[Osedax]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Source data is everything. What good is processed data if the source can't be verified and/or confirmed?

Very true.

The movement is too big to fail, as I hear it. Jones is being made to be the fall guy. By the end of this whole fiasco, Jones will be the main scapegoat. That's the plan that was concocted in the weeks of silence preceding this, and that's the plan they are following.

This is simply conspiracy garbage.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Secondly, you have to answer this misunderstanding for us. I think you mean "how long does it take to detect a change" and Oreo thinks you mean "if one period shows a change and a different (shorter) period shows no change, why can't I just look at the period that shows what I want to see." Which question are you really asking?

Aaah, now I understand the reason for our discussion earlier.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Would it be too much to ask one of you really intelligent guys to plug the numbers into all those complicated equations, starting with the 4.5 billion, to show me where the number 30 comes up?

What does the number "4.5 billion" have to do with anything? It would be helpful if you could explain that first.

greg

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

This is simply conspiracy garbage.

Get your popcorn ready, Osedax. It's gonna be a good show.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What does the number "4.5 billion" have to do with anything? It would be helpful if you could explain that first.

greg

Ah,..the "play dumb" gambit. Gotcha.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

First, yes it is too much. I'm not going to look at the raw data for you

Secondly, you have to answer this misunderstanding for us. I think you mean "how long does it take to detect a change" and Oreo thinks you mean "if one period shows a change and a different (shorter) period shows no change, why can't I just look at the period that shows what I want to see." Which question are you really asking?

Actually, neither.

I already explained my question, and clearly it's either a question that can't be answered or answered in a way that makes the argument that the change in question has significance.

No one really has ever said that the climate doesn't change. It does. It has for probably the entirety of the 4.5 billion years Earth has been around. Even when humans where not around. So, simply showing that there's some kind of "change" isn't really all that significant.

The question is whether or not man is causing current change and whether or not the current change goes above and beyond what is the norm for the Earth as part of it's natural cycle. You aren't really going to be able to figure that out if you're just looking at 30 years. It's like showing that the sun came up on 30 days a rooster happened to be around, then saying that you've shown that the rooster causes the movement of the sun. No one disputes that the sun came up - what you'd have to do is see if the sun also came up the same way when the rooster wasn't around.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I asked because the amount of time Earth has "been around" doesn't seem to have any logical or rational connection to what we're talking about.

I was asking you to explain why "4.5 billion years" does have relevance. That seems an appropriate question, because otherwise I don't know how to answer your question beyond saying "the number 4.5 billion doesn't have anything to do with it."

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I asked because the amount of time Earth has "been around" doesn't seem to have any logical or rational connection to what we're talking about.

We are talking about whether or not the small change in temperature we've seen recently is a reflection of a potential man-made catastrophic climate disaster.

If you've got something that's been around for 4.5 billion years, then try to argue that since 30 years showed a change not seen in the past 100 years - or even 1000 years, you aren't really making a very persuasive argument.

The question is whether what we had experienced (it's not getting warmer currently) is outside the norm for the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old. You aren't going to find that answer sampling only 30 years. Does not compute.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you've got something that's been around for 4.5 billion years, then try to argue that since 30 years showed a change not seen in the past 100 years - or even 1000 years, you aren't really making a very persuasive argument.

I'm sure there are periods in which the earth's climate has changed more drastically, but usually they're following by mass extinctions -- not really a good thing. And they last very, very long on the time scale of human life spans.

It also doesn't change (either way) that from the looks of things, human activity changes the climate for the worse. Which means, we can reduce the risks by changing our behavior. It's like continuing to eat Twinkys after being diagnosed with heart problems.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The question is whether what we had experienced (it's not getting warmer currently) is outside the norm for the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old. You aren't going to find that answer sampling only 30 years. Does not compute.

What doesn't compute is your argument: you're not saying what `norm' is, you're not specifying what time scale you're looking at, etc. As I explained, you're choosing the time scale to look for specific effects that live on these time scales. It is perfectly legitimate to look on any time scale, but you shouldn't push your conclusions to incompatible ones.

You also seem to confuse that data is sampled every 30 years. This is not the case.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The question is whether what we had experienced (it's not getting warmer currently) is outside the norm for the Earth

What is the "norm" in your opinion?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one really has ever said that the climate doesn't change. It does. It has for probably the entirety of the 4.5 billion years Earth has been around. Even when humans where not around. ...
The question is whether or not man is causing current change. You aren't really going to be able to figure that out if you're just looking at 30 years.

Likewise, no one has ever said that your weight doesn't change. It does. It has for probably the entirety of your life (even if you're 100 years old). Even when ice cream was not around, your weight changed. The question is after stuffing your face with ice cream for a month, whether that is causing current change in weight. You aren't really going to be able to figure that out if you're just looking at 30 days. Right, stupendousman? Because 100 years is sooo much longer than 30 days, you just can't figure out how to detect the change, can you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Likewise, no one has ever said that your weight doesn't change. It does. It has for probably the entirety of your life (even if you're 100 years old). Even when ice cream was not around, your weight changed. The question is after stuffing your face with ice cream for a month, whether that is causing current change in weight.

