Global Warming - Page 49

SuperDinoYoshi · #**481** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Oh please!! The Heartland Institute!! What would you say if I posted something by Greenpeace or Al Gore to support an argument? You would rightly cut it down as being biased and self-interested. Please show the same courtesy with your references

Saying that there might be bias from a given source is one thing, but outright rejecting it without any scientific basis is another. Unfortunatley, instead of actually discussing this topic you guys jump straight to the latter. Debunking anything out of the mouth of Al Gore or GreenPeace is child's play, if my sources are as bad as you say they are, it should be the same for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

What do you think my argument is?
That paper when I read it seemed perfectly reasonable. Of course there is enormous uncertainty about the impact of warming. Of course there plenty of discussion over the science and that it is far from settled.

Well I'm glad you acknowledge this. I'm used to hearing that what the likes of the IPCC says is law and that we should plunge face-first into anything that has the slightest chance of curving AGW, with cost of no consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

My argument throughout this entire thread has been against those who have said that there is scientific evidence that AGW is not occurring or that there is some sort of scientific controversy over whether AGW is occurring.

Well nobody in their right mind would say that Co2 doesn't have some effect on temperature. Hell, it can be proven in a high-school laboratory. Alternative theories for recent warming, however, also have a basis in physics and in fact. Cosmic Rays, for example, can be demonstrated to mess with clouds in a laboratory, albeit a more complex rig than one demonstrating the Greenhouse effect.

Recent trends, as BeachBum showed you, are suggesting that this warming could be caused by forces unknown, or at least seperate from our continued outpouring of Co2. The IPCC claims that Co2 is the dominant radiative forcing, meaning that its effects should currently be dwarfing any other effects, yet we seem to be experiencing cooling, or a stop to warming. The oceans have been stable for the past couple of years, This January was the biggest dip in temperature from year to year since the 70s. Far from conclusive, only time will tell, but these facts should manifest themseleves as constraint. Should we go dumping 3 tons of iron into the sea in hopes of envigorating Plankton growth? Should we go through measures that the EPA (An agency on your side) suggests will cost 2.9 trillion dollars off of the GDP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

The fact is that though there are still some scientists who like to argue the contrary - virtually none of them have ever put their arguments forward in any scientific forum. After countless pages of asking for people to provide links to scientific papers arguing that AGW is not occurring, only one has been posted - and I posted that myself!

Ignoring the ones I posted, thats cool. But remember, Drugs are bad kiddies, and apparently cause memory lapses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

I posted the quote from the journalist because it referred to the journal itself - not the science.

Remind me again why you never want to talk about the science... ever?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

I did accept that article as being in a peer-reviewed journal - but it is still relevant to point out that it isn't actually a science journal of any standing

Okay then? Why don't we evaluate it on the merits of what it is saying? Besides, its been through a more rigorous review process than some of the garbage you have posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

You should support a claim like that with some sort of evidence

From the MIT technology review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the “principal component” will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, you’ll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true--but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed--and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick’s only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn’t settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Utter jiberish. It is not clear at all that the effect on Temperature wont be a dramatic one. The impacts are very uncertain.

In the past Co2 has never been shown to have a dramatic effect on temperature. Why would the physics change now? Maybe its a combo, Guilt and Co2 combined have a super mega effect on climate! Brilliant!

SuperDinoYoshi · #**482** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Nor is it clear that investment in clean energy is not warranted.

The Ocean's aren't warming, Global Temperatures are dropping, temperatures today aren't as warm as they were in the prosperous Medevial Ages, and you think it isn't clear 2.9 trillion off of the GDP would be a bad idea? We have people starving to death on the streets and you think there is the slightest chance that we can afford such a waste of money that might help us in the long run? Would you spend 2.9 trillion dollars on lottery tickets?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

The Stern Review said the exact opposite.

I'm not too optimistic about the situation if the EPA (ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, they should be on your side and be painting a picture of bliss) says starting to solve this "problem" will be so expensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

There is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

News to me. Lets see some evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Atmospheric CO2 has recently increased very greatly, very quickly. To ignore that is foolish

Yet temperatures haven't. Its a mystery!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

1000 years ago - there were not 6 billion people on earth - many of them living in large cities reliant on dependable food and water supplies. It is not the "few extra degrees" that are the problem. It is what those "few extra degrees" will do to ocean surface temperatures, and subsequently rainfall patterns.

Well the IPCC predicts that water levels will rise around 7-24 inches over the next 100 years. (It might have been longer, I'll have to look this up, but I'm about to go to bed) And the IPCC are the folks whose centerpiece of one of their reports used to be Mann's fabricated hockystick. While this amount of an increase could have some ramifications, a wait and see attitude is clearly better for now, especially in face of the cost and decreasing temperatures. When considering Climate Change, you need to weigh the benefits (which if you deny exist, you are even crazier than I thought) against the potential problems. Right now, the scale isn't really screaming "Go Bankrupt and Solve Me!".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Here in Australia, the problem is only too evident. As I have explained earlier, I live in on the east coast of Australia. We have just emerged from one of the most severe droughts in recorded history (albeit a short recorded history - we only have about 150 years of climate data).

