Originally posted by budski
Wasn't the Nasa data shown to be a little less than reliable recently?

Aye, it was a Y2K bug thing.

Didn't really make much difference to the global data. But the main point was that what the earlier poster wanted, is exactly what the temperature data is. That is, anomaly.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin Didn't really make much difference to the global data. But the main point was that what the earlier poster wanted, is exactly what the temperature data is. That is, anomaly.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

How do you calculate or determine what's anomalous if you don't compare the data to a baseline, which in this case is an absolute temperature (so to speak). I say this because obviously, celsius is not an absolute scale of heat, but a calibrated arbitrary scale.

spelling.

[edit on 3/13/2008 by RGReventlov]

Originally posted by RGReventlov
How do you calculate or determine what's anomalous if you don't compare the data to a baseline, which in this case is an absolute temperature (so to speak). I say this because obviously, celsius is not an absolute scale of heat, but a calibrated arbitrary scale.

How do you know that something is warmer or cooler without having some reference to compare to?

They take an average over a long-term period and use it as a reference. Then they present anomalies from this reference.

It's a silly argument anyway. The article is a mess. You could apply the same argument to a meaure of central tendency for many phenomena, from economics to sociology. You could even apply it to temperature down to ever increasing scales - globe, NH, europe, wales, my town, my house, my sofa, my mouth, my tongue, etc etc. Even if we had temp measure in every square meter on the earth we could apply it to ever finer scales.

It's just an obfuscatory piece of work - there is no global temp, therefore it's all in vain. Lets emit!

Originally posted by melatonin

It's a silly argument anyway.

That can be said in terms of both sides of the argument.

It's just an obfuscatory piece of work - there is no global temp, therefore it's all in vain. Lets emit!

I didn't get that message at all from the article. Not everyone, in fact, I'd say hardly anyone that counters the "Man is warming the globe and the results will be catastrophic" argument is in favor of "emitting... and damn the consequences."

Rather, I think most, like myself, are against the underlying motive of the AGW movement, which is to tax the technologically advanced and industrial nations, and hamstring the developing nations. And all this will be implemented based on, at the very least, a possibly flawed theory, and at most, a valid theory but exaggerated way beyond the realm of reality.

I'm not saying there is no greenhouse effect. There is.
I'm not saying we humans aren't emitting more carbon than ever before. We are.
I'm not saying this doesn't have an effect on the global climate..It does.

What I'm asking is....

a. How much of an effect does it cause?

b. Are we collecting, parsing, reducing, and interpreting the data correctly?

c. Are there political or economic drivers affecting and biasing the interpretation of the data and the predictions of doom?

I think:

a. Very, very, very, little.
b. Unlikely, given the complexity of the system.
c. Most definitely. When have politics and money ever had no impact on issues like this?








[edit on 3/13/2008 by RGReventlov]

Originally posted by RGReventlov
That can be said in terms of both sides of the argument.

I dunno, when you can counter the very basic physics which shows that GHGs do what they do, then it might be silly.

I didn't get that message at all from the article. Not everyone, in fact, I'd say hardly anyone that counters the "Man is warming the globe and the results will be catastrophic" argument is in favor of "emitting... and damn the consequences."

Don't worry too much. It was just my version of their argument. If you want it closer to reality, it goes something like - we can't measure temperature, therefore it's all in vain, hence we should do nothing, lets fowgeddabowtit.

Rather, I think most, like myself, are against the underlying motive of the AGW movement, which is to tax the technologically advanced and industrial nations, and hamstring the developing nations. And all this will be implemented based on, at the very least, a possibly flawed theory, and at most, a valid theory but exaggerated way beyond the realm of reality.

Of course. When Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century, and those who came after, were studying the spectroscopic effects of GHGs, they were motivated by taxing the natives.

a. How much of an effect does it cause?

Best estimate is 3'C for a doubling of CO2. Could be a bit more, could be bit less.

b. Are we collecting, parsing, reducing, and interpreting the data correctly?

To the best of our ability. But I'm sure we could do even better.

c. Are there political or economic drivers affecting and biasing the interpretation of the data and the predictions of doom?

Alternatively, are there political and economic drivers of the denialist industry that has sprung up in the last decade? When we can look back to the early 90s and see even the likes of Bush Sr. pushing for action, but then all change? The manipulation of scientific findings by political fingers in the last few years. The funding of lying denialist think-tanks by industry and right-wing figures.

Hmmm. Maybe so.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Don't worry too much. It was just my version of their argument. If you want it closer to reality, it goes something like - we can't measure temperature, therefore it's all in vain, hence we should do nothing, lets fowgeddabowtit.

OK, let's look at it your way. I gather you believe in doing something?

What would you do?

Apparently our fossil fuel combustion, cattle propagation, and deforestation over the last 100 years or so have brought us to the precipice of disaster....a few inches to a few feet increase in sea level over decades or centuries, shorter winters, longer growing seasons, and surely altered climates and weather and patterns.

According to IPCC this began in the 1890s or so right? Do you favor returning to an 1890's level of industry and standard of living?

If we are to accept everything the mainstream AGW movement espouses and IPCC warns, we need to be prepared to accept continued warming for 100 years even if we capped all human CO2 emissions at present levels. And we'd need to revert to 19th century levels after that to attempt to reverse the trend.

How do we do this?

The measures being promoted by the mainstream AGW movement are useless, feel good nonsense.

