It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Originally posted by pause4thought
The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.
Well they KNOW it has been retreating for DECADES (and longer than that too!!), so WHY are they soooo surprised at this????? Ice doesn't choose to melt just because it feels like it.
It's a BS argument.
Another thing massively over looked is the drop after 1500. WHY?
In your CO2 graph, it shows in the 1500s CO2 at ~280 ppm, and in the last data plot ~340. Over 500 YEARS (half a MILLENNIA!) it only rose 60 ppm, or 21% compared with the 1500 levels. In 500 YEARS????
In 1750 CO2 levels are recorded as being at the same levels as in 1500. Between 1750 and 2000 (250 YEARS), CO2 steadily rose. THIS PRE-DATES THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY AT LEAST 100 YEARS.
The changes that occurred during this period (1760-1850), in fact, occurred gradually. The year 1760 is generally accepted as the “eve” of the Industrial Revolution. In reality, this eve began more than two centuries before this date. The late 18th century and the early l9th century brought to fruition the ideas and discoveries of those who had long passed on, such as, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes and others.
What caused the very large rise after the low shortly after 1500, to 1750??? We had no industrial revolution at that time, so what caused it???
Looking at your temperature chart, has anyone asked why AFTER 1940, the CO2 level DROPPED??
Going on from this, INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT INCREASED MASSIVELY DURING THIS STEADY PERIOD! More cars on the road than ever, more industry, more people.... the list goes on. Yet it remained STEADY???
Here is an inconvenient truth for you to try and explain away: In the early 1970s, Europe passed a Clean Air Bill. Curious that this is exactly the same time that temperatures start rising.
One Antarctic ice shelf has quickly vanished, another is disappearing and glaciers are melting faster than anyone thought due to climate change, U.S. and British government researchers reported on Friday.
Originally posted by BlasteR
It is belived that man contributes about .28% (less than one percent) of all the world's greenhouse gases..
www.geocraft.com...
Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
Premature triumphalism on your part. Big style.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Originally posted by pause4thought
The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.
Well they KNOW it has been retreating for DECADES (and longer than that too!!), so WHY are they soooo surprised at this????? Ice doesn't choose to melt just because it feels like it.
It's a BS argument.
On the contrary, whether or not they were surprised is absolutely irrelevant. That's one of the lamest straw man arguments I've ever seen. The fact it has been retreating for decades just strengthens the case for GW!
Another thing massively over looked is the drop after 1500. WHY?
Nothing worthy of caps lock, that's for sure. It's clearly within the range of the obvious natural cyclical pattern evident prior to the late 18th century.
In your CO2 graph, it shows in the 1500s CO2 at ~280 ppm, and in the last data plot ~340. Over 500 YEARS (half a MILLENNIA!) it only rose 60 ppm, or 21% compared with the 1500 levels. In 500 YEARS????
In a complex system it's about tipping points, not absolutes. I'm sorry to say you don't know what you're talking about.
In 1750 CO2 levels are recorded as being at the same levels as in 1500. Between 1750 and 2000 (250 YEARS), CO2 steadily rose. THIS PRE-DATES THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY AT LEAST 100 YEARS.
WRONG. Definition of the Industrial Revolution from Yale University:
The changes that occurred during this period (1760-1850), in fact, occurred gradually. The year 1760 is generally accepted as the “eve” of the Industrial Revolution. In reality, this eve began more than two centuries before this date. The late 18th century and the early l9th century brought to fruition the ideas and discoveries of those who had long passed on, such as, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes and others.
Source (emphasis mine)
How wrong can you get? Let's keep looking...
What caused the very large rise after the low shortly after 1500, to 1750??? We had no industrial revolution at that time, so what caused it???
The only chart that shows data relating to pre 1750 relates to atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica. It shows a natural cyclical pattern prior to that date! Cue industrial revolution, cue unabated increase. And even though that particular chart could reasonably be interpreted as showing a natural upturn up to circa 1875, thereafter it just rockets. And if that's not a clear correlation with the widespread growth of heavy industry in the latter half of the nineteenth century I don't know what is.
Looking at your temperature chart, has anyone asked why AFTER 1940, the CO2 level DROPPED??
Look again. What the chart actually says is that there was a drop between 1945 and the mid 50s. Is it necessary to state the obvious? -Heavy industry had been heavily damaged and it took years for the devastated economies to recover. Personally I wouldn't make a meal out of such relatively minor fluctuations, though. Atmospheric CO2 depends on the interaction of a great many factors. Either way on closer inspection your argument crumbles once again.
Going on from this, INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT INCREASED MASSIVELY DURING THIS STEADY PERIOD! More cars on the road than ever, more industry, more people.... the list goes on. Yet it remained STEADY???
As I say, you are reading far too much into the graph. For a start it was not steady, but fluctuating, and secondly the scale of the variation is insufficient to form the basis of an argument. You are simply jumping to conclusions over and over again.
Here is an inconvenient truth for you to try and explain away: In the early 1970s, Europe passed a Clean Air Bill. Curious that this is exactly the same time that temperatures start rising.
Easy. Technological advances and their uptake by industry have been slow processes. Legislation takes such realities into account, pushing industries to improve as quickly as possible, but back in the 70s that was not quick in absolute terms due to the size of the challenges both in terms of technology and cost.
Nothing in your post stands up to even a cursory examination, copious use of capslock notwithstanding.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
Originally posted by finemanm
Okay, for those of you who agree that it happening, but don't agree that we are the source:
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
97% of people who study this agree. To make this hit home for the deniers, if 97% of NASCAR mechanics said that a particular type of motor oil was far superior, would you doubt them?
As an aside, only 64% of meteorologist agree... hmmm .... these guys can't agree if it will be sunny or rainy tomorrow. That’s why my favorite meteorologist are pretty.
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
[edit on 12-4-2009 by finemanm]
with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Statistical Significance - Pitfalls
A common misconception is that a statistically significant result is always of practical significance, or demonstrates a large effect in the population. Unfortunately, this problem is commonly encountered in scientific writing.[1] Given a sufficiently large sample, extremely small and non-notable differences can be found to be statistically significant, and statistical significance says nothing about the practical significance of a difference.
One of the more common problems in significance testing is the tendency for multiple comparisons to yield spurious significant differences even where the null hypothesis is true. For instance, in a study of twenty comparisons, using an α-level of 5%, one comparison will likely yield a significant result despite the null hypothesis being true. In these cases p-values are adjusted in order to control either the familywise error rate or the false discovery rate.
An additional problem is that frequentist analyses of p-values are considered by some to overstate "statistical significance".[2][3] See Bayes factor for details.
Yet another common pitfall often happens when a researcher writes the ambiguous statement "we found no statistically significant difference," which is then misquoted by others as "they found that there was no difference." Actually, statistics cannot be used to prove that there is exactly zero difference between two populations. Failing to find evidence that there is a difference does not constitute evidence that there is no difference. This principle is sometimes described by the maxim "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
According to J. Scott Armstrong, attempts to educate researchers on how to avoid pitfalls of using statistical significance have had little success. In the papers "Significance Tests Harm Progress in Forecasting,"[4] and "Statistical Significance Tests are Unnecessary Even When Properly Done,"[5] Armstrong makes the case that even when done properly, statistical significance tests are of no value. A number of attempts failed to find empirical evidence supporting the use of significance tests. Tests of statistical significance are harmful to the development of scientific knowledge because they distract researchers from the use of proper methods.[citation needed] Armstrong suggests authors should avoid tests of statistical significance; instead, they should report on effect sizes, confidence intervals, replications/extensions, and meta-analyses.
Use of the statistical significance test has been called seriously flawed and unscientific by authors Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak. They point out that "insignificance" does not mean unimportant, and propose that the scientific community should abandon usage of the test altogether, as it can cause false hypotheses to be accepted and true hypotheses to be rejected.[6][1]
Meta-Analysis - File Drawer Problem
A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'. Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size. Another weakness of the method is the heavy reliance on published studies, which may increase the effect as it is very hard to publish studies that show no significant results. This publication bias or "file-drawer effect" (where non-significant studies end up in the desk drawer instead of in the public domain) should be seriously considered when interpreting the outcomes of a meta-analysis. Because of the risk of publication bias, many meta-analyses now include a "failsafe N" statistic that calculates the number of studies with null results that would need to be added to the meta-analysis in order for an effect to no longer be reliable.
The file drawer problem describes the often observed fact that only results with significant parameters are published in academic journals. As a results the distribution of effect sizes are biased, skewed or completely cut off. This can be visualized with a funnel plot which is a scatter plot of sample size and effect sizes. There are several procedures available to correct for the file drawer problem, once identified, such as simulating the cut off part of the distribution of study effects.
THE MANY CAUSES OF CLIMATIC CHANGE
Between 1850 and 1990 the global-mean temperature at the surface of the Earth warmed by approximately 0.5°C (about 1°F). During the same period, the amount of carbon dioxide measured in the Earth's atmosphere increased by about 25 percent, as a consequence of our ever- increasing use of fossil fuels (Fig. 3c). This raises the possibility that the two trends are directly connected, and that the century-long warming is a long- anticipated sign of the climate system's response to human activities.
Still, more factors were obviously perturbing the climate system than the lone hand of greenhouse gases. The global-mean temperature did not rise steadily: statistical analyses of the temperature record since 1850 reveal significant year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability. Moreover, what is known of the longer climatic record suggests that surface temperatures may have been systematically increasing since the late 17th century (Figure 3d), well before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when greenhouse gas concentrations first began their upward climb.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
www.gcrio.org...
THE MANY CAUSES OF CLIMATIC CHANGE
The rapid warming since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or suspected effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate.
None of the natural processes can account for the
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years...
That role could be very small. Again, yet another ommission from the pro-MMGW camp.
Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by pause4thought
It's a great pity so many continue to argue global warming is a myth
Sigh....
I can't remember how many times I've had to correct this statement. Most of us that say otherwise say that Global Warming is NOT ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED. We are not denying that climate shift is happening, just that it is a NATURAL OCCURRENCE and NOT human-caused.
[edit on 5/4/2009 by Kryties]
Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by pause4thought
Water vapor is overwhelmingly the largest greenhouse gas--in the 90th percentile. Not much we can do about that.
Methane (cow farts) is also up there. Should we kill off all cows?
Volcanism too.
And our Co2 emissions are a fraction of a fraction of all that.
Solar activity is the largest cause of global warming, and has been tracked over centuries and its alignment with temperature trends is compelling.
We should reign in pollution, but not by using this strawman.