True. But if I currently weigh 110 lbs and am 5'10" what will it matter if I gain 5 lbs. in a month eating ice cream? Especially if when I was younger I weighed 125 and my weight has flucuated 5 lbs not eating ice cream? The "little picture" isn't really all that relevant if the bigger picture shows something else entirely.

You aren't really going to be able to figure that out if you're just looking at 30 days. Right, stupendousman? Because 100 years is sooo much longer than 30 days, you just can't figure out how to detect the change, can you?

I can figure out if I'm getting fatter than I was just by checking the scales. What's important to know is if that change in weight is something precedented, or if that change of weight causes a positive or negative effect. If I've been healthier and heavier, and that happened 50 years before, than gaining 10 pounds wouldn't be something "negative". In order to judge, again, you've got to be able to look at the big picture.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What doesn't compute is your argument: you're not saying what `norm' is, you're not specifying what time scale you're looking at, etc.

I don't have to say what the "norm" is for my argument. I'm simply saying that in order to find out what the "norm" is in regards to the climate of a planet 4.5 billion years old, I'm pretty sure a non-random sample of 30 years isn't going to give us the answer.

As I explained, you're choosing the time scale to look for specific effects that live on these time scales. It is perfectly legitimate to look on any time scale, but you shouldn't push your conclusions to incompatible ones.

You also seem to confuse that data is sampled every 30 years. This is not the case.

The data set examined is 30 years long. Whether or not it's gotten hotter in 30 years isn't all that important, if say 100 years ago it was hotter when there wasn't same levels of carbon, for instance. Context is king.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True. But if I currently weigh 110 lbs and am 5'10" what will it matter if I gain 5 lbs. in a month eating ice cream? Especially if when I was younger I weighed 125 and my weight has flucuated 5 lbs not eating ice cream? The "little picture" isn't really all that relevant if the bigger picture shows something else entirely.

That's the most relevant point of comparison. If the current weight gain is caused by your new all-ice-cream diet, then what you measure after only a month is just the tip of the iceberg. The new diet, if continued, will likely keep raising your weight indefinitely until it kills you. If on the other hand, the weight-gain is just a random fluctuation and not ice-cream-related, then it won't likely continue to rise indefinitely even if you keep your ice cream diet. What the cause is determines whether it's wise to continue the ice cream diet or to stop it.

People don't warn about global warming because 2 degrees is important, they warn about it because they think it's an indicator of an ongoing problem that will get worse and worse forever (until we stop causing it).

I can figure out if I'm getting fatter than I was just by checking the scales. What's important to know is if that change in weight is something precedented, or if that change of weight causes a positive or negative effect. If I've been healthier and heavier, and that happened 50 years before, than gaining 10 pounds wouldn't be something "negative". In order to judge, again, you've got to be able to look at the big picture.

The big picture is that the ice cream diet is ongoing. You really think your weight will "bounce back" like it did in your youth, if you know the cause is ice-cream and you keep on eating it anyway?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can figure out if I'm getting fatter than I was just by checking the scales. What's important to know is if that change in weight is something precedented, or if that change of weight causes a positive or negative effect. If I've been healthier and heavier, and that happened 50 years before, than gaining 10 pounds wouldn't be something "negative". In order to judge, again, you've got to be able to look at the big picture.

But no one in the universe is arguing that drastic climate changes haven't happened before.

The argument is that humans either weren't around to experience it, or if they were there were a small number of them and they found it difficult to survive.

(On that note: the first and most obvious of the criticisms about your "4.5 billion" number is that the earth's climate has been totally different for most of that time. It's probably rather irrelevant what earth's climate was like a billion years ago [or 500 million, etc. etc.] when the continents were in totally different places, right?)

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's the most relevant point of comparison. If the current weight gain is caused by your new all-ice-cream diet, then what you measure after only a month is just the tip of the iceberg. The new diet, if continued, will likely keep raising your weight indefinitely until it kills you.

Or, if you've got a high metabolism and are underweight for your height, likely have little to no effect on the length of your life. You wouldn't know this if you where just examining the specific period where you gained weight. You really do need the "bigger picture"

If on the other hand, the weight-gain is just a random fluctuation and not ice-cream-related, then it won't likely continue to rise indefinitely even if you keep your ice cream diet. What the cause is determines whether it's wise to continue the ice cream diet or to stop it.

True. If you keep eating the ice cream and your weight doesn't continue to increase, then that's a sign it's not the ice cream (or not primarily the ice cream). Kind of like how since there's been no recent temp. increases but no real big drops in carbon output.

