Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, no one is asking for you to respond. You have every right to ignore this thread.

I would expect you to get pissy at this point and try to shut things down -- so at least I don't have to adjust those expectations.

[Wild Cobra]

As I noted, the graphs don't work on this computer.

The explanation is likely cherrypicking, given the history of Darrin's posts.

Call it what you want. Darrin showed graphs of differing time periods that are too similar to this last warming trend. The cherry picking is done by the AGW crowd. They will cherry pick data from a cool period to a warm period to show warming.

The IPCC's contention is that the world is, in general, warmer than it would be otherwise for the increased CO2, though.

Yes, we agree that is their contention. Problem is, it is no warmer than other times in history. Now I agree CO2 will cause a greater greenhouse effect, problem is, it seems to do nothing when the other climatic factors do their thing. Worse yet, about 2/3rd the warming from 1750 to 2004, the time-frame the AR4 uses, is no doubt caused by the sun. It comes back to that silly theory called "conservation of mass and energy" that no scientist yet has been able to poke holes in.

Sight unseen concerning the graphs, if the temperature stayed constant for the next hundred years, that would not disprove this thesis.

If I had the time, I would cop[y the graphs into photobucket. Remind me in case I forget.

Can you tell me why not, and thereby attempt to demonstrate some understanding of the idea *you* are attempting to criticize?

LOL...

You cannot when you admit to not seeing the graphs.

[Wild Cobra]

I found some time.

Here are the first two graphs:



Here they are in overlay form:



Here are the next three graphs:



And again, an overlay:

[ChumpDumper]

I see Wild Cobra missed the huge error as well and chose to propagate it in graph form.

Not surprising.

[RandomGuy]

I see Wild Cobra missed the huge error as well and chose to propagate it in graph form.

Not surprising.

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Not quite something that would be visible on the scale chosen. Not quite purposefully misleading on WC's part, but more likely a less than careful attempt at making a point.

That said, the biggest problems might not be average global temperatures, but *where* the temperatures rise. If the entire rest of the globe gets slightly cooler, but the places where massive ice sheets are sitting gets warmer, that is still a problem.

This is probably why climate scientists talk more about change than warming, as has been noted here in response to the constant strawmen of the "deniers"

[Wild Cobra]

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Not quite something that would be visible on the scale chosen. Not quite purposefully misleading on WC's part, but more likely a less than careful attempt at making a point.

That said, the biggest problems might not be average global temperatures, but *where* the temperatures rise. If the entire rest of the globe gets slightly cooler, but the places where massive ice sheets are sitting gets warmer, that is still a problem.

This is probably why climate scientists talk more about change than warming, as has been noted here in response to the constant strawmen of the "deniers"

Point in case should be the first two alone. They are too similar. As for ice sheets warming, they are warming primarily because of soot on ice, from Asia, rather than from CO2. CO2, if it actually had any notable effect, would be clearly seen from the highs of the 30's to the highs recently.

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I see Wild Cobra missed the huge error as well and chose to propagate it in graph form.

Not surprising.

What error? You'll have to explain. I'll look at your next post. Remember, you are on IGNORE. I don't see what you write unless I choose to.

[DarrinS]

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

[ChumpDumper]

What error? You'll have to explain.

Why should I? It's more fun watching you rave on with this huge flaw.

I'll look at your next post. Remember, you are on IGNORE. I don't see what you write unless I choose to.

Nobody sees what anybody writes unless that person chooses to, genius.

If you're reading this and you read the post you quoted, you're not ignoring me.

[DarrinS]

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

Can anyone answer this question?

[Yonivore]

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Not quite something that would be visible on the scale chosen. Not quite purposefully misleading on WC's part, but more likely a less than careful attempt at making a point.

That said, the biggest problems might not be average global temperatures, but *where* the temperatures rise. If the entire rest of the globe gets slightly cooler, but the places where massive ice sheets are sitting gets warmer, that is still a problem.

This is probably why climate scientists talk more about change than warming, as has been noted here in response to the constant strawmen of the "deniers"

Yeah, about the IPCC and their "projections."

Sea level may drop in 2010

Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.

Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming

Did IPCC also get sea levels wrong?

Nevermind the allegations of skewing data and hiding information that undercuts their "theory," the IPCC has been demonstrably wrong in short-term predictions.

Why in the do they continue to have any credibility on this issue?

I'll tell you why...

Because they're the only ones with a position to which the alarmists can cling. If not for the IPCC, the global climate change religion would have to close shop.

[Wild Cobra]

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

My God...

Why do I miss such simple things? Why don't they tell us their error margins, not only in measurement, but the calculation they attempt to use to compensate for changing influences like asphalt?

[Wild Cobra]

Why should I? It's more fun watching you rave on with this huge flaw.Nobody sees what anybody writes unless that person chooses to, genius.

If you're reading this and you read the post you quoted, you're not ignoring me.

I will correspond with you an this matter as long as you stay on topic.

What did I miss. I am not infallible, and am curious of your take on this one.

[Yonivore]

Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

The you say?!?!?!

Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.

Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

No way!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Yoni does a good job pointing out peer review works quite well. Thanks!

