Need help on a climate change arguement

[MikeMcc]

Anybody got any idea how I can counter this:

http://co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php

What I suspect is that there is a deliberate editorial slant to each of these, but I don't have any way to gain access to the particular studies to see if the hype actually matches what is said. I'm having a hell of a job countering the pillocks on ARRSE that are so dumbed up that they take this stuff at face value.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html


.

 

[laptop]

the pillocks on ARRSE that are so dumbed up that they take this stuff at face value.

So they may, perhaps, not be up for a detailed discussion of the science?

Try this:

• c02science.org is keen to prevent us finding out who's behind it; but
• it's apparently funded by Exxxon.

 

[MrA]

So they may, perhaps, not be up for a detailed discussion of the science?

Try this:

• c02science.org is keen to prevent us finding out who's behind it; but
• it's apparently funded by Exxxon.

100 000 dollars v the billions being pumped into the promotion of climate change? This is one that smells from both ends.

 

[laptop]

billions being pumped into the promotion of climate change?

Source for this figure?

 

[MikeMcc]

So they may, perhaps, not be up for a detailed discussion of the science?

Try this:

• c02science.org is keen to prevent us finding out who's behind it; but
• it's apparently funded by Exxxon.

Sorry mate, but while I can see what you are suggesting I can't immediately see a link between the two links. The addresses don't match for a start, they would rip me apart if it tried to put those forward. I've had a month odr so of butting my head against a brick wall on two different threads. While most of the posters on those threads are thick as two short planks there are a couple of rather more clued up posters that would spot this. I really lead any response to be cast iron. Frankly I'm tired of it, but it's one of those things where you can't allow bullshit to go unchallenged

 

[laptop]

Sorry mate, but while I can see what you are suggesting I can't immediately see a link between the two links.

They're just the result of my first three minutes' attempt to answer the question "who they?"

The first shows that whoever registered the name "co2science.org" used a "proxy" to get round the law saying that they must reveal contact details.

The second reports that they are the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" and funded by an oil company.

I'm sure there's a lot more

 

[MrA]

Source for this figure?

Here

Then there's funding for research, education in schools etc...

I'd take it more seriously if money was being invested in alternative fuels or there was global colaboration in the conservation of resources or even just centers of scientific excellence sourced and funded globally.

Divertung funds from the West to the developing nations does nothing to solve the problemof climate impact man made or otherwise paricularly when these funds are to be levied through taxation.

 

[laptop]

Here

You are confused. That's not funding for "the promotion of climate change", which is what you said.

Then there's funding for research, education in schools etc...

Nor is that. It's funding devoted to finding out how the climate works and reporting the results.

You might as well claim that the entire budget of NASA, all airlines and all air forces is devoted to "the promotion of gravity".

Er, you do accept that Newton's description of gravity works pretty well for practical purposes - certainly well enough to base major policy decisions on it - don't you?

 

[MrA]

You are confused. That's not funding for "the promotion of climate change", which is what you said.



Nor is that. It's funding devoted to finding out how the climate works and reporting the results.

You might as well claim that the entire budget of NASA, all airlines and all air forces is devoted to "the promotion of gravity".

Er, you do accept that Newton's description of gravity works pretty well for practical purposes - certainly well enough to base major policy decisions on it - don't you?

Aw come on, semantics!?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Smoke != fire. In fact it's often a smoke grenade.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Aw come on, semantics!?

That's beyond semantics and onto linguistics. You're so sloppy it's not even the same language.

Hell if we're on that vague a connection to reality we can point out that with 30 billion barrels of oil annually sold the campaign against climate change is funded to the tune of about 150 - 300 Billion USD annually.

 

[MikeMcc]

Oh come on!

This site please:

http://co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php

Take the arguements back to other threads!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That site pushes the solar theory, one that has been torn to shreds. That's it.

 

[david dissadent]

Anybody got any idea how I can counter this:

http://co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php

What I suspect is that there is a deliberate editorial slant to each of these, but I don't have any way to gain access to the particular studies to see if the hype actually matches what is said. I'm having a hell of a job countering the pillocks on ARRSE that are so dumbed up that they take this stuff at face value.