The big picture is that the ice cream diet is ongoing. You really think your weight will "bounce back" like it did in your youth, if you know the cause is ice-cream and you keep on eating it anyway?

Again, if I gained weight but my weight is still within the norms for my height and is actually under what I had been in the past (and my weight gain has stopped), there's nothing screwy about continuing to eat ice cream. Context is again king and you don't get that context from just analyzing the time period where you gained the weight.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But no one in the universe is arguing that drastic climate changes haven't happened before.

The argument is that humans either weren't around to experience it, or if they were there were a small number of them and they found it difficult to survive.

I believe that some (even the apparent foremost authority on climate) have suggested that the climate has in the not too distant past, been warmer than it is now. This was when there was plenty of humans and no planet-wide catastrophes (like there hasn't been 15 years or so after they were predicted to be sure things).

(On that note: the first and most obvious of the criticisms about your "4.5 billion" number is that the earth's climate has been totally different for most of that time. It's probably rather irrelevant what earth's climate was like a billion years ago [or 500 million, etc. etc.] when the continents were in totally different places, right?)

Probably not. You've answered your own question. The fact that if you look at the entire history of the world, you see that the climate has always changed. It's been hotter, it's been cooler and humans had little to nothing to do with it. It really isn't all that relevant then if for a short period of time it gets a little warmer when an analysis of the 4.5 billion years the Earth has existed shows that this stuff happens all the time and isn't really all that unprecedented.

Just like the sun coming up in the morning, looking at the days you know the rooster has crowed and saying that you're sure if the rooster dies that the sun will no longer come up and the planet's climate will get quickly cooler and catastrophe will happen, you simply aren't likely to find any relevance for real concern without looking at the bigger picture.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't have to say what the "norm" is for my argument. I'm simply saying that in order to find out what the "norm" is in regards to the climate of a planet 4.5 billion years old, I'm pretty sure a non-random sample of 30 years isn't going to give us the answer.

Of course, you have to say what the norm is. Your argument is really none, because you are not willing to state a claim that one can test. You also pretend, you can compare the climate 3 billion years ago to the climate now (just have a look and find out what the climate was like at that time). Comparing the climate today to the climate at some random point in the past is (in all likelihood) completely meaningless. To use your weight analogy: you cannot compare your weight as a 5-year old boy and your weight today to answer the question whether or not you're obese. Or whether your eating habits today have any influence on your current weight.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The data set examined is 30 years long. Whether or not it's gotten hotter in 30 years isn't all that important, if say 100 years ago it was hotter when there wasn't same levels of carbon, for instance. Context is king.

Isn't all that important? Tell that to the farmers or other groups of people that are directly affected by climate.
Thus, your claim that the development of the climate within the last 30 years `isn't all that important' unless we compare it to the climate some longer time ago is just wrong.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True. But if I currently weigh 110 lbs and am 5'10" what will it matter if I gain 5 lbs. in a month eating ice cream? Especially if when I was younger I weighed 125 and my weight has flucuated 5 lbs not eating ice cream? The "little picture" isn't really all that relevant if the bigger picture shows something else entirely.

You don't get what `little' and `big' picture mean here: there are many scales of interest in climate science, what is `little' and what is `big' depends crucially on the question you're asking.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Or, if you've got a high metabolism and are underweight for your height, likely have little to no effect on the length of your life.

If you're chronically underweight then a sudden weight gain would be even more noteworthy. Whatever caused it has somehow overcome your abnormally high barriers to weight gain.

Again, if I gained weight but my weight is still within the norms for my height and is actually under what I had been in the past (and my weight gain has stopped)...

Saying it has stopped is purely wishful thinking. The slowing of the increase is not statistically significant.

Also "within norms" of weight just means what we humans decide is a healthy number for human survival. The earth will survive at any temperature, but we humans would suffer drastically at higher temperatures. Just because the earth was much hotter before humans existed, doesn't mean that humans could have survived there if they did exist.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Probably not. You've answered your own question. The fact that if you look at the entire history of the world, you see that the climate has always changed. It's been hotter, it's been cooler and humans had little to nothing to do with it. It really isn't all that relevant then if for a short period of time it gets a little warmer when an analysis of the 4.5 billion years the Earth has existed shows that this stuff happens all the time and isn't really all that unprecedented.

Just like the sun coming up in the morning, looking at the days you know the rooster has crowed and saying that you're sure if the rooster dies that the sun will no longer come up and the planet's climate will get quickly cooler and catastrophe will happen, you simply aren't likely to find any relevance for real concern without looking at the bigger picture.

Sorry, I perhaps wasn't as clear as I should have been. The point relates somewhat to Oreo and Skeleton's points however (particular Oreo's response in his last post):

The reasons for earth's climate being different during much of its history are that different factors determined what that climate would be. You can't say "oh it was was hotter 200 million years ago," when it seems at that point the South and North Americas were joined to Africa and Asia/Europe, respectively, forming a huge supercontinent. That totally changes almost every major climate dynamic we know (albedo, wind patterns, ocean current patterns, fauna, yadda yadda yadda).

