[deleted]
What's Really Warming the World?
21–30 of 223 posts
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#22I can accept that in an infographic meant for a wide audience very strong correlation may imply causation. The aim of the infographic is, indeed, praiseworthy.
However the missing y axis for the second factor really upsets me! What's the normalization? How has data been rescaled? That can affect __a lot__ how visually correlated two datasets appear.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make sense. What if the reference is 5 minutes ago?
Take the reference that is 5min ago, call it T0. You will still observe that temperatures (i.e the sequence of measured temperatures minus T0) are increasing. Changing the reference changes the y-scale of a graph, but does not change the derivative (the speed at which it changes, i.e. increases or decreases).
Did you look at the graph?
The local derivative is most definitely not indicative of a general trend.
For comparison, I throw a ball down at the ground, and for the first 0.1 seconds it's moving down - can I conclude that the ball is going to keep moving down, even when it hits the ground? That's your logic.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#24What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…
It's because global warming politics has nothing to do with temperature. The incentive isn't to cool the planet, but alter the world economic model. Whether or not that's a worthy goal is irrelevant -- using the climate to advance that apparent agenda is fraudulent.
Here's more on that theory -- with appropriate links to source material from the UN. https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/441rl6/un_...
This is not dissimilar to the Eugenics debates in the early 20th century: it was 'settled science' advocated by thought leaders and politicians at the time -- some with noble intentions but ultimately the core of the issue was the elimination of so-called undesirables in society using 'science' as a rationale. Look at documents and speeches by Eugenics proponents at the time -- strangly similar to the "settled science" arguments one hears today. The purpose of the Eugenics movements was far different than the climate movement today -- but no less nefarious depending on the side of the issue you may fall.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#25That was really cool but it bothers me that they don't show the y axis for the effecting factors. Does anyone know if it's normalized or completely arbitrary?
As I understood it they all showed (modeled) contribution to temperature change at the same scale as the data graph, that's why they could all sum up at the end.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#26True, but the facts almost seem beside the point to climate change deniers.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#27What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…
What do you propose? You raised a nit, and didn't propose a solution.
As another commentor pointed out, this is a trivial fact known to all researchers in the field. If this was actually a devastating reply, then it would be pointed out in peer reviewed journals.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#28Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the argument we need is that global warming is happening - yes, there are deniers - I think we need better proof that we're actually fucked if temperatures keep going this way. That's what I see people pushing back against now, not so much the reality that climate change is now happening.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#29What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…
It's because global warming politics has nothing to do with temperature. The incentive isn't to cool the planet, but alter the world economic model. Whether or not that's a worthy goal is irrelevant -- using the climate to advance that apparent agenda is fraudulent. Here's more on that theory -- with appropriate links to source material from the UN. https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/441rl6/un_... This…
I do not see any will to abandon the current world order or really even take anything like adequate steps to address the problem.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#30What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…
> proponents of global warming aren't engaging with the facts in an honest and forthright way. You want to read about global warming from climate scientists, as your questions are easily answered. Peer reviewers are as vicious as in any other science: the concerns you raise here would be the least of their ammunition.
He was not complaining about a lack of available information. He was complaining about non-rigorous arguments being passed off as a sufficient justification of a political position.
If I say global warming is caused by the decline in the population of pirates in the world, my conclusion may be correct but my reasoning is flawed. If people pressured you to believe in global warming on the basis of the pirate argument, you would be right to push back on that.