A story that goes straight to my heart. Of course, little instances like this have nothing to do with a global issue. Here in the states we had Gore give an AGW speech on the coldest day in New York over the past century. We've had massive unprecedented snow storms in China, the list goes on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

However, climate model predictions do predict that droughts for south-eastern Australia will probably become increasingly severe.

Climate Models can be made to show whatever the climate makers want. The only verification of their results is that they 'predict' the past, which is rediculous because obviously modelers know what they have to fit too, and can easily accomplish a perfect match to the past all while creating dire conclusions for the future.

Nobody can tell me if tuesday will be a good day for fishing, but you expect me to trust predictions concerning times that are decades or centuries away?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Generally, it is predicted that the precipitation currently received in Australia will as climate change progresses, shift slightly southward a few degrees. This will result generally in greater precipitation in northern Australia and less in southern Australia. Only a subtle change - but one that will have enormous impact on Australia's large cities and farming regions.

Its a bit hypocritical you would complain about me not providing you with evidence when you get into rants like these?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Please stop repeating that drivel about global cooling. It has already been demonstrated to you that is a myth in post #366 of this thread

A sour note? Predictions from respected scientists where made about Global Cooling. The Media jumped on it, and nobody paid any attention to any talk about Global Warming. Probably because there wasn't any evidence to support it. My point however, still stands, the same disasters you are predicting now were predicted for Global Cooling. Are we at a perfect climate right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

I have posted none. I have not been trying to prove any point other than that the vast majority of scientific literature on the subject suggests that AGW is occurring

Ironically without any literature...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

and the handful of skeptics that still exist have virtually no work in the scientific literature to support their opinions. Opinions which appear frequently in the popular press - but almost never in peer-reviewed journals.

This is why nobody bothers to give you sources anymore. You just ignore them. Its laughable really. With no primary literature to back yourself up, you attack mine? Then you move on and proclaim that there isn't any?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

This was all in response to posters such as PatriotNews, who said there are "scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it." - but he can't find any evidence of that, and C-D-P, who claimed there were "thousands" of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals debunking AGW theory.

Well I'm not C-D-P or PatriotNews. On the other hand, you haven't posted any literature, or made a compelling scientific argument to back up your case. There are scientists who disagree with the theory on varying levels, I recently posted a nice meaty list describing some instances of such. Some think that the theory is completely off. Some think that little details are off. Some think that some disaster forecasts are off. My point is that its far from settled science, and that there are too many things we just don't know to go spending money on bizzare attempts to solve the problem. There might not be thousands of pieces of primary literature against AGW, but its there. Posting it can be difficult, as I have said, because you need to subscribe to these journals. I however, have given you a good dosage of peer-reviewed literature, something you have failed to do.

SuperDinoYoshi · #**483** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

SDY, no response to this post?

Are you admitting that the graph that you ridculed me for not being able to read does not show "Industrial Cooling"?

I guess I missed that the first time around. Looking back at the posts, it seems I had already given you a second source and you had then dropped the topic. Then you opened fire again... weird, but we will file that under "Alarmist Coincidences".

I propose a deal, you answer the questions I have been asking over and over again, and I will answer yours.

1. What changed in 18 years to drastically recreate our understanding of climate history?

2. Was 1998 the hottest year in 1,000 years?

In your next post, just put actual answers next to your own numbers, (A Yes or No will do for number 2) Then I'll respond to you. You can't say that isn't fair. (Well actually...)

bugalugs · #**484** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

Ignoring the ones I posted, thats cool. But remember, Drugs are bad kiddies, and apparently cause memory lapses.

You didn't post any links to scientific papers arguing that AGW is not occurring, remember?

You posted 2 papers saying tha AGW was occurring, though it's impacts would be limited, and one thing from the Heartland Institute which I didn't bother reading because they are a political group, not a scientific journal.

Please try to pay attention and stay relevant when you post your long rambling responses. You have made frequent references to (I assume) the USA EPA who you say are 'on my side', or Al Gore or the IPCC or Mann or whatever - I have never quoted any of these things or referred to them for support - please to not try to attribute to me as "my views" - things I have never actually said.

I may get back to you later

Kazan · #**485** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 09:25 AM

SuperDinoYoshi · #**486** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

You didn't post any links to scientific papers arguing that AGW is not occurring, remember?

Well Define AGW. Some would describe it as people having a warming effect on the globe. Others would say that people are the primary source of today's warming. If you want to debate some moron who doesn't understand the physics of this, find someone from my camp with your intelligence. Otherwise, lets focus on what is pertinent. The only thing that we could argue which has any practical bearing in any climate discussion is that if our actions will cause any future disasters or have any dramatic effect on climate. The answer to that is a flat out NO. If you think there isn't primary literature supporting that or scientists who would agree with that, then you really need to spend some more time researching this sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

You posted 2 papers saying tha AGW was occurring, though it's impacts would be limited, and one thing from the Heartland Institute which I didn't bother reading because they are a political group, not a scientific journal.

