Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 14 of 21

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, February 12, 2005 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To answer the question "Is one degree significant?" the answer is YES....Like any system that has a lot of noise, you get closer to the true mean when you take a lot of points and average them....Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you for addressing my question. But the answer is not yet to my satisfaction. That is, how do I know your answer "yes" is backed up by evidence and not just wishful thinking? As a scientist, I can't just take your word for it, right?

When scientists state that a result is significant in a research paper, they present their data (those "lots of points" you were talking about), the mathematical method they used to calculate statistical significance, the level of significance (p-value; how significant is it? a little bit or a lot?), and error calculations (standard deviations, confidence intervals, etc).

Since you have concluded that the 1 degree is significant, I assume you have seen some of the evidence to back it up. Could you give me a specific reference or link so I can see these calculations for myself? If you refer to something large like the IPCC report, could you pinpoint a page or section that addresses this question? Or, if you could simply help me find what the standard deviation is for those "lots of points" (temp measurements for the last 100 years), I would very much appreciate it. If I knew what the standard deviation was, I can "eyeball" for myself whether that 1 degree is significant.

So, the way to answer "Is 1 degree significant?" is to first answer "What is the standard deviation of temperatures measured in the last 100 years?" Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:22 PM

It may take me some time to find the original paper because I saw it about 2 years ago, but I'll look for it.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Okay, the data that supports what you want to be true is good, period, but the data that doesn’t support what you want to be true, is dismissed as random noise in a chaotic system. You can’t get much more cherry picking then that.

Ok, now you're just putting words in my mouth.

The tempurature has increased. This is undeniable. The trend is increasing. Thus any fluxuations are part of the chaotic mess that is our climate.

Now if the global mean tempurature was bouncing around with no trend, you'd have a point.

But. it doesn't, so you don't.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But since I’ve already presented the counter argument to this, and knowing your propensity to belabor issues out of sheer obstinacy, I’ll simply point out that the link you referenced serves to support my contention. The data is inconclusive (period). And the only way to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic catastrophic increase in global temperature is to dismiss half the evidence.

"The counter argument" LOL.

And actually, what the article stated was:
"
So let’s assume for argument’s sake that Mann, Bradley and Hughes made some terrible mistake in their statistical analysis, so we need to discard their results altogether. This wouldn’t change our picture of the last millennium (or anything else) very much:
"
You seem to have a terrible time with this so I'll just say it (among the others that I've seen do the same). Please, actually read the articles before posting a reply.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Ok, now you're just putting words in my mouth.

The tempurature has increased. This is undeniable. The trend is increasing. Thus any fluxuations are part of the chaotic mess that is our climate.

Now if the global mean tempurature was bouncing around with no trend, you'd have a point.

But. it doesn't, so you don't.

In fact, the global mean temperatures may very well be “bouncing around with no trend.” There is evidence that the global mean temperature has increased and decreased dramatically over the course of the last 1000 years, which would suggest that this current increase in temperature may actually be quite natural. Secondly, you assume that it is a “chaotic mess.” In fact, the data does suggest that most of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of increase in Carbon Dioxide, but it is convenient for you to dismiss this as random noise, because that doesn’t support your preconceptions.

See, I can use bold print too.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You seem to have a terrible time with this so I'll just say it (among the others that I've seen do the same). Please, actually read the articles before posting a reply.

I read the article, thank you. And my response remains true. You don’t understand it, because you’re looking for a prop to support your prejudice, not a fair analysis of the data. There are many opinions on the issue of the effects of global warming, and no matter how hard you peddle certain opinions over others, or dismiss certain evidence, the data remains inconclusive. And until new conclusive evidence emerges to support one opinion over another, that is the end of the story.

RUE

Friday, February 18, 2005 7:16 AM

Quote:
However, if their websites describe them as peer-reviewed, who am I to argue.

So you were wrong.

Quote:
The graph you posted clearly illustrated that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in Carbon Dioxide.

Wrong again. You are applying the argument to the wrong graph.

Quote:
Because there aren’t any. (current accurate warming models)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm This was in the post you replied to.

Quote:
The models don’t predicte measurements from satellite or balloon data.

Some models do. There are urls posted above that I don't feel like digging up.

Quote:
If you build your models with the intent of predicting global warming, that's what they are likely to predict. Scientists refer to this as "tuning" the models, and it is a common criticism of GCMs.

But the models are not built of fudge factors. They rest on factors that are indepedently determined in a lab or out in the field. I referred to this earlier with two specific examples.

Quote:
You mean among the dozens of others. I haven’t responded to all the errors you’ve made in any of your posts; why should I start now?

Be my guest. If you don't, you risk looking like all you have going is hot air (yes, pun intended).

SIGNYM

Friday, February 18, 2005 1:16 PM

Canttakesky- It must have been the original article by Mann published in Nature, because the graph looks like the one that I remember.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 18, 2005 1:27 PM

Quote:
There is evidence that the global mean temperature has increased and decreased dramatically over the course of the last 1000 years, which would suggest that this current increase in temperature may actually be quite natural. Secondly, you assume that it is a “chaotic mess.” In fact, the data does suggest that most of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of increase in Carbon Dioxide, but it is convenient for you to dismiss this as random noise, because that doesn’t support your preconceptions.

Did you even LOOK at the graph? The current (past couple of decades) increase is clearly outside of the bounds, both in slope and magnitude, from anyhting else that has occurred on he chart. And most of the warming, since it ocurred in the past two decades, occurred AFTER the increase in CO2.

I'm sorry Finn, but anyone who is not fully ideologized would look at that chart.... even if it was just describing hot-dog sales at Daytona Beach... and ask about that rather dramatic uptick at the end.

Somewhere else, you said that it was your "understanding" that "most" of the articles in Science and Nature are not peer-reviewed. You only reveal the depth of your ignorance when you say things like that. You see, Science and Nature are the premiere English-language general scientific research magazines. Their policy is to print only GROUND BREAKING research in any field. They are extremely competitive, it is very difficult to get a paper in either of these publications, and they are ALL fully, extensively, exhaustively peer-reviewed.

Honestly, WHERE do you pull these ideas from?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So you were wrong.

Perhaps

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Wrong again. You are applying the argument to the wrong graph.

You keep saying that, perhaps to reassure yourself, but it’s just not true, and it doesn’t even make any sense. I didn’t apply an argument, I described the graph. The graph clearly demonstrates that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the Carbon Dioxide. This is a little fact that you hate desperately isn’t it?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ttp:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm This was in the post you replied to.

Yes, I saw the graphs. Do any of them predict the atmospheric temperature? Probably not, eh? They predict the ground temperature because they may have been tuned to do just that. I can write a program to simulation any graph you give me, but that doesn’t mean my program is predicting anything except what I tell it to. Drawing a curve is one thing, predicting the climate is something else entirely.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Some models do. There are urls posted above that I don't feel like digging up.

I’m sure some do. The one’s that have been tuned to predict the atmospheric temperature probably do so very well. I wonder if the same set of inputs that predict the atmospheric temperature in one model will also predict the ground temperature in the same model. Probably not.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But the models are not built of fudge factors. They rest on factors that are indepedently determined in a lab or out in the field. I referred to this earlier with two specific examples.

I have no doubt that the physics that goes into the models is solid. But what initial factors are used to set up the calculations? What kinds of forcings and feedback is used in the model? The atmosphere is a complex beast. What I have seen of GCMs is that they generally do not account for all the data.

Abstract:
As a consequence of greenhouse forcing, all state-of-the-art general circulation models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values. This disparity indicates that the three models examined here fail to account for the effects of greenhouse forcings.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L13208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103, 2004

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Be my guest. If you don't, you risk looking like all you have going is hot air (yes, pun intended).

Only in your imagination.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you even LOOK at the graph? The current (past couple of decades) increase is clearly outside of the bounds, both in slope and magnitude, from anyhting else that has occurred on he chart. And most of the warming, since it ocurred in the past two decades, occurred AFTER the increase in CO2.

How do you explain the drop in temperature right in the middle of increase in Carbon Dioxide? Noise? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sorry Finn, but anyone who is not fully ideologized would look at that chart.... even if it was just describing hot-dog sales at Daytona Beach... and ask about that rather dramatic uptick at the end.

Perhaps, but then when you told them that that "dramatic untick" at the end was because an increase in Carbon Dioxide and you superimposed that graph onto the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide concentration chart, then they might ask why was the temperature increasing so fast back when the concentration of Carbon Dioxide was so low? If the increase in temperature is anthropogenic and caused by Carbon Dioxide why don’t the graphs match up? Two graphs showing an u

SIGNYM

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:52 PM

Finn, just because you say something twice doesn't make it so. Show me the data that supports the statement "In fact, I think about a third to over half of most articles published in Nature or Science are not peer-reviewed at all."

Here is the relevant portion of the editorial policy from Nature:

Quote:
The first hurdle for a newly submitted paper is that the full-time editorial staff consider it sufficiently interesting to be sent out for peer-review. .... The initial criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (unexpected or promising in terms of applications), and that the work seems broadly significant outside its particular field.

There are no exceptions in the policy.

It would be helpful if you stopped pulling statements out of who-knows-where, o'wise you risk taking yourself into irrelevance (if you haven't laready).

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, February 18, 2005 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

In fact, the global mean temperatures may very well be “bouncing around with no trend.” There is evidence that the global mean temperature has increased and decreased dramatically over the course of the last 1000 years, which would suggest that this current increase in temperature may actually be quite natural. Secondly, you assume that it is a “chaotic mess.” In fact, the data does suggest that most of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of increase in Carbon Dioxide, but it is convenient for you to dismiss this as random noise, because that doesn’t support your preconceptions.

Look at the graphs. There is clearly a line bouncing around a certain temp. then there is a spike at the end.
hxxp:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

So, the past dictates a bound, but, recently there clearly is a break of that bound. The trend is now increaseing... sharply.

Also, provide evidence that this increase in temp was prior to increase in CO_2. Basically, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I read the article, thank you. And my response remains true. You don’t understand it, because you’re looking for a prop to support your prejudice, not a fair analysis of the data. There are many opinions on the issue of the effects of global warming, and no matter how hard you peddle certain opinions over others, or dismiss certain evidence, the data remains inconclusive. And until new conclusive evidence emerges to support one opinion over another, that is the end of the story.

There never will be totally conclusive evidence for anything. We all thought that Newtonian mechanics was it until it broke down. Then along came SR, then GR. There are still problems with those and the Physicists are working on them.

All this physics is the basis for our technology that we happily use today. Does this mean that we throw out there conclusions and scoff at our tech because there is still problems with the theory? Well, do you like GPS? It works because of our understanding of SR. Shall we throw it out then?

The fact is, we have models that predict the climate that work. Are they perfect? Of course not, nothing is. Do they predict an increase in temp in the future while reproducing known temps? Yes, yes, and http://www.climateprediction.net/ currently predicts a increase between 2 - 11 degrees C.

Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE