[News] Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics

[Moontanman]

Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics

ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2009) — Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. The result: the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is not a statistical accident.

 

Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics

[Flying Binghi]

I question the 'reliability' of their tempurature history.

 

Heres some extracts from 1922 -

 

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

 

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

 

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

[Galapagos]

I question the 'reliability' of their tempurature history.

What about it seems questionable to you?

[Flying Binghi]

What about it seems questionable to you?

 

Reference the 1922 Artic observations, suggests to me it been a little hotter then today. The thread lead article temp records dont show it.

[Pyrotex]

One must be careful about selecting a single observation as "representative". This is called the anecdote fallacy.

 

Unusual, out-of-the-ordinary things happen all the time. One-in-a-million odds happen eight times a day in New York City. Because there are eight million people there. People do win lotteries, because someone has to. Every stream of collected data has its outliers.

 

But it is typically not appropriate to select one or two outliers and propose that they represent a "trend". It is far wiser to rely on the judicious use of statistics as applied to ALL the data.

[Flying Binghi]

But it is typically not appropriate to select one or two outliers and propose that they represent a "trend". It is far wiser to rely on the judicious use of statistics as applied to ALL the data.

 

Fair comment there Pyrotex.

 

As an outlier example; if you look at say 100,000 years of climate temperature history, a 100 year temperature snapshot could very well be an outlier.

[freeztar]

As an outlier example; if you look at say 100,000 years of climate temperature history, a 100 year temperature snapshot could very well be an outlier.

 

 

Statistically speaking, a one hundred year period is 0.01%, given a 100,000 year time period. In this sense, yes, it could be outlying data.

 

BUT, with time-stamped data, especially at such a scale, many other factors must be figured in. When you look at climate history over the last 100,000 years, it's not so cut and dry, statistically. We've had warming and cooling epochs along that timeline. Milkanovich cycles need to be figured in, as well as GHG levels. We do know that warm periods are closely associated with high levels of GHGs, such as methane and CO2.

 

Furthermore, what happened 90,000 years ago is not really 1:1 with what is happening now. What is important in our timeframe is the *trend* that we see within recent history. That trend indicates that global climate is on the move.

 

At this point, you could still say that it could be natural factors. Unfortunately for that POV, isotopic signatures show that human-emitted carbon is a significant enough proportion of the overall carbon content in the atmosphere that it is having an effect much like models predict. In other words, humans are contributing to GHG content in the atmosphere. It's a simple step to figure causation.

[Flying Binghi]

freeztar, for some weird reason, after reading your post, i got to thinking about a book called The Halo Effect :)

 

Its about business though seems strangely relavent.

 

Heres what the author had to say -

 

I wrote The Halo Effect because during 25 years in and around the business world, I've seen so much nonsense—unsupported claims by famous gurus and self-described "thought leaders," sweeping assertions based on poor data, and simplistic stories that claim to be rigorous research. Worse, most people—including many very smart managers, consultants, and journalists— can't tell the difference between good and bad research. The Halo Effect is an attempt to raise the level of discussion in the business world, and to sharpen our skills of critical thinking about management. The Halo Effect - About The Halo Effect

 

 

What is important in our timeframe is the *trend* that we see within recent history. That trend indicates that global climate is on the move.

 

I am yet to hear/read of any claims that the climate is not on the move. The global climate has always changed and always will ..... until the Sun expands and engulfs us (so the scientists say)

 

 

much like models predict

 

That would be the Hocky stick model ?

[Pyrotex]

I really appreciate The Halo Effect. But you must realize that it pertains to the analysis of human business organizations. Of course you do, right? And the Halo Effect attempts to show why a company with excellent parameters (culture, leadership, etc) can still fail, and why one with crappy parameters can still succeed.

 

I believe you may find it very difficult to demonstrate a correlation between a human business organization (in competition with many others) -- AND -- the measurement and interpretation of Arctic temperatures over the last 100,000 years.

We only have one Arctic, and it's not in competition with other Arctics.

The temperatures aren't "failing" or "succeeding".

If the temperatures suddenly start rising, that doesn't lead us to re-interpret the meaning of temperature.

The Arctic doesn't change CEOs every 3 to 30 years.

The item being measured is a one-dimensional parameter (temperature), not a multi-parameter human organization.

The Halo Effect is a description of how secondary values (quality of CEO, quality of culture) is distorted by prior success or failure; global warming is a straight statistical analysis of a primary parameter (temperature) and its correlation to Green House Gases.

[Flying Binghi]

...you must realize that it pertains to the analysis of human business organizations.

 

errr, yes .... isnt that what all this AGW drama is really about ?

 

.........exibit A/ - Al Gores new boat :D

[Pyrotex]

errr, yes .... isnt that what all this AGW drama is really about ? ...

errr, no .... this GW drama is actually about teaching humans not to crap in their own nests. Ironically, most other animals don't seem to have this problem. :shrug:

 

I would avoid "Anti Global Warming", or AGW. Ambiguous. :confused: Does it mean that one is against the theory that the Globe will get Warmer? Or does it mean that one is for the theory but against allowing it to happen? Or does it mean that one doesn't care about the theory, but just wants the Warming because one is Anti-Globe? :shrug: