Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
archer95446

Global warming shouldn't be happening

86 posts in this topic

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.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20130308/US-SCI-Climate-Temperature-Spike/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News not.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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:

lbogh.jpg

here is another 35 series:

t68r4x.png

here is another 20:

2uylqh3.png

no end uptick in any them.

here is their "reconstruction" :

marcott-B-MJ.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.).

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

christiansen-2000-year-temp-reconstruction-cf-fig-5.gif

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)

marcott-B-MJ.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.