Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by madgator, Dec 13, 2013.
I wonder why you chose the little ice age start your graph?
Seems to me like he chose the entire data set
I chose a wider timeframe, even this chart shows relative stability for 70 years or so after the LIA. And most charts (though for sure some differ) will show that most of the temperature loss was gained back by the mid 1800's, hence why the minimum was over.
Again, I have zero doubt that sun cycles and other natural factors play a major role. I also think that even though the earth's warming trend over the past 100 years is beyond dispute, the dire predictions which haven't come true are hurting the cause of the scientific community, it's clear they don't fully understand some of the contributing mitigating factors to the more extreme predictions.
But it is also true that carbon dioxide is a green house gas, the earth is warming and that the recent warming trend coincides with when we really started cranking it into the atmosphere. It is also true that the vast majority of scientists who study this subject believe man is having an effect. How much is certainly debatable, but I think the the skeptics actually have a higher burden of proof than the scientific community at this point.
And the reason that threads like this are bad is because no only do they not prove anything, they also make doubters look like they don't understand basic science and statistical probability. If it is accepted that the earth has warmed by almost a degree since the last time it snowed there (regardless of reason), then what does a low probability occurrence prove exactly, other than it was by definition a rare event?
The last records of snowfall in Cairo were recorded in 1901, 1855, and 1639
ok, I'll play since I started the whole thing. If in the past 100 years assuming that the ever increasing emission of green house gases has caused the global warming. Then wouldn't a low probability occurence like snow in Cairo, something that has happened only 3 times in the past 500 years become an even more unlikely occurance?
But the contrary appears to be the case judging by the trendline of 400 years, the frequency seems to be happening more often in spite of the global warming due to green house gases.
When it comes to the overall picture on the question of weather patterns. Using a timeline of even 1,000 years is insufficient. Thats why I take any "study" that focuses on 5 year, 10 year, 20 year or even 100 year patterns as not only flawed as incomplete but ridiculous when it leads to any conclusions reached and agendas forwarded as a result.
Any study at this point produces only one thing........DATA. of which to draw any conclusion from is irresponsible.
Another example of natural occurances. We know for a fact that the Sahara desert every 10,000-25,000 years or so undergoes a change from desert to rain forest with sections of deep salt water seas. This process has happened several times according to research we have on hand.
The fact is that we have absolutely zero clue as to what is happening, what causes it and why......All we have is a data set and resulting theories.
and they should be treated as such......but they're not. they are treated as definite conclusions with easily identifiable solutions.
So you are only willing to look at more than 1000 years for climate, but a 3 or 4 point data set over 400 years for Cairo snowfall is a acceptable?
Of course in the whole it should be more rare, but that doesn't mean a fourth or fifth data point proves much of anything, other than it was an event that was farther from the mean.
And again, whether it is man made or not doesn't matter, the fact is that it is generally accepted (even by MMGW skeptics), that the earth has warmed since the last snowfall there. So, with that in mind, again, what does this event show?
I read the study about the oceans warming and it seems full of contradictions.
The oceans heated up 0.32 degrees over the last 60 years. (really, one third of a degree)
15 times faster than any period over the last 10,000 years. ( they can really measure the water temp to 0.03 degrees 10,000 years ago?)
Lastly, ocean temps have been gradually warming since 1600. (But they didn't warm faster than 0.03 degrees over 60 years.)
I think it's fair to say it isn't fully understood yet. I was just posting it because someone said they hadn't seen any evidence of it.
I did find the way they studied water temperature to be interesting but I think they made some huge leaps to get to some of their statements.
Climate only started in the 1800s???SHAZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMM!
Climate change no doubt gains a great deal of comfort in your lack of doubt. Since, you know, climate change has been going on..well, since the beginning of our planet.
Historical data strongly suggests that current climates are not unusual or unprecedented. And the climate models based primarily on carbon forcing don't seem to be predictive. That is not to say that carbon not not have an impact. But the evidence points to other factors being the primary drivers, the IPPC insistence to the contrary not withstanding.
This is more like it:
Sarcasm noted, even if it doesn't add much to the conversation.
