Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time.

That is precisely the kind of argument that I take issue with, and which I have been trying to explain throughout this thread! You can't look at one single year and proclaim that the earth is cooling anymore than you can look at one warm year and proclaim that the earth is warming. I'm saying look at the long term trend and you'll see that the earth is warming.


It seems to me that if 1 year can elminate a temperature variance that took 100 years to occur, then neither time period is sufficient for your purposes.

gc wrote:
FF Canuck wrote:

The bottom line is that there is not nearly enough evidence supporting anthropogenic impact, and plenty enough evidence refuting it, that calls for anything other than more research are baseless.


Where is the evidence that refutes it?


Mac has started a discussion about that here: LINK
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
It seems to me that if 1 year can elminate a temperature variance that took 100 years to occur, then neither time period is sufficient for your purposes.

I disagree. Going back to my coin analogy (bear with me here).
Let's say the number of tails represents the global temperature (more tails = warmer temp). And let's say the earth is warming (the probability of tails is increasing).
When the probability of tails is 50%, and you flip a coin 10 times, you might get 5 heads and five tails (but you might also get 6 tails and 4 heads, etc.)
A while later it's warmer and the probability of tails is now 60%. Now there's a better chance that you will get 6 tails and 4 heads, but you might get 7 tails or five...you might even only get 3 or 4. That doesn't mean that the probability has decreased, the probability is still 60%.
A while later the probability might be 70%, and you might get 7 or even 8 tails.
If you looked only at the year where you got 3 or 4 tails, you might conclude that the earth was cooling, but over time you'd see that you're getting more than 5 tails more often than you are getting less than 5 tails.


hope that's not too confusing :wink:
maybe this article can explain it better than I can...
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, gc, right now the ipcc is using a two headed coin. No matter what the weather or climate does, they claim it as proof of global warming ...errr...climate change. Any contrary evidence is attacked as Big Oil or ignored.

Besides it is all about modern trends and historical data. Neither supports the IPCC.

The last ten years have not been the hottest. In modern history the title goes to the 1930's. Farther back it was the medieval warming period. The seas are not warming as predicted, the troposphere is not warming as predicted. The the Mann hockey stick was disproven. From gores movie-to the correction of the hottest years- to faulty hurricane predictions-right up to the lack of reliability of the computer models - the theory is riddled with errors. The science is not settled, it is full of holes. Therefore, all programs stemming from its predictions should be postponed. Full debate is required.

Looking at it from the ODDS angle, the smart money is on AGW skepticism.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excuse me GC,

The probability of heads or tails is always going to be 50/50. Each new toss is not dependent or in any way effected by any subsequent or previous toss.

Always 50/50.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Excuse me GC,

The probability of heads or tails is always going to be 50/50. Each new toss is not dependent or in any way effected by any subsequent or previous toss.

Always 50/50.

Sorry crazymama, but I was talking about a weighted coin (see my previous post).
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
gc wrote:
Where is the evidence that refutes it?


Mac has started a discussion about that here: LINK

I read the article but I didn't see any evidence that refutes anthropogenic global warming in that article.

...although it is interesting to point out that the article says this:
Quote:
"Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
well, gc, right now the ipcc is using a two headed coin. No matter what the weather or climate does, they claim it as proof of global warming ...errr...climate change. Any contrary evidence is attacked as Big Oil or ignored.

Besides it is all about modern trends and historical data. Neither supports the IPCC.

I'm not here to defend the IPCC. Criticizing the IPCC does not mean that global warming does not exist...that would be known as an "ad hominem".
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I was spoofing your coin flip analogy more than the IPCC. The IPCC does not need anyones help, they pretty much discredit themselves with their mixture of science, business and politics.

So then what is the basis of your AGW theory? You can not say that you do not defend the IPCC and then continue to use arguments based on their reports.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
So then what is the basis of your AGW theory? You can not say that you do not defend the IPCC and then continue to use arguments based on their reports.

I haven't used any arguments based on their reports. The basis of AGW is basic science, known since at least the time of Arrhenius: Link
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
gc wrote:
Where is the evidence that refutes it?


Mac has started a discussion about that here: LINK

I read the article but I didn't see any evidence that refutes anthropogenic global warming in that article.

...although it is interesting to point out that the article says this:
Quote:
"Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.


Then I have to question whether you read it, or actually skimmed it. It is very unambiguous in disproving the central tenet of AGW theory - that human activity in the form of GHG production is the primary driver of recently observed temperature increases.

gc wrote:
I disagree. Going back to my coin analogy (bear with me here)...


I understand standard deviation, it may have been easier for you to simply say that, although bringing it up doesn't help your case as far as I'm concerned. You're arguing that a 100 year trend is valid, while a 1 year trend is not. I say they're both invalid - we should be using Geologic Time. If you have a head for math or stats, you'll realize it is entirely possible for the 100 year 'spike' to be contained within that graph. In fact there's several small up- and down-ward trends inside the much larger and dominant downward trend.

Our current mean temperature is 17.2 degrees celsius. 100 years ago, it was about 16.5 degrees. As you can see from the chart, meaningful long-range mean temperature changes take millions of years to develop.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
Excuse me GC,

The probability of heads or tails is always going to be 50/50. Each new toss is not dependent or in any way effected by any subsequent or previous toss.

Always 50/50.

Sorry crazymama, but I was talking about a weighted coin (see my previous post).


:oops: Oh my thats what I get for stepping into a convo half way. I'll try to not skimm next time. C'est la Vie.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Then I have to question whether you read it, or actually skimmed it. It is very unambiguous in disproving the central tenet of AGW theory - that human activity in the form of GHG production is the primary driver of recently observed temperature increases.