Your "4.5 billion" number is thus completely useless in this context. It has nothing to do with anything.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Of course, you have to say what the norm is. Your argument is really none, because you are not willing to state a claim that one can test. You also pretend, you can compare the climate 3 billion years ago to the climate now (just have a look and find out what the climate was like at that time). Comparing the climate today to the climate at some random point in the past is (in all likelihood) completely meaningless.

I didn't say that you should compare it to a single random point. That would be no better than taking a teeny, tiny non-random sample.

To use your weight analogy: you cannot compare your weight as a 5-year old boy and your weight today to answer the question whether or not you're obese. Or whether your eating habits today have any influence on your current weight.

Let's assume that we are dealing with a 50 year old man, and looking at his weight as an adult. It really wouldn't make sense to draw conclusions from a 10 lb gain over 3 months if when he was 30 he was 30 lbs heavier and 20 lbs over his ideal weight. Simply looking at the short term would provide you zero context.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The reasons for earth's climate being different during much of its history are that different factors determined what that climate would be. You can't say "oh it was was hotter 200 million years ago," when it seems at that point the South and North Americas were joined to Africa and Asia/Europe, respectively, forming a huge supercontinent. That totally changes almost every major climate dynamic we know (albedo, wind patterns, ocean current patterns, fauna, yadda yadda yadda).

Your "4.5 billion" number is thus completely useless in this context. It has nothing to do with anything.

greg

So looking back among the 4.5 billion years and seeing that the Earth's climate has constantly changed, and possibly that the current temperatures we are seeing fall within what has been normal fluctuations in the past has nothing to do with anything? Okay... whatever. You're right. It's much better to look at 30 years and panic, then wonder why assumptions made based on that analysis don't really pan out in another 20 years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you're chronically underweight then a sudden weight gain would be even more noteworthy. Whatever caused it has somehow overcome your abnormally high barriers to weight gain.

It's an interesting observation, but not one that has any real relevance. If the person in question is at a weight that is healthy, and even possibility they have weighed a little more in the past, how they got to that weight isn't all that important really and doesn't necessarily point to some kind of adverse effect from something new. You don't get that context looking short term or taking a tiny sample.

Saying it has stopped is purely wishful thinking. The slowing of the increase is not statistically significant.

It's either hotter than it was back when we were told it was getting hotter, or it isn't. I'm pretty sure it isn't. I'm pretty sure it's been this hot before in not so distant times and it's been hottest in the past. It could be just as much wishful thinking to claim that it's going to continue to get hotter. We really don't know. Especially since it seems to be within the planet's non man-made norms to be as hot as it is now.

We've got a guy who is 3 pounds over what he weighed a year ago, despite the fact that he was heavier in the past and at both times was within the norms of his ideal weight and fretting about the ice cream he ate. Could it lead to a 20 lb. weight gain? Possibly. Possibly not. Especially if he's got a past history of subtle weight change over the years that all fell with the norms of his ideal weight. You aren't going to be able to determine any of this if you just look at the year he gained the weight.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's an interesting observation, but not one that has any real relevance. If the person in question is at a weight that is healthy, and even possibility they have weighed a little more in the past, how they got to that weight isn't all that important really and doesn't necessarily point to some kind of adverse effect from something new. You don't get that context looking short term or taking a tiny sample.

If you were around a specific weight for an extended period of time and then suddenly started weighing more or less, the issue is not how you got to your usual weight, but that it WAS your usual weight and now something has changed. Having a baseline for comparison is very important.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We've got a guy who is 3 pounds over what he weighed a year ago, despite the fact that he was heavier in the past and at both times was within the norms of his ideal weight and fretting about the ice cream he ate. Could it lead to a 20 lb. weight gain? Possibly. Possibly not. Especially if he's got a past history of subtle weight change over the years that all fell with the norms of his ideal weight. You aren't going to be able to determine any of this if you just look at the year he gained the weight.

In this case the prediction isn't nearly as important as identifying some mechanism through which the person's weight changed. If it was a typical process, such as holiday eating, then it's no big deal. If it is something else, that's a very big deal. On a human time scale, 3 pounds in one year is not a major issue, nor is it a big deal with most men because the change is small in comparison to the expected range of weight in an adult man. But noting the 3 pound change from his baseline of a year ago is important to noting whether or not next year he's at or above that baseline.

The point of comparing anything is that you have some specific, reliable reference point. 100+ years of well documented atmospheric observations should have established for us a fairly good baseline for climate across the planet. Note that I said "climate." Climate is a collection of trends and norms, smoothed out over time from "weather" details; you could have a very cold year followed by a much warmer year and the two could simply cancel each other out climatically. But when the trend for spring events such as certain plants blooming comes earlier and earlier, that says that there's something other than expected weather variations.

