Global Warming going to get us?

[flashstar]

Economically, my previous point was that we won't switch to an alternate fuel source until it's cheaper than petroleum. You can ban petroleum like they're doing to incandescent lights, but then you will damage the economy severely. What do people do with all of the gas-powered cars that they have just bought after you make the switch that doesn't involve raising taxes?

Ironically too, the data that supposedly confirms global warming is usually the same data that is flawed and helps discredit the global warming theory. *Note- you cannot prove or disprove a theory, only credit or discredit one* At the moment, there is more to discredit global warming. In fact, the media often spends more time trying to confirm the global warming theory than deny it.

Take for example this graph:



As you can see, there is a general upward trend. That is what's most often pointed out by the general media. However, what one doesn't see is statistical error bars. By conducting a T test, you will see that the general upward trend between 1980 and today is most likely statistically insignificant, especially on a geological scale. Humans have only been around for 10,000 years or so. Even that amount of time is microscopic when you consider that our planet has been around for millions of years. If you imagine a non-digital clock, humans have only been around for a minute or so out of the 1440 minutes that Earth has been around.

Even if the graph above were showing a .4 degree temperature drop, everyone would still be freaking out. Remember too that before 1950ish, we didn't have instruments that were capable of accurate temperature recordings on a global scale.

The point of my argument is that this graph as well as numerous others which are most often referenced in support of global warming are flawed at the lowest level. There is simply not enough data to jump to any conclusion what so ever. The peer review process can determine a consensus, but it cannot generate the amount of scientific data that we desperately need to make any statement on global temperature change.

[farlex85]

Did you read the articles magibeg posted? The peer-review process is the ONLY way to gather legitimate data in the scientific community. Its not used to gather a concensous, its used to keep their peers in check and keep them from creating false data and purely subjective claims made w/ little data to back it. I'm not sure where you think the data should come from.

And what kind of data are you putting into that t-test. The difference between the temperature in 1980 and now? That doesn't make any sense, it wouldn't offer the relative comparative data to determine if it was statistically significant or not.

[flashstar]

Originally Posted by farlex85

Did you read the articles magibeg posted? The peer-review process is the ONLY way to gather legitimate data in the scientific community. Its not used to gather a concensous, its used to keep their peers in check and keep them from creating false data and purely subjective claims made w/ little data to back it. I'm not sure where you think the data should come from.

And what kind of data are you putting into that t-test. The difference between the temperature in 1980 and now? That doesn't make any sense, it wouldn't offer the relative comparative data to determine if it was statistically significant or not.

I'm not criticizing the peer review process. It's an essential part of making sure that data is accurate. If used too much however, those who oppose the decisions of certain reviewers can be viewed as being wrong. What we need more now is a larger pool of actual data.

The way that the t test works is that the more data you have, the more significant individual parts of the graph are. We currently do not have enough data points to determine that the data is statistically significant. You cannot put in data before 1950 and the only noticeable change in temperature that you see is between 1980 and today. If you were to run a t test, the error bars would all be overlapping, meaning that the data is insignificant.

[Morgoth]

dont forget volcano's play a masive role to
the can creat an ice age with there ash or carbon dioxide

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by flashstar

I'm not criticizing the peer review process. It's an essential part of making sure that data is accurate. If used too much however, those who oppose the decisions of certain reviewers can be viewed as being wrong. What we need more now is a larger pool of actual data.

The way that the t test works is that the more data you have, the more significant individual parts of the graph are. We currently do not have enough data points to determine that the data is statistically significant. You cannot put in data before 1950 and the only noticeable change in temperature that you see is between 1980 and today. If you were to run a t test, the error bars would all be overlapping, meaning that the data is insignificant.

The peer review process is specifically designed to not exclude views of others, just to require accurate scientific data to back it up. Someone who produces a valid scientific argument against what is the commonly held belief, it is all the more relevant, and should not be held down. I will concede that with something like global warming, that is highly political and far reaching in its effects, bias may (and I mean only may) play a part.

That is the way any data works. The more you have, the clearer your results. If we don't have enough data to say it is statistically significant, we also don't have enough to say the opposite is true, that would be a fallacy. The t-test in that case would not be valid, thus the results are irrellavant.

[farlex85]

Here you go flash, and you other nay-sayers, here is a scientifically peer-reviewed article suggesting the current warming climate is not attributed primarily to humans, and is in fact, a regular geological occurance. http://ezproxy.gsu.edu:2638/ehost/pd...0sessionmgr103

[Deusxmachina]

Originally Posted by magibeg

Haha actually it would be quite the opposite. All the ash being shot up into the atmosphere would actually reflect sunlight away from the surface of the earth and cause cooling. Sweet pics :P

After posting that one, I read of some previous big eruptions that dropped the temperature for years. Maybe we need to work on increasing global warming in case more volcanoes decide to erupt.

farlex85, I don't know about anyone else, but I assume they get a login error on that link like I did.

[farlex85]

Ah, sorry, probably its a university thing. I can't seem to upload it as a pdf, it keeps attaching as a .jpg for some reason. I'll try some more. Basically it accounts roughly less than .01% of the last 150 years of climate change to man, and says that the current warming is likely due to tectonic shifts and solar conditions, regular geological occurances basically.

[SK-1]

A little more info, with a bit larger scope.
Source--->http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html

[flashstar]

Originally Posted by SK-1

A little more info, with a bit larger scope.
Source--->http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html

If this data is at all accurate, then it would mean that we have nothing to worry about. Like I thought, what we are experiencing now is just part of normal temperature fluctuations. It doesn't seem like humans have sped it up at all. In fact, there have been much larger fluctuations in the past.

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by SK-1

A little more info, with a bit larger scope.
Source--->http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html

Well I did some searching for where the information from that data could be found and i'm having a lot of difficulty finding out where it came from. I also find it curious that it only includes a single study done on the temperature for those periods as opposed to multiple studies.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

That is the closest bit of information i could find on the matter. However i will of course do more research on the matter. I will note though that its also debated as to how wide spread some of those warming periods were in the past as the information tends to be centralized around Europe. However the general consensus is that periods like the medieval period are not warmer than it is now. Not to say that those stats were cherry picked... but once again i find it strange it only includes a single study.

edit- i will look into the other warming periods tomorrow.

edit2 - I'm having a lot of trouble finding the sources for that article. Could someone help me out with that?

[flashstar]

Interesting.

Note the .7 degree temperature drop over the past 6 months...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...t-gore-s-movie

[magibeg]

Found the source for his information: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/BenthicStack.pdf

It represents a single method for attempting to figure out the variation in temperature and works on a number of assumptions including constant sedimentation. It's good information however not nearly the end all. It wouldn't be wise to ignore the dozens of other studies done using different methods and location to figure out the temperature variance.

One thing that i would like to mention is that its true that the temperature has varied in the past in accordance to various conditions. However we must also think about why we are warming NOW. Using climate models we can get a pretty good idea as to what is causing the current warming trend and the general consensus on the matter has been that human activities are at least partly responsible for what is happening.

In short you can't look at a single bit of data and make a strong conclusion that its a natural cycle when almost all credible information on the subject points to something else. Just because there was warming without us in the past doesn't mean we're not causing the warming of the future.

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by flashstar

Interesting.

Note the .7 degree temperature drop over the past 6 months...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...t-gore-s-movie

Well despite your source being some sort of anti-liberal news site... whatever that means. A lull was already predicted for the next little while. This is actually a perfect example of what i was talking about earlier with the issue being buried in politics. That graph is actually a beautiful misrepresentation science. You have given one narrow bit of information which is actually meaningless by itself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...5-1702,00.html

This is the organization responsible for the research behind it.
http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?L=1


edit- Sources for the chart

"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

I find it interesting the fact that Dr. Iben Browing's work was piublished by Harper's Magazine Press, 1975. Slightly out of date in the least. Another interesting note is that the second source is actually someone who has very little to do with climate and more to do with the economy.

[magibeg]

Don't tell me after a few logical arguments the whole thread died? We were just starting to make progress.

[tkpenalty]

Now let me ask you this. What OF your arguments? Is there a problem with adopting cleaner alternatives? Please do not say taxes. Thats an argument that just proves you're greedy for money and I do not hope that.

[magibeg]

Well never said there was actually a problem with providing cleaner alternatives, although costs are an issue. The greater issue i would say is sustainability. I remember reading that if everyone had the same lifestyle as people in developed nations we would need 3 earths worth of resources in order to maintain it. So people in general are probably going to have to learn to cut back for one. Although worthy of note is the decrease in cost for alternative energies such as solar panels making them much more affordable. The influx new hybrid cars and electric cars should also help with the issues, although currently being that a lot of electricity is coal powered anyway buying an electric car may not be the idea solution quite yet. I'm not fighting you here tk, in fact i agree with you whole heartedly. You just seem to take my comments the wrong way.

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by magibeg

Well I did some searching for where the information from that data could be found and i'm having a lot of difficulty finding out where it came from. I also find it curious that it only includes a single study done on the temperature for those periods as opposed to multiple studies.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

That is the closest bit of information i could find on the matter. However i will of course do more research on the matter. I will note though that its also debated as to how wide spread some of those warming periods were in the past as the information tends to be centralized around Europe. However the general consensus is that periods like the medieval period are not warmer than it is now. Not to say that those stats were cherry picked... but once again i find it strange it only includes a single study.

edit- i will look into the other warming periods tomorrow.

edit2 - I'm having a lot of trouble finding the sources for that article. Could someone help me out with that?

Magibeg,.. some research, and find out the date the the government changed the way ocean temps are recorded, and in ONE FELL SWOOP, raised the temp 1.5 degrees in 1 day. I believe it was in the 50's. I will do the same and post it ASAP.
This is roughly 80% of the over all temperature increase that all the Chicken Little's are sating "the sky is falling,...the sky is falling!!!!!
Like the late George Carlin once said "people think they are ALL powerful,..to bad,because if the Earth really wanted to,...it could shake us off like a dog with a bad case of fleas!!!"

[Ketxxx]

Global warming better not get us... at least not until I finished upgrading my puter an OCd the snot outta it.

[magibeg]

Originally Posted by SK-1

Magibeg,.. some research, and find out the date the the government changed the way ocean temps are recorded, and in ONE FELL SWOOP, raised the temp 1.5 degrees in 1 day. I believe it was in the 50's. I will do the same and post it ASAP.
This is roughly 80% of the over all temperature increase that all the Chicken Little's are sating "the sky is falling,...the sky is falling!!!!!
Like the late George Carlin once said "people think they are ALL powerful,..to bad,because if the Earth really wanted to,...it could shake us off like a dog with a bad case of fleas!!!"

sources?

I'm looking for where theres a 1.5C temp increase or reference to one over a single day but I'm having trouble finding it. I'd preferably like it from a scientific source if possible.

[SK-1]

^^ no problem, like I said as soon as I get the official info, I will post it unless you beat me to it. Right now I am helping the cause by installing a new exhaust system on an older car( helping the neighbor) and I am going to push mow my lawn with the old fashioned blade push non-gas-type mower,...so I am making my carbon footprint a size smaller

[Ketxxx]

I wouldnt worry too much about GW. Throughout the planets life there have been consistent up and downward spirals of a hotter and colder atmosphere. One example is right here in the UK and the English channel. It used to be so hot here Sabre tooth tiger remains have been found, and before sea levels rose the English channel used to be a vast open grassy dryland.

[WhiteLotus]

Originally Posted by Ketxxx

the English channel used to be a vast open wet marshland.

fixed

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by Ketxxx

I wouldnt worry too much about GW. Throughout the planets life there have been consistent up and downward spirals of a hotter and colder atmosphere. One example is right here in the UK and the English channel. It used to be so hot here Sabre tooth tiger remains have been found, and before sea levels rose the English channel used to be a vast open grassy dryland.

Yes but with that logic, the government will never be able to affix any type of taxes to the weather.Darn.

[Deusxmachina]

Originally Posted by tkpenalty

Now let me ask you this. What OF your arguments? Is there a problem with adopting cleaner alternatives? Please do not say taxes. Thats an argument that just proves you're greedy for money and I do not hope that.

Wanting to keep more of what you earn instead of letting a government that shows time and again it wants to confiscate everything you have because it thinks it knows what to do with your money better than you do, and has shown time and again it wastes your money and is often blatantly corrupt, hardly proves a person is greedy for money. Governments are greedy for money. That's why all they do is keep getting bigger.