Yes, I did read it. Why don't you pick out the main point or points which you think disproves AGW, and I'll show you why it doesn't disprove it?
Quote:
If you have a head for math or stats, you'll realize it is entirely possible for the 100 year 'spike' to be contained within that graph. In fact there's several small up- and down-ward trends inside the much larger and dominant downward trend.

Since you seem to have a pretty good understanding of basic statistics, then you probably know that if you flip a coin 10 times, the number of heads/tails that you get won't necessarily reflect the probability of getting a head/tail. However, if you flip it 1000 times, you are much more likely to get the actual probability. (link)
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
Then I have to question whether you read it, or actually skimmed it. It is very unambiguous in disproving the central tenet of AGW theory - that human activity in the form of GHG production is the primary driver of recently observed temperature increases.

Yes, I did read it. Why don't you pick out the main point or points which you think disproves AGW, and I'll show you why it doesn't disprove it?


My apologies, as I realize that came off more agressive than intended. I merely found your assertion that it proved nothing rather bold without any specific arguments included. So specific points from the article:

1) The Mann 'hockey stick' was broken, proved to be based on bad math
2) Simple physics demonstrate that human activity is at best responsible for 3% of less than 5% (or more plainly, less than 0.15%) of the Greenhouse Effect
3) CO2 actually lags behind increases in temperature, and increased atmospheric C02 is actually caused by warming, not the other way around
4) The primary influence, by a long shot, of the Earth's mean temperature is solar radiation, which we do not control
5) Therefore, humans are not the primary, or even a significant cause of global warming or climate change

That doesn't include the claims about polar bears and ice caps and what-not. Do disagree with the author's findings? Or do you agree, but hold that this does not disprove AGW?

gc wrote:
Quote:
If you have a head for math or stats, you'll realize it is entirely possible for the 100 year 'spike' to be contained within that graph. In fact there's several small up- and down-ward trends inside the much larger and dominant downward trend.

Since you seem to have a pretty good understanding of basic statistics, then you probably know that if you flip a coin 10 times, the number of heads/tails that you get won't necessarily reflect the probability of getting a head/tail. However, if you flip it 1000 times, you are much more likely to get the actual probability. (link)


I agree. Which is why a collection of data points over millions of years produces more reliable trends than ones made of data points over 100 years, 10 years, or even 1 year. I'm not arguing that the mean surface temperature has not increased over the stated time. But the fact that that period of warming was overridden in one year, combined with the temperature trends on a Geologic timescale, indicates that the impact of CO2 is terribly large. I don't think this is as important a point as those listed above.

To be clear, I think it possible, even likely that the surface temperature of the Earth has been warming for some time. On the other hand, there is some contradictory data out there suggesting the the change in last 10 years were 'flattening', or possible even cooling. I imagine it will be a few more years before we really know for sure.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck, you're doing a great job! I should spend an afternoon at the track more often!!

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My apologies, as I realize that came off more agressive than intended.

No worries, I didn't find it aggressive at all. In fact, I commend you for debating rationally.
FF_Canuck wrote:
1) The Mann 'hockey stick' was broken, proved to be based on bad math

This is probably true, however just because the global temperature doesn't follow the "hockey stick" graph, doesn't mean that it is not warming or that the warming is not due to CO2.
Quote:
2) Simple physics demonstrate that human activity is at best responsible for 3% of less than 5% (or more plainly, less than 0.15%) of the Greenhouse Effect

I don't dispute that either. Water vapour is a bigger contributor, however as the article states, humans don't have any influence on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour would be more or less at the same concentration regardless of humans, but the concentration of carbon dioxide has changed as a result of humans. Remember, we are talking about a change in the global temperature as a result in the change in the amount of greenhouse effect. The best analogy I can think of is to think of carbon dioxide as a t-shirt, and think of water vapour as a winter coat. Sure, the winter coat is the main thing keeping you warm, but if you put a t-shirt on underneath, you will be warmer.
Quote:
3) CO2 actually lags behind increases in temperature, and increased atmospheric C02 is actually caused by warming, not the other way around

Again I won't dispute this, but just because warmer temperatures result in higher CO2 concentrations does not mean that higher CO2 concentrations does not result in higher temperatures.
Quote:
4) The primary influence, by a long shot, of the Earth's mean temperature is solar radiation, which we do not control

I don't know if I would say "by a long shot". Certainly it does have an effect, but that doesn't mean that carbon dioxide doesn't have a significant effect on temperature.
Quote:
5) Therefore, humans are not the primary, or even a significant cause of global warming or climate change

I disagree for the reasons I have stated above.
Quote:
Do disagree with the author's findings? Or do you agree, but hold that this does not disprove AGW?

For the most part, I don't disagree with their findings. However, their findings do not disprove AGW.
Quote:
To be clear, I think it possible, even likely that the surface temperature of the Earth has been warming for some time. On the other hand, there is some contradictory data out there suggesting the the change in last 10 years were 'flattening', or possible even cooling. I imagine it will be a few more years before we really know for sure.

I think you're right that we'll know in the future whether the earth is still warming or not. But let me leave you with this: I'd say that the basic science of how carbon dioxide warms the earth is not really disputed. In the absence of other effects, the earth should warm due to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. If the earth is not warming, there must be other factors at play. IOW, pretend that the global temperature remains constant in the next 10 years. That would mean that in the absence of the greenhouse effect of CO2 the earth's temperature would be decreasing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


climate facts to warm to...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB