BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:This graph can not be real can it? If it is then what more proof do people need that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temperature?


For some it won't mater (the graph is real ) if it's real or not. some just can't accept it. The ice core history goes back 8000,000 years now with the same results. This has been verified from various locations around the world.



For the first time in recorded history, thanks to rampant burning of fossil fuels, CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit 400 parts per million in May 2013. “I wish it weren’t true but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400 ppm level without losing a beat,” said Ralph Keeling, a geologist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography which operates Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory. There has been an upward trajectory through the industrial era, as fossil fuel use has accelerated — this leads to catastrophic climate change

More graphs in this article


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Per-capita emissions are meaningless greenwashed propaganda. It's a fallacious argument. The planet reacts to total GHG load not per-captita amounts.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’

quote:
"The way the [Summary for Policymakers released by the IPCC] deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case."


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com...deeply-unscientific/

..and as for the 'peer review' fantasy:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/...rt-science-right/29/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
http://data.parliament.uk/writ...vc/EvidenceHtml/4360
quote:
The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case.

Precisely, as I said, anybody who knows anything about computer programming, and has even the most rudimentary understanding of what certainties/uncertainties there are about what effects our climate would know that you simply cannot give a figure as to how accurate the data output by a model could be when we dont even know the accuracy nor validity of the data being inputted... Its beyond ridiculous.
quote:

When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message…

No doubt, tis obvious to anyone with a clue...
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:This graph can not be real can it? If it is then what more proof do people need that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temperature?


For some it won't mater (the graph is real ) if it's real or not. some just can't accept it. The ice core history goes back 8000,000 years now with the same results. This has been verified from various locations around the world.



For the first time in recorded history, thanks to rampant burning of fossil fuels, CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit 400 parts per million in May 2013. “I wish it weren’t true but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400 ppm level without losing a beat,” said Ralph Keeling, a geologist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography which operates Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory. There has been an upward trajectory through the industrial era, as fossil fuel use has accelerated — this leads to catastrophic climate change

More graphs in this article

Ummm accept what exactly? That graph shows that the spike in C02 came after the rise in temperature, by up to 1400 years in places. How does that reflect our current situation in any way? Right now we have a spike in c02 and no rise in temperature... Accepting the data of that graph in no way helps verify the current AGW theory as far as I can tell...
http://nas-sites.org/americasc...e-gallery/figure-14/
quote:
As ice core records from Vostok, Antarctica, show, the temperature near the South Pole has varied by as much as 20°F (11°C) during the past 800,000 years. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in carbon dioxide concentrations (in red) track closely with changes in temperature (in blue), with CO2 lagging behind temperature changes.


Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Rather the graph posted by poppy on the previous page.
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Actually it is important to understand that in computing "data" refers to the stored information on which computers perform operations. Models don't create data.

Confidence intervals for frequentisits are fundamental to reporting parameter effect sizes. Mixed models are validated at each step of the analysis. Fixed point probabilities (and credibility intervals) can be generated using Bayesians methods. The probability estimates of cause and effect in a frequentist framework require randomized designs but they are no more informative that the other approaches when statistical assumptions are met. Unfortunately the article appears to neglect these points in the application of statistical best practice and instead relies on one learned mans personal opinion.
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Those trees are still obstructing your view.
The models output data, there are no two ways to slice it, regardless of what you want to call it, its data. And the output data is a result of way to many variables (most based on hypothesis), too many to ever put a figure on that would even remotely describe its accuracy. The only way to give a solid probability of accuracy figure, on the output data, would be to have an accurate set of climate data to test the model against...

quote:
and instead relies on one learned mans personal opinion.

That is not just "one learned mans personal opinion" it is the opinion of many. I would suggest this would be the opinion of anybody who can look 'objectively' at the report and how its generated...
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Heron:
Those trees are still obstructing your view.
The models output data, there are no two ways to slice it, regardless of what you want to call it, its data. And the output data is a result of way to many variables (most based on hypothesis), too many to ever put a figure on that would even remotely describe its accuracy. The only way to give a solid probability of accuracy figure, on the output data, would be to have an accurate set of climate data to test the model against...

quote:
and instead relies on one learned mans personal opinion.

That is not just "one learned mans personal opinion" it is the opinion of many. I would suggest this would be the opinion of anybody who can look 'objectively' at the report and how its generated...
Cheers,
Jon


Data is a specific thing, not a broad over generalization of model parameter estimates and the relationship to variables used to derive them. The blog quoted one persons opinion. The IPCC report is written by individuals with professional backgrounds with an emphasis on statistics, not their opinion about statistics. An understanding of mixed models is important to grasping the meaning of the statistics generated by the models. The methodologies address your objections; that seems obvious.
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
An understanding of mixed models is important to grasping the meaning of the statistics generated by the models.

Understanding that there is no way to quantify an accuracy figure for the statistical data generated from the mixed models is also important and seems obvious to me.
I believe that is the point Mr. Darriulat has made as well.
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Heron:
Understanding that there is no way to quantify an accuracy figure for the statistical data generated from the mixed models is also important and seems obvious to me.
I believe that is the point Mr. Darriulat has made as well.
Cheers,
Jon


Mixed models use random effects to quantify and separate the signal in the data (models don't generate data) from the random variation. You need an understanding of what mixed models are before you state that there is no way to quantify accuracy. Dr. Darriulats comments were an objection to terminology used in the report, not the substance of the finding, as you may have noticed.

While one is free to be of the opinion that the subject of climate change is infinitely complex beyond quantifying, others are applying analytic approaches to address and resolve those very complexities.
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Of course i suspect that John G., who we all love, is enjoying dropping small disagreement bombs, sitting back and watching the fireworks in this exchange and i am being played. The nights are long in the far north.

Smile

Hats off to you sir.



All the clouds turn to words
All the words float in sequence
No one knows what they mean
Everyone just ignores them

Brian Eno, 1975
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Heron:

Ummm accept what exactly? That graph shows that the spike in C02 came after the rise in temperature, by up to 1400 years in places. How does that reflect our current situation in any way? Right now we have a spike in c02 and no rise in temperature... Accepting the data of that graph in no way helps verify the current AGW theory as far as I can tell...

Cheers,
Jon

don't forget the 5000 years after the onset of warming where co2 and temps are in step with each other. denial pages are quick to point out the lag but forget that data


CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
While one is free to be of the opinion that the subject of climate change is infinitely complex beyond quantifying, others are applying analytic approaches to address and resolve those very complexities.

Well said, I agree.
I am a skeptical guy, anything coming from a UN appointed panel really gets my skepticism up, their track record speaks for itself on all mater of problems besides climate. Not to mention all the gaffs related to the IPCC, the one discussed above a prime example of the political rubbish being pumped out...
I feel we are a long way from having a significant grasp of whats really happening. The political reaction to a problem that is not nearly understood is also worrying to me and my financial security.
This is besides the fact that if C02 is doing what the IPCC is saying, then we better get used to warmer weather as we have no way to stop the natural increase in C02 as is proven in the ice cores, temperature goes up and then so does the c02 levels as its released from the ice and ocean...
Carbon taxes and green energy can have no impact on this...
I say bring on the warming, I have a pile of ice and downed trees to clean up in the yard and its -10C out...
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dan, I dont follow denier sites but I can read, the C02 lags the temperature rise, consistently over the last 800,000 years according to the ice core data. It makes logical sense too.
The situation we have now is not represented anywhere in that data, if it was it would certainly be much more convincing to a great many people who wont believe the data from faulty computer models...
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Heron:
Dan, I dont follow denier sites but I can read, the C02 lags the temperature rise, consistently over the last 800,000 years according to the ice core data. It makes logical sense too.
The situation we have now is not represented anywhere in that data, if it was it would certainly be much more convincing to a great many people who wont believe the data from faulty computer models...
Cheers,
Jon


That's good that you don't follow denier sites but did you read the link? it explains the lag. -30 here today

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Yes I read the article, and a couple others on the same topic, like I said it makes logical sense too.
However, like I also said this data has no correlation to our situation now where we have elevated c02 levels without warming. The data shows that a rise in c02 has always followed a warming trend, this tells us that if we do start to see warming that we will also see elevated levels of naturally released C02...
The data also clearly shows the cyclical changes in the earths climate long before we could have ever effected it. This cycle will go on long after the parasitic humans are gone too... Smile
Stay warm!
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Heron:
like I said it makes logical sense too.
However, like I also said this data has no correlation to our situation now where we have elevated c02 levels without warming.
Stay warm!
Cheers,
Jon


where did you get the idea there's no warming?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014