 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 17/600) |
|
ryan.hess
|
AUG 05, 02:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
Let me know if you'd like the sources for those. Note that solar forcing has a time lag. It would seem to agree with the theory I've recently read that the oceans, rather than greenhouse gasses, drive temperature. Also, the oceans change their temperature VERY slowly, so a lag of several years makes sense with a sun-ocean-driven climate system.
|
|
I don't know what went into the model you posted, and I can't find a reference study. Is it possible they included GG's without your knowledge?
From the same site:
Looks like solar + green house gases correspond to a 92% correlation?
My previous source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/clim...cientific-spm-en.pdf[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 08-05-2008).]
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
AUG 05, 02:58 PM
|
|
CO2, sun and temperature all put together, 1860-2000. CO2 doesn't seem to be doing much. But the sun fits nicely to temperature:
From here. I'm looking into where the data sets came from. I'd like to check them out.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
AUG 05, 03:01 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
I don't know what went into the model you posted, and I can't find a reference study. Is it possible they included GG's without your knowledge?
From the same site:
Looks like solar + green house gases correspond to a 92% correlation?
My previous source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/clim...cientific-spm-en.pdf
|
|
Actually, you've misinterpreted the graph. The 92% correlation is sun + GHG. GHG alone has a 51% correlation, sun alone has a 71% correlation. That's a MUCH stronger sun correlation than GHG. With a higher sun correlation, you could make a good point that GHG is more coincidental than a forcing.[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-05-2008).]
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
AUG 05, 03:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Who is "they"? Is there a link or (presumably leftist/commy) news article that backs this up?
|
|
They is the AGW crowd. The article was in an issue of Time Magazine last fall. The article actually specifically lambasted the AGW proponents for their hurricane predictions that didn't come true, which they then also blamed on AGW. It was actually about how they are having it both ways. Surprising for Time, actually...
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
AUG 05, 03:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
Actually, you've misinterpreted the graph. The 92% correlation is sun + GHG. GHG alone has a 51% correlation, sun alone has a 71% correlation. That's a MUCH stronger sun correlation than GHG. With a higher sun correlation, you could make a good point that GHG is more coincidental than a forcing.
|
|
Did I say GG's caused 100% of GW? No. Are they a contributing cause? Clearly. That's my point. I think that's everyone's point. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, just like global cooling. However, the evidence points to GG's increasing the global warming beyond where they would naturally be. (See your graph, and mine.)
It's hard to argue with a 92% correlation when the sun alone has less correlation. 0.7 or 0.5 correlation is not anything to get excited about.
Various correlation coefficients:
0.92 is a much stronger case than 0.7 or 0.5. BTW, if greenhouse gases were NOT related to global warming, they'd have a correlation coefficient of 0.... or maybe 0.1.  [This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 08-05-2008).]
|
|
|
|
4-mulaGT
|
AUG 05, 10:50 PM
|
|
The problem is that correlation is NOT proof.
It is, at best, weak evidence,
I farted, and at the same second 2 people in the world died..... Does it mean that my farts are killing people?? (Seriously  )
There is still a good chance that any climate trend is actually being caused by something we haven't found yet....
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
AUG 05, 10:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Did I say GG's caused 100% of GW? |
|
I didn't mean to imply that you had, only that you seemed to be reading the percentages incorrectly.
| quote | | No. Are they a contributing cause? Clearly. That's my point. I think that's everyone's point. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, just like global cooling. However, the evidence points to GG's increasing the global warming beyond where they would naturally be. (See your graph, and mine.) |
|
It is quite possible that manmade GHGs are contributing to a rise in temperatures, but there is just as much evidence (or lack of proof) to suggest that the amount is insignificant. It's like peeing in the ocean. Will it contribute to a rise in sea level? Yes. Is it significant or anything to be concerned about? No.
| quote | It's hard to argue with a 92% correlation when the sun alone has less correlation. 0.7 or 0.5 correlation is not anything to get excited about.
Various correlation coefficients:
|
|
I'm sorry, your graphic is too small to read.
