Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming shouldn't be happening


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#16    Queen in the North

Queen in the North

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,509 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • We're more Ceefax people.

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:18 PM

Even if global warming isn't caused by us (which I believe it is), surely going 'green' and trying to reduce fossil fuel use in favour of more sustainable fuels, reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing?

Posted Image

#17    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:39 PM

"Graphs don't show much of anything."
the graphs do not show any 20th century uptick.

"You have provided no information on the reliability of either their analysis or yours (if you did one.)."
since there is no 20th century uptick in the black and white plots, there is no need to "analyse" it.

"First you complain about the data"
i did not complain about the data

"then you decide that it's really the way the data was analyzed"
neither did i comment on the way it was analysed.
its quite simple - there is no 20th century uptick in the data, yet one appears in their final reconstruction. the only way they could have done that is splicing on higher resolution data (instrumental record) which is deceitful, unless of course they are drawing graphs freehand with crayons.

"So when you ran a smoothing spline over the entire dataset, what did you get?
obviously a spline using the data would not produce a 20th century uptick unless you deceitfully splice on the instrumental record.


#18    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:42 PM

View PostQueen in the North, on 09 March 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Even if global warming isn't caused by us (which I believe it is), surely going 'green' and trying to reduce fossil fuel use in favour of more sustainable fuels, reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing?
do you think you can achieve a better world by lying and deceit?
all those bankers that will transfer trillions from the ordinary workers to wall street as they speculate up the price of "carbon" and your electricity price keeps doubling - that's a better world? i suppose if you are a billionaire and you want more, you might see it that way.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 11:46 PM.


#19    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,786 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:52 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

do you think you can achieve a better world by lying and deceit?
all those bankers that will transfer trillions from the ordinary workers to wall street as they speculate up the price of "carbon" and your electricity price keeps doubling - that's a better world? i suppose if you are a billionaire and you want more, you might see it that way.
You obviously do judging by your sources :clap:
Funnest thing I have heard all day :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 09 March 2013 - 11:53 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#20    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:59 PM

here is a northern hemisphere reconstruction using 120 different proxies from across the world covering the last 2,000 years, resolution 50 years.

Posted Image

here is the reconstruction using 78 proxies, covering 11,000 years that takes data points averaging 120 years apart (some series have data points 500 years apart)
Posted Image

look how they differ, what happened to the MWP in the bottom chart - see at 1,000 years ago in the top chart.
look at the top chart, around 500 AD it swings 3 celcius in a short period of time, now look at the variance on y axis the bottom chart.

there is no SH reconstruction which shows the top chart inverted. there are many proxies in the SH that show the same as the top chart though, so the top chart is similar to global chart (before that old chestnut rears its head), also the mann et al grey plot in the bottom graph is NH only.

Edited by Little Fish, 10 March 2013 - 12:13 AM.


#21    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,786 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:07 AM

Can you clarify where the Marcott et al paper was published ? Google doesn't seem to find it.
Edit: Unfortunately judging by past form i cannot take any reference you make literally without personally verifying that the original paper is saying what you claim.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 10 March 2013 - 12:14 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#22    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:24 AM

http://www.sciencema...c2-db223cde68c6

there is commentary here
http://www.thegwpf.o...28-11300-years/

Edited by Little Fish, 10 March 2013 - 12:27 AM.


#23    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,786 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:27 AM

Quote

Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
I suspect that someone has been doing some dodgy splicing.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 10 March 2013 - 12:31 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#24    Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Heaven Is A Halfpipe

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Hi. My name is Spike.

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:54 PM

The planet is actually cooling the last I read, that's why they, more often than not, refer to it as "climate change" these days because "global warming" is inaccurate. Unfortunately, we cannot control the influence of the sun on the planet, certainly we are not responsible for the planetary climate change. We are a very small contribution. No point worrying about what we can't control. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it will continue to do so. Trust in nature to take care of the planet.

Edited by The Skater Boy, 10 March 2013 - 03:55 PM.

You can go the distance, you can run the mile and you can walk straight through HELL with a smile.

My UM Credentials: http://www.unexplain...5


#25    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:13 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

do you think you can achieve a better world by lying and deceit?
all those bankers that will transfer trillions from the ordinary workers to wall street as they speculate up the price of "carbon" and your electricity price keeps doubling - that's a better world? i suppose if you are a billionaire and you want more, you might see it that way.
You have hit one of the problems on the head.

Cap-and-trade is the industrial fall-back position.  If they lose the first line and people start demanding CO2 regulation, they can "comply" with cap-and-trade.  Why?  BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK.

An example:  the Red River Wetlands Project in northern Louisiana:  It was started by carbon "mitigation" money provided by Detroit Edison as an offset to their CO2 emissions.  A big chunk of the money went to purchase the land (providing no offset to carbon pollution).  The most-effective wetland carbon sink is a bottomland oak forest.  Oaks are large (sequestering a lot of carbon), live a long time (400 years is common.) and grow in dense stands (Lots of carbon per hectare.).  But to a power company, a tree is a tree.  They planted about 50% honeylocust and sweetgum.  Both are good trees in an oak stand if you don't plant too many (over 25%).  Thus, carbon sequestration on these 13,000 acres is considerably less than it could be.

And that bit about bankers:  speculators deal in carbon credits already.  A lot of money will be diverted from carbon sequestration by the costs of regulating the market.  Inspectors and certification companies don't work for free.  So even legitimate use of the money gives it a low efficiency.  And if speculators drive the price up???

Better idea:  a carbon fee charged at the well-head, mine mouth or port-of-entry (based on birth-to-death carbon footprint of the imported item).  That money is placed in a fund to be divided EQUALLY (because everybody contributes to carbon pollution by using carbon products) among the entire population as an offset to the increased costs of producing carbon products.  Gradually raise the price over time.  Let each person decide for himself how to spend the money.  The gradually-increasing costs of carbon will stear the market toward products with a smaller carbon footprint.  No regulation needed.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#26    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:26 PM

View PostThe Skater Boy, on 10 March 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

The planet is actually cooling the last I read, that's why they, more often than not, refer to it as "climate change" these days because "global warming" is inaccurate. Unfortunately, we cannot control the influence of the sun on the planet, certainly we are not responsible for the planetary climate change. We are a very small contribution. No point worrying about what we can't control. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it will continue to do so. Trust in nature to take care of the planet.
I think there is abundant evidence that temperatures are in fact going up almost everywhere.  Random weather events create a lot of noise, but warming is happening.The sun is also heating up, but this is a tens of millions of years affair, having nothing to do with the present short-term warming.


#27    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:27 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

here is a northern hemisphere reconstruction using 120 different proxies from across the world covering the last 2,000 years, resolution 50 years.

here is the reconstruction using 78 proxies, covering 11,000 years that takes data points averaging 120 years apart (some series have data points 500 years apart)

look how they differ, what happened to the MWP in the bottom chart - see at 1,000 years ago in the top chart.
look at the top chart, around 500 AD it swings 3 celcius in a short period of time, now look at the variance on y axis the bottom chart.

there is no SH reconstruction which shows the top chart inverted. there are many proxies in the SH that show the same as the top chart though, so the top chart is similar to global chart (before that old chestnut rears its head), also the mann et al grey plot in the bottom graph is NH only.
Somewhere I heard of a book called:  "How to lie with Charts and Graphs."  I'd suggest you read it, but I don't think you need to.

The example I remember from it involved a mountain pine beetle control project in northern Colorado.  The person who drew it used red, yellow and green to color-code the intensity levels with green being lowest and red being highest.  The map had a huge chunk of red, which scared a lot of people who demanded that the legislature fund a control project.  The catch?  The highest concentration of beetle hits (indicated by red) was just 4% of trees in any given stand - almost no danger of spread.  If you see red on a chart, suspect somebody is trying to direct your attention.

And there are other wyas to lie with charts, like making comparisons using two different scales, etc.

Try putting up the data.  It doesn't lie.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#28    Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Heaven Is A Halfpipe

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Hi. My name is Spike.

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:41 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 10 March 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

I think there is abundant evidence that temperatures are in fact going up almost everywhere.  Random weather events create a lot of noise, but warming is happening.The sun is also heating up, but this is a tens of millions of years affair, having nothing to do with the present short-term warming.

It was only a few years ago that China had its coldest winter in 100 years. Whether the planet is cooling or warming is irrelevant really. It's been doing so since the planet was formed and it'll continue to do so long after we've gone. I'm sure we do have an effect on it but not as much as the government would like us to think. *coughs* more taxes. *coughs*

You can go the distance, you can run the mile and you can walk straight through HELL with a smile.

My UM Credentials: http://www.unexplain...5


#29    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,786 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostThe Skater Boy, on 10 March 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

It was only a few years ago that China had its coldest winter in 100 years. Whether the planet is cooling or warming is irrelevant really. It's been doing so since the planet was formed and it'll continue to do so long after we've gone. I'm sure we do have an effect on it but not as much as the government would like us to think. *coughs* more taxes. *coughs*
Its called Global warming because the overall trend of global mean temperature is upwards. it is still upwards but a predominence of La Nina events means more of the energy is been drawn down into the deep ocean so surface temperatures have been rising more slowly over the last decade.
Climate change is caused by global warming and it causes changes in local weather systems. This causes places like China to have different weather to normal and that can be both warm or cold. In exactly the same period Northern Europe has seen a significant increase in extreme precipitation events causing widespread flooding. America's midwest has seen the strongest drought for over half a century (with no signs of ending any time soon). last year was one of the hottest ever recorded in Australia.

All these events point to climate change caused by Global Warming. Expect some very dramatic surface temperature warming when the El Nino flips back into dominance in the next few years.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#30    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,786 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:04 PM

On the Marcott paper, the lead authors own analysis says;

Quote

"When you just look at one part of the world, the temperature history can be affected by regional climate processes like El Niño or monsoon variations," noted Clark. "But when you combine the data from sites all around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history."
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) -- until the past 100 years, when it warmed ̴ 1.3 degrees (F). The largest changes were in the northern hemisphere, where there are more land masses and greater human populations.
Climate models project that global temperature will rise another 2.0 to 11.5 degrees (F) by the end of this century, largely dependent on the magnitude of carbon emissions. "What is most troubling," Clark said, "is that this warming will be significantly greater than at any time during the past 11,300 years."
Marcott said that one of the natural factors affecting global temperatures over the past 11,300 years is gradual change in the distribution of solar insolation associated with Earth's position relative to the sun.
"During the warmest period of the Holocene, the Earth was positioned such that Northern Hemisphere summers warmed more," Marcott said. "As the Earth's orientation changed, Northern Hemisphere summers became cooler, and we should now be near the bottom of this long-term cooling trend -- but obviously, we are not."

........

"The Earth's climate is complex and responds to multiple forcings, including CO2 and solar insolation," Marcott said. "Both of those changed very slowly over the past 11,000 years. But in the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 through increased emissions from human activities has been significant. It is the only variable that can best explain the rapid increase in global temperatures."

http://www.scienceda...30307145303.htm

This paper both confirms the assertion made at the start of this thread and adds strong support to the analysis conducted by Michael Mann. The overall conclusion is that current warming breaks the long term cyclic downward trend predicted by the Milankovich cycles and TSI.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 March 2013 - 02:07 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users