It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by budski
Wasn't the Nasa data shown to be a little less than reliable recently?
Originally posted by melatonin Didn't really make much difference to the global data. But the main point was that what the earlier poster wanted, is exactly what the temperature data is. That is, anomaly.
[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]
Originally posted by RGReventlov
How do you calculate or determine what's anomalous if you don't compare the data to a baseline, which in this case is an absolute temperature (so to speak). I say this because obviously, celsius is not an absolute scale of heat, but a calibrated arbitrary scale.
Originally posted by melatonin
It's a silly argument anyway.
It's just an obfuscatory piece of work - there is no global temp, therefore it's all in vain. Lets emit!
Originally posted by RGReventlov
That can be said in terms of both sides of the argument.
I didn't get that message at all from the article. Not everyone, in fact, I'd say hardly anyone that counters the "Man is warming the globe and the results will be catastrophic" argument is in favor of "emitting... and damn the consequences."
Rather, I think most, like myself, are against the underlying motive of the AGW movement, which is to tax the technologically advanced and industrial nations, and hamstring the developing nations. And all this will be implemented based on, at the very least, a possibly flawed theory, and at most, a valid theory but exaggerated way beyond the realm of reality.
a. How much of an effect does it cause?
b. Are we collecting, parsing, reducing, and interpreting the data correctly?
c. Are there political or economic drivers affecting and biasing the interpretation of the data and the predictions of doom?
Originally posted by melatonin
Don't worry too much. It was just my version of their argument. If you want it closer to reality, it goes something like - we can't measure temperature, therefore it's all in vain, hence we should do nothing, lets fowgeddabowtit.
Originally posted by RGReventlov
According to IPCC this began in the 1890s or so right? Do you favor returning to an 1890's level of industry and standard of living?
If we are to accept everything the mainstream AGW movement espouses and IPCC warns, we need to be prepared to accept continued warming for 100 years even if we capped all human CO2 emissions at present levels. And we'd need to revert to 19th century levels after that to attempt to reverse the trend.
How do we do this?
The measures being promoted by the mainstream AGW movement are useless, feel good nonsense.
You see, this is why I said earlier that the root of this problem is unchecked population growth and resource consumption.
I'm not trying to be argumentative for arguments sake. I'm just a pragmatist by nature and don't see any answers to the problems being promoted by the alarmists, short of a return to a pre-industrial way of life or a sudden leap forward to clean, renewable or in-exhaustible, affordable energy.
A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Originally posted by RGReventlov
Originally posted by melatonin Didn't really make much difference to the global data. But the main point was that what the earlier poster wanted, is exactly what the temperature data is. That is, anomaly.
[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]
How do you calculate or determine what's anomalous if you don't compare the data to a baseline, which in this case is an absolute temperature (so to speak). I say this because obviously, celsius is not an absolute scale of heat, but a calibrated arbitrary scale.
spelling.
[edit on 3/13/2008 by RGReventlov]
Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
My reasons for being especially skeptical of AGW catastrophism is the relative ease that global fauna have survived previous interglacial periods, or the entire Mesozoic; and also the apparent advancement humanity underwent during the Holocene Maximum.
That is what I would call a "ridiculous statement" because proponents of an AGW have so far failed to to provide convincing evidence, and rather use circular arguments such as "our evidence is so strong I don't even have to reference it".
I will admit to having once been as convinced of an AGW as anyone else (An Inconvenient Truth helped that along, especially regarding Mr. Gore's totally unfounded doomsday prophecies), but being curious as to what the other side had to say I looked at that too, and it soon became obvious that I was "fighting" on the wrong side.
Realizing the negative consequences of a world "going green", that is, starving the developing countries of a critical ingredient for development, sealed the deal.