Forget about global warming again? Me too…

_{October 20, 2008

Off Topic, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Easy enough to do when like true things that are real problems are happening.

Nevertheless, we have a definite climate trend emerging – more and more climate scientists are admitting anthropogenic global warming is a bunch of crap. Read about some of them:

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

Temp Trend

More goodies below the fold.

Sun’s protective ‘bubble’ is shrinking

Ice Reality Check: Arctic Ice Now 31.3% Over Last Year, plus Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’

Gullible Pseudo-intellectual Declares Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

Alaska Glaciers on the Rebound – Hockey mom not so gullible

Comments

I will tell you what is never discussed, is the fact that Co2 has a certain life time of activity before it is recycled back into the earth. CO2 is released when fossil fuels like oil and coal are burned- or other physical sources are broken down. But after a certain period of time Co2 will recycled back into the enormous oceans and the earth via rain, wind and other atmospheric interactions. Meaning- that the co2 released today has no effect on the earth in future years. Dave, I challenge you to find a source that deals with this argument against the validity of the global warming religion. I say take the religion out of the science class room. Stop teaching about man made global warming.Frost122585_{October 23, 2008
October
10
Oct
23
23
2008
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST}

Sagebrush gardener, Thank you for the data. Notice that the region of the earth that has the warmest temperatures changes is the North Pole, especially the ocean area. Maybe a graph expert amongst us could graph all the charts to see if there is some pattern going on that is regional. Obviously the North Pole and nearby ice gets the most press coverage around here.jerry_{October 23, 2008
October
10
Oct
23
23
2008
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST}

Here is how you can reproduce the chart shown above. 1. Download the raw data here. 2. Save to a text file, then import into Excel (select fixed-width fields). 3. Create a Line Graph using the data in the Globe column (column C). 4. Right-click on the graphed line and select "Add Trendline" from the popup menu. 5. Select the Polynomial Trend/Regression type, Order 6. Click OK. That's all. You will see the exact graph shown above. I have no idea if this is a statistically valid way to treat the data, but it does show that they didn't just pull this out of a hat.sagebrush gardener_{October 22, 2008
October
10
Oct
22
22
2008
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PST}

Sal Gal, That, too, flies in the face of the data. Yeah, but alarmists don't let data get in the way of their alarm. The plot of raw data makes it clear that temperatures dipped considerably more from 1998 to 1999 than in the past two years. Gee, ya think? Maybe that's because it was a real bitch of a La Nina and when she went away she took all her heat with her. There's more to the data than numbers. There are real world events that correlate with the changes. Unfortunately for all the gulled masses what it doesn't correlate with is increasing level of atmospheric CO2. Chop the 1998 top off the La Nina to a normal year cycle peak then replot the graph. You'll then find that the trend line following 1998 gets substantially closer to zero and is well below the zero line this year. That's about the only misleading thing there is there. The rise in the trend line post-1998 is mostly due to the La Nina. The steepness of the drop this year appears to be normal. There's obviously multi-year cycles in the data. What do you suppose is causing the multi-year cycles? CO2? ha ha ha DaveScot_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PST}

DaveScot said,
And now the earth is cooling at such a steep rate that alarmists need to switch over to shouting “ice age”...
That, too, flies in the face of the data. The plot of raw data makes it clear that temperatures dipped considerably more from 1998 to 1999 than in the past two years. Yet the temperatures rose to high levels again. It would have been an error to say in 1999 that temperatures would fall over the long term, and to make a similar statement now would be an error. I want to emphasize, before getting booted from this site, that for all I know, solar weather has more to do with fluctuations in the earth's temperature than anything humankind does. But the data in the plot simply provide no justification for saying that the global warming trend has come to an end. The primary "message" in the data is huge short-term variation (the numbers jump way up and way down rapidly) relative to the magnitude of the trend. This tells anyone who is really "listening" to the data that it takes a fair amount of time to tell if a trend has changed.Sal Gal_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PST}