Darrin, the margin of error is much smaller than the observed warming. The global temperature is an average of all temperature data collected across the globe. There are obviously different measuring techniques whether they are done by actual thermometers or by satellite but the accuracy of thermometers is smaller MUCH smaller than a degree and the vast amount of data collection lowers the margin of error to a large degree.

For Satellites, their data would be dependent on the resolution they operate at but I don't have exact figures for this. However, This is also going to lower the margin much lower than the observed warming.

The observed warming is not signal noise.

[DarrinS]

Yoni does a good job pointing out peer review works quite well. Thanks!

Darrin, the margin of error is much smaller than the observed warming. The global temperature is an average of all temperature data collected across the globe. There are obviously different measuring techniques whether they are done by actual thermometers or by satellite but the accuracy of thermometers is smaller MUCH smaller than a degree and the vast amount of data collection lowers the margin of error to a large degree.

For Satellites, their data would be dependent on the resolution they operate at but I don't have exact figures for this. However, This is also going to lower the margin much lower than the observed warming.

The observed warming is not signal noise.

Link?

[DarrinS]

Very interesting paper.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...bTemp.JNET.pdf

[RandomGuy]

climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.

Definitely. That's why I have my doubts that ONE variable is the driving factor.

If you see a change, and almost everything else remains fairly constant, then that one factor starts looking more and more probable as a cause for that change.

"The sun is responsible for all the cooling/warming" we see is a good example. If that is the case, and the sun's emissions don't change as much as temperature/climate does, then it becomes easy to discard that particular variable.

As it is, with our increasing CO2 emissions and increasing atmospheric concentration, the effects, if any, will be more obvious and pronounced as time goes by, whatever the mechanisms or particulars.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, about the IPCC and their "projections."

Sea level may drop in 2010


Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming

Did IPCC also get sea levels wrong?

Nevermind the allegations of skewing data and hiding information that undercuts their "theory," the IPCC has been demonstrably wrong in short-term predictions.

Why in the do they continue to have any credibility on this issue?

I'll tell you why...

Because they're the only ones with a position to which the alarmists can cling. If not for the IPCC, the global climate change religion would have to close shop.

11 year old news articles citing "studies" but not specific ones, really isn't anything to hang your hat on.

Sadly, that seems to be what passes for "evidence" in your world.

Honestly, I would be perfectly happy for the worst that the IPCC speculates could or is likely to happen not to come to pass, as I have said before.

I can only wish that you would put your money where your mouth is.

Pick one of those low level islands and then put you and your family's entire life savings into a resort hotel there.

In thirty years we can see how that pans out.

[RandomGuy]

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

I believe we have the ability to measure temperature pretty accurately, and the margin of measurement error is less than the warming noted. This is simply working from memory of past reading.

In gathering data, you get pretty accurate results with a lot of measurements over a long period of time. The "margin of error" shrinks with larger and larger data sets.

Feel free to find/present proof of this assertion at any time.

[DarrinS]

I believe we have the ability to measure temperature pretty accurately, and the margin of measurement error is less than the warming noted. This is simply working from memory of past reading.

In gathering data, you get pretty accurate results with a lot of measurements over a long period of time. The "margin of error" shrinks with larger and larger data sets.

Feel free to find/present proof of this assertion at any time.

Or, you could present proof of your assertion.

[DarrinS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrum...al_temperature


Not even a measurement, but a calculation.

[Wild Cobra]

If you see a change, and almost everything else remains fairly constant, then that one factor starts looking more and more probable as a cause for that change.

I agree. That's why I say solar changes are the primary factor.

"The sun is responsible for all the cooling/warming" we see is a good example. If that is the case, and the sun's emissions don't change as much as temperature/climate does, then it becomes easy to discard that particular variable.

You obviously don't know about these sciences.

Just how much do you think the sun changes global temperature?

The zero point isn't 0 C, but -273.15 C. If the sun changes by 0.1%, a correlation from the kelvin scale is almost 0.3 degrees. The total average increase of solar energy since 1750 is about 0.2%, or almost 0.6 C. The IPCC claims a warming range of about 0.6 C to 0.85 C.

[RandomGuy]

Or, you could present proof of your assertion.

I really didn't make much of an assertion other than stating what I know of statistics and sampling.

It is a fair enough request, but I would point out you got there first.

I merely pointed out that it seemed to conflict with my understanding of the issue, based on what I could remember.

I have already made my case for the OP, so doing your work for you doesn't hold much appeal.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

[DarrinS]

I really didn't make much of an assertion other than stating what I know of statistics and sampling.

It is a fair enough request, but I would point out you got there first.

I merely pointed out that it seemed to conflict with my understanding of the issue, based on what I could remember.

I have already made my case for the OP, so doing your work for you doesn't hold much appeal.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building. They differed by 1.6 degrees F.


But we are supposed to believe that temperature from surface stations (densely distributed in the northern hemisphere, sparsely distributed elsewhere) and from a handful of satellites are collected, massaged by some FORTRAN code, resulting in a single global temperature that represents the temperature of the entire Earth to within one degree?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm supposed to believe someone who doesn't understand what an average is somehow has families who have income because of his software patents?


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOL


There is no such thing as "the temperature of the entire earth". Obviously the temperature is going to vary quite a bit across the entire globe.

Jesus Christ I never thought I would have to explain what an average is on this forum. This is the point where I give up.