on that.

Indeed, so would IPCC, NOAA, Berkeley and whatever others.


Swing and a miss. The idea is that the the graphs that I mention that focus on a global average are generally illustrative tools. The actual attribution of anthropogenic climate change deals with the understanding of the underlying processes and mechanism at different scales. It's the sort of information that is folded into a global average. That an overview in terms of a global average exists does not mean that the underlying processes and spatial variation that compose said average aren't looked at. A good analogy is that you're assuming a book cover represents all that there is in the book.

omeganuepsilon: Without a "rate" of warming, there's little to correlate with the other principles involved, and your whole dire future scenario falls apart.  That is a major support leg you're trying to make non-existant there.(here's where I expect you to kick the backpedaling into high gear "not the graphs themselves but the numbers!" or some such nonsense.

Are you sure you're not playing double agent?  I mean, you already gave "your" side a bad image, but a lot of zealots end up doing that gag as a matter of course, baryo, for example. I mean, your name even fits the stereotype..

But to totally write off a major chain of evidence in such a fashion...

Just, Wow!

Anyhow, 'night creeps.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I suggest that your knowledge of this topic is very superficial at best. The fact of the matter is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation.
 
2013-03-25 02:37:15 AM

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You're flailing about here

Only because you're so thick I can't get the concept across(doesn't help that you refuse to read the methodology reports and see the blatant similarities of troubled employment of averages).  I've already stated I'm not a teacher, but now I know the unique challenges of a special ed teacher.


Again, you're flailing about instead of actually presenting evidence. You're continuing to prove Baryogenesis right:

Baryogenesis: You'll never give specific answers to the questions in that paragraph because you're an intellectual coward.

 
2013-03-25 02:39:03 AM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.

Highly doubtful given that you most likely do not have access to the vast majority of scientific information. You may be trying to dodge the question.

The bottom line:

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

/yes, I know it's just month to date
//how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?


It is hotter. However, you won't be able to see that very easily if you choose to show only a small period of time given the high amount of variability. Yet again:

www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-03-25 02:39:10 AM

DesertDemonWY: how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?


Funnily enough, I was just reading about that particular point.   Observed warming is pretty well in line with expected warming.
 
2013-03-25 02:42:41 AM

Damnhippyfreak: [formatting fail]


Let me repost that with better formatting:


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.

I "seem" to because you're reading with one eye tied behind your back.

 That or you're not actually making the case for it. Again, you're trying to apply a general principle, with caveats that it might be occurring to a specific field. One can state that all sorts of things have the "distinct possibility" of occurring - that's a poor substitute for showing that it actually occurs. Simply put, that averages can be misused does not mean they are being misused in this case.

omeganuepsilon: You even acknowledged the concept above, but then turned around with this gem...

Damnhippyfreak: The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

So all that work with collecting temps and heavily processing them is, irrelevant?  Not evidence?  Baryo would like a word with you on that.

Indeed, so would IPCC, NOAA, Berkeley and whatever others.


Swing and a miss. The idea is that the the graphs that I mention that focus on a global average are generally illustrative tools. The actual attribution of anthropogenic climate change deals with the understanding of the underlying processes and mechanism at different scales. It's the sort of information that is folded into a global average. That an overview in terms of a global average exists does not mean that the underlying processes and spatial variation that compose said average aren't looked at. A good analogy is that you're assuming a book cover represents all that there is in the book.

omeganuepsilon: Without a "rate" of warming, there's little to correlate with the other principles involved, and your whole dire future scenario falls apart.  That is a major support leg you're trying to make non-existant there.(here's where I expect you to kick the backpedaling into high gear "not the graphs themselves but the numbers!" or some such nonsense.

Are you sure you're not playing double agent?  I mean, you already gave "your" side a bad image, but a lot of zealots end up doing that gag as a matter of course, baryo, for example. I mean, your name even fits the stereotype..

But to totally write off a major chain of evidence in such a fashion...

Just, Wow!

Anyhow, 'night creeps.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I suggest that your knowledge of this topic is very superficial at best. The fact of the matter is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation.
 
2013-03-25 02:43:54 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Damnhippyfreak: [formatting fail]

Let me repost that with better formatting:


[more formatting fail]

Sorry about that. The editor seems to be erasing paragraph tags on me. Hopefully it will be readable enough as is.
 
2013-03-25 02:57:28 AM

Damnhippyfreak: It is hotter


Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?

Funnily enough, I was just reading about that particular point.   Observed warming is pretty well in line with expected warming.


.064°C GLOBAL ANOMALY = hotter, as expected

/keep farkin that chicken
 
2013-03-25 03:10:18 AM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: It is hotter

Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?

Funnily enough, I was just reading about that particular point.   Observed warming is pretty well in line with expected warming.

.064°C GLOBAL ANOMALY = hotter, as expected

/keep farkin that chicken


people.virginia.edu
If you use only 24 days, you do run the risk of an misleading unrepresentative sample, again, given the high amount of variability present.
 
2013-03-25 03:39:17 AM

Baryogenesis:

We can't just say this one paper is right. It's not going to glow a beautiful white light. You can't just look at it and know. It would need to be confirmed/replicated. That's what these references to the body of literature are about. The basic idea of human caused global warming is correct because it is continually confirmed by more and more papers.

What if the data is not available to be confirmed/replicated?
 
2013-03-25 04:03:55 AM

omeganuepsilon:

And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part. I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)

Well, I, for one, am enjoying it...  One further bit.  In discussing averages, there are also some highly aberrant methodologies being used in climatology outside of science.  Specifically, the IPCC is doing some manipulations which I find I cannot call "questionable science" no matter HOW far I stretch that definition.  When the IPCC calculates the effects of a release of carbon dioxide, one of the important factors is how long the carbon dioxide will stay in the air.  Obviously, if it were to be pulled out of the air the same day, it would not be an issue, and if it were to stay forever in the air, carbon dioxide would be much more important than it is.

So, various studies have estimated how long the average carbon dioxide molecule will stay in the air.  Now, I am not speaking of how accurate any study, or group of studies is...  but, here are the studies listed by the IPCC as having comprised their average number, and the value they used, the latter in red:


i54.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-25 05:50:26 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: We can't just say this one paper is right. It's not going to glow a beautiful white light. You can't just look at it and know. It would need to be confirmed/replicated. That's what these references to the body of literature are about. The basic idea of human caused global warming is correct because it is continually confirmed by more and more papers.
What if the data is not available to be confirmed/replicated?


NASA and NOAA have publicly available data.

Realclimate is also kind enough to have compiled links to climate data from a number of different sources including raw data, processed data, paleo data and, yes, model codes.

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part. I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)
Well, I, for one, am enjoying it...  One further bit.  In discussing averages, there are also some highly aberrant methodologies being used in climatology outside of science.  Specifically, the IPCC is doing some manipulations which I find I cannot call "questionable science" no matter HOW far I stretch that definition.  When the IPCC calculates the effects of a release of carbon dioxide, one of the important factors is how long the carbon dioxide will stay in the air.  Obviously, if it were to be pulled out of the air the same day, it would not be an issue, and if it were to stay forever in the air, carbon dioxide would be much more important than it is.
So, various studies have estimated how long the average carbon dioxide molecule will stay in the air.  Now, I am not speaking of how accurate any study, or group of studies is...  but, here are the studies listed by the IPCC as having comprised their average number, and the value they used, the latter in red:
[i54.tinypic.com image 850x794]


You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
 
2013-03-25 07:53:17 AM

Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.


I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.
 
2013-03-25 01:25:32 PM

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.

I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.



