Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:29 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Some global warming graphs 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1778
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 735 times in 552 posts
Gender: Male

Post Some global warming graphs
I honestly don't know a lot about this topic, obviously I've read about people talking about it. I came across this first graph, I remembered seeing some longer-term trends that looked a little more worrisome, so I found this second graph. Then I found a criticism of that graph.

What do you think?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/04/ ... sept-1996/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... his-graph/

http://bi.abhinavagarwal.net/2013/07/ly ... graph.html



Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:55 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
Quote:
“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”



Quote:
Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”

A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... g-is-here/




If we, as I've read, have recently exited from a "little ice age" then the warming trend that has taken place over the course of a few years (geologically speaking) is no surprise. There are studies that discuss that possibility as well.


Why do some global warming graphs and their proponents ask us to ignore "noisy data" ?
It's mostly for the sake of adding consistency to how the data is being interpreted.
Would a record breaking winter freeze be considered noisy data?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking



Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:34 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5835
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2292
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
The graph at http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/04/ ... sept-1996/ looks like it was produced by a delusional prostitute.

CO2 in the atmosphere allows light to enter but does not allow heat to leave. That is why we are increasing the heat energy in the earth surface at a rate of several Hiroshima bombs per second. That is physics, not politics.

The error in early warming models was that they did not see that most of the excess heat goes into the ocean. The ocean store wlll release into the atmosphere, but we can't tell exactly when. It will probably be a sudden phase shift.

The situation now is that we are at a CO2 percentage that correlates in planetary history to a sea level of ninety metres above the current level. So expect a sudden phase shift in our life times with catastrophic flooding and dangerous temperature rise of six degrees, unless we can geoengineer a new Manhattan/Apollo project for climate security. Ignore the denialist shills.

The main scientific error in global warming models is the assumption that emission reduction could stabilise the climate. That is just a false communist idea aimed at increasing state power. The only way to stabilise the climate is to mine CO2 from the atmosphere for profit, by converting carbon in CO2 to hydrocarbon via industrial algae production.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:32 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4401
Location: NC
Thanks: 1869
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
Dexter wrote:
I honestly don't know a lot about this topic, obviously I've read about people talking about it. I came across this first graph, I remembered seeing some longer-term trends that looked a little more worrisome, so I found this second graph. Then I found a criticism of that graph.

What do you think?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/04/ ... sept-1996/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... his-graph/

http://bi.abhinavagarwal.net/2013/07/ly ... graph.html


I have struggled for years to come to a better understanding of the actual science behind climate change and I always I end up more confused than ever. This graph is a good example, with different groups trying to put their own spin on the data. The famous hockeystick graph has also been the subject of much criticism. Remember when we had a live chat with Tod Riniolo (author of WHEN GOOD THINKING GOES BAD)? His point at that time was that there had been no warming for a number of years. Some people are still saying that. And on the other side of the equation, people are saying that we have entered the warmest decade on record and those who question these numbers are DENIERS (and generally bad people besides).

Somehow Robert can see the same things I do and be utterly certain of the reality of climate change. And, yet, it's precisely that certainty that makes me question the reality of it. Because most people don't know any more than I do about how the climate works. So as far as I can see their certainty is based on something other than actual understanding of the complex mechanisms at work..

Indeed I think it's the very complex and uncertain nature of the science that allows for such vastly different interpretations. For what it's worth I do think the consensus argument is pretty convincing. But consensus alone isn't what gives us the confidence of a scientific theory. With evolution, for example, we can look at a myriad of data points and evidence across many scientific disciplines. I don't see that level of confidence with climate change.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:10 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5835
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2292
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
geo wrote:
Dexter wrote:
I honestly don't know a lot about this topic, obviously I've read about people talking about it. I came across this first graph, I remembered seeing some longer-term trends that looked a little more worrisome, so I found this second graph. Then I found a criticism of that graph.
What do you think?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/04/ ... sept-1996/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... his-graph/
http://bi.abhinavagarwal.net/2013/07/ly ... graph.html