Well you are leaving out the analysis of the HockyStick, but whatever. I've never claimed that Co2 has no effect on climate, just that it isn't dramatic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Please try to pay attention and stay relevant when you post your long rambling responses.

You are the one who keeps attacking stawmen of my arguments. So stop complaining. Sheesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

You have made frequent references to (I assume) the USA EPA who you say are 'on my side', or Al Gore or the IPCC or Mann or whatever - I have never quoted any of these things or referred to them for support - please to not try to attribute to me as "my views" - things I have never actually said.

Again, If I hadn't read (or written) my previous post, I would have thought that the post you responded to was only knocking down arguments from these sources you mention. However, that isn't whats going on. I brought up the EPA's estimate of the cost of preventing Global Warming. I then mentioned that the bias of that source would lean towards your side, meaning it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that the cost might even be higher. When mentioning Gore, I was merely talking about his questionable funding which dwarfs that given to skeptics from shady sources. I cited the IPCC's predictions for water level risings, which again, being the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change would lean towards you, meaning the numbers could be stretched to support you but still aren't alarming. If you are willing to disown all of the statements coming from groups like the IPCC, scientists like Mann, and icons like Al Gore, by all means, I would respect you more.

In fact, if thats your stance, I would actually be interested in what sources you do believe to be credible.

Kazan, very hillarious, very hillarious.

MannieD · #**487** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Heh! SDY sees cooling on that graph. BeachBum says it shows no change at all.

Are we reading it upside down?

[condescending attitude]No, we just know how to read a graph.[/condescending attitude]

But seriously BeachBum. You can't deduce a cyclical event from one cycle on a graph.

MannieD · #**488** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

I guess I missed that the first time around. Looking back at the posts, it seems I had already given you a second source and you had then dropped the topic. Then you opened fire again... weird, but we will file that under "Alarmist Coincidences".

Another assumption about me which is totally wrong. How many wrong assumptions have you made about me now? I think it must be 4 or 5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

I propose a deal, you answer the questions I have been asking over and over again, and I will answer yours.

No that's not how it works. You made the initial claims (lies??); you answer the questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

1. What changed in 18 years to drastically recreate our understanding of climate history?

Once again trying to change the subject when it's been shown you are wrong.First you claimed:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

During the Industrial Ages, the globe cooled, it didn't warm.

Then you wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

MannieD, if you intend to rewrite climate history and deny the Cooling that took place in the Industrial Ages, would you care to let me know what changed the IPCC's mind from, what, 1995? You know, back when they accepted the cooling?

So you went from claiming "Industrial Cooling" to claiming that the IPCC changed their mind and the IPCC accepted cooling. Then you give me a link to a graph with red, blue and black lines but no information about what the lines are supposed to represent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

Thats funny, what with all of the scientific evidence that you have presented.... wait a second.

I was wrong, it was actually the 1990 report, here's an image of the graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ann-moberg.png

After asking you about the lack of information in the linked graph and being ridiculed I give you a link to a website that explains the graph. The graph shows no "Industrial Cooling" but you still insist that "the globe cooled". You also link me to a climateaudit, which does not mention "Industrial Cooling", and change your "Industrial "Cooling" claim to "Industrial Cooling and Medevial Warming". And from your own source "Thus some of the global warming since 1850 ". Again no mention of "Industrial Cooling". So once again, where in the graph, where in the IPCC report and where in the Climateaudit page is their any mention of "Industrial Cooling". Probably written in invisible ink by invisible elves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

2. Was 1998 the hottest year in 1,000 years?

Show me the link.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

In your next post, just put actual answers next to your own numbers, (A Yes or No will do for number 2) Then I'll respond to you. You can't say that isn't fair. (Well actually...)

First you post misinformation, then you don't respond with any evidence, then you ridicule me, ridicule me for a misspelling (did you catch the other misspellings and vocabulary mistakes I left for you?) and now you expect me to be fair? You are a funny little man, SDY. After getting so many things wrong about me, you finally got one right. No, you don't deserve to be treated fairly as long as you continue to make things up and ridicule me.

The scientific debate over AGW is over.

akc814ilv · #**489** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 10:37 PM

Lets say Global Warming IS a scam (which it clearly isnt)....

Well then what would it hurt to clean up our air, our rivers, lakes, oceans etc etc??

I think everyone can agree that we dont want contaminants and what not in our drinking water....right??

TheChief · #**490** (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akc814ilv

Lets say Global Warming IS a scam (which it clearly isnt)....

opinion not fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by akc814ilv

Well then what would it hurt to clean up our air, our rivers, lakes, oceans etc etc??

I think everyone can agree that we dont want contaminants and what not in our drinking water....right??

If its not real then theres more important problems we need to deal with first instead of wasting time and money.

Rivers, lakes, oceans and drinking water have nothing to do with this topic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode