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.

(Mother Nature Network)   Yeah, there's a lot of things about climate change that suck. But at least it makes the waves in Australia totally gnarly to surf   ( mnn.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Australians, climate change, Kyoto University, Southern Ocean, fishing industry  
•       •       •

3046 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 8:31 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-01-21 02:23:54 PM  
1 vote:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: . . . a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading.
Indeed. As, for instance, when one looks at only 150 years of data when a large 1600-year cycle is in progress. I have already explained this to you many times. And, after all, it is YOUR logic and YOUR complaint -- but only when it applies to others. You are being dishonest, after being informed of you error. This is made worse by the fact that you castigate anyone who disagrees with you if they do the same thing -- like you are doing here.

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x584]
If one follows the curve, one sees that the temperatures should be rising at about the rate they HAVE been, over the term of fifty to a hundred years. When the full context, rather than a short segment of a cycle, is viewed, it is clear that exactly the warming we are seeing is what is expected from past cycles.

While you have made the above argument many times before, I have also solidly refuted it many times before, with you tending to ignore the arguments I put forth or trying to change the subject. Let's see if you continue this pattern.

Keep in mind three important things:

First, and most importantly, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on some sort of simplistic (not-even) regression like what you're trying to do here. It's somewhat more complicated then just eyeballing a line on a graph and assuming it will continue (like what you're trying to do) without any idea about the multiple mechanisms or processes simultaneously at work. Eyeballing a graph and guessing the future is a very poor way of model-building, hm?

Second, your so-called "cycle" isn't really all that different from what has already been found:

skepticalscience.comView Full Size

Your choosing to plot Loehle's reconstruction in isolation gives you the impression that it says something radically different from other reconstructions. This is false. Your choosing to not include the instrumental record gives you the impression that current warming is in line with historical changes portrayed by Loehle's reconstruction. This is also false.

Third, as a general explanation since I don't think you're doing this here, a long term period (relative to processes we're interested in) can also be misleading. In general it's about signal vs noise - you can focus your scale at one at which longer-term noise dominates and swamps out the signal you're interested in just as easily as you can do so with short-term noise. That longer-term processes exist does not mean that shorter-term ones do not, just as shorter-term processes exit does not mean that longer-term ones do not. For example, the graph you posted would discount the contribution of say, ENSO due to the latter's short time scale relative to the one portrayed. You have to understand why it's potentially misleading to look at a too-short period of time in order to understand why it can be also be said of a too-long period of time.
2013-01-20 09:21:27 AM  
1 vote:

Quantum Apostrophe: SevenizGud: 1951 to 1980? Yup, I'm convinced.

I just want to know what the equation means...

Neither axis is labeled so there is no telling what is going on, but the equation seems to imply that the y-axis is actually a negative slope. If that is correct, that is the funniest intentional troll I've ever seen and that's impressive considering the tripe he usually posts in global warming threads.
Displayed 2 of 2 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.