The third article is appalling. Its argument is that graphing can be manipulated to show trends, and that global decadal temperature averages can be graphed to show fast or slow change. But its suggestion that a Y axis starting at 0 degrees is clearer is just wrong, spreading misleading error. The point of the graph in the Washington Post was to indicate the trend, and you do that by putting the Y intercept close to the lowest value. It would be just as meaningless to say the Y intercept should be at nought degrees Kelvin.
geo wrote:
I have struggled for years to come to a better understanding of the actual science behind climate change and I always I end up more confused than ever. This graph is a good example, with different groups trying to put their own spin on the data.
The first graph shows that atmospheric temperature has been on a high plateau for about two decades. The “spin” here is that the denialists use this plateau to say we should not worry about global warming. But scientists have explained this plateau, which is due to the fact that most of the excess anthropogenic heat goes into the oceans. When ocean temperature is considered, it totally backs up the physics of global warming. Ignoring ocean temperature in the way climate depot does is utterly dishonest and politically motivated.
geo wrote:
The famous hockeystick graph has also been the subject of much criticism.
But that criticism is unscientific. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph explains quite clearly that the criticism was political not scientific, based on invalid cherry picking to argue the last century has not seen a 'hockey stick' direction shift from handle to blade in graphing world temperature.
geo wrote:
Remember when we had a live chat with Tod Riniolo (author of WHEN GOOD THINKING GOES BAD)? His point at that time was that there had been no warming for a number of years. Some people are still saying that. And on the other side of the equation, people are saying that we have entered the warmest decade on record and those who question these numbers are DENIERS (and generally bad people besides).
In years to come, people who now deny the need for action to stabilise the climate will be seen in the same moral light as those who appeased Adolph Hitler in the 1930s. The evidence of the need for action is abundantly clear, but what we should do needs to be subject of much more vigorous debate, ignoring the smoke screen of denial.
geo wrote:

Somehow Robert can see the same things I do and be utterly certain of the reality of climate change.
The physics is very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, our planet would freeze. With a lot more CO2 it would boil. By adding 40 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent to the air every year, we are conducting a vast experiment in bucket chemistry. Ice core and ocean sediment records show close tracking between CO2 and temperature. The details of cause and effect are highly complex, and impossible to predict on a year to year basis. But on a century to century basis, the causality is remorselessly inevitable. More CO2 = hotter world.
geo wrote:
And, yet, it's precisely that certainty that makes me question the reality of it. Because most people don't know any more than I do about how the climate works. So as far as I can see their certainty is based on something other than actual understanding of the complex mechanisms at work.
We cannot be certain if dangerous climate change will occur in our life times. It is scientifically possible that feedback effects – for example increased wave action at sea burying the excess heat in the deep ocean – could buy us time. But it is equally possible that a sudden phase shift could cause permanent melting of the polar ice sheets. We don’t know. The precautionary principle suggests that world security would be enhanced by measures to stabilise the global climate. The nature of these measures should be subject of much more political debate and analysis.
geo wrote:
Indeed I think it's the very complex and uncertain nature of the science that allows for such vastly different interpretations. For what it's worth I do think the consensus argument is pretty convincing. But consensus alone isn't what gives us the confidence of a scientific theory. With evolution, for example, we can look at a myriad of data points and evidence across many scientific disciplines. I don't see that level of confidence with climate change.

The uncertainty is not regarding the science but about what the policy response should be. The science is completely settled regarding the fact that the earth temperature will adjust to match the amount of CO2 in the air. But the earth has never had such a sudden change in CO2 level, so the timing for the adjustment is completely uncertain.

The other big area of uncertainty is in the whole ideological debate about emission reduction. My view is that if we manage the carbon cycle on a mega industrial scale, we can emit as much carbon as we like, as long as we then find a profitable way to suck it back out of the air. That is why I focus so much on algae biofuel as an innovative solution to climate stability. Industrial fuel and food production at sea using algae can enable market systems to kick in to make mining carbon profitable. This is a way to scale up and replicate ecological methods that will enable ongoing economic growth.