Looks can be deceiving, especially if you haven't read the paper the figure is meant to support, and therefore aren't entirely sure what you're looking at. The problem is that what criteria one uses to determine what is a 'match'. As I stated before:

Damnhippyfreak: Part of the problem the graph is trying to come to grips with is the fact that the 1990 IPCC FAR only included greenhouse gas forcing in the prediction highlighted, and therefore if you include natural variation the margins become fairly wide (you can get a sense of how wide it would be from the huge range covered by 'unforced variation' in the graph). This is so wide that the observations fall well within the range of predictions.


To put it another way, look at the range of unforced variation in the graph, and imagine a range of that size overlaid on the 1990 IPCC FAR prediction. Observations easily fall within that range, but this isn't quite satisfying as said variation is really quite large. This is why the authors tried to do something a bit different.
 
2013-03-25 01:34:28 PM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part. I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)
Well, I, for one, am enjoying it...  One further bit.  In discussing averages, there are also some highly aberrant methodologies being used in climatology outside of science.  Specifically, the IPCC is doing some manipulations which I find I cannot call "questionable science" no matter HOW far I stretch that definition.  When the IPCC calculates the effects of a release of carbon dioxide, one of the important factors is how long the carbon dioxide will stay in the air.  Obviously, if it were to be pulled out of the air the same day, it would not be an issue, and if it were to stay forever in the air, carbon dioxide would be much more important than it is.
So, various studies have estimated how long the average carbon dioxide molecule will stay in the air.  Now, I am not speaking of how accurate any study, or group of studies is...  but, here are the studies listed by the IPCC as having comprised their average number, and the value they used, the latter in red:
[i54.tinypic.com image 850x794]


It looks like Baryogenesis got the important point down, but also of note is that not only have you misrepresented what the IPCC claims, you've even misrepresented the graphic you yourself presented, as those in the graph are not "studies listed by the IPCC".
 
2013-03-25 06:59:07 PM

Baryogenesis:

NASA and NOAA have publicly available data.

Really?  Show me the raw data, and the algorithms used to "value-add" it.  And the CRU's "misplaced" data?  A desire for scientific repeatability means that I would like to reconstruct the alteration process that produced all of the following data sets, charted and released by NASA:

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-25 07:04:07 PM

Baryogenesis:

You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.

No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.
 
2013-03-25 07:12:35 PM

dready zim:

Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.

I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.

No, it doesn't.  And when you consider that reality has burst through the bottom of the prediction in such a short time, it's clear that MAJOR problems exist within the models' assumptions.  Just splashing a bunch of crap up, give it error bars that expand at a greater rate than the climate has changed and, voila!   The models are within their error bars.  Any "agreement" with reality in this pile of crap is the result of smoke and mirrors, similar to the "cures" brought about by snake oil.

c3headlines.typepad.com

 
2013-03-25 08:14:33 PM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.


I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
 
2013-03-26 01:04:24 AM

omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life


No, it's not half life. It's the difference between the path of a single molecule of CO2 and the entire carbon cycle.

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.
 
2013-03-26 01:29:56 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: NASA and NOAA have publicly available data.
Really?  Show me the raw data, and the algorithms used to "value-add" it.  And the CRU's "misplaced" data?  A desire for scientific repeatability means that I would like to reconstruct the alteration process that produced all of the following data sets, charted and released by NASA:

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]


I believe this isn't the firs time these have been pointed out to you, but anyway, here are the big ones:
GHCNv2
UCAR
Hadley Center products, including HadSST

Since your graphic seems to be focusing on GISTEMP, the code used to process it can be found here.

In addition, each of those graphs is associated with a publication which details how each was derived.

Hansen et al. 1981 (note that your graphic got the date wrong)
Hansen et al. 1988
Hansen et al. 2007 (again, note that your graphic got the date wrong)
 
2013-03-26 01:31:20 AM

Damnhippyfreak: GHCNv2


Sorry, the editor doesn't like ftp links:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
 
2013-03-26 01:37:15 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.


Swing and a miss. If you would have followed your own advice and look up what the IPCC says the concept is instead of relying on a blogger, this is what you would have easily come up with:


Lifetime
Lifetime is a general term used for various time scales characterising the rate of processes affecting the concentration of trace gases. The following lifetimes may be distinguished:

Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a  reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in theatmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.

Adjustment time or response time (Ta) is the time scale characterising the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir. The term adjustment time is also used to characterise the adjustment of the mass of a reservoir following a step change in the  sourcestrength. Half-life or decay constant is used to quantify a first-order exponential decay process. See  response time for a different definition pertinent to  climate variations.

The term lifetime is sometimes used, for simplicity, as a surrogate for adjustment time.

In simple cases, where the global removal of the compound is directly proportional to the total mass of the reservoir, the adjustment time equals the turnover time: T = Ta. An example is  CFC-11, which is removed from the  atmosphere only by photochemical processes in the  stratosphere. In more complicated cases, where several reservoirs are involved or where the removal is not proportional to the total mass, the equality T = Ta no longer holds.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about four years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few years. Thus, the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually determined by the rate of removal of carbon from the surface layer of the oceans into its deeper layers. Although an approximate value of 100 years may be given for the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual adjustment is faster initially and slower later on. In the case of methane (CH4), the adjustment time is different from the turnover time because the removal is mainly through a chemical reaction with the hydroxyl radical OH, the concentration of which itself depends on the CH4 concentration. Therefore, the CH4 removal rate S is not proportional to its total mass M.


From the IPCC AR4 Glossary. Baryogenesis got it exactly right - whomever created that graphic of yours is being misleading by attempting to compare different concepts - something akin to 'turnover time' to 'adjustment time'.
 
2013-03-26 01:44:34 AM

GeneralJim: dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.

I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.
No, it doesn't.  And when you consider that reality has burst through the bottom of the prediction in such a short time, it's clear that MAJOR problems exist within the models' assumptions.  Just splashing a bunch of crap up, give it error bars that expand at a greater rate than the climate has changed and, voila!   The models are within their error bars.  Any "agreement" with reality in this pile of crap is the result of smoke and mirrors, similar to the "cures" brought about by snake oil.
[c3headlines.typepad.com image 850x689]



What you're missing is that short-term or internal variability isn't being shown. Don't forget, your recognition of said variability is what allowed you to say this:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate


Even worse, whomever added commentary to that graph got it absurdly wrong - how can one claim that "actual temp is well below all model predictions" when said actual temperature lies within the range of model runs plotted right there on the graph.

Youreally need to stop taking these random graphics you find on faith and start to think critically about them.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:33 AM

Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

No, it's not half life. It's the difference between the path of a single molecule of CO2 and the entire carbon cycle.

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.


It involves the half-life principle(exponential decay[or absorbtion if you want, "pulling it out of the air"], that's what the "entire carbon cycle" is) only it also factors in increased emissions above the absorption rate.

Which would be doubling time.(as is linked on the half-life page)  It's a concept you should be familiar with, as some of the very roots of climate change were based on the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time

Not sure what that "path of a single molecule" bit is about.  That is only a path and does not factor in the time that it can simply remain in place, it's more an explanation of how it works.  Yes, we can example how water gets used in the human body, but that is irrelevant when talking about rates of growth/decay (drinking)/decay(perspiration/salivation/excretion).

There is "mean" lifetime, if you want to go there, but it isn't as useful.  Again, using the human body as an example most people can grasp.  The water you drink, one glass in a sitting, some of it get's shed relatively quickly, and some of it hangs around a very long time.  That's why half-life is a more usable method of establishing the rate at which leaves the system, the rest can stay there perpetually.  It's more intuitive in a system that has a constant input and a constant output of the substance in question, and therefore always has some in circulation/use.
 
2013-03-26 01:57:50 AM

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.

No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

Really?  Holy crap.   Well, I'll take your word for it, as I lost my Moron-English dictionary in my last move...
 
2013-03-26 02:08:26 AM

Baryogenesis:

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.

So, you ARE saying that the extra carbon dioxide is different than "naturally" released carbon dioxide. Do tell...

Y'all need some serious work on your official talking points.  First off, that time is EXACTLY what the graph shows... as determined by the studies involved.  And the IPCC is using, for the same value, between 100 and 200 years; that's what the IPCC says. Are you claiming they're wrong?  The IPCC says they do not do research, they compile research.  The above graphic shows the studies they compiled, and their value for the same characteristic which they got from the studies listed.  It's like Michael Mann -- he "surveyed" a bunch of studies, and said that the survey shows there is no evidence of a world-wide medieval warm period -- but if you look up all of the studies he "surveyed," each and every one of them clearly shows the MWP, and all of them but one shows the little ice age, as well.  And, dumbasses just buy this -- in BOTH cases.  The IPCC needed the long duration to make their dire predictions work out.  Funny thing, though...  the planet wasn't fooled, and refused to play along, no matter what the IPCC predictions were.  Sucks to be you.
 
2013-03-26 02:49:51 AM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.
So, you ARE saying that the extra carbon dioxide is different than "naturally" released carbon dioxide. Do tell...

Y'all need some serious work on your official talking points.  First off, that time is EXACTLY what the graph shows... as determined by the studies involved.  And the IPCC is using, for the same value, between 100 and 200 years; that's what the IPCC says. Are you claiming they're wrong?  The IPCC says they do not do research, they compile research.  The above graphic shows the studies they compiled, and their value for the same characteristic which they got from the studies listed.


Most likely an outright falsehood, as said studies are not part of the references listed for any of the chapters of the IPCC AR4 WGI report. Not even the graphic makes that claim.


GeneralJim: It's like Michael Mann -- he "surveyed" a bunch of studies, and said that the survey shows there is no evidence of a world-wide medieval warm period -- but if you look up all of the studies he "surveyed," each and every one of them clearly shows the MWP, and all of them but one shows the little ice age, as well.


I believe I've asked you to back this up in some way on more than one occasion, and you've failed to do so every time. That, combined with the fact that I can find no evidence for this renders this claim undistinguishable from a fabrication. Par for the course considering the previous point.


GeneralJim: And, dumbasses just buy this -- in BOTH cases.  The IPCC needed the long duration to make their dire predictions work out.  Funny thing, though...  the planet wasn't fooled, and refused to play along, no matter what the IPCC predictions were.  Sucks to be you.


An alternate explanation is that you've taken a misleading and easily-debunked graphic from a random blogger on faith. Again.
 
2013-03-26 02:52:05 AM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.

No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
Really?  Holy crap.   Well, I'll take your word for it, as I lost my Moron-English dictionary in my last move...



Or, either of you could have looked it up what the IPCC actually says instead of guessing at it.
 
2013-03-26 03:35:20 AM

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

No, it's not half life. It's the difference between the path of a single molecule of CO2 and the entire carbon cycle.

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.

It involves the half-life principle(exponential decay[or absorbtion if you want, "pulling it out of the air"], that's what the "entire carbon cycle" is) only it also factors in increased emissions above the absorption rate.

Which would be doubling time.(as is linked on the half-life page)  It's a concept you should be familiar with, as some of the very roots of climate change were based on the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time

Not sure what that "path of a single molecule" bit is about.  That is only a path and does not factor in the time that it can simply remain in place, it's more an explanation of how it works.  Yes, we can example how water gets used in the human body, but that is irrelevant when talking about rates of gr ...


Yeah, I got too focused on a more or less literal decay (breaking down into component parts) rather than an exponential decay describing the reduction in CO2 concentration.  I was trying to establish the difference between the length of time needed for the CO2 in the atmosphere to return to pre industrial levels (half life) as a separate thing from the length of time any individual CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere (flux).

This is the part of the IPCC explanation I'm talking about:  CO2 is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about four years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few years.

The CO2 is constantly turned over, but the overall concentration in the atmosphere isn't affected by that, it's limited by ocean uptake.
 
Displayed 221 of 221 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report