You see, this is why I said earlier that the root of this problem is unchecked population growth and resource consumption.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for arguments sake. I'm just a pragmatist by nature and don't see any answers to the problems being promoted by the alarmists, short of a return to a pre-industrial way of life or a sudden leap forward to clean, renewable or in-exhaustible, affordable energy.



[edit on 3/13/2008 by RGReventlov]

Originally posted by RGReventlov
According to IPCC this began in the 1890s or so right? Do you favor returning to an 1890's level of industry and standard of living?

Nope, I like our level of technology. We just need to be wiser with our use of energy, and production of energy.

I'm not actually what you might call a 'catastrophist'. I'm not sure it will be a catastrophy for me at least. Not too sure about the natives.

If we are to accept everything the mainstream AGW movement espouses and IPCC warns, we need to be prepared to accept continued warming for 100 years even if we capped all human CO2 emissions at present levels. And we'd need to revert to 19th century levels after that to attempt to reverse the trend.

How do we do this?

We need to to reduce emissions. If you can't think of ways to do this, then I'm glad you are not at the forefront of research in this regard.

We are wasteful and myopic. We can use resources more effectively. We can move towards more sustainable forms of energy. We can scrub our emissions. We can build the nuclear power stations we need. We can start taking preventative and adaptive measures now. It will hurt a bit, but I'm sure if we can absorb 300% increases in oil and billion dollar wars in the middle-east, we can work together on this.

We are already locked in for the first doubling, IMO. It's the next 3'C we need to really worry about.

Alternatively, we can ignore the science because a few disingenuous scientists are ideologically motivated, wait for that single piece of research that will even convince them (not on your nelly, heh), and focus on maintaining our economic status above all else.

We must be more than dollars and cents.

The measures being promoted by the mainstream AGW movement are useless, feel good nonsense.

Don't fully agree. But I feel that many governments are attempting to do this.

You see, this is why I said earlier that the root of this problem is unchecked population growth and resource consumption.

I do agree.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for arguments sake. I'm just a pragmatist by nature and don't see any answers to the problems being promoted by the alarmists, short of a return to a pre-industrial way of life or a sudden leap forward to clean, renewable or in-exhaustible, affordable energy.

RG, argue away. It doesn't bother me really.

I don't think that most scientists want to take us back to preindustrial times, might mess with research.

We just need to apply the brains we have. As you note, we are resource hungry beasts. At some point, we will hit breaking point. We either slow our consumption of fossil fuels now, whilst we have a warming warning, move to new forms of energy, hinder and slow our impact, and also prolong the use of cheaper fuels. Or we get a big double whammy in the future.

This mess won't affect me that much. My son will have more of a worry.

Originally posted by RGReventlov

Originally posted by melatonin Didn't really make much difference to the global data. But the main point was that what the earlier poster wanted, is exactly what the temperature data is. That is, anomaly.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

How do you calculate or determine what's anomalous if you don't compare the data to a baseline, which in this case is an absolute temperature (so to speak). I say this because obviously, celsius is not an absolute scale of heat, but a calibrated arbitrary scale.

spelling.

[edit on 3/13/2008 by RGReventlov]

Anomalous is anything that does not work with their "THEORY". It has always been that way and always will. If it doesn't work....don't include it. They call it an outlier, or anything, but they won;t use it in their data.

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)

My reasons for being especially skeptical of AGW catastrophism is the relative ease that global fauna have survived previous interglacial periods, or the entire Mesozoic; and also the apparent advancement humanity underwent during the Holocene Maximum.

This is an interesting statement. Perhaps you should look into how long coral reefs have been around and how we are looking at them all being extinct by 2050. It is hard to ignore how rapidly an entity that has been around, in some cases, for close a to a million years, s currently dying. A statement to the damage that can be done to a climate that has been forced to change so rapidly.

That is what I would call a "ridiculous statement" because proponents of an AGW have so far failed to to provide convincing evidence, and rather use circular arguments such as "our evidence is so strong I don't even have to reference it".

This is rewally quite funny as I think the same of the deniers.

I will admit to having once been as convinced of an AGW as anyone else (An Inconvenient Truth helped that along, especially regarding Mr. Gore's totally unfounded doomsday prophecies), but being curious as to what the other side had to say I looked at that too, and it soon became obvious that I was "fighting" on the wrong side.

Perhaps you would care to share the information that made you change your mind Or perhaps it is so good you are just going to make a circular argument such as "this evidence is just so strong I don't have to share it".

Realizing the negative consequences of a world "going green", that is, starving the developing countries of a critical ingredient for development, sealed the deal.

This was the statement you made that really made me want to reply to you. Could you define this a little bit better? As it stands I think it is one of the most short sighted comments i have ever herd made in regards to development. It shows your complete lack of understanding of current events. Do you realize what the influence of the industrialized world is on the developing nations presently? Are you aware of what the WTO, GATT, Structural Adjustment Programs, and the like have done to these countries and their people? The developing nations have an amazing opportunity to develop in a more sane manner than did the developed nations, and they absolutely MUST.

You do realize that the developed nations are currently using well over half of the worlds yearly resources right? So why in the name of anything sacred would you promote them being able to develop like we did? Why would you want they to follow down the same shortsighted, highly dangerous path we did? My personal opinion is you are simply sharing the ideas someone else put in your head, ideas completely out of context and tied to nothing but ideology.

Plenty of evidence has been shown on this site in support of AGW. I have had a few people offer to show me evidence that AGW is a scam but not a single one has actually been able to do this yet. If you have some big secret then why don't you share it and illuminate us all?