So I don’t see, Geo, where we disagree on science. I personally fully accept the uncertainty regarding the possible effects of climate change. But in risk analysis, we should consider both the likelihood and the severity of all threats. Massive sudden sea level rise is unlikely but would have severe impact. We are in the midst of what scientists call the sixth great extinction event that our planet has experienced, with global ecological migration underway in response to shifting climate. Ocean acidification is a perilous risk.

I agree with Björn Lomborg that we should not subsidise uncommercial renewable energy, but should rather encourage investment in ways to make renewable energy profitable to stabilise the global climate over the next century.

I suspect that denialists express such vigorous doubt in response to the way climate alarmists elide from science to uncertain policy prescriptions regarding emission reduction. My view is that the climate debate has been captured by left wing political interests who see it as an opportunity to pursue their basic goal of income redistribution through increased power of the state apparatus. So I suggest this political framework needs to be analysed to explore how the objectives of climate stability can be reached within a framework of free market capitalist economic growth.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:55 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4401
Location: NC
Thanks: 1869
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
There's plenty of evidence that there are way too many humans on the planet and that we are very likely way past carrying capacity, which is why it boggles my mind that we are in the midst of a religious movement to address only one aspect of the human burden to the planet. It's a bit like cleaning up after a leaking oil tanker instead of trying to fix the leak. The climate change movement is very, very stupid in that respect. People are jumping on various bandwagons without having a good understanding or any understanding of the complexities of climate.

One of the most important aspects of science is to maintain an objective and disinterested attitude. We suspend judgment while going over the evidence. But in this current environment, if anyone questions the data, they are immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers. It's precisely this attitude that gives climate changers a Nazi-like demeanor. Join us or die. This attitude is what has created the circus atmosphere of climate change. In that respect I'm part of the "smoke screen of denial." The them in us-versus-them. I'll point out that questioning the data and looking at it from every angle is actually the scientists' job.

http://www.crystaloutreach.ualberta.ca/ ... tudes.aspx

I've read a lot about the hockeystick graph, to address just one of the points you make, and it seems pretty obvious that there was a little political maneuvering on both sides of the aisle. Much of the criticism had to with suppressing data for the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Whether this data was suppressed on purpose or not, it was still a valid criticism. It also shows that our knowledge of global climate is changing on an almost daily basis. And also that there are "substantial uncertainties" with regard to our climate prior to 1600.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Image

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 6s6-6.html

Also, as has been pointed out, the climate change movement is definitely influenced by a wide range of vested interests. The media tends to exaggerate the effects of climate change. Many scientists have a vested interest in climate change being true, as does academia. There's a lot of noise out there that influences the way people think about it. Doesn't mean it's not true. But me, I'm going to continue to keep an open mind. As I've said before, there are already good reasons for reducing carbon emissions and going green without resorting to hysterics.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:45 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5835
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2292
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
geo wrote:
There's plenty of evidence that there are way too many humans on the planet and that we are very likely way past carrying capacity,
No, the evidence only shows that our current methods of social and economic organisation are not sustainable. That does not mean there are too many humans on the planet. It is entirely possible that new technology could allow an even larger human population, with greater wealth, freedom and happiness, than we now have. In Australia, the carrying capacity before the British invasion was about three million people. Now, Australia feeds about sixty million people, including through food exports. Twenty years ago we could not imagine the transformation of the internet and mobile phones. Similarly, we cannot now imagine how new methods could transform the world.
Quote:
which is why it boggles my mind that we are in the midst of a religious movement to address only one aspect of the human burden to the planet.

I agree with you that climate change is something of a religious movement. The bad sides of that are where people get carried away with myths and adopt a simplistic good-evil way of looking at things. But there is no reason why a religious movement cannot be scientifically rigorous. In fact you need religion to motivate people on a mass scale. More serious dialogue about the relation between religion and climate should be welcomed, especially the potential for Christianity to help explain the sociology of climate politics.
geo wrote:
It's a bit like cleaning up after a leaking oil tanker instead of trying to fix the leak. The climate change movement is very, very stupid in that respect.
I don’t get what you mean with the oil tanker analogy. Of course preventing a leak is better than trying to repair the damage afterwards. Efforts to reverse climate change are about prevention.
geo wrote:
People are jumping on various bandwagons without having a good understanding or any understanding of the complexities of climate.
Scientists do have a good understanding of the complexities of climate. The IPCC is very cautious in its assertions. But the denialist critics leap on to any small error, such as the speed of melting of glaciers, and use it politically to try to discredit scientific findings that are well understood.
geo wrote:

One of the most important aspects of science is to maintain an objective and disinterested attitude. We suspend judgment while going over the evidence. But in this current environment, if anyone questions the data, they are immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers.
That is unfair. People are very welcome to question data. But the denialist movement is not interested in objective understanding of data; it is a political movement that is just trying to prevent any action to stabilise the climate.

Business as usual in the energy sector could lead to human suffering on a far bigger scale than the second world war, so the comparison to the holocaust is fair.
geo wrote:
It's precisely this attitude that gives climate changers a Nazi-like demeanor. Join us or die.
Science presents absolute findings about the risks, for example the melting of the arctic, but people prefer to maintain an attitude of uncertainty, even where the science is certain. We don’t know if the arctic will melt in five years or fifty, but it really makes no sense to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it is not happening, and that the apparent flow on damage should be ignored. Comparing people who are trying to fix our planet and make human flourishing sustainable to a pack of psychotic war mongers is hardly sensible.
geo wrote:
This attitude is what has created the circus atmosphere of climate change.
Again, no, the circus is not due to scientific certainty, but to the debate about policy responses, where the level of certainty is weak. The UN circus arises from the ideological commitment to emission reduction as the only strategy, and the exclusion of sensible alternatives such as geoengineering.

My view is that a paradigm shift in world politics is needed to stabilise the climate, and we should be discussing how this can happen in ways that are politically feasible. I just don’t see that discussion happening. Instead the climate movement has adopted a position of polarisation against the main forces of the current economy, such as the oil and gas industry, where it would be far better to look at how these industries can be part of the solution by supporting research into new commercially viable technology.
geo wrote:
In that respect I'm part of the "smoke screen of denial." The them in us-versus-them. I'll point out that questioning the data and looking at it from every angle is actually the scientists' job.
But this thread is not actually about “questioning the data”. It is about how denialists present data in misleading ways in order to deceive people. The plateau temperature graph does not refute global warming at all, and claiming that it does is wilful deception. That is well explained in many places, for example an excellent scientific summary of evidence with many good links at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyR ... ain-really
geo wrote:
http://www.crystaloutreach.ualberta.ca/ ... tudes.aspx
I've read a lot about the hockeystick graph, to address just one of the points you make, and it seems pretty obvious that there was a little political maneuvering on both sides of the aisle. Much of the criticism had to with suppressing data for the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
It is clear that climate scientists have been guilty of manoeuvering. But you have to get the orders of magnitude clear with this. Their shenanigans are tiny compared to their opponents. The alleged ‘suppression of data’ to explain warming, such as in the earlier versions of the hockey stick graph, is not even in the same ballpark as the wholesale suppression of data by denialists. As we see in this thread, where a chart about air temperature is blithely presented as indicating lack of global warming, when the science is abundantly clear that air temperature is only a tiny factor compared to ocean temperature. Have a look at the link above for good discussion on the evidence.
geo wrote:
Whether this data was suppressed on purpose or not, it was still a valid criticism. It also shows that our knowledge of global climate is changing on an almost daily basis. And also that there are "substantial uncertainties" with regard to our climate prior to 1600.
What do you mean by ‘substantial’? I would say that those uncertainties are only minor in the context of this debate. People before 1600 had not worked out how to tip 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air every year. This global dumping is the prime cause of the shift in direction from handle to blade in the hockey stick graph.
geo wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Also, as has been pointed out, the climate change movement is definitely influenced by a wide range of vested interests. The media tends to exaggerate the effects of climate change.
Amazing. The media I see gives equal weight to flat earth-style denialists and serious scientists. People don’t want to know about climate change. Pretend it is not happening and it will just go away is the dominant line.
geo wrote:
Many scientists have a vested interest in climate change being true, as does academia.
That is not true. A vested interest is an ability to make commercial profit. There is not much money going into climate research. Scientists talk about climate because they are passionate about evidence and the future of our planet.

