New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It depends on why that was done.

Data gets adjusted in a lot of things, but blatantly wrong things invalidate that sort of adjustment, like in that chart above.

a reply to: Greven

'Why'? Why does anyone fudge data? To get a desired result.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Greven

'Why'? Why does anyone fudge data? To get a desired result.

Thank you for flying ATS, you have safely reached your destination.



~Namaste

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why is pi often abbreviated as 3.14 (or 3.14159) instead of using the full known number?

Because in such instances as it is acceptable, it wouldn't change the result.

There are other reasons, of course. Say you conduct an experiment with a bunch of tests and controls. Photovoltaic cells, for example. Suppose most of your tests are within a range of 200mV to 250mV and most of your controls are within 0mV to 50mV. Suppose you have a couple of outliers in this large experiment - one test is at 450mV while another is at 0mV. You don't keep those outliers in the results, you throw them out.

If anyone is interested, here's the link to the original science article published:

A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes


But take heed... the article is full of words like: suggesting, imply, approximation, probabilistic, probablities, statistical, likelihood, highly likely, suggests, possibly, etc etc.



Yup, sounds like 99.999% certainty to me !

what if volcanoes when they spew molten, hot lava high into the atmosphere and then all over the earth affects the temp of the planet? What if the ash-clouds generated may somehow assist in cooling the earth some? What if a 'big one' blows, like Yellowstone? Then it's game over for any back-pedaling on the global warming issue, IMO.

Consider the possibility that gigantic CMEs from sun spots indirectly generate EQs. Large EQs according to some tilt the earth off of its axis. The jet-stream is affected, which affects/changes all of our weather to be more extreme.

Man creating global warming? Probably not. Pollution from man is probably a miniscule factor in the whole equation.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why is pi often abbreviated as 3.14 (or 3.14159) instead of using the full known number?

Because in such instances as it is acceptable, it wouldn't change the result.

There are other reasons, of course.

But But

pi is an infinite number.

just like natural climate change.

a reply to: Greven

We are not discussing Pi, which is a transcendental number, we are referring to the fudging of raw data. See the post on the previous page by SonOfTheLawOfOne.

Numbers can be made to do anything, that is why I do not trust them and typically smash them with a hammer or douse them in wasp killer when I see them scampering about trying to prove some unprovable point.

July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center. This means that anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month. We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions. Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000. We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Why only use half the century for data then call it a whole centruries worth average?

Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence. We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined. Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.

I would like to see the research parameters they used to come to this logic defying conclusion of theirs. From what I see it is obviously a deeply skewed analysis.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. It's an easy publication, which boosts their reputation and can potentially help secure grants.

If there was a problem with their methodology in discarding outliers, scientists would jump at the chance to write about it.

Your presumption is that they are already set on a result and that they are fitting the data to that result. This assumes malice on part of a broad swath of scientists.

It has happened with some things - like the Piltdown man - but it tends to be found out and corrected more quickly.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Speaking of raw data fudging...

If there is one thing that I can give these climate scientists a tip of the hat for, it's the fact that they've somehow managed to be inaccurate year after year to a very precise 0.001 degrees... with an error margin of almost a full 2 degrees up or down.

It's all about the precision !

originally posted by: Greven
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. It's an easy publication, which boosts their reputation and can potentially help secure grants.

Except, for what I have seen in this global warming debate, anyone who disagrees with them is automatically an oil company shill, a Fox News shill, a coal shill, an anti-solar shill, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
If anyone is interested, here's the link to the original science article published:

A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes


But take heed... the article is full of words like: suggesting, imply, approximation, probabilistic, probabilities, statistical, likelihood, highly likely, suggests, possibly, etc etc.



Yup, sounds like 99.999% certainty to me !

You'll also see the same words in papers about evolution...they use suggesting, imply, approximation, probabilistic, probabilities, statistical, likelihood, highly likely, suggests, possibly.. Yup sounds like scientific consensus on evolution to me.

