Really not news to anyone except, well, all the GOP candidates for President...
The registerA massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaire who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming.
In fact, it's warming just as much as more-limited studies conducted by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change said it was: about 1°C since 1950.
The study – the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project – was set up by a University of California astrophysicist who was concerned about the "climategate" dustup over email messages hacked from the University of East Anglia (UAE) that led many observers to believe that climate data had been fudged to exaggerate global warming.
The core of Berkeley scientist Richard Muller's concern was not, however, that the UAE scientists were getting a raw deal; in his opinion they had brought the worldwide criticism upon themselves.
"I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data," Berkeley scientist Richard Muller told BBC News. "Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared."
"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
Academician Prokhor Zakharov - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
We know that Global Warning g is real, but since the data from temperature stations is unreliable because of land use changes next to them, we really don't know top what degree. I don't think it's as much as claimed, but it is real.
Still... the $64,000,000,000,000 question.
How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic?
yadda yadda yadda, WC fires up his fog machine, blowing it out of his ears
Well, at least I'm not blowing it out my ass.
You're using big words now...I'm impressed.
Massive study concludes: bacon is delicious
global warming is good, the sooner we run out fossil fuels and global temp increasing and the suns rays killing off the middle east oil barons, the world will be a better place...
Do you grasp how this stance of your contradicts your entire energy budget stance? Might as well take all positions while your at it as long as they confirm what you want to believe.
This study confirms what no one disputes -- the Earth has warmed. Yay!
When did the Little Ice Age end again?
I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.
Well, don't try to satisfy me. Can you say with certain that the anthropogenic component is as high as portrayed?
At p < .05? Probably not. I believe that the liklihood of type one error is substantial. Probably around .2 or so. This is just based on the few papers I've read however. You should take this with a rather large chunk of salt.
Your turn:
Can you say with certainty that the anthropogenic component is not as high as protrayed?
Hint: If you're honest, your response will look a lot like mine does.
Hence my original assertion.
I'd wager a large amount is anthropogenic, but until the earth suffers serious consequences our short-sightedness will continue.
One thing about the ice proxy data is the length of time between data points. I don't recall what the time separation is, but I do remember that statistically, if a 50 year period of CO2 greater than today existed, there is only a 5% chance of a data point collecting it.
I'd wager a large amount is anthropogenic, but until the earth suffers serious consequences our short-sightedness will continue.
I have the proxy data someplace, but from a graph i used, i have this snippet of it in an excel file:
Years Ago CO2 (ppmv)
2342 284.7
3634 272.8
3833 268.1
6220 262.2
7327 254.6
8113 259.6
10123 261.6
11013 263.7
11326 244.8
11719 238.3
13405 236.2
These proxy data points for CO2 are pretty far apart, and they get farther apart the older they are.
ahhh...
Located the link to the source data from NOAA:
Vostok CO2 ice core data
those of you who know statistics, get your electronic slide rules out.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-22-2011 at 03:33 PM.
CONSERVATIVE NEWS FLASH:
Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas and long known to have a substantially higher ability to retain energy (heat) than general air from the sun. It's been vetted thousands and if not millions of times.
That's the same stuff that we're pumping into the atmosphere on a grand scale
If any for brains conservative with a hard on for oil wants to try and disprove that effect on this matter and win the Nobel Prize, be my guest. If not, STFU.
Alternative Need-for-Bull Suggestions:
1) Re-runs of the Casey Anthony trial.
2) Charlie Sheen's twitter feed
3) Drudge
4) Actual bull turds
Any of these options could successfully end your pollution in scientific matters. Science isn't a democracy.
Sincerely,
Smart Assholes.
I cannot assign a percentage to it, but I'll go back to the source of the earths heat. The sun. We know it has increased by about 0.18% since the 1700's. Since this is the source of the energy trapped by the greenhouse effect, I will maintain that it makes a substantial difference. For direct surface temperature warning, it is only a 0.123 degree warming for a true black-body. However, atmospheric warming is more linear and the same effects that amplify the greenhouse effect amplify this increase. I will maintain that the watts used in these sensitivity calculations will also rise by 0.18% and the atmospheric warming will be around 1 watt/square meter of an increase since 1750, whereas according to the 2007 IPCCC AR4, total warming was only 1.6 watts/square meter.
Again, I will also go back and refer to the IPCCC stating the 0.12 watts for solar increase in direct forcing and ask this. What about it's indirect forcing? They never cover that now, do they?
Also, though I know it's not linear, but just for perspective...
If we assume the global average is 15C, then when moved to the Kelvin scale, that is 288.15K. If we multiply this by 1.0018, we get 288.69K, or a 0.54 degree increase.
What is the claim of rise? Isn't it 0.6 to 0.9 degrees?
Oh good, I know statistics very well.
Here's the data (your link is broken btw):
This can be plotted as a distribution curve, which would be shaped like a bell.2342 284.7
3634 272.8
3833 268.1
6220 262.2
7327 254.6
8113 259.6
10123 261.6
11013 263.7
11326 244.8
11719 238.3
13405 236.2
13989 225.3
17695 182.2
19988 189.2
22977 191.6
26303 188.5
27062 191.7
31447 205.4
33884 209.1
39880 209.1
44766 189.3
47024 188.4
48229 210.1
49414 215.7
51174 190.4
57068 221.8
57799 210.4
63687 195.4
65701 191.4
66883 195
72849 227.4
75360 229.2
78995 217.1
80059 221.8
82858 231
84929 241.1
85727 236.4
86323 228.1
87180 214.2
88051 217
89363 208
91691 224.3
92460 228.4
95349 232.1
99842 225.9
100833 230.9
101829 236.9
103372 228.2
105213 236.9
106203 230.7
108308 238.2
108994 245.7
110253 251.3
111456 256.8
112577 266.3
113472 261.4
114082 274.6
114738 273.3
116175 262.5
117519 267.6
118396 273.8
119273 272
120002 265.2
120652 277.7
121961 272.2
122606 276.5
123815 268.7
123858 266.6
124306 266.3
124571 279.8
124876 277.2
125746 273.8
126023 267.1
126475 262.5
126809 262.6
127445 275.4
128300 274.1
128399 287.1
128652 286.8
129007 282.7
129411 264.1
129755 263.4
130167 259
131789 240.4
133334 224
134205 208.9
135003 204.6
135683 198.1
135976 201.8
136359 202.5
136659 195.9
137383 194.4
137694 193.4
138226 190.2
139445 192.3
141312 196.5
142357 190.4
145435 197
150303 191.9
154471 189
155299 185.5
160494 204.4
162996 191.6
165278 183.8
169870 197.9
172596 197.8
175440 190.3
176271 190.1
178550 207.7
180779 213.2
181617 217.7
183355 199.8
185063 203.5
187199 210.7
189335 231.4
191057 231.5
192632 218
195625 220.1
199025 242.6
202212 251
203191 239.1
204283 247.7
205148 244.4
205715 232.2
206119 228.7
207991 238.2
209414 242.2
210022 244.6
210830 247.3
211005 252
212281 257.4
214153 251.2
215041 241.4
215593 240.3
215879 242.7
216459 247.5
217009 251.7
217271 251.2
217676 245.4
218342 240.5
219680 212.2
220182 216.2
220760 207.2
221054 208.9
221612 205.7
222958 203.4
223446 215.7
224630 236.9
225299 234.5
225509 233.1
225888 224.5
226710 232.4
227384 233.9
227840 241.7
230703 245.2
231382 252.2
231990 241.4
232570 247.4
233102 243.1
233646 239.2
234126 245.7
234470 245.9
234781 247.4
235213 252.9
236236 259.8
237831 279
238935 263.8
239250 252.4
239545 249.9
240201 230.4
240577 219.4
242068 214.7
243653 200.2
244215 213.9
244863 195.4
245483 196.7
247447 199
248087 201.9
248980 204
250461 203.9
251521 209.7
252959 208.9
253880 214.7
255233 228.2
256053 199.9
256501 211.7
257247 188.7
258477 194.2
259228 198.9
259958 184.7
260754 190.4
261595 193.9
262411 194.2
263207 198.4
264046 193.2
264834 202.2
266492 211
267434 215.4
268679 223.7
270680 231.4
273012 226.4
274445 230.4
275218 231
277925 220.4
278602 217.2
279543 207.7
282301 212.7
283492 213.2
286217 224.4
287846 236.2
290571 240.2
291769 240.7
292474 250.2
293676 244.9
294615 225.9
295849 227.9
297131 233.2
298051 237.9
299020 239
299877 241.9
300646 251.7
301496 256.8
302456 257.2
303334 246.9
303953 272.7
304590 251.7
305306 244.7
307131 255.9
308101 249.2
310039 256.3
310930 260.4
311774 260.3
313493 266.3
315143 266.2
315940 270.2
316681 271.9
317445 275.2
318980 265
319754 271.8
320378 272.7
321386 273.2
322111 282.4
322582 289.2
322827 288.4
323485 298.7
324189 278.2
324991 285.8
325527 278.7
326239 270.5
327114 255.7
328097 241.9
329267 239.7
330208 234.2
332293 250.2
333627 200.7
335290 205.2
336972 204.9
340165 220.4
342998 221.2
344735 216.2
347610 209.2
350765 193
352412 186.2
356838 201.2
359688 206.4
362766 201.9
366221 214.7
369563 229.7
373014 227
374561 240
378194 246.9
379633 245.9
384909 264.7
386579 259.3
390589 255.2
392451 250.2
394628 266.3
396713 274.7
400390 278
405844 279.7
409022 283.7
410831 276.3
414085 285.5
There's not a single data point over 300ppmv on the furthest fringe of the bell.
Given that the current day CO2 concentration is nearly 380ppmv, the random percentage chance of such an unbelievable outlier occuring is infinitestimally small, nearly 0%.
Did you study statistics? If you did, you should have failed it.
Facts make statistics, statistics don't make facts.
Am I correct that if there was a single 50 year period that showed greater CO2 than any of the others, that there is only a 5% chance of seeing it?
Why are you trying to change my argument?
I'm merely pointing out that your argument is irrelevant. You are assuming that at some point atmospheric CO2 went to 380ppmv for a 50-year period and that the scientists just didn't collect that blip due to your cognitive bias.
Any statistician will tell you that the weight of all of those readings can be considered equally weighted, as they are all randomly sealed in an ice bubble hundreds of thousands of years ago. You have seen the data from HUNDREDS of data points. This is enough to plot a distribution curve and know what is normal and what is an outlier. You could still be right, but its very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. But you just choose to hang on to that conclusion, despite very very very very very very very very very very very very very nearly conclusive evidence that humans are ing up the atmosphere and planet.
If your statistics professors could read this thread they would be ashamed of you.
I see.
You are refusing to answer my question, or you are unable to.
Only rooting for your team I see and will not acknowledge a truth that makes your side look bad.
Who's indoctrinated? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
Who can tell my why, that is CO2 causes the temperature to rise, then why:
1) Temperature increases before CO2 increases almost 12,000 years ago.
2) When CO2 starting making a nice, almost constant rise more than 7,000 years ago, why does the average temperature remain within the same area?
The above is data plotted from the file I linked earlier, and it's sister file for temperature.
Let's assume that you are correct. Let us assume that for a 50 year period the atmospheric CO2 ed to 380ppmv.
That reading is such an unbelievable statistical anomaly, having never been seen at any other point other than the last 50 years, that it would nearly have to be correlated with a catastrophe - a volcano erupting, etc. It's like a rogue wave. Statistically unlikely to the point of warranting SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
Statistics don't make facts? Yet they take them in. What do you think your 5% chance of seeing argument is then? an opinion?
God what straw manning. The data indicates your single 50 year period is unlikely. Statistics are not the final word on everything, but you pick and chose the interpretation at your pleasure.
I could do the same with physical data showing the lack of physical proof that Moses parted the Dead Sea and with your logic, you could say there is only a x% change of it being observed. Fine, make that jump
It's practically the same religious themed leap of faith. It has no business in science.
He does not have one and no amount of professor action can cure stupid. He does not know how to make a substantive argument against the sampling rate. He does not even know the beginning of the context.
It does not matter how much you tell him. He will not get it because he has decided that he does not want to get it. Its easier to just point out hes dumb and move on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