The real vested interests are in the energy industry, where stock prices are predicated on mining reserves of sufficient quantity to cause a runaway Venus Syndrome. But it is possible to have sensible debate with energy companies, so they can have the vision to adapt to the looming crisis and survive it profitably.
geo wrote:
There's a lot of noise out there that influences the way people think about it. Doesn't mean it's not true. But me, I'm going to continue to keep an open mind. As I've said before, there are already good reasons for reducing carbon emissions and going green without resorting to hysterics.
What is keeping an ‘open mind’? As far as I can see from your comments here Geo, you give too much weight to arguments that are scientifically bogus.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
geo
Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:45 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4401
Location: NC
Thanks: 1869
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
Robert Tulip wrote:
What is keeping an ‘open mind’? As far as I can see from your comments here Geo, you give too much weight to arguments that are scientifically bogus.


Like what precisely? And what are your qualifications that allow you to presume say decisively what constitutes science and what is scientifically bogus?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:50 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5835
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2292
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
geo wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
What is keeping an ‘open mind’? As far as I can see from your comments here Geo, you give too much weight to arguments that are scientifically bogus.

Like what precisely? And what are your qualifications that allow you to presume say decisively what constitutes science and what is scientifically bogus?

There were lots of things in your last post that were wrong. For example, "if anyone questions the data, they are immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers." That is not true. Scientists welcome people questioning data. But the deniers don't question data, they throw up a vomit screed of bullshit, of the type seen in the links in the opening post to this thread. I am appalled you are taken in by them. I gave a link to a scientific site http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyR ... ain-really You don't need qualifications beyond basic scientific numeracy to see that this is accurate and scientific while Watts Up With That, Climate Depot, Daily Mail, Lord Monckton, etc bear passing resemblance to whores and liars funded by Koch etc in service to a dangerous delusional idiocy.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:06 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4401
Location: NC
Thanks: 1869
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
Robert Tulip wrote:
geo wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
What is keeping an ‘open mind’? As far as I can see from your comments here Geo, you give too much weight to arguments that are scientifically bogus.

Like what precisely? And what are your qualifications that allow you to presume say decisively what constitutes science and what is scientifically bogus?

There were lots of things in your last post that were wrong. For example, "if anyone questions the data, they are immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers." That is not true. Scientists welcome people questioning data. But the deniers don't question data, they throw up a vomit screed of bullshit, of the type seen in the links in the opening post to this thread. I am appalled you are taken in by them. I gave a link to a scientific site http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyR ... ain-really You don't need qualifications beyond basic scientific numeracy to see that this is accurate and scientific while Watts Up With That, Climate Depot, Daily Mail, Lord Monckton, etc bear passing resemblance to whores and liars funded by Koch etc in service to a dangerous delusional idiocy.


So okay I exaggerated when I said that "anyone who questions the data is immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers." Where else am I wrong? Your post goes straight into vague La La land.

I'm never sure who qualifies as a "denier." It's a vague pejorative that seems only to quash dialogue. You've called me a "denier" before simply because I'm not going along with all the hype. I actually read an article today that said redheads are going to be winnowed out of the gene pool because of global warming.

Anyway, the blogger in the third link makes a valid point that graphs are routinely tweaked in disingenuous ways. His comment that I completely agree with by the way: "There is no denying that we as a world need to get serious about investing in alternative and renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and even nuclear, but this graph is just plain bad."

Somehow the warming trend is supposed to be undeniable, but again, we simply don't have much data with regard to our climate prior to 1600. Five hundred years of climate data is paltry. The "substantial uncertainties" I mentioned in my last post is a direct quote from the linked Wikipedia article.

