Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-09-2012, 11:36 AM   #41
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
I'll take the $64k. There are many possible answers. The most obvious can be found in the title of the graphs.
Isn't Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere?

Here is my guess. The Gore graph is a compilation of temperature readings from many different areas or sources (tree rings,bore holes).

The Lappi graph is pretty straightforward. The Gore graph not so much.
You would think this topic is not subjective since there is data. It appears that interpretation of the data, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 11:41 AM   #42
texasyankee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6
One thing to always remember: correlation is not causation. Coincidence is as likely an explanation as other reason in Al Gore's chart. Be very skeptical of information put out by an advocate and former politician.
texasyankee is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:06 PM   #43
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post

Something I wonder about: how accurately do the changes shown in the graph reflect changes elsewhere on the planet. Could the warming trend be more significant in say, the agricultural breadbaskets of Canada, the US and across Eurasia.
This is an interesting question in light of the following:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...ice-cap-10241/

I have been of the opinion for years that nobody really knows what the hell is going on with our climate - there are millions of variables which go into the mix and not a single one of them is completely understood. Anyone telling you they know with any certainty what is going on and instructs this or that as a course of action ................. is sending all of us on a fool's errand.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM   #44
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by texasyankee View Post
One thing to always remember: correlation is not causation. Coincidence is as likely an explanation as other reason in Al Gore's chart. Be very skeptical of information put out by an advocate and former politician.
That's my point too. Graphs showing correlation between Co2 and temperatures look good. There is definate correlation but if you include world population with temperatures its nicely correlated too.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...B20D6660A33C14

This graph illustrates the real problem. Not only is population growth off the charts but it fueled by developing countries which are most likely to be heavy producers of future greenhouse gases. Someone mentioned earlier about the possibility of 1200 new coal plants in China and India. If the largest producers are not part of the agreement then it really does not matter which graph is right.
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:57 PM   #45
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,932
The science behind climatology is not simply looking at a few graphs and determining "causation". The science is quite compelling even to this non-climatologist, and it is much more than just looking at a correlation coefficient.

http://www.realclimate.org/

another more specific link: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...g1/en/ch9.html
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal

Last edited by DuctTape; 12-09-2012 at 01:09 PM..
DuctTape is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 01:06 PM   #46
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Isn't Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere?

Here is my guess. The Gore graph is a compilation of temperature readings from many different areas or sources (tree rings,bore holes).

The Lappi graph is pretty straightforward. The Gore graph not so much.
You would think this topic is not subjective since there is data. It appears that interpretation of the data, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
So is Mexico. The point is the two graphs which are related in general terms, but not graphing the same data. Your guess may be correct as to the data sources, but that is only relevant in a minor sense. The scale used in the graph is different, etc... The differences are too great to compare. They are just representing two different things albeit related. I think the Gore graph is just as straightforward as the Lappi graph. Of course we probably differ in our understanding of the two graphs and also how we individually define "straightforward". I still wander back to a version of Pascal's Wager...
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 01:26 PM   #47
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
I still wander back to a version of Pascal's Wager...
I'm not familar with that gentleman so I am not sure of the reliability of his opinions. How many peaks has he bagged?

If you are refering to the concept of "better to be safe than sorry" I agree to a point. As long as the cost of prevention doesn't exceed the future cost of liability.
So it might work well for casual sex but not for Global warming. Although I could not begin to tally those costs I suspect that the major greenhouse producers have and that is why they are not part of the agreement. Either that or they don't believe the theory.
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 01:50 PM   #48
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,932
It's a little more complex than "better safe than sorry" considering it laid the groundwork for what is known as probability theory. In fact your hesitance is a major portion of the concept in the fact the "cost" and "reward", etc... are paramount in the process.
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 03:06 PM   #49
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
The science behind climatology is not simply looking at a few graphs and determining "causation". The science is quite compelling even to this non-climatologist, and it is much more than just looking at a correlation coefficient.

http://www.realclimate.org/

another more specific link: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...g1/en/ch9.html
Its not compelling to me. Going back to the initial graph of this thread. Depending on my starting point I can make a case for either global warming or cooling. Initial "proof" for Global Warming started at year 1850. This was a low and anything coming off it would look like warming. Models are only as good as the data used. You might have a great predictive model but if its based upon only 1.5% of the data (150 of 10,000 years) its going to over or under estimate the trend unless variation is very small. Judging by that graph variation is large.

Also when you mix and match readings across the globe and from different sources (like Al Gore's graph) the "smoothing" of that data lends itself to the charge of data manipulation. If you are going to sample from 12 different places just show me the 12 individual graphs not a composite. Composite readings might not account for wind or water current circulation that causes varience in temperature among different locales. If there really is a trend they all should be showing the same thing. Scale and timing might vary but the trend should be the similar.
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 03:23 PM   #50
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,932
Which parts of the IPCC document are not-compelling? That was only chapter 9, btw. Have you read the entire document?

