TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Global Warming
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Man, we must really be doing some damage. Talk about galactic warming! Maybe we should send some saplings to Neptune on the next Voyager mission. We could send Al Gore to plant them. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...8/neptune-news/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Your point is mute because Exxon funded this research. How you might ask? Well Exxon is the largest corporation in the USA and as such pays one of the largest single tax contribution to the USA government (100.7 billion last year). And what does the USA government due with all that money? That's right! It gives it to Navy, Army, Airforce, NASA and the NSF. And who do you think in in part funds the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff? You guessed it those very agencies. You see, therefore we can't believe this study at all because it was funded by Exxon. And Exxon wants to burn so much fossil fuels all its customers will flood under the massive waters of the ocean. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Clovis Isn't most action towards helping reduce global warming (regardless of who you think is to blame) action in favor of the environment? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by everett So your saying that we can trust the IPCC then? They are in the same situation, their JOBS depend on the idea that we are causing global warming Stop bringing up the BULLSHIT argument that the BIG BAD OIL companies are behind the massive "cover up" attempt. Summary: Watch the video, it answers all of the arguments that people like you bring up. |
| quote: |
| Yoepus Your point is mute because Exxon funded this research. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I'm going to venture to bet that Yoepus might be being sarcastic, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If they're a corporation, they MUST be lying. (though I do think there's something to be said for studies being biased, provided the data can be shown to illustrate that bias). btw, I think you mean "moot", not "mute" |
A good quote from Michael Crichton
| quote: |
| "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Man, we must really be doing some damage. Talk about galactic warming! Maybe we should send some saplings to Neptune on the next Voyager mission. We could send Al Gore to plant them. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...8/neptune-news/ |
| quote: |
| Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly--and between Neptune and two models of solar variability--are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. |
| quote: |
| Low formal statistical significance does not mean the correlations we find are in fact spurious, only that we cannot demonstrate otherwise. |
| quote: |
| "We assume four degrees of freedom for the decades long Neptune data set, based on the number of zero crossings in the residual plots in Figure 4." |
| quote: |
| the combined disk-averaged variation from 1972 to 2002 is consistent with a simple seasonal model having a hemispheric response delay relative to solar forcing of 30 years. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I got a little naturally suspicious about this paper by Hammel and Lockwood (2007) that was the main source of reference for the article you used, Shakka. Upon further examination (and some admittedly further reading from other scientists and their respective blogs, I believe my suspicions were confirmed, and it further ties my notion of parallels between creationists works and global warming skeptics. Here's why: The source for the article was given: Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, (2007). Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth�s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764. And first off, NONE of the correlations cited by Hammel and Lockwood are significant, and they state as such (with a bit of disappointment on their part): You notice that little word "formal" in their tone? That's pretty fucking cute on their part, IMO, because they're doing their darnest to belittle that little formality of "statistical significance" in their paper. That's just in their abstract, too. In the actual paper they go further with their cuteness: Ummm, that's just patently absurd on the face of scientific scrutiny. If something is not significant, to which their findings clearly are not, then they really shouldn't bitch and moan about it. Just accept the lack of significance in their correlation and move the fuck on. It gets better. They move their level of significance almost up to fucking 20%, and how they achieve that bewilders an amateur researcher hobbyist like myself: FOUR DEGREES OF FREEDOM?!?!?!? WHAT??!?!?!? Furthermore, they selected a lag of 17 years between their datasets in order to get the most out of their correlations, which strangely their tests of significance don't even account for this. Right there alone should be enough to discount the paper. Attempting to run their level of significance up to 4 degrees is beyond ridiculous and untenable. At most I've seen papers bumping up levels of significance to 10%, and those very few papers admit as much that their significance levels are so high based on initial experimental or pilot-type research (which in case you're wondering, that's 2 degrees of freedom). So really, if we go by the known scientific axiom that "correlation does not mean causation", then what the fuck should we conclude when there's a complete LACK of causation like this? Secondly, the correlations cited by Hammel and Lockwood are primarily sourced from Foukal (2002), A Comparison of Variable Solar Total and Ultraviolet Irradiance Outputs in the 20th Century, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, p. 2089. This paper, which was apparently fine 5 years ago, is a bit dated in scientific terms for examining total solar irradiance (TSI). For Hammel and Lockwood to use that paper for their work which was published THIS YEAR does not make a very strong case for their argument