Try this, that while there were local periods of warming during the MWP there was no global period of sustained warming, most of the MWP was contained in the Nothern Hemisphere especialy the North Atlantic region.

The one of the single best climate proxies is the Vostok ice core. There is no warming anolomy during the MWP and infact it is slightly cooler than average.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat


Deuterium
Age of content Temperature
Depth the ice of the ice Variation
(m) (yr BP) (delta D) (deg C)


20 420 -435.9 0.35
21 444 -436.9 0.18
22 469 -438.5 -0.08
23 495 -444.5 -1.08
24 523 -446.4 -1.39
25 552 -447.7 -1.61
26 581 -443.4 -0.90
27 609 -441.6 -0.60
28 637 -438.1 -0.02
29 665 -439.1 -0.18
30 695 -445.4 -1.23
31 726 -447.3 -1.54
32 757 -443.1 -0.85
33 788 -438.6 -0.10
34 817 -439.0 -0.17
35 848 -442.7 -0.78
36 881 -442.7 -0.78
37 912 -439.0 -0.17
38 944 -439.5 -0.25
39 976 -439.7 -0.28
40 1009 -442.9 -0.81

Also the MWP does show up in reconstruction just nowhere near as dramatic as is claimed, it is real just not as significant as people try to make it out.

 

[idioteque]

"Solar variability and climate change"

This page is pretending to summarise a paper by Perry and Hsu (2000), published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America.

"Current global warming commonly is attributed to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere," the authors note. "However," they continue, "geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model." (1) They therefore conclude that the idea of "the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable." (2) Their findings also clearly suggest that as far as humankind is concerned, warmer is better."(3)

(1) Basically what they're saying here is that "people say that CO2 is causing current warming, but records from the last 9,000 years show that the climate warms up when we have more solar luminosity!"

Of course it did, the Industrial Revolution wasn't until the late 18th Century, you massive douchebags.

(2) OMG REALLY? I don't think you'll find many legitimate peer-reviewed papers that say climate change caused by anthropogenic activity and climate change caused by natural solar variability are mutually exclusive.

(3) The best thing about this part is that they've been trying to make out that CO2 doesn't cause climate warming, and their parting words are essentially "Who cares if it's warming anyway?"

What that original article actually says is that

Perry & Hsu, 2006

Great civilizations appear to have prospered when the solar output
model shows an increase in the Sun’s output. Increased solar
output would have caused the atmosphere and oceans to warm,
therefore increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere
and causing increased precipitation. Growing seasons in the more
polar latitudes became extended. Lands marginal for human habitation
became favorable to support a growing population as deserts
became wetter and the subArctic became warmer. Great civilizations
appear to have declined when the modeled solar output
declined. Severe and long-lasting droughts came to the steppes,
winters in the subArctic became fierce, and growing seasons
shortened. Similar processes currently are evident on a smaller
scale. In the central parts of North America, droughts occur after
the Sun’s output has decreased slightly over a period of several of
years, and when the Sun’s output increases, an abundance of
moisture follows in several years

This is talking about pre-Industrial Revolution, solar variability induced climate change (and the article goes on to make hypothetical predictions about what conditions would be like if CO2 didn't play a role).
What Perry and Hsu don't say is that 'things will be better for humans if we warm the climate with carbon dioxide'. They noted the correlation, and that was it. Unfortunately they didn't have the foresight to spell out for the idiots that took this article and completeley distorted it that the same processes and conditions won't follow for anthropogenic activity induced climate change as they have for natural change.

Thankyou and goodnight.

 

[MikeMcc]

Cheers guys, thanks for that. That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So they may, perhaps, not be up for a detailed discussion of the science?

Try this:

• c02science.org is keen to prevent us finding out who's behind it; but
• it's apparently funded by Exxxon.

 

[MikeMcc]

JC, you're on a loser on this, I'm a moderate on this arguement. I believe in AGW/CC, I think there are things that can be done, but I don't believe the governments are prepared to do them at the moment, and it will cost us a massive amount to do the things I believe are necessary.

In my present situation I'm up against about 10 complete denialists and 2 genuine sceptics prepared to argue the science, across two threads. It's tiring fighting against the dross and stupidity. occasionally, like this time they throw me a fast ball that's difficulty to counter.

I have a feeling that AGW/CC will only be accepted once Max Plank's conjecture follows it's course. He said:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning."

 

[idioteque]

I have a feeling that AGW/CC will only be accepted once Max Plank's conjecture follows it's course. He said:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning."

Completely agree.

 

[MikeMcc]

*

 

[MikeMcc]

They're just the result of my first three minutes' attempt to answer the question "who they?"

The first shows that whoever registered the name "co2science.org" used a "proxy" to get round the law saying that they must reveal contact details.

The second reports that they are the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" and funded by an oil company.

I'm sure there's a lot more

Doh sorry, I was tired last night!

 

[MikeMcc]

Repeated here because it got buried by new posts on the other thread. I've got a question for folks with a better understanding of statistics than me:

The temperature anomalies in the HadCRUT3 data are quoted to 3 decimal places, well beyond the resolution of the temperature monitoring devices. I appreciate that it is a feature of the processing of the data, but how does this processing confidently increase the resolution to that degree?

For instance, if a mercury-in-glass thermometer can only be typically read to 0.1 to 0.25 deg C, how does the homogenised and gridded data indicate temperature to 3 decimal places?

 

[laptop]

The temperature anomalies in the HadCRUT3 data are quoted to 3 decimal places, well beyond the resolution of the temperature monitoring devices. I appreciate that it is a feature of the processing of the data, but how does this processing confidently increase the resolution to that degree?

For instance, if a mercury-in-glass thermometer can only be typically read to 0.1 to 0.25 deg C, how does the homogenised and gridded data indicate temperature to 3 decimal places?

Ermm...

Am I right - looking at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/data/HadCRUT3.txt - that each figure is the anomaly for one month?

So it's derived from readings on 30 or 31 days, each of two-and-a-bit significant digits as you say.

So the four significant figures given (for example 1.234 * 10^-1) are on the face of it justified.

Secondly, and however, http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html states "please bear in mind that the uncertainties on these values are around ±0.1°C".

So long as those using the data bear this in mind, there's no harm in distributing them in a standard format...

 

[smokedout]

So they may, perhaps, not be up for a detailed discussion of the science?

Try this:

• c02science.org is keen to prevent us finding out who's behind it; but
• it's apparently funded by Exxxon.

nowhere in those links is any evidence they are funded by exxonn

 

[MikeMcc]

Ermm...

Am I right - looking at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/data/HadCRUT3.txt - that each figure is the anomaly for one month?

So it's derived from readings on 30 or 31 days, each of two-and-a-bit significant digits as you say.

So the four significant figures given (for example 1.234 * 10^-1) are on the face of it justified.

Secondly, and however, http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html states "please bear in mind that the uncertainties on these values are around ±0.1°C".

So long as those using the data bear this in mind, there's no harm in distributing them in a standard format...

Thanks for that, I've been digging around and it looks like averaging allows you to increase significance but (for a fixed uncertainty on each measurement) doesn't change uncertainty. So you can have figures quoted to three decimal places but you have to mention that the uncertainty is still +/-0.05 deg C or worse

 

[Signal 11]

Thanks for that, I've been digging around and it looks like averaging allows you to increase significance but (for a fixed uncertainty on each measurement) doesn't change uncertainty. So you can have figures quoted to three decimal places but you have to mention that the uncertainty is still +/-0.05 deg C or worse

It allows you to measure changes that are smaller than the precision of the individual measurements. There's a good illustration of it here.

 

[MikeMcc]

Cheers, just the thing I was looking for

 

[MikeMcc]

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-week-of-global-cooling.html

Like it!

 

[Signal 11]

^ Yeah, he's a star. My favourites are this about the arctic and this about the stolen emails.