The totality of the science is not based on looking at a single graph and "making a case".
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 04:24 PM   #51
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
Which parts of the IPCC document are not-compelling? That was only chapter 9, btw. Have you read the entire document?

The totality of the science is not based on looking at a single graph and "making a case".
I've only read what they have chosen to publish to the public in the newspapers. I've focused on the graph because I don't see a upward change in temperature that can't be explained by natural varience.
By all means post the pdf document and indicate the chapters you feel are compelling.

If the trend in temperature is subject to different interpretation and not the most compelling then please state what you feel is the most overwhelming piece of evidence.

Also, please state your reasons for doubting the Lappi graph. What are the problems you see?
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 04:50 PM   #52
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,932
1. I did not "doubt" the Lappi graph.
2. The IPCC does not choose what is published in the news.
3. I already gave you the link to the entirety of the IPCC study. (I linked Chapter nine because it directly relates to your question). The IPCC have released everything. They even provide the raw data for other scientists to use.
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 07:38 PM   #53
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
1. I did not "doubt" the Lappi graph.
2. The IPCC does not choose what is published in the news.
3. I already gave you the link to the entirety of the IPCC study. (I linked Chapter nine because it directly relates to your question). The IPCC have released everything. They even provide the raw data for other scientists to use.
1. So do you agree or disagree with the downward trend in the Lappi graph?
2. I think they do. Would they not publish their strongest argument?
3. I missed that link. I apologize. My question is if the argument that man is causing the rise in temperature wouldn't the fact that temperatures are NOT rising invalidate any subsequent arguments no matter how strong and convincing they might appear?
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 08:00 PM   #54
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,932
1. Irrelevant. A single graph is not science.
2. No. The media chooses what to put in the news.
3. Read the study. The science, not the news.
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 08:48 PM   #55
Willie
46er #5193W
 
Willie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
I've only read what they have chosen to publish to the public in the newspapers. I've focused on the graph because I don't see a upward change in temperature that can't be explained by natural varience.
You didn't review the raw data or the methodology? You review only a graph and draw conclusions? You use double negatives?

Cityboy, what are your credentials? How can you summarily dismiss man as a contributing cause of global warming over the past couple hundred years?

Last edited by Willie; 12-09-2012 at 09:09 PM..
Willie is offline  
Old 12-09-2012, 09:27 PM   #56
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie View Post
You didn't review the raw data? You review only a graph and draw conclusions? You use double negatives?

Cityboy, what are your credentials? How can you summarily dismiss man as a contributing cause of global warming over the past couple hundred years?
Willie, I've worked the last 20 years for NYS predicting Real Estate trends. What are your and DuctTape credentials? I have worked with data,produced and interpreted graphs. I've modeled data and I know how they can be misleading. I also know BS when I see it.
Again, read my lips. If the data does not support an increase in temperature any subsequent arguments are INVALID. See my previous argument about time frame. 150 years out of 10,000 is just 1.5%. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt since the earth is BILLIONs of years old.

DuctTape, you say a single graph is not science but I again ask what are your conclusions based upon?
The media reports what they are told. Thats why organizations have PR departments
I asked you for the facts that lead you to your conclusions. State what you feel is irrefutable evidence and I'll respond.
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-10-2012, 09:15 AM   #57
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,321
Anyone else think that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would tend to be biased to....well climate change??

I'm having dejaz vous all over again, that we've covered this topic before...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

"But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming."

"Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU."
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

Last edited by Pumpkin QAAD; 12-10-2012 at 09:27 AM.. Reason: I'm pro Climate change!!!...wait a second....
Pumpkin QAAD is offline  
Old 12-10-2012, 09:55 AM   #58
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
OK, I've read through chapters 1-6. I have not found anything that discredits the Lappi graph.

"The additional variability shown in some new studies implies mainly cooler temperatures (predominantly in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries), and only one new reconstruction suggests slightly warmer conditions (in the 11th century, but well within the uncertainty range indicated in the TAR)."

They also mention in Chapter 6 the warming period of about 2-3K years ago (Roman warming). Again it agrees with the Lappi graph.

I'm sure you now will tell me that I'm cherry picking the parts that support my argument so I don't see continuing the discussion unless you have concrete proof for your beliefs.

Here is what I do agree on. We are currently (post 1850) in an upward trend. There is a high correlation of Co2 with temperature over that time span.

Here is my point of contention. By all I've read Greenhouse gas is just one part of a complex and not easily understood process of Climate change. Co2 constitutes just 25% of greenhouse gases with water vapor constituting 65%. Co2 increases have a LN effect, NOT LINEAR effect on temperature.
Even using only 3,000 years of the Lappi graph the overall trend is still downward.

I've been in too many "discussions" to know that opinions rarely change by both disagreeing parties. The true test will be time. Since it appears that the major Co2 producing countries will not renew the agreement we only now have to wait till 2100 to wait and see if model predictions are correct.
cityboy is offline  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:11 AM   #60
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Amityville, NY
Posts: 1,163
Here's an interesting pie chart for you:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ic_papers.html
Glen is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.