It is important to point out that correlation is not causation. That CO2 and temperatures have risen together, more or less, in the last century is clear. That CO2 is causing that rise, or at least any significant amount, cannot be taken as fact. To put some historical perspective on it, look through Earth's temperature/CO2 history. You'll find that at NO time, anywhere in Earth's history, has CO2 driven temperature. That should be taken into account when deciding whether CO2 is driving temperatures now, or it's just a coincidence that they are rising (even in the loosest sense) right now. To further drive home that point, you'll find that, historically, CO2 follows temperature rise. From a scientific point of view, it should have been concluded that the same has been happening for the last century. At least that would be the logical, non-emotional conclusion.
Look again at my graph with CO2, temperature and sun. You'll find CO2 continues up, but temperature does not. There is a noticeable disconnect. That should be taken into account.
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
AUG 06, 01:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 4-mulaGT:
The problem is that correlation is NOT proof.
|
|
Nor does it imply cause and effect. A statistical correlation on one measure does not necessarily mean anything which is why science is always looking for multiple sources of data from different disciplines to be able to imply a causal relationship.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
AUG 11, 05:54 PM
|
|
Here's some good news. It looks like the American public really isn't buying into this bullshit afterall..
Only 25 Percent See Global Warming Threat
ABC poll finds few Americans see climate change as environment's biggest threat, more trust business than government to address problems.
By Nathan Burchfiel
Business & Media Institute
8/11/2008 1:14:36 PM
In spite of the media’s obsession with global warming, only 25 percent of Americans view climate change as the world’s biggest environmental threat, according to a new ABC News poll. Fewer than half – 47 percent – viewed global warming as “extremely” or “very” important to them.
Those numbers and others from the poll don’t fit the common media theme that there is a scientific “consensus” on global warming: that it is caused by humans and will have catastrophic consequences.
Those poll numbers gave way to more media spin in an ABC “World News Saturday” report August 9.
“After years of debate over the reality of global warming, 80 percent of those polled now say they accept it as fact,” anchor Bill Weir reported. “Seventy-three percent say it is a threat to today’s children and 63 percent believe people and industry are to blame.”
But Weir didn’t mention that while 80 percent of Americans believe global warming is occurring, they see much more nuanced debate over the causes and potential effects. While the media have tried to silence debate on global warming – as the Business & Media Institute showed in its report, “Global Warming Censored” – the American people understand there is still not a consensus.
Sixty-three percent said there is “a lot of disagreement among scientists” on the causes of global warming. Only 33 percent of respondents said they think “things people do” are mostly responsible for climate change, down from 41 percent in April 2007.
The media offer catastrophic predictions on the effects of global warming on everything from floods to fires to the cute and cuddly polar bears. Even with the media ignoring the debate, 62 percent of Americans realize scientists disagree on how serious a threat climate change actually poses.
And even though the media tend to run to the government for fixes to global warming problems, Americans seem have more faith in markets. Forty-three percent said the government would do a better job reducing warming, while 45 percent said businesses are better equipped to address the problem through market-based competition.
Support for government programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions might be lower if the media reported the severe cost of legislative proposals like the failed Lieberman-Warner bill. That legislation would have established a carbon cap-and-trade system. According to some estimates, it would have cost every man, woman and child nearly $500 a year.
The poll results suggested the media have some work to do to build its own credibility. Only 38 percent of respondents said “most” or “all” of written and broadcast news is accurate.
The media are hyping global warming now, but in the past 100 years of coverage on “climate change” issues, they have flip-flopped between cooling and warming dangers several times. The Business & Media Institute’s special report, “Fire and Ice,” showed that as recently as 30 years ago, the media warned of a coming ice age.
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
AUG 12, 02:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
Only 25 Percent See Global Warming Threat
ABC poll finds few Americans see climate change as environment's biggest threat, more trust business than government to address problems.
By Nathan Burchfiel
Business & Media Institute
8/11/2008 1:14:36 PM
...snip...
The media are hyping global warming now, but in the past 100 years of coverage on “climate change” issues, they have flip-flopped between cooling and warming dangers several times. The Business & Media Institute’s special report, “Fire and Ice,” showed that as recently as 30 years ago, the media warned of a coming ice age.
|
|
Just quoting the last line of the artcile Fierobear posted-
But INDEED- Articles in the mid 70's predicted famine and such by the mid 1980's due to "global cooling" and the crop failures that would result from it...Seems as though that cooling never happened, LOL.[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 08-12-2008).]
|
|
|
|