Yes, I agree there are a lot of charlatans out there and a lot of misinformation. Much on both sides of the aisle. The true picture is much muddier than is portrayed in our mainstream media. There's widespread assumption that our government can "fix" the problem if only the deniers and naysayers could get their heads out of their asses. It's that general attitude of over-simplification and over-villainization that I have a problem with. I'm always open to the magic solutions. What are they again?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:37 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5835
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2292
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
geo wrote:
So okay I exaggerated when I said that "anyone who questions the data is immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers."
Yes, you exaggerated, badly, erroneously, pejoratively, damagingly. Like the denialists. Science is all about questioning data, so to sow scurrilous innuendo to the contrary is not a good contribution to dialogue. The Holocaust analogy only applies when people wantonly promote falsehoods about large serious problems.
geo wrote:
Where else am I wrong?
Nazi circus, suppressing data, resorting to hysterics – all that hyperbolic attack you mount against climate science is wrong.
geo wrote:
Your post goes straight into vague La La land.
No it does not. I gave detailed reasons earlier as to why denialists should be viewed with extreme derision.
geo wrote:
I'm never sure who qualifies as a "denier."
For a start, anyone who claims that the air temperature record of the last two decades refutes global warming is a denier, since this argument has been comprehensively refuted, as for example in the wunderground link I gave twice.
geo wrote:
It's a vague pejorative that seems only to quash dialogue.
No, it is not vague. Climate denialists are people who ignore scientific evidence for political motives. It is easy to see their methods at work in the various sources I mentioned. They have no interest in dialogue since their motive is just to sow confusion about scientific facts, and they have shown their opinion is stoutly resistant to facts.
geo wrote:
You've called me a "denier" before simply because I'm not going along with all the hype.
No, I would not call anyone a denier for expressing reasoned doubt. Denial only enters the picture when people ignore evidence that refutes their opinions.
geo wrote:
the blogger in the third link makes a valid point that graphs are routinely tweaked in disingenuous ways.
Maybe you don’t read my comments geo? I already explained quite clearly that the disingenuity is on the part of that blogger, who performs an epic fail in ignoring the standard statistlcal practice of graphing data with the intercept placed just below the bottom value. Anyone who doesn’t get that is innumerate. Look at any newspaper graphs of exchange rates or unemployment. They use the graph to show trends, in a way that this guy, whether through malevolence or just stupidity, claims is misleading.
geo wrote:
His comment that I completely agree with by the way: "There is no denying that we as a world need to get serious about investing in alternative and renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and even nuclear, but this graph is just plain bad."
No, the graph is not “just plain bad”. It shows data on decadal upward temperature trends in accord with normal scientific and statistical practice. What is “just plain bad” is his false insinuation of manipulation. It is an old rhetorical trick to cover up such stupidity by conceding some ground, as he does in his statement of support for renewable energy.
geo wrote:
Somehow the warming trend is supposed to be undeniable, but again, we simply don't have much data with regard to our climate prior to 1600. Five hundred years of climate data is paltry. The "substantial uncertainties" I mentioned in my last post is a direct quote from the linked Wikipedia article.
Did you even read the article beyond looking to confirm your prejudice? Even with that small caveat, it provides abundant proof of the hockey stick model.
geo wrote:
Yes, I agree there are a lot of charlatans out there and a lot of misinformation. Much on both sides of the aisle. The true picture is much muddier than is portrayed in our mainstream media. There's widespread assumption that our government can "fix" the problem if only the deniers and naysayers could get their heads out of their asses. It's that general attitude of over-simplification and over-villainization that I have a problem with. I'm always open to the magic solutions. What are they again?
Again, as Bjorn Lomborg argues, we should invest in research and development and deployment of commercial methods of sustainable energy. There is nothing magic, but this research, which should be central to global strategic security, is stymied by the antics of denialists, who create moral legitimacy for fools.