of correlation. What is considered a more higher standard of current data before the satellite era is Lean (2000), Evolution of the Sun�s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, p. 2425. This paper, although originally published in 2000, has actually been updated in 2004, which takes into account satellite measurements of TSI (and the recent satellite data is more closely aligned with their original calculations back in 2000 versus Foukal). And guess what? That darn data used by Foukal just ain't supported by satellite measurements. What's clear in the current satellite measurements is there is nothing of the sort of a 2.3 W/m^2 increase in TSI from 1982 to 1990. The only significant change is the variations due to the solar cycle, with full amplitude of only 1 W/m^2, and the average value of TSI shows no real change at all. What's even worse, the Foukal paper stops with data just a little beyond 1990, however the Lean paper moves further past 2000, with satellite data going even further. Why the fuck did Hammel and Lockwood not even consider up to date measurements? Furthermore, the graphs cited by Hammel and Lockwood shows a variation in Neptune's brightness of 0.15 magnitudes, or a 15% difference radiation. However, if we assume such a variation is caused by the sun, then we must assume that it would have to increase its brightness by the SAME RATIO. However, upon examination of Foukal's paper, we only see a variation of 0.017%. Strange, ain't it? Also, Lockwood and Hammel source an eleven year cycle of solar and earth irradiance, showing a rising trend in this from 1960 and from 1980. But strangely, they do not cite the trend on Neptune in the same period. Strange that. Hammel and Lockwood cite this paper: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf which states the following: Hammel and Lockwood apparently point out that this somehow supports their argument, but seemingly run right over the fact that this data shows nothing in regards to pre-1970 data, to which they use as part of their sourcing for data in TSI and on earth (but not Neptune). And finally, one has to wonder how temperatures on Earth were even attempted to correlate with Neptune when solar radiance has decreased. There is an increase in brightness on Neptune that we're noticing, but it very well may be due to the hemisphere we are observing on Neptune is experiencing its summer cycle, and the brightness could likely be the result of Neptune's very, very long seasons (compared to ours). What's more, most of the brightness that we're observing has occurred in very specific bands of latitude on Neptune. Again this paper points that out: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf One has to wonder why Hammel and Lockwood apparently left out the idea of seasonal variation AS WELL AS the strong latitudinal variation. So in summary, this is a horribly flawed argument constructed on a horribly flawed paper. The lesson to be learned is that peer-reviewed work, albeit the best source we can come up with for reliability, is most certainly not flawless. I've seen similar works slip through the cracks in other sciences such as evolutionary science, and some of my current works of study in exercise physiology and physical therapy rehabilitation. Shit happens. It's up to scientists to examine the work under scrutiny, mimic the research in question and test the data themselves to see if the results are similar. That is indeed what has occurred here, but much more often than not this task is performed or at the very least discussed to its logical end PRIOR to publication. It sucks when it seeps through the cracks like this, but it happens nonetheless. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka You're a scientist too?! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I'm going to venture to bet that Yoepus might be being sarcastic, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If they're a corporation, they MUST be lying. (though I do think there's something to be said for studies being biased, provided the data can be shown to illustrate that bias). |
| quote: |
btw, I think you mean "moot", not "mute" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Yes of course I was being saracstic. Scary how someone can think otherwise Touche! |
Oh, I had completely missed Yoepus' reply. I'm replying to that soon, mate, I just wanted to share this article with you guys first:
| quote: |
| Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They�re Not Wrong? From catastrophic sea level rise to jarring changes in local weather, humanity faces a potentially dangerous threat from the changes our own pollution has wrought on Earth�s climate. But since nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty, how is it that scientists can be so sure that we are the cause of global warming? For years, there has been clear scientific consensus that Earth�s climate is heating up and that humans are the culprits behind the trend, says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego. A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other noted scientific organizations have issued statements that unequivocally endorse the idea of global warming and attribute it to human activities. �We�re confident about what�s going on,� said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA�s Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York. But even if there is a consensus, how can scientists be so confident about a trend playing out over dozens of years in the grand scheme of the Earth's existence? How do they know they didn�t miss something, or that there is not some other explanation for the world�s warming? After all, there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. How can scientists prove their position? Best predictor wins Contrary to popular parlance, science can never truly �prove� a theory. Science simply arrives at the best explanation of how the world works. Global warming can no more be �proven� than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases. �All science is fallible,� Oreskes told LiveScience. �Climate science shouldn�t be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.