Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[SS-18 ICBM]

Not so much the water as the amount of solar radiation and related effects being different.

And that is known, isn't it? I like the vague catch-all "related effects".

Short answer: Weather.

Hmm, I don't know, but usually it's the surface in contact in the atmosphere that affects weather. And I thought we were discussing climate here, not weather?

I think he was making the claim that the samples were not representative.

And yet his only proof is saying that it is so.

 

[Rashiminos]

And that is known, isn't it? I like the vague catch-all "related effects".


Hmm, I don't know, but usually it's the surface in contact in the atmosphere that affects weather. And I thought we were discussing climate here, not weather?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/oceans.htm

The surface itself can be a bit transient (energy redistribution, ie weather, El Nino/La Nina).

And yet his only proof is saying that it is so.

I didn't say his claim was good.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/oceans.htm

The surface itself can be a bit transient (energy redistribution, ie weather, El Nino/La Nina).

So there were measurements and understanding of the effects of the deep ocean on global climate patterns. That the planet is warming is shown in the readings. What is unknown is the severity and effects of this warming.

 

[Rashiminos]

What is unknown is the severity and effects of this warming.

Quite.

 

[El_Machinae]

Indeed it is warming too. What's more, there is more CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than there is in the Earth's. Not only relatively but, despite the huge difference in air pressure, absolutely as well. An interesting fact given the manifest lack of runaway greenhouse temperatures on Mars. Could it be that reality is more complicated than the Warmists proclaim?

I don't see how you could possibly know any of this. In order to even bring this forward, you'd have to have read the works of people buying the propaganda put forward by statist government scientist slugs who are peddling their purchased lies because they drink the kool aid.

In other words, you're putting forward scientific information without first completely discounting them with an ad hominem. I'm pretty sure that all the people who originally found any modern information regarding Mars are using the same scientific tools and process we use to discuss AGW.

And, obviously, reality is more complicated than people assume. It's fundamentally impossible to mentally model reality with greater (or equal) accuracy than actual reality. Your summary comparison of Mars to Earth is flawed, by the way. Warming on Earth is caused by the increase in CO2. If we were to increase the CO2 on Mars, we'd expect warming there, too. Heck, any insulative barrier coupled with an external radiative source will increase temperature. This is why your car is hotter in the summer if you seal the windows.

Since you seem to know something about Mars, how do you find out any scientific information? If you've completely discounted any scientific information regarding AGW, how would you find out the truth?

 

[BasketCase]

No, I just couldn't let this one go. Quiver in fear, the dead thread walks again!

Firstly, you've shown that climatic and temperature changes can happen naturally. Great. I don't think anyone's denying that. It certainly doesn't prove that today's warming trend is not a result of human activity.

You're right. It doesn't. But that's not what I was doing.

The fact that temperature changes happen naturally, does not prove that anthropogenic global warming is definitely not happening. It proves that anthropogenic global warming is not definitely happening. This is a very common fallacy that global warming alarmists fall into (perhaps intentionally) all the time. In addition to "definitely true" and "definitely false" there is always a third conclusion that can happen when considering a claim. That third result is "maybe".

The alarmists claim that global warming is definitely real, and that human beings are definitely causing it. In order to disprove these two claims, I am not required to prove them definitely false. It is sufficient to prove that they might be false.


And that's what I've been doing for five years.

(the other arguing points that happened two weeks ago? I'll let those slide--hammering the above point home is more important than anything else)

 

[Arwon]

Sigh.

The null hypothesis will have been extensively tested and eliminated at 95% confidence for both "is global average temperature rising" and "is there a relationship between global average temperature and carbon concentration" for anything that ever got published. That's kind of how statistics and science and peer review works.

 

[choxorn]

So, if all those stations isn't enough to show a current warming trend, why is 4 data points enough to prove the conditions of the North Atlantic 1000 years ago?

Will you answer this question?

 

[Arwon]

Oh and for that matter: we know that increased carbon concentration raises heat absorptio. We know carbon concentration is rising. The default assumption is therefore that temperatures will rise. Rising global average temperature is the null hypothesis. Proving that average temperature is not rising despite what we know about physics? That's the alternative hypothesis, that's the one which requires proving with high statistical confidence.

But then, I'm never clear in any given post whether BasketCase and co are arguing that temperatures aren't rising, that it's not human caused, or that increased carbon concentration and warming is a good thing. So I guess we shouldn't expect conceptual rigour here with something as difficult as a statistical null hypothesis.

 

[El_Machinae]

Arwon, what you're asking for there is more of a correlation. If there's a correlation, then we'll still use 5% as alpha. The default assumption will continue to be that there's no correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, and then the statistics will show that assumption to be (likely) wrong.

 

[Arwon]

But we know there's a relationship that goes beyond correlation, due to basic physics, between carbon dioxide levels and heat absorption. Unless unseen factors are stopping the relationship from manifesting in real world atmospheric conditions (there could be any number of such factors, such as cloud cover) then it's going to occur if the physics of heat absorption by different gases is true. So then surely the understood causative relationship between two variables has gotta be the null hypothesis against which you test alternatives?

(Leaving aside the fact that all the data shows temperatures rising anyway, of course)

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, because what's actually happening is that we're explaining multiple forcings at once. Remember, the temperature is a multifaceted thing (season, sun, etc.) and so what happens is that each specific forcing is tested as a cyclical contributor and then factored in if it's an (actual) contributor. If the CO2 doesn't correlate properly with heat, it's okay. This would merely suggest that we're missing a forcing contribution that's overriding the signal's ability to surface from the statistics.

We know CO2 will act as a GHG, but we show that we understand its contribution by having its contribution shown as defeating the null hypothesis. We'd not be able to show GHG contributions without first factoring in the more obvious forcings, first. The (say) seasonal cycle would completely overwhelm the CO2 contribution (statistically) if we didn't first acknowledge the seasonal cycle

 

[Arwon]

OK, that makes sense! I should have considered the whole "multiple variables" thing...

 

[BasketCase]

But then, I'm never clear in any given post whether BasketCase and co are arguing that

Yeah. Reading problem on your part. I'll spell them all out for you:

temperatures aren't rising,

Nope. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we don't know if they're rising worldwide.

that it's not human caused,

Nope also. What I have been arguing is that we don't know if humans are causing it.

or that increased carbon concentration and warming is a good thing.

Not exactly. Here's where I really go off the rails and confuse the living hell outta everybody: higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures are a random hodgepodge of good things and bad things.

So, if all those stations isn't enough to show a current warming trend, why is 4 data points enough to prove the conditions of the North Atlantic 1000 years ago?

Sure. The answer: it's not. However, those four points, plus historical records and testimony from medieval civilization, are enough. People back then couldn't measure ocean temperature, but they could damn well tell when people were dying of starvation, and they kept decent enough records to tell us today that there was widespread starvation during the Little Ice Age, and no such thing during the Medieval Warming.

See? Ask nice and I'll answer nice. Somebody calls me an idiot or a whore, I'll tear them four new asses.

 

[Arwon]

Don't worry, give it a couple more posts I'm sure you'll get there. You can't coast on arguments from ignorance forever.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sure. The answer: it's not. However, those four points, plus historical records and testimony from medieval civilization, are enough.

So why are thousands of data points, scientific data and testimony from people all over the world of melting glaciers, ice caps, and changed climatic patterns not enough?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Quick question here without reading this whole thread, but is the reality of global warming ever in any doubt outside of the US? It's only ever American people I hear vehemently denying it and trying to turn it into some political argument rather than a scientific one. Seems a bit strange to me.

 

[BasketCase]

Global warming is considered complete bullcrap in many Third World countries. Make no mistake, Third World governments are clear on the concept--they either don't care (because they have even bigger problems), or they consider it a hoax perpetrated by First World nations in order to keep poor people poor.

Global warming is in fact doubted by something like half the people on the entire planet. You just never hear their opinions because they don't have any Internets.


Okie dokey, time to go back to the usual opponent-bashing.

So why are thousands of data points, scientific data and testimony from people all over the world of melting glaciers, ice caps, and changed climatic patterns not enough?

Two reasons. Read carefully, this will be a bit complicated.

#1: Those thousands of data points aren't actually saying what you claim they are. Yes, some points on the planet are warming up and melting and etc. Problem is, other points elsewhere on the planet are cooling off and not melting. Ice caps, for example. Are Earth's ice caps melting? No. Are they growing? No. The Arctic ice cap is melting, and the ANTARCTIC cap is GROWING. (and this is not the seasonal summer-winter thing, the Antarctic cap has been growing for decades) This is part of why you keep screwing yourself with logical opposites. "Is the world's ice melting, or not???" There IS no correct answer to that.

#2: Because the thing you're trying to prove is not the logical opposite of what I'm trying to prove. The claim that global warming is real, and being caused by humans, requires comprehensive measurement of the entire planet, as well as proof of cause-and-effect. To disprove this claim does not require such measurements or proof. It requires only one documented counterexample, anywhere. The Medieval Warm Period is such a counterexample. A significant part of the Earth was once significantly warmer than today, and humans couldn't possibly have caused it back then. So today's considerably smaller warming trend could be entirely natural. The possibility is sufficient to disprove the claim that humans are causing global warming, even though it does not prove that humans are not causing global warming.

That's where you and Arwon and Ziggy and others are going wrong: the part I underlined last paragraph is not equivalent to "global warming is definitely not happening". You've all gotten stuck in this black-vs-white mindset, and you need to get unstuck. Disproving "global warming is definitely real" is not the same as saying "global warming is bullcrap".

 

[Arwon]

Funny, Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Maldives don't consider it "bullcrap".

Also, you know the slight increase in Antarctic ice is despite a warmer Southern Ocean, yes?

 

[Cutlass]

Quick question here without reading this whole thread, but is the reality of global warming ever in any doubt outside of the US? It's only ever American people I hear vehemently denying it and trying to turn it into some political argument rather than a scientific one. Seems a bit strange to me.

I think there's largely universal acceptance of the facts, except that some countries do not want to do anything about it.