51–60 of 223 posts
That 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?
There's only one y axis, and it's degrees F for both lines.
What 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…
From NASA - volcanic vs solar activity: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html "volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s" Correlation vs causation - while the volcanic winter phenomenon is well-known, there are those that propose that solar activity is the primary driver of climate on Earth: https://www.amazon.com/Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe-I... http://www.bre…
What 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'm really amazed at how climate skeptics try their best to twist and distort reality to rationalize their comfortable but unsustainable lifestyle. Why not pull out Occam's razor and realize that 99% of all environmentalists are worried about the future of human life on this planet, because a lot of data is pointing in that direction, and are not involved in any nefarious global conspiracy theory?
The biggest error in this presentation is that author-chose a scale to ensure that the carbon scale was amplified just right to appear to be the same as the temperature scale. In all other cases, he chose small amplifications so that the other factors would appear to be unchanged.
The second error in this presentation is that the graphs plainly show that aerosols do have a negative correlation with temperature.
The third error is that correlation is not causation. Lack of correlation can prove non-causation, which is what the author was mostly going for. So this is a minor point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. However, it's hard to argue with the speed at which this warming occurs. It's never seen before if you look at all the records we have. That's what's worrying.
The sample size of our records is incredibly small when stacked against the history of the earth and all the records we're missing.
NOAA researchers corrected for the "cold bias" from buoy measurements compared to measurements made in ship engine rooms.
My point isn't to deny the climate is changing but to call into question the quality of the data being used to create models and formulate policy. Each source of measurement has inherent bias and error -- that's the nature of scientific measurement -- especially measurements that often occur in the hulls of a ship. Who calibrates the measurement devices? Who calibrated them 50 years ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't care about what reference is taken. The point is that compared to any reference, the curve is increasing .
That doesn't make sense. What if the reference is 5 minutes ago?
"baseline" just means the line that defines the 0 point on the X-axis.
It is just a flat line across the bottom graph It doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
That gives me even less faith in the quality of findings. Having seen the pathetic state of literature review in the various engineering fields, I cannot expect it to be better in meteorological fields. No doubt there is a certain subset of effective and critical reviewers, but I expect dogma, exciting findings, and name recognition still rule the day. The most the volume of politics in engineering where our work is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think so? There's plenty of ways to indirectly know past temperatures, even if there wasn't a human writing it down.
Not with the accuracy and resolution of the data we have since last century. When you compare the current time series with the reconstructed ones from the past, you're comparing a day by day thermometric reading with the assembled averages of multiple, very noisy and extremely low frequency samples. Very tricky to say from those what might have been the actual speed of change in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
What 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…
One of the more roundabout ways of calling someone a liar that I've seen.