It is not up to governments to fix the problem through measures such as carbon taxes. Instead governments should enable the private sector to develop innovative commercial solutions. I can’t believe you think the mainstream media presents an unmuddied portrayal. They give space to lunatics, which sows seeds of completely unjustified doubt about science in the popular mind. The problem is not that denialists have their heads in their arses, but their lies in the media.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:01 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1778
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 735 times in 552 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
Robert Tulip wrote:
I already explained quite clearly that the disingenuity is on the part of that blogger, who performs an epic fail in ignoring the standard statistlcal practice of graphing data with the intercept placed just below the bottom value. Anyone who doesn’t get that is innumerate. Look at any newspaper graphs of exchange rates or unemployment. They use the graph to show trends, in a way that this guy, whether through malevolence or just stupidity, claims is misleading.


That's not true that it is standard statistical practice. When graphing data, it is usually a judgment call on where to start the axis. I agree with you that zero is an arbitrary value, and the version of the graph you're referring to probably went too far in trying to remove the apparent trend. But if you graphed unemployment data and started the axis at 6.1% and showing what looks like a massive increase to 6.2% because that is the range of your data, that may be misleading. It may be better to start with the low point of the previous business cycle, for example.

I see graphs of temperature that make it look like a 0.1 degree increase is very large. Maybe it is, but that has to explained. Data doesn't just speak for itself, you have to interpret what changes are significant.



Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:57 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4401
Location: NC
Thanks: 1869
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
I've tried to express some of my own thoughts regarding climate change, and that's really all I was trying to do. But Robert and I are talking past one another. We are simply not finding much common ground, although I suspect we actually agree on many of the particulars. As for the hockey stick graph, it does seem that the scientific community does more or less accept it, though it's pretty clear that the so-called medieval warming period remains highly controversial. What can I say? I remain highly skeptical of the hockey stick graph. Indeed, if you search Google, you'll find many different versions of it. Some of them have an extreme spike at the end supposed to represent projected warming over the next few decades. If these predictions come true, we are indeed in for a rough ride. But we're probably in for a rough ride anyway.

I suspect most predictions such as that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century are something akin to projected population growth (put out by the United Nations) which is merely an extrapolation based on current growth. As current population growth changes, so does the extrapolation. It's ultimately not very meaningful.

Quote:
Again, as Bjorn Lomborg argues, we should invest in research and development and deployment of commercial methods of sustainable energy. There is nothing magic, but this research, which should be central to global strategic security, is stymied by the antics of denialists, who create moral legitimacy for fools.


There are a lot of comments like this in your posts. I think many of us are in support of pursuing sustainable energy, even many conservatives. I've already mentioned that solar panel and battery technologies have drastically improved over the last decade. Where do you get the idea that research and development is being stymied? By magic solutions, I mean there is no quick fix.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5835
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2292
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
geo wrote:
Robert and I are talking past one another.
No, not at all. You are not talking past me. I have directly replied to your false comments.
geo wrote:
As for the hockey stick graph, it does seem that the scientific community does more or less accept it, though it's pretty clear that the so-called medieval warming period remains highly controversial.
That is rubbish. The only controversy is whipped up by denialists with unscientific motives.
geo wrote:
I suspect most predictions such as that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century are something akin to projected population growth (put out by the United Nations) which is merely an extrapolation based on current growth. As current population growth changes, so does the extrapolation. It's ultimately not very meaningful.
On current trends, we will put enough carbon into the air to restore the earth to an ice free state, ie with sea level ninety metres higher. The uncertainty is whether that would take fifty years or five hundred. This is a major risk for global political and economic stability, with the potential for vast movements of hundreds of millions or even billions of people out of low lying countries and regions.
geo wrote:
Where do you get the idea that research and development is being stymied?
There is an unholy alliance between reductionistas and denialists. Those who see emission reduction as the only solution to climate change are actively preventing research and development of new technology. And denialists have been responsible for the wholesale defunding of climate research in countries such as Australia. Climate security requires research and development through political will on the scale of the Manhattan, Marshall and Apollo Projects. Instead we just get political lies about implausible future targets for emission reduction.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:54 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some global warming graphs
Quote:
. The only controversy is whipped up by denialists with unscientific motives.


What evidence do you have to support the accusation that scientists who disagree with global warming alarmists have "unscientific motives"?


Quote:
There is an unholy alliance between reductionistas and denialists


What is the evidence to support this conspiracy theory?



Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:14 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank