The Great Global Warming Swindle

[swansont]

Please no more graphs and charts.

 

Statistics isn't science.

 

Statistics are most certainly part of science.

 

Misuse of statistics, on the other hand, is a part of politics.

[bascule]

Please no more graphs and charts.

 

Statistics isn't science.

 

I happen to love charts and graphs, mainly because they plainly illustrate the disparity between what's in people's heads and what the data actually show.

 

In your case, that seems to be pretty severe.

 

I was merely pointing out that natural events such as volcanic eruption or forest fire affect CO2 levels far more than industry.

 

And you believe this because... Rush Limbaugh said it?

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

[Pangloss]

Misuse of statistics, on the other hand, is a part of politics.

 

Exactly. Like getting your hands on some grant money.

[Sisyphus]

I was merely pointing out that natural events such as volcanic eruption or forest fire affect CO2 levels far more than industry.

 

That's an awfully bold statement from somebody who refuses to acknolwedge statistics.

 

(particularly directly below a chart that clearly illustrates why that exact statement is false)

[John Cuthber]

I have to aagree with bignose; "Statistics isn't science." is one of the best jokes I have seen in a while. Not only is it clearly out of place in this topic where the temperature of the earth is being discussed (Temperature in the arctic or the tropics; Perhaps the London weather centre- OK Summer or Winter?- best take some sort of average) but the fundamental role of statistics in modern physice makes it a staggeringly ill thought out comment.

 

Stats can only be used to lie to people who don't understand it; OK that's quite a big part of the general population but most of us are big girls and boys; quite grown up and quite clever. I can't see it working here; anyone posting bad maths on this site will just get laughed at.

[jackson33]

the only bold statement is the chart. coincidentally the same chart used to show global cooling, not long ago.....

 

that spot in the history of the planet, represents nothing to this history or even the past 100k or million years estimates.

 

the atmosphere contains, 77% nitrogen - 22% oxygen - .045 CO2 and trace amounts of all others including methane. but wait, what contributes this .045 is 95 percent natural or non-man ways. mankind, with all activity included then contributed .00128 of what in the air we breath...today and near this amount for near that 100 year period. maybe up from .00129 using the chart, but trivial to contributions what natures fluctuation can be in a week.

 

thank goodness for nature as all the plant life on earth, surely by weight more than man, requires CO2 to live, produce our food and oh yes, the oxygen we breath. if you add in the non-human oxygen breathing animal life your making plant life's job a little difficult already.

[Sisyphus]

the only bold statement is the chart.

 

What that chart shows is a record of the changes in all known natural factors, such as solar intensity and volcano activity, which cause overall climate change, and the temperature change the models predict those factors would cause. The models ALSO predict the change caused by man-caused variation in the concentrations of greenhouse gases (the blue line). Assuming they're all correct, an overall model was generated predicting how all the observed causes, working together, would affect climate. That's the brown line, with margin of error in grey.

 

The BLACK line is the temperature change actually observed. As you can see, they're very closely correlated, strongly implying that the original models (which, among other things, predicted a man-caused temperature change), were highly accurate.

 

This is the best information we have to go on. That's all there is to it.

[1veedo]

coincidentally the same chart used to show global cooling, not long ago.....

Lol this particular graph was the same one that proved global cooling in the 1970s?

 

There really weren't many people talking about a new ice age back in the 70s. This appears to be an urban legend propagated by global warming denier websites. It is true that there were some warnings back then, but this is different.

 

Today, there is a scientific consensus about climate change supported by many institutions and universities. They warn us that temperatures are rising and that we are to blame.

 

Back in the 70s, there was no large fluctuation of scientific articles about global cooling. There were no big news stories about UN treaties, no weather channel programming about global warming, and no documentaries about what all the fuss is about. To put it simply, there is no comparison between the 1970s and today.

 

And behind it all, they had just discovered that ice ages usually come in patterns and therefore we could predict the next one. Some people thought aerosol cans would escalate this process because aerosol cans cause what's known as global dimming. So there actually is some sort of truth behind what they thought, meaning they really weren't even completely wrong (not that it matters). Sense then we have successful reduced aerosol emissions.

the atmosphere contains, 77% nitrogen - 22% oxygen - .045 CO2 and trace amounts of all others including methane. but wait, what contributes this .045 is 95 percent natural or non-man ways. mankind, with all activity included then contributed .00128 of what in the air we breath...today and near this amount for near that 100 year period. maybe up from .00129 using the chart, but trivial to contributions what natures fluctuation can be in a week.

Human forcings have a value of 1.6W/m^2 while the only non-human force (the sun) has a value of .12. Humans are causing the Earth to warm. This is just a simple fact.

 

"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

...

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence 7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9}" (IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.)

 

Anthropogenic ghgs are much larger then natural ghgs. The natural range for CO2 is 180 to 300 ppm but because of anthropogenic CO2 pollution, current CO2 levels are at 379ppm. Methane has increased from pre-industrial levels of 715ppb all the way up to 1732 ppb!

 

Both levels are much greater then the natural historical variations for the gases.

 

PS: ".045 CO2" -- try .0379% of the atmosphere.

[bascule]

There really weren't many people talking about a new ice age back in the 70s. This appears to be an urban legend propagated by global warming denier websites. It is true that there were some warnings back then, but this is different.

 

It was mainly the press, not the climate science community. The press presented what the science community was saying out-of-context. For example, take the following statement published by the National Science Board in 1974:

 

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

 

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age.

 

Oh no! Global cooling! But wait, they left out the rest of the paragraph:

 

However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .

 

I'm so sick of the "They were wrong back then and they're wrong now!" mentality.

 

Climate science reporting is bad. But don't blame the scientists... it's not their fault.

[JTM³]

That's an awfully bold statement from somebody who refuses to acknolwedge statistics.

 

(particularly directly below a chart that clearly illustrates why that exact statement is false)

 

 

Well you know;

 

There are lies, there are damned lies, [b']and statistics[/b]

 

 

And if you want to be picky:

 

This well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies%2C_damned_lies%2C_and_statistics

 

 

Glad you're all enjoying my thread

[jackson33]

in the 60's and 70's, people in general were more involved with science. most had a couple years in school. all knew something about earths cycles, the ice ages and the temperate period of the Dino's. families moved for health reason to warmer, colder or dryer areas and never considered earth altering events to make life pleasant, at any particular place. the older generation remembered warmer periods and the younger accepted the cooler, figuring in time the cycle would change back to warming. IT DID...and it will again.

 

i do wish some one would show some concern for the plant life, which has a .045 surplus to sustain its life and provide us with life. my concerns are not for the UN, Al Gore or a political entity which is in need of a cause for importance. my concerns are not for an element of society that feels big business or capitalism in general are bad things. my concerns are not for those that blame the rich or the achievers for their insignificances. nor am i concerned about National Governments that see some economical benefits from any international action. nor am i concerned about any government wishing to take advantages of their people, by adding taxes to products for which a few feel are overindulgence. GW, indirectly or directly attacks these items, the advocates each with cause.

 

there is a question of reality which needs attention. the earth will warm and it will cool and it may happen in the next 20 years or 100 or even 500 to 1000 years. ocean levels will go up or down and ice caps will take in more fresh water or dump some in the oceans. what are islands and seacoast, may be inland properties, just as possible may be under water. as in the past all this was, it will be again. mans ignorance to what causes what and in particular for what reason will lead to more than being uncomfortable. whatever many think are earth shattering, man made causes are no doubt already addressed by natures ever changing give and takes. if mans first attempt to create events were successful the outcome may not be whats intended.

[Sisyphus]

There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are endlessly regurgitated, out of context, hopelessly misunderstood quotes somehow taken as support for a fundamental rejection of science itself.

 

Hmm, not as catchy.

 

How about this, according to the best information we have to go on, man-made factors are primarily responsible for a steady increase in overall global temperature, which will continue indefinitely unless steps are taken to reverse the trend. Is it proven? No. But it's the best hypothesis we have from the present data, which shows a statistical correlation between models and observed phenomena so high as to make it extremely improbable that it is not mostly accurate, as agreed upon by a large majority of the people best able to find out. That's what "scientific consensus" means. What part of that is so hard to understand? Seriously, that's not a rhetorical question. Which part do you not understand?

 

Oh, and spouting conspiracy theories about UN plots and the like doesn't help your credibility. You might want to tone that down.

[jackson33]

the human race, the plant life and in total animals that now populate the planet have all increased during this same period. frankly at substantially greater levels than any GHG figure of .07 %, and again this figure is represented in an over all figure of .045 of the totals in the atmosphere to start with. these figures 100 to 300% increases with the minimal GHG increase tell my 3rd grade mind, that something, like maybe nature, has any perceivable problem under control.

 

motivation or slanted views to make a point, do not imply conspiracy theory. no one i know of says the planet is not in a warming trend. the cause if a cause is even needed is of little value based on the statistics offered. anything conceived as current and never happened before is just not correct. the fact man is here and enjoying living standards never equaled is and has a value that some simply don't like, for whatever reason.

 

in my opinion, we have no more than ten years left to this trend, which i am on record as saying next winter the Northern Hemisphere could be setting up for a very cold season.

[Sisyphus]

So to the question, "which part do you not understand," your answer is "any of it?"