I was going to to point out the same thing Sal Gal did ... it looks like the right end of the polynomial is forced to end on the zero line or the last data point (it's kinda hard to tell).YEC_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST}

P.S.--I don't know whether global warming is anthropogenic. I showed up here because I hate to see people do what somebody or another did in the chart.Sal Gal_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST}

DaveScot, according to Lorne Gunter,
Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared. [emphasis added]
The curve fitted to the data is not the data. Gunter more or less admits that it did not come from the NASA scientists. Can you tell by looking at the curve how it was fitted to the data? No valid procedure I have thought of would yield the curve. It appears that the data were processed one way up to 2005 or 2006, and another way after that. A possibility is the curve is a plot of a polynomial (fairly high order) model obtained with high weighting of model errors in the last two or three years. Such weighting would be out-and-out lying, however.Sal Gal_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

Sal Gal: The source of the graph is NASA's atmospheric science group in Huntsville. That's the definitive source on atmospheric temperature measurement. The scientists at Huntsville, among other things, run the network of satellites that measure the temp of the atmosphere with global coverage since 1978 calibrated by traditional balloon soundings. What seems easy to see from the graph is that something happened in 1998 (intense La Nina IIRC) which cancelled out a cooling cycle and reset the baseline for the next cycle to a higher level. The end of the graph appears to be the trend seeking the baseline again absent any of those exceptionally large El Nino/La Nina cycles. So you're basically accusing NASA of publishing misleading data because it's what, become a global warming skeptic or something? OH OH I KNOW! NASA is in the pocket of big oil. :roll: CO2 bogeyman bit the dust. It didn't predict this cooling trend at this time. A northern European beginning several years ago (I reported it here, just click sidebar category "global warming") has a hypothesis that more or less cosmic rays, which varies by how active the heliosphere is, causes more or less formation of very high altitude clouds that reflect more or less sunlight back into space. The sun/cloud hypothesis made the correct prediction. The heliosphere has ebbed to a 50-year low and set a record going back at least 100 years for number of days without a single sunspot. And now the earth is cooling at such a steep rate that alarmists need to switch over to shouting "ice age" and pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible (which raises agricultural output, by the way) to keep it from getting colder. Colder is a LOT worse than warmer as far as growing enough food to feed six billion people due to shorter growing seasons. DaveScot_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST}

As you have pointed out, ID proponents have a nose for politicized pseudoscience masquerading as objective empiricism.
Let's work now on developing a nose for bogus data analysis. Note that the fitted curve in the plot above does not track the sharp dip of 1984 or the sharp rise of 1998, yet descends rapidly with the relatively modest decrease in temperatures since 2006. In over words, the fitted curve is quite smooth until 2006. Then the bottom falls out, even though the decrease in recorded temperatures is obviously less than in previous years. There's a classic book, How to Lie with Statistics, that many undergrads read in a lightweight first course in stats, and that I recommend highly to people who would like to avoid propagating lies inadvertently.Sal Gal_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

Unfortunately, politicians love the idea of man-caused global warming because it gives them an excuse to further regulate and control industry, resulting in more power for them under the guise of saving the planet. Especially unfortunately, both Obama and McCain have pledged actions which will greatly burden the economy to control this "problem."dacook_{October 21, 2008
October
10
Oct
21
21
2008
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

Dave, As you have pointed out, ID proponents have a nose for politicized pseudoscience masquerading as objective empiricism. We have lots of experience recognizing this phenomenon from all the nonsense published on the subject of chance-and-necessity Darwinism, and sold to the public as an unassailable scientific consensus, with the warning that all who express dissent or skepticism are enemies of science and civilization.GilDodgen_{October 20, 2008
October
10
Oct
20
20
2008
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PST}

The libturds already have an excuse for the hiatus from global warming: the economic downturn.William Wallace_{October 20, 2008
October
10
Oct
20
20
2008
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply