d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > New Climate Data
Prev14567812Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1604Replies: 114Track Topic
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#51
Dec 9 2009 08:01pm
Quote (Sioux @ Dec 9 2009 09:57pm)
Question: does one priest who molests little boys mean all priests molest little boys?  No that just means theres one/a handful of bad priests out there. Does one unethical scientists who fudges data mean all scientists are unethical and fudge their data?  Probably not. Looking at a set of emails out of context doesn't really mean anything.


Let's also get straight that the data is all real and undisputed. The arrangement of the data is what people are upset over. The different sorts of data (tree rings, ice cores, thermometer) are averaged to find trends. This was just a case of using different data plots for different time periods and hiding the other data plots for those periods. Granted, a bad move, but there is no true decline in temperatures, there was a forecast decline in a proxy model in 1999 that was inaccurate (because tree rings cannot be used post 1961 because at that point they diverge from historical records).
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
#52
Dec 9 2009 08:03pm
Quote (Sioux @ Dec 9 2009 06:57pm)
Does one unethical scientists who fudges data mean all scientists are unethical and fudge their data?

Those emails do not discuss the fudging of data. Sigh.
Member
Posts: 9,899
Joined: May 7 2006
Gold: 550.00
#53
Dec 9 2009 08:06pm
Quote (Azrad @ Dec 9 2009 09:03pm)
Those emails do not discuss the fudging of data. Sigh.


I didn't read all the posts, but there were two parts to the so called climate gate emails. One guy who fudged his data slighty to show significance when there wasn't any, and some emails talking about shutting out global warming deniers. Either way, it doesn't really prove anything.
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#54
Dec 9 2009 08:07pm
Quote (Sioux @ Dec 9 2009 10:06pm)
I didn't read all the posts, but there were two parts to the so called climate gate emails. One guy who fudged his data slighty to show significance when there wasn't any, and some emails talking about shutting out global warming deniers. Either way, it doesn't really prove anything.


Not really true, refer to my post above yours. It's way not as bad as anything people are saying.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 08:07pm
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
#55
Dec 9 2009 08:07pm
Quote (Sioux @ Dec 9 2009 07:06pm)
One guy who fudged his data slighty to show significance when there wasn't any...
Wrong, read it again.

Member
Posts: 52,227
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#56
Dec 9 2009 08:12pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 07:29pm)
We have increased the levels of atmospheric carbon more than 40% total since 1750. By mid century we will have effectively doubled it at current rates of annual increase.


And have had a net increase of how many degrees, attributable to anthropogenic contribution?

CO2 levels are also noted to be a lagging indicator of warming, not a leading indicator. Care to explain this?

Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 07:29pm)
We are producing more than can be dealt with by carbon sinks, which keeps it in the atmosphere.


So make more & better carbon sinks, not credits.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 07:45pm)
The emails aren't damning of the science. They are damning of other things.


So you're ok with the solutions proposed by Kyoto and Copenhagen knowing this?

Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 07:56pm)
Read my previous info and plug the numbers and see what you get. Those numbers are not and have not ever been in dispute.


I am not running any models. I used his data, and simply extrapolated. If you take his figure of 0.117 in a 95% water vapor controlled greenhouse effect like he does, you get the 0.069 degrees F, then assume instead, your figure of 66% water vapor controlled, you get the 0.483 degrees F I came up with. I simply multiplied by 7, since 34% is roughly 7 times 5%.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 08:14pm
Member
Posts: 52,227
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#57
Dec 9 2009 08:22pm
Quote (Sioux @ Dec 9 2009 07:57pm)
Question: does one priest who molests little boys mean all priests molest little boys?  No that just means theres one/a handful of bad priests out there. Does one unethical scientists who fudges data mean all scientists are unethical and fudge their data?  Probably not. Looking at a set of emails out of context doesn't really mean anything.


Except that it's the group of scientists, not one, that engaged in this behavior. The conclusions of these particular scientists are being heralded by politicians worldwide as excuses for political action, and their conclusions are fudged.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 08:01pm)
Let's also get straight that the data is all real and undisputed. The arrangement of the data is what people are upset over. The different sorts of data (tree rings, ice cores, thermometer) are averaged to find trends. This was just a case of using different data plots for different time periods and hiding the other data plots for those periods. Granted, a bad move, but there is no true decline in temperatures, there was a forecast decline in a proxy model in 1999 that was inaccurate (because tree rings cannot be used post 1961 because at that point they diverge from historical records).