� Instead, a variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor. The effects of putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air were predicted as long ago as the early 20th century by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. Noted oceanographer Roger Revelle�s 1957 predictions that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000 have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe�s 1980 prediction that the Earth�s poles would be first to see the effects of global warming. Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day). Hansen's model predictions are �a shining example of a successful prediction in climate science,� said climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University. Schmidt says that predictions by those who doubted global warming have failed to come true. �Why don�t you trust a psychic? Because their predictions are wrong,� he told LiveScience. �The credibility goes to the side that gets these predictions right.� Mounting evidence Besides their successful predictions, climate scientists have been assembling a �body of evidence that has been growing significantly with each year,� Mann said. Data from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs taken with instrumental observations of air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and greenhouse gas concentrations have all emerged in support of climate change theory. �There are 20 different lines of evidence that the planet is warming,� and the same goes for evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere, Schmidt said. �All of these things are very incontrovertible.� But skeptics have often raised the question of whether these observations and effects attributed to global warming may in fact be explained by natural variation or changes in solar radiation hitting the Earth. Hurricane expert William Gray, of Colorado State University, told Discover magazine in a 2005 interview, "I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.� Isaac Newton had something to say about all this: In his seminal �Principia Mathematica,� he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation. And studies have overwhelmingly shown that climate change scenarios in which greenhouse gases emitted from human activities cause global warming best explain the observed changes in Earth�s climate, Mann said�models that use only natural variation can�t account for the significant warming that has occurred in the last few decades. Mythic ice age One argument commonly used to cast doubt on the idea of global warming is the supposed predictions of an impending ice age by scientists in the 1970s. One might say: First the Earth was supposed to be getting colder; now scientists say it�s getting hotter�how can we trust scientists if they�re predictions are so wishy-washy? Because the first prediction was never actually made. Rather, it�s something of an urban climate myth. Mann says that this myth started from a �tiny grain of truth around which so much distortion and misinformation has been placed.� Scientists were well aware of the warming that could be caused by increasing greenhouse gases, both Mann and Schmidt explained, but in the decades preceding the 1970s, aerosols, or air pollution, had been steadily increasing. These tiny particles tended to have a cooling effect in the atmosphere, and at the time, scientists were unsure who would win the climate-changing battle, aerosols or greenhouse gases. �It was unclear what direction the climate was going,� Mann said. But several popular media, such as Newsweek, ran articles that exaggerated what scientists had said about the potential of aerosols to cool the Earth. But the battle is now over, and greenhouse gases have won. �Human society has made a clear decision as to which direction [the climate] is going to go,� Mann said. Future predictions One of the remaining skeptics, is MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. While he acknowledges the trends of rising temperatures and greenhouse gases, Lindzen expressed his doubt on man�s culpability in the case and casts doubt on the dire predictions made by some climate models, in an April 2006 editorial for The Wall Street Journal. �What the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred,� Lindzen wrote. To be sure, there is a certain degree of uncertainty involved in modeling and predicting future changes in the climate, but �you don�t need to have a climate model to know that climate change is a problem,� Oreskes said. Climate scientists have clearly met the burden of proof with the mounting evidence they�ve assembled and the strong predictive power of global warming theory, Oreskes said-- global warming is something to pay attention to. Schmidt agrees. �All of these little things just reinforce the big picture,� he said. �And the big picture is very worrying.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Does that entail or qualify me as a "scientist?" Hardly. But I do enjoy the research in numerous fields nonetheless. Admittedly I haven't examined global warming as much as I would like. There's a shitload to it, to be certain, but there might be some free time down the road to where I can examine it a bit closer. |
I wonder how well are the signatory nations are succeeding at decreasing the levels of input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere ... hmmmmmm .... the targets are impossible to achieve, plus gotta love the carbon credits ;-) man, I put so many posts into these global warming threads, but there are so many of these threads, what a waste of space and time ...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I wonder how well are the signatory nations are succeeding at decreasing the levels of input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere ... hmmmmmm .... the targets are impossible to achieve, plus gotta love the carbon credits ;-) man, I put so many posts into these global warming threads, but there are so many of these threads, what a waste of space and time ... |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.