There is, further, no doubt that human activity has led to the release of specific materials into the atmosphere and oceans that CAN have an affect on local temperatures. Local temperature changes in certain parts of the Pacific are sometimes called "El Niño" and these specific changes drive planet-wide weather changes; flooding rains here, drought there, etc. Long enough term alterations like this are apparently what led to the "fertile crescent" becoming a desert (though the changes there were apparently much more local).

That climate is changing in a lot of areas is apparently well established; whether or not specific man-made emissions are the cause is not nearly as important as the fact that we are tinkering (passively, perhaps) with a very complex system that we do not understand. This is a stupid thing to do. Scientifically, when a system is apparently undergoing change, the best way to identify the source of change is to first remove the controllable variables. ALL of what we dump into the air and water is controllable. Is it a big mental stretch to see that reducing our waste outputs would at least simplify figuring out what may be causing the observed changes in trends?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So looking back among the 4.5 billion years and seeing that the Earth's climate has constantly changed, and possibly that the current temperatures we are seeing fall within what has been normal fluctuations in the past has nothing to do with anything? Okay... whatever. You're right. It's much better to look at 30 years and panic, then wonder why assumptions made based on that analysis don't really pan out in another 20 years.

I said nothing about "normal fluctuations in the past." Many of those fluctuations are quite important; that's why they're studied. I was specifically responding to your repeated claim that we should be comparing our climate to that of the "last 4.5 billion years."


Are you just going to admit that "4.5 billion years" is completely irrelevant when examining the statistical significance of modern climate change?


Don't tippy-toe around. Just come out and say it. You were completely off-point and completely wrong. You didn't threw that number out there without stopping to think about it. You know very little about scientific theories on the history of the earth; otherwise, you would have realized that factors such as "continent placement" or "ocean currents" or "atmospheric gas levels" would make a totally different impact on earth's climate.


It was, literally, a "totally different world" when you're talking about geological timescales. I mean, come on – if we jumped into a time machine and went back 3 billion years, we'd probably just step out of the machine and slowly choke to death. There wasn't any oxygen. You're telling me we should compare our current climate to a world without trees and without atmospheric oxygen?


You're being ludicrous. Stop it.

greg

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

....You know very little about scientific theories on the history of the earth....

Hmm, sounds like the scientists that are supposed to be experts in the field at this moment.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

how they got to that weight isn't all that important really and doesn't necessarily point to some kind of adverse effect from something new.

No. Causes matter. Weight-gain from exercise is different than weight-gain from fat. Weight-loss from exercise is different than weight-loss from an eating disorder. Because different causes have different feedbacks and regulators (if any). You do get that context from looking short term. If you didn't, then no diet advice would ever be valid, because no diet takes a life-time to start showing effects, and because adults would be too late for it to matter if it did.

We've got a guy who is 3 pounds over what he weighed a year ago, despite the fact that he was heavier in the past and at both times was within the norms of his ideal weight and fretting about the ice cream he ate. Could it lead to a 20 lb. weight gain? Possibly. Possibly not. Especially if he's got a past history of subtle weight change over the years that all fell with the norms of his ideal weight. You aren't going to be able to determine any of this if you just look at the year he gained the weight.

We know the cause (ice cream, GHG, etc). There is literally no way that an all ice-cream diet won't lead to weigh-gain. And don't try to say that someone's metabolism prevents weight-gain while in the next breath you claim that the same person had weight-gain in the past.

It's either hotter than it was back when we were told it was getting hotter, or it isn't. I'm pretty sure it isn't.

No, it is. Your claim was only that it hasn't risen even further. No one is saying it dropped back below the 1998 high or the other highs before that.

it's been hottest in the past.

Humans couldn't have survived back then, and we won't survive if it returns. If you were a fat disgusting slob on the verge of death in your past, that doesn't mean you should want to return there after you've managed to get in shape.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupenduousman

Let's assume that we are dealing with a 50 year old man, and looking at his weight as an adult. It really wouldn't make sense to draw conclusions from a 10 lb gain over 3 months if when he was 30 he was 30 lbs heavier and 20 lbs over his ideal weight. Simply looking at the short term would provide you zero context.

Of course it would make sense to look at weight changes on this scale! They could be an indication of disease or just a consequence of seasonal eating habits. For that, looking at his weight when he was 30 is pointless. Is it really so hard to understand that your analogy is just not working for your argument?

Originally Posted by stupenduousman

So looking back among the 4.5 billion years and seeing that the Earth's climate has constantly changed, and possibly that the current temperatures we are seeing fall within what has been normal fluctuations in the past has nothing to do with anything? Okay... whatever. You're right. It's much better to look at 30 years and panic, then wonder why assumptions made based on that analysis don't really pan out in another 20 years.

That depends on what you mean by `normal:' there were some major events that have had a deep impact on life on earth. For instance, the meteorite that is thought to have triggered a mass extinction on earth. The effects lasted millions of years.

We cannot do anything about meteorites hitting the earth. Just like we cannot do anything about a genetic predisposition for a certain heart disease, for instance. But there are factors we can influence, we can eat healthy, for instance. And eating fatty foods all the time would increase risk of heart disease.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If you were around a specific weight for an extended period of time and then suddenly started weighing more or less, the issue is not how you got to your usual weight, but that it WAS your usual weight and now something has changed.

The question is, what is "suddenly" and how much of a weight change would really be relevant? If you gained a pound over the course of a year, would that be "suddenly" and really change to be concerned with?

Again, we are dealing with a small change over a very small number of years from a planet over 4.5 billion years old. A planet whose climate is constantly changing.

That climate is changing in a lot of areas is apparently well established; whether or not specific man-made emissions are the cause is not nearly as important as the fact that we are tinkering (passively, perhaps) with a very complex system that we do not understand.

"...we do not understand." QFT.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. Causes matter. Weight-gain from exercise is different than weight-gain from fat. Weight-loss from exercise is different than weight-loss from an eating disorder. Because different causes have different feedbacks and regulators (if any). You do get that context from looking short term.

You CAN get that context from looking short term IF you know FOR SURE what the cause because you specifically implemented a plan which has already been proven to work (diet and exercise in this case). We don't have a proven cause/effect in place in regards to climate change. We are trying to find context backwards in this regard.

Humans couldn't have survived back then, and we won't survive if it returns.

Phil Jones says it was hotter not more than a thousand years ago when humans seemed to do okay. Of course, those hotter times gave way to cooler times, which went back to hotter time, etc.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I said nothing about "normal fluctuations in the past." Many of those fluctuations are quite important; that's why they're studied. I was specifically responding to your repeated claim that we should be comparing our climate to that of the "last 4.5 billion years."

Not that we should expect it to be the same, but that we should look at what climate patterns there have been over a longer period to see if similar changes have happened. If we can see the same type of climate say, 5,000 years ago. then it's possible for what's happening now to be a natural pattern. You can't see that unless you look past the very, very short period of time of 30 years and it's apparent that the short interval involved has been specifically chosen because it supports an already decided upon conclusion.

What we've seen in this thread is that:

1. The climate of the Earth has been in a constant state of flux
2. The mechanisms for why this has happened are complex and varied.
3. Global temperatures for the Earth have been similar or maybe even greater at times humans populated the Earth in the not so distant past.
4. But when a small change happens over 30 years, it's got to be humans who have done it and it's sure to cause disaster.

??!??!?

Seriously, if you could show that the Earth's climate has been fairly consistent with no big fluctuations, then show that over the course of 30 years it's deviated from that norm, then you'd have a solid basis to base a claim that it's something that's only happened over that 30 years or so (or built up to that from recent history). You just can't do that by looking at only those 30 years and drawing conclusions. Not for something that has been happening for 4.5 billion years.

Just admit that your pre-conceived beliefs are blinding you from what you know is scientifically correct and it will be all better.

(ps. My belief doesn't require either MMGW to be true or false. My belief is just that whether or not it has happened or is happening hasn't really been shown to be true by any reasonable standard. That's not just my belief, but the belief of a lot of other smart scientists who know more than you or I, as well.)

Don't ippy-toe around. Just come out and say it. You were completely off-point and completely wrong. You didn't threw that number out there without stopping to think about it.

Sorry, see above. You don't get to be "right" just because you are the most strident and insulting during a debate. When it's mathematically feasible to draw a conclusion about the climate of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old just by looking at a non-random sample of 30 years - get back to us.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I... don't really know what to say?

Your last post is... completely irrational.



I'll respond only to the first paragraph, since to do otherwise is clearly a waste of my time:

Originally Posted by you

Not that we should expect it to be the same,

We do not

but that we should look at what climate patterns there have been over a longer period to see if similar changes have happened.

We do, and are doing this

If we can see the same type of climate say, 5,000 years ago. then it's possible for what's happening now to be a natural pattern.

But it's not about "seeing the same type of climate." It's about "having a reason for why we're seeing the same type of climate." You're completely ignoring the reasons, while looking at the results.

You can't see that unless you look past the very, very short period of time of 30 years

Are you suggesting climate scientists don't look past 30 years?!? This is a complete load of shit.

and it's apparent that the short interval involved has been specifically chosen because it supports an already decided upon conclusion.

Completely and utterly wrong. You're totally confused. You don't understand what a "30-year climatic normal" is. It's just an arbitrary number, really, but it's one that's considered short enough to weed out any short-term fluctuations and variability, while being long enough to still reflect long-term trends in a climate.

It allows for statistical analysis, stupendousman. You've clearly shown that you don't really understand what that is.

What we've seen in this thread is that:

1. The climate of the Earth has been in a constant state of flux

Elementary my dear Watson

2. The mechanisms for why this has happened are complex and varied.

Obviously

3. Global temperatures for the Earth have been similar or maybe even greater at times humans populated the Earth in the not so distant past.

There's a difference between "populated" and "prospered" but sure

4. But when a small change happens over 30 years, it's got to be humans who have done it and it's sure to cause disaster.

This small change hasn't happened over 30 years. You are wrong.

The rest of your post is as follows. Unfortunately I just can't keep wasting my time repeatedly pointing out where you're 100% wrong. It's obvious you will continue to make these same, 100%-wrong statements over and over in any case.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You CAN get that context from looking short term IF you know FOR SURE what the cause because you specifically implemented a plan which has already been proven to work (diet and exercise in this case)

So you won't believe in global warming until we take counter-measures to stop it, and you don't want us to take counter-measures to stop it until you believe in it.

Phil Jones says it was hotter not more than a thousand years ago when humans seemed to do okay. Of course, those hotter times gave way to cooler times, which went back to hotter time, etc.

Causes matter. If the cause abates then the effect abates, duh.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The rest of your post is as follows. Unfortunately I just can't keep wasting my time repeatedly pointing out where you're 100% wrong. It's obvious you will continue to make these same, 100%-wrong statements over and over in any case.

greg

You're only now figuring this out with stupendousman?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I mean... I appreciate the discussion. I don't usually have as much of a reason to follow climate science in detail anymore, so stupendous and ebuddy and others around here usually give me an excuse to keep doing some research and keep thinking about the subject. I certainly appreciate that.

Of course, it's a little frustrating in situations like this, when the argument isn't rational, logical, or even coherent.... but you're right, it may be my mistake in hoping for another outcome....

greg

[Warren Pease]

More follow-up on the thread topic article.

Climate change and the media: Journalistic malpractice on global warming | The Economist

... a week ago Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, gave an interview to the BBC that was widely described as a debacle. The main reason was that the BBC reporter asked Mr Jones whether he would concede that global warming since 1995 has not been statistically significant. Mr Jones replied: "Yes, but only just," and went on to note that there was a measured global warming of 0.12°C per decade since then, and that it tends to be harder to get statistical significance out of shorter time samples.

This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995. However, over that time frame, he could not quite rule out at the traditional 95% confidence level that the warming since 1995 had not been a random fluke.

Anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference between these two statements. At a longer time interval, say 30 or 50 or 100 years, Mr Jones could obviously demonstrate that global warming is a statistically significant trend. In the interview he stated that the warming since 1975 is statistically significant. Everyone, even climate-change sceptics, agrees that the earth has experienced a warming trend since the late 19th century. But if you take any short sample out of that trend (say, 1930-45 or 1960-75), you might not be able to guarantee that the particular warming observed in those years was not a statistical fluke. This is a simple truth about statistics: if you measure just ten children, the relationship between age and height might be a fluke. But obviously the fact remains that older children tend to be taller than younger ones, and if you measure 100 of them, you'll find the relationship quite statistically significant indeed.

What's truly infuriating about this episode of journalistic malpractice is that, once again, it illustrates the reasons why the East Anglia scientists adopted an adversarial attitude towards information management with regard to outsiders and the media. They were afraid that any data they allowed to be characterised by non-climate scientists would be vulnerable to propagandistic distortion. And they were right.

[OldManMac]

We can all wish it weren't so, but it is.

Op-Ed Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com

[Wiskedjak]

What's truly infuriating about this episode of journalistic malpractice is that, once again, it illustrates the reasons why the East Anglia scientists adopted an adversarial attitude towards information management with regard to outsiders and the media. They were afraid that any data they allowed to be characterised by non-climate scientists would be vulnerable to propagandistic distortion. And they were right.

When I conduct user research I never give lay people access to the raw information because they lack the training to properly understand it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I mean... I appreciate the discussion. I don't usually have as much of a reason to follow climate science in detail anymore, so stupendous and ebuddy and others around here usually give me an excuse to keep doing some research and keep thinking about the subject. I certainly appreciate that.

Of course, it's a little frustrating in situations like this, when the argument isn't rational, logical, or even coherent.... but you're right, it may be my mistake in hoping for another outcome....

greg

What is your take on the IPCC Mr. Shortcut?

[ebuddy]

"We can't wish away climate change"

No, we certainly cannot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When I conduct user research I never give lay people access to the raw information because they lack the training to properly understand it.

As an analyst I also avoid providing raw data unless I know the audience is intimately familiar with what it is and how to sort it. The ones with requests in to Phil Jones et al. @ CRU not only know what to do with the data, they've performed the very functions of the ones they're requesting the data from.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As an analyst I also avoid providing raw data unless I know the audience is intimately familiar with what it is and how to sort it. The ones with requests in to Phil Jones et al. @ CRU not only know what to do with the data, they've performed the very functions of the ones they're requesting the data from.

There's also convincing evidence that they're also just conducting "fishing expeditions" when they already have the information available to them. To me, that's more telling of their real agenda.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Causes matter. If the cause abates then the effect abates, duh.

Exactly. If something caused the same thing to happen in the past, wouldn't that be the best place to start looking for reasons why it's happening now?

If you got a stomach ache every time you drank milk, but you go and drink milk again and this time have a cheesburger, do you start to wonder if the cheeseburger gave you food poisoning when your stomach starts aching? Especially if you eat a cheeseburger with a coke later and you don't have the same stomach ache?

I doubt it. Right now, we are looking at banning cheeseburgers. That's not to say that maybe that the cheeseburger contributed to your upset stomach - it might have. Chances are though that it could be the milk. That would be the rational place to first investigate "cause."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Exactly. If something caused the same thing to happen in the past, wouldn't that be the best place to start looking for reasons why it's happening now?

Yes. START looking. Not STOP looking. You're suggesting they haven't looked there already, and that they shouldn't look anywhere else.

And then what do you think they do with what they find when they look there? Where to look is only a small first step; what you see when you look there is what's important. You never seem to acknowledge that what they might find matters at all. Where you start looking should not affect the outcome of what you find, it should only change how long it takes you to find it. If you think that where to start looking is going to change the outcome, you have far more serious problems than deciding where to start looking.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Exactly. If something caused the same thing to happen in the past, wouldn't that be the best place to start looking for reasons why it's happening now?

We have. We are. As far as I understand we can't correlated what's happening now with what's happened in the past.

Without adding in the factor of human emissions.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...factors such as "continent placement" or "ocean currents" or "atmospheric gas levels" would make a totally different impact on earth's climate.


It was, literally, a "totally different world" when you're talking about geological timescales. I mean, come on – if we jumped into a time machine and went back 3 billion years, we'd probably just step out of the machine and slowly choke to death. There wasn't any oxygen. You're telling me we should compare our current climate to a world without trees and without atmospheric oxygen?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But it's not about "seeing the same type of climate." It's about "having a reason for why we're seeing the same type of climate." You're completely ignoring the reasons, while looking at the results.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

As far as I understand we can't correlated what's happening now with what's happened in the past.

That gets us back to the whole "complicated" thing. Not being able to "correlate" does not mean that there is no correlation.

Instead of just admitting it's a complex issue that we don't yet really have a firm grasp on, we've taken an unproven theory and decided that's the simple answer.

Not only that, but we are going to run with this unproven and possibly irrelevant theory and force the human race to sacrifice severely in order to stop the results of what some people guess might happen if their guess about the unproven theory might pan out.

The point is, you aren't likely going to figure this out by looking at 30 years, over 10 of which hasn't shown what should happen if the theory is correct or at the very least what we thought we knew about it was accurate.

It's funny that when layman look at the evidence, they aren't really supposed to be smart enough to figure out what's going on. When scientists tell us what the evidence means and end up getting it wrong, it's because it was just too complex and there were factors that were not known to them then (or now).

I'm satisfied in knowing that right now, since nothing has really been proven, that both laymen and scientists really don't know what causes all this and that's a pretty good point at which to decide that making political moves due to it won't be a very good idea. It's something we've seen in the past, and something we are likely to see in the future. If every time a scientist gave cause for doom and gloom we changed our lifestyle, we'd be living in caves again. It's possible that's the goal of the academic left, but I doubt many sane people will buy it.

[besson3c]

What I don't buy is that you aren't conflating your distaste of the "academic left" with the merits of these theories. Can you honestly say that if the Republicans were champions of this issue that your feelings would be the same as they are now?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

There's also convincing evidence that they're also just conducting "fishing expeditions" when they already have the information available to them. To me, that's more telling of their real agenda.

greg

If they already have the information, what exactly would they be fishing for? Why on earth would you invoke an FOIA request for example, on information you already have? Do you have some of this "convincing" evidence?

This kind of sounds like one of those "fishing expeditions" you're talking about. Besides, if the lacking integrity and slop coming out of CRU wreaks of tuna, they're likely fishing for something they're pretty convinced they'll find.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If they already have the information, what exactly would they be fishing for? Why on earth would you invoke an FOIA request for example, on information you already have? Do you have some of this "convincing" evidence?

This kind of sounds like one of those "fishing expeditions" you're talking about. Besides, if the lacking integrity and slop coming out of CRU wreaks of tuna, they're likely fishing for something they're pretty convinced they'll find.

Precisely the question. If the information is already available, why is McIntyre making FOI requests that just make those scientists do more work?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Why is McIntyre making FOI requests that just make those scientists do more work?

Where is the unnecessary FOI request for information they already have? i.e. what are you talking about?