Global warming...

[empip]

Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination.

This recent paper has cropped up across the skeptic web... Sheds some light in a readable fashion...

http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf


-0-

 

[ColJack]

global warming does not exist, at least not the type they claim we are responsible for..

the earth is just orbiting closer in to the sun at the moment as it tends to every so often..

it's orbit is becoming less eliptical and more circular, meaning it's not spending as much time further away from the sun to allow it to cool..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity

for the next 28,000 years the earths orbit will get more and more circular unil it starts to elongate again, reaching it's most eliptical in about 80,000 years

the effect of less time to cool off is an increase in the temperature of the earths core and a subsequent increase in volcanic and tectonic activity and a corresponding increase in mean surface temperature.

the last ice age was at it's peak about 20,000 years ago, which corresponds with the time the earth was at it's most eliptical orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

I'd also like to point out that during the last 2 decades, it has been observed that Pluto, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune's largest moon Triton have all experienced planetary warming, so there's something going on out there that's affecting all of us..

While I don't doubt that we are adding to the problem, I don't think it's just us causing it, and certainly not to the extent that they would have us believe.

 

[joe-90]

global warming does not exist, at least not the type they claim we are responsible for..

the earth is just orbiting closer in to the sun at the moment as it tends to every so often..

Fancy that. No-one noticed that but you. Nobel Prize on its way.

 

[Mickymoody]

While I don't doubt that we are adding to the problem, I don't think it's just us causing it, and certainly not to the extent that they would have us believe

While I believe that there is a cycle of heating/cooling going on, no doubt, and I am no advocate of these emission reductions, I do believe that locally, we are damaging the environment, that will potentially result in the destruction of the planet on which we live.

I believe in the recent theory that all on Earth regenerates according to it's environment, so global warming..how to sort it? Blow a Volcano. That cools the environment. What to do with the co2? Have an underwater volcano go off? (as has just happened?)

There are generations of people that have been wiped out, for whatever reason, lets get this generation right.

 

[Nige F]

There are generations of people that have been wiped out, for whatever reason, lets get this generation right.

Mostly War ( sometimes the Germans )

 

[empip]

If you read the offered paper you will find a very good breakdown of IPCC claims and learned counter claims, data set manipulation etc.

A quick read of final 3 pages from p.77. May whet one's appetite to delve further.
III. Conclusion: Questioning the Established Science, and Developing a Suitably Skeptical Rather than Faith-based Climate Policy.


------------------------

If interested - some good work with the official data sets... Including a composite of the 4 sets "WoodForTrees Temperature Index (WTI)"

At
http://www.woodfortrees.org/

...a self-funded personal project by Paul Clark, a British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist...
"I have no particular axe to grind in the "Global Warming Debate" one way or the other. Indeed, as a life-long Green I think a shift to a efficient and sustainable way of life is a Good Thing whether or not CO2 is a significant problem in and of itself.

My aim here is only to use what skills I have as a programmer to help others with greater domain knowledge to discover and debate what is happening. No angle, no hidden agenda.
After 25 years of messing around with (and being messed around by) computers and complex software, I would just say this:
Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you."

These tools could in theory be used for any time series but the main rationale for their existence is for analysis of historical climate data. The idea is to allow you to go to the source data and look for answers to questions like:

• Has the Earth got warmer recently?
• Is it still getting warmer?
• Is CO2 the only explanation for what has happened?
• Are there solar cycles involved?
• Are there other influences we don't understand yet?
• If so, how much do they account for?
• What is likely to happen next?

Some DIY... The graphs presented allow editing by us the user.
Certainly links are provided to the 4 main data sets.
-0-

 

[Lincsbodger]

Several years ago some historian worked out that in 10,000 years of human history, there has only been 400 years of total world peace, ie no war going on anywhere on the planet.

 

[joinerjohn]

Whichever way you look at it, any of the groups investigating global warming, collect grants from governments. They end up telling governments what they want to hear. Therefore ensuring continued funding. Statistical data can be manipulated to show whatever you want it to show. . Scientists wanting to show rises in mean temperature, used to collect data from weather stations all over the world. Now they just use specific monitoring stations in cities (where there is a definite rise because of the urban environment.) They don't take data from monitoring stations in remote locations.
I'm sure if enough data were collected, someone could theoretically show a correlation between global warming and the amount of Sky dishes installed on the sides of buildings. Nonsense I know , but the same statistics could be manipulated to show that global warming is caused by the amount of Top Gear repeats on Dave.

 

[empip]

Whichever way you look at it, any of the groups investigating global warming, collect grants from governments. They end up telling governments what they want to hear. Therefore ensuring continued funding. Statistical data can be manipulated to show whatever you want it to show. . Scientists wanting to show rises in mean temperature, used to collect data from weather stations all over the world. Now they just use specific monitoring stations in cities (where there is a definite rise because of the urban environment.) They don't take data from monitoring stations in remote locations.
I'm sure if enough data were collected, someone could theoretically show a correlation between global warming and the amount of Sky dishes installed on the sides of buildings. Nonsense I know , but the same statistics could be manipulated to show that global warming is caused by the amount of Top Gear repeats on Dave.

Read the offering... Then you may be able to better quantify the argument against A-GW... It really is useful.

-0-

 

[joinerjohn]

Empip, you seriously want me to read all 79 pages??

I'm just trying to show that statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want them to show.
Statistically, the average wage in the UK is in the region of £28,000.
How many of us actually earn this?

 

[ColJack]

58% of all statistics are made up anway.

 

[joe-90]

Empip, you seriously want me to read all 79 pages??

I'm just trying to show that statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want them to show.
Statistically, the average wage in the UK is in the region of £28,000.
How many of us actually earn this?

A family on benefits earns more than that.

 

[joinerjohn]

A family on benefits earns more than that.

Nah Joe, the operative word is EARN
A family on benefits doesn't earn anything....
But statistics could show that they actually contribute much more than they receive.

 

[Lincsbodger]

Empip, you seriously want me to read all 79 pages??

I'm just trying to show that statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want them to show.
Statistically, the average wage in the UK is in the region of £28,000.
How many of us actually earn this?

Having been fascinated by maths all my life, and especially statistical probability, theres a lot people dont under stand about the subject.

take 'the average wage' statement. Consider the case where

50 people earn £50 a week
1 person earns £6750 a week
1 person earns £10,000 a week

The 'average wage' here is £6750, but only 2 persons earns that much!! 96% of the population only earn £50 !!

On the other hand the MEDIAN wage, ie the wage earned by the 50th percentile, ie the person of whom 50% of the population earn the same or less, and 50% of the population earn the same or more, is £50, which is also what most people earn, and so more indicative.

They should stop using 'average' and start using a value with more meaning .

 

[wreckedit]

LB something doesn't seem right here.

50x50 = 2500 then add 6750 and 10000 = 19250/52 = £370

You only took one persons wage of £50 into account which would give a heavy bias to the higher amount.

Do try and explain your method to me but I'm afraid I'll get lost.