No, even the data themselves are disputed. The tree rings data were cherry picked from 3 trees, rather than averaged from the dozens that were sampled.

Also, since tree rings diverge from the historical record, why is it ok to include them prior to 1961?
Member
Posts: 9,503
Joined: Nov 7 2007
Gold: 0.00
#58
Dec 9 2009 08:28pm
My problem isn't with the science itself, my problem is with the politicising of the issue. Politicians aren't stupid and have quickly climbed on to what they know is a 'no explaination needed tax'. In Australia the Government nearly passed an ETS (emission trading scheme) through the Senate without telling the public a thing about it. It was going to cost Australians billions of dollars yet most people knew NOTHING about it.

As far as I'm concerned if the Government is going to spend any of my tax money on climate change, it should be going straight into scientific research of green or renewable energy across a board range on industry.

Governments have a very bad record of investing in technology. The power needs to be given to the consumer. This will encourage competition between industry, in turn creating a wider variety of products and ultimately resulting in a much higher chance of finding the most efficient technology. On the other hand, you have the Government investing across a relatively small spectrum of technology. Putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak. This is not going to help anyone.
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#59
Dec 9 2009 08:31pm
Quote (Santara @ Dec 9 2009 10:12pm)
And have had a net increase of how many degrees, attributable to anthropogenic contribution?

about 2.

CO2 levels are also noted to be a lagging indicator of warming, not a leading indicator. Care to explain this?

Yes, we are a forcing agent that has never existed before. Dissolving ice releasing carbon isn't the main reason for the increase, we are. This is also a fairly inaccurate statement, as it is well known that an increase in atmospheric carbon from a massive eruption unlike any ever seen before or since ended the snowball earth.

So make more & better carbon sinks, not credits.

I can agree with that.

So you're ok with the solutions proposed by Kyoto and Copenhagen knowing this?

The solutions are too watered down for me to be wholly OK with.

I am not running any models. I used his data, and simply extrapolated. If you take his figure of 0.117 in a 95% water vapor controlled greenhouse effect like he does, you get the 0.069 degrees F, then assume instead, your figure of 66% water vapor controlled, you get the 0.483 degrees F I came up with. I simply multiplied by 7, since 34% is roughly 7 times 5%.


You forgot to  take his data, reduce the incorrect water vapor assumption to 66, then take his incorrect total GHG contribution which he uses the whole planet contribution to arrive at and account for a 60% contribution instead of a 3.6% contribution.


read.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 08:31pm
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#60
Dec 9 2009 08:37pm
Quote (lims101 @ Dec 10 2009 12:28pm)
My problem isn't with the science itself, my problem is with the politicising of the issue. Politicians aren't stupid and have quickly climbed on to what they know is a 'no explaination needed tax'. In Australia the Government nearly passed an ETS (emission trading scheme) through the Senate without telling the public a thing about it. It was going to cost Australians billions of dollars yet most people knew NOTHING about it.


That tax could of cost us up to $1000 extra a year in power bills.

Quote (lims101 @ Dec 10 2009 12:28pm)
As far as I'm concerned if the Government is going to spend any of my tax money on climate change, it should be going straight into scientific research of green or renewable energy across a board range on industry.


Exactly. Increase the rebates for alternative energy like solar panels for households.

Quote (lims101 @ Dec 10 2009 12:28pm)
Governments have a very bad record of investing in technology. The power needs to be given to the consumer. This will encourage competition between industry, in turn creating a wider variety of products and ultimately resulting in a much higher chance of finding the most efficient technology. On the other hand, you have the Government investing across a relatively small spectrum of technology. Putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak. This is not going to help anyone.


Fuck the State. Give incentives and tax deductions to private companies to produce the solution, the government will just fuck it up. Name one State run program that isn't a blubbering bureaucratic mess of cash and time wasting in this country?

This post was edited by lithfkn on Dec 9 2009 08:37pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev14567812Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact