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

#1    archer95446

archer95446

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:here, not there!!!

  • The picture is of my great great grandparents, on their 60th wedding anniversary!!!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:32 PM

The earth has been drastically heating up, since the 20th century.  According to this article, it should be getting colder!!!!

"WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study looking at 11,000 years of climate temperatures shows the world in the middle of a dramatic U-turn, lurching from near-record cooling to a heat spike.
Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures back to the end of the last ice age. It shows how the globe for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.
Scientists say it is further evidence that modern-day global warming isn't natural, but the result of rising carbon dioxide emissions that have rapidly grown since the Industrial Revolution began roughly 250 years ago."

here is the link for the rest of today's article:

http://xfinity.comca...perature-Spike/


#2    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:39 PM

News not.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#3    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,644 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:59 PM

Doesn't surprise me at all.


#4    archer95446

archer95446

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:here, not there!!!

  • The picture is of my great great grandparents, on their 60th wedding anniversary!!!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:01 AM

Everybody has the right to their own opinion!!  I'm not going to tell anyone, that they're wrong, if they percieve something differently than I do!!!
Global warming doesn't mean that we're only going to get warm to hot temperatures 24/7, it includes extreme weather fluctuations, like what a lot of locations
around the world, are experiencing lately. These last couple of years, I've noticed that the winter air is dryer than usual, where I live (makes my
allergies unbearable!!!).


#5    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 - 04:58 PM

the resolution on this study is 100 years, effectively that brushes out variable upticks and downticks occurring between 100 year periods, so how did they get the big uptick at the end when most of the warming of the 20c was since 1970.

red flag's gone up for dodgy statistics, did they splice on the higher resolution instrumental record again.


#6    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

the resolution on this study is 100 years, effectively that brushes out variable upticks and downticks occurring between 100 year periods, so how did they get the big uptick at the end when most of the warming of the 20c was since 1970.
"Resolution" refers to the smallest period the study can measure.  It would be more accurate to say that the study covers a 100-year period rather than its resolution is 100 years.

Quote

red flag's gone up for dodgy statistics, did they splice on the higher resolution instrumental record again.
As a matter of fact, no they didn't.  But the authors did note that the instrumental record is more accuarte.
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

#7    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 - 08:56 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 09 March 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

"Resolution" refers to the smallest period the study can measure.
yes we know.
the resolution is 100 years.

"it would be more accurate to say that the study covers a 100-year period rather than its resolution is 100 years."
the study covers a period of 11,300 years, its resolution is 100 years.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 08:56 PM.


#8    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 - 09:25 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 09 March 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Quote

red flag's gone up for dodgy statistics, did they splice on the higher resolution instrumental record again.

As a matter of fact, no they didn't.  But the authors did note that the instrumental record is more accuarte.
hi doug, i'm going to rasie the bull**** flag i'm afraid.

here is a set of 5 series used for the reconstruction:
Posted Image


here is another 35 series:
Posted Image


here is another 20:
Posted Image

no end uptick in any them.

here is their "reconstruction" :
Posted Image

so where did they get the pink uptick at the end? none of their proxy series uptick at year zero.

what they've done is splice on a higher resolution instrumental onto a 100 year resolution reconstruction, meaning that kind of uptick at the end could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years but the resolution would not display it, which means its bogus.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 09:35 PM.


#9    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 09 March 2013 - 09:35 PM

The last 4000 years or so has shown a steady but slow decline trend at far stronger resolution than used in this study. It stopped and reversed in the last 100years.
Unfortunately the particular study is really difficult to locate, but Little Fish should remember it since he used it as a reference previously (trying to prove the opposite of what it showed).

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 09 March 2013 - 09:55 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#10    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

"it would be more accurate to say that the study covers a 100-year period rather than its resolution is 100 years."
the study covers a period of 11,300 years, its resolution is 100 years.
Sorry.  I was thinking of a different study.
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

#11    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

hi doug, i'm going to rasie the bull**** flag i'm afraid.
Why don't you re-run the statistics and tell us what you find?  It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying.

Quote

what they've done is splice on a higher resolution instrumental onto a 100 year resolution reconstruction, meaning that kind of uptick at the end could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years but the resolution would not display it, which means its bogus.
There is no reason not to include more-accurate data in a less-accurate dataset.  You are not likely to get results better than you would have obtained had it all been of lower quality and you may have different variances in the two sets that requires remedial action, but that doesn't invalid the entire dataset.  Data is expensive.  You don't replace perfectly good data if you can figure out a way to use what you have.
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

#12    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 - 10:22 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 09 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

The last 4000 years or so has shown a steady but slow decline trend at far stronger resolution than used in this study. It stopped and reversed in the last 100years.
Unfortunately the particular study is really difficult to locate, but Little Fish should remember it since he used it as a reference previously (trying to prove the opposite of what it showed).
my bet is you are referring to the scandinavian study - it was not a global study, it was just a single location in sweden if i recall correctly.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 10:30 PM.


#13    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 - 10:29 PM

"It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying."
i showed you the graphs of the proxies used in the study, so when you say "not be able to backup" you are in fact stating a falsehood.

"There is no reason not to include more-accurate data in a less-accurate dataset."
I gave you the reasons. the uptick could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years (indeed other higher resolution studies show that it does), using a 120 year averaging as this study does smooths out those upticks and downticks. essentially what it is doing is smoothing out that past 11,000 years which removes the wild varying data, but not smoothing out the last 50 years. its like plotting a series of apples, then plotting an orange on the end and concluding that apples are turning orange in colour.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 10:49 PM.


#14    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:54 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

"It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying."
i showed you the graphs of the proxies used in the study, so when you say "not be able to backup" you are in fact stating a falsehood.
Graphs don't show much of anything.  You have provided no information on the reliability of either their analysis or yours (if you did one.).

Quote

"There is no reason not to include more-accurate data in a less-accurate dataset."
I gave you the reasons. the uptick could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years (indeed other higher resolution studies show that it does), using a 120 year averaging as this study does smooths out those upticks and downticks. essentially what it is doing is smoothing out that past 11,000 years which removes the wild varying data, but not smoothing out the last 50 years. its like plotting a series of apples, then plotting an orange on the end.
First you complain about the data, then you decide that it's really the way the data was analyzed...

So when you ran a smoothing spline over the entire dataset, what did you get?
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

#15    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:55 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

my bet is you are referring to the scandinavian study - it was not a global study, it was just a single location in sweden if i recall correctly.
At this stage I cannot recall and can't be bothered to search it out.
However there is plenty of evidence (Mann included) that the recent uptick, in both speed and scale, is unprecedented in the last 2000years.

Br Cornelius

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