So....

a reply to: Greven

but scientists love to prove other scientists wrong.

Which means they will lie like dogs on rugs to get big money.

Especially when the U.N. is throwing the party (and throwing the bones).

I bet some might even get carbon credit options !!!!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

but scientists love to prove other scientists wrong.

Which means they will lie like dogs on rugs to get big money.

Especially when the U.N. is throwing the party (and throwing the bones).

I bet some might even get carbon credit options !!!!

But there is just as much money...more actually...on the other side. Those that want to tell us that our air pollution is causing no harm and telling us that we don't need more fuel efficient cars and going against solar power or other renewables. And that side would be big oil, coal, natural gas, the fracking industry and older car manufacturers. That's a lot of money being thrown around to scientists with an agenda. What about that money?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Speaking of raw data fudging...

If there is one thing that I can give these climate scientists a tip of the hat for, it's the fact that they've somehow managed to be inaccurate year after year to a very precise 0.001 degrees... with an error margin of almost a full 2 degrees up or down.

It's all about the precision !

Further speaking of raw data fudging...

Working with scientists, they do look for the opportunity to prove other scientists wrong, in their field of study.

No biologist is going to call out a physicist. No geologist is going to call out a chemist.

Where you run into the problem is where the geologist depends on the data provided by a chemist. Such as determining the exact mineral contents of a gemstone sampling using chemical analysis. This is the same problem with scientists and climate models.

The scientists don't know HOW to question the data sets that are gathered by other fields of study because that isn't "their wheelhouse". They are not engineers. They are not computer scientists. They are not data modelers. They are climate scientists or meteorologists, etc. and they depend on the other fields of study to produce a desired result. (thanks AugustusMasonicus!)

They can be handed data from what they would consider a trusted source and have no idea whatsoever of the formula or original data set that was used to arrive at their source. They then go on to feed new measurements and formulas into a brand new model that is based on the original data, having no idea how accurate it is, how much filtering has been done, how many "anomalies" have been removed and who set the criteria for whether or not something is an "anomaly", all of which is fundamental to a scientific discourse.

Welcome to ClimateGate. That is EXACTLY what happened. When someone finally checked on the source data, they realized it was fabricated, inaccurate and did not even closely meet the criteria required for any realistic climate model.

When working with algorithms and formulas, it is an exact science. That means it is deterministic until you get into the world of machine learning, totally separate topic. Climate modeling is not based on machine learning, or a feedback loop into itself to self-tune. So, given the same inputs into the model, the output will always be the same because it is deterministic. That means you have to know every single variable in order to get a predictable output every single time that will match the climate, or even just the weather. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea how data modeling works.

I find it funny that this one problem goes unchecked until you arrive at a situation like ClimateGate, and THEN everyone starts to scrutinize the data. Precision has a lot to do with it.

~Namaste

My apologies to Greven - not sure how I did that

a reply to: beezzer

I will continue to read actual data. Not referenced and re-referenced work (that irritates me to no end).

What have you actually been reading then?

What are your sources?

Doing some reading on the whole topic and I found something interesting so I thought I'd share.

Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

And

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

Link

It's data like this that keeps me a skeptic.

CSIRO are a respected scientific organisation (Government), and have done many good things, but they seem to have run with this Global Warming doom and cant stop.

They are 99.9999% SURE that Humans are responsible for "More Than HALF" of the temperature increases???

OK...Half you say?...or more than Half??? a little bit more than half? a fraction more? a Lot more than half????

would you say...10% of a Half...etc etc etc.

Quite an unscientific way to be determined in your research and conclusion, that something can be a bit "More than Half"....dont you think?
Sounds like that other wonderful human scientific research people do......When in doubt....guess.

a reply to: amazing

Are you focusing on CO2 or pollution?

Plenty has been going on for pollution.

It's the CO2 carbon credit swindles that are the problem.