And the ipcc is but one body of many who agree that man is a primary driver, amidst a larger scientific consensus. But continue to point to them if you choose, they are certainly easily demonized.
I would check out the article that I posted above, if you have access. Also, more basically, if an occurrence is extremely rare, you can almost never say anything about it, as the sample size will be too small for the signal to come through the noise.
what IPCC or "expert" predictions at least 15 - 20 years old have been true and how much have they missed by?
If the misses are substantial why do people still put faith in them?
I know that more studies will spend more money to keep more "experts" employed to make more justifications as to why their original "expert" opinions were wrong but the new ones are correct.
I also know that global climate has too many variables for anybody to accurately model and that the climate of this planet has been changing from the time it began and it will continue to change
What about the total heat budget models? Aren't those considered accurate?
Yes, this is exactly my question. If this science is so awful that you can see it, why haven't the people who actually understand this stuff best not been able to see it? Is it because the amateurs have better eyes, or is it like my evolution example, where the amateurs are unable to understand the totality of the theories? And how would you know the difference between these two?
As someone who knows scientists, I really don't see evidence for this kind of conspiracy stuff.
If it is so complex that we can't know it, I don't understand how you are convinced that you know it well enough to know that humans can't impact it.
I used the more recent data set in the concession of the point assuming carbon emissions play a role in global warming. For the purpose of that discussion and applying the facts at hand (carbon emissions and snow in Cairo), the shorter time frame is applicable.
Yes, it is generally accepted that in the aggregate, the global temperature has warmed by roughly what 1 degree in the past 100 years. Of course, some areas of the globe have actually cooled over that same time period. That in recent years we have a much larger and more accurate global data set than we ever did at any time in the past, and that even within this 1 degree trend that there are annual fluctuations that can deviate as much as 10-20% annually in either direction. Again, all based on a global aggregate based on whatever past data they can pull wherever they can find it.
Simple really......the fact that we know that there have been much larger deviations from todays weather patterns and conditions; ice ages, mini-ice ages, periods of NO ICE, conversion of habitats etc. that all happened without any human interference.
What we are seeing could be nothing more than normal patterns. Honestly, we don't know. Do we impact our surroundings? Of course as does about an infinity of other factors both on the earth and in the cosmos.
so do we have a duty to act responsibly? Absolutely.
But at the same time the data at hand should not be used in as a scare tactic to advance an agenda of increasing government authority.
so you have no answers for the questions, just more questions....
have the original predictions of climate change due to CO2 been accurate within a reasonable margin of error? Yes or no?
From what I have read, the answer would be a resounding no.
The experts see this and then try and justify why data has proven their original predictions wrong and why we should believe their new and improved predictions. This never ending cycle of explaining previous failures but promising better results next time only works in the world of gubmnt grants. In the private sector, the results posted to date would result in unemployment but the experts continue to be employed. Must be nice to be wrong so much yet continue to get paid to explain why you are wrong.
Why do people believe what they do? Probably because it fits their view of the world and not believing it would upset their world so they continue to believe. It has become a sort of a religion that only requires faith. Kind of like people that refuse to believe in evolution because their religious beliefs will not allow them to believe in it.
and please show me where I said that humans cannot impact global climate at all. the debate is how much and it is my belief that it is inconsequential in relation to natural cycles.
I am an engineer. I model (or supervise the modeling of) hydraulic, hydrodynamic, and traffic systems all the time as part of my job. These models usually have between 50 and 500 variables to input and a large % of the variables can be tweaked within the realm of "best engineering judgement". If we tweak all the variables in one direction it is easy to skew the results the way we want them. I cannot imagine how easy it would be to manipulate a model with tens of thousands of input variables that can be adjusted.
We will have to agree to disagree that there is a significant political component to many, if not most, of the "experts" that make a living perpetuating their beliefs while belittling anybody that opposes them. The coordinated efforts to try and discredit any opposition is well documented but can also be easily dismissed if only one is willing to believe.
So the sample size of the occurance is too small. But we can judge the past 100 years to base an actual conclusion of man made influence while ignoring roughly the 3-4 billion years prior?
the government will keep giving grants because the grants will continue to provide a basis for the scare tactics which will be used to advance government power......