What can I say. The Gospel is foolishness to the unbeliever.

So I don't really expect you to believe any differently.

Mathetes:


Uh … don’t you get to vote on the politicians who make policy?


I remember having this reaction to the ozone/CFC thing when it first surfaced in the 70s. And yet CFCs were banned (probably not as quickly as they should have been, but pretty quick compared to lots of global initiatives). That example has always seemed to me an indication that things can change. Or, look at the changed relationship we have with the pesticide DDT.

You could be right that no one will listen, no one will change their habits, we’ll be as dependent on Arab nations for oil as always, etc. Still, it seems almost unpatriotic not to try.

barbarian wrote:



It depends what dates you start and end the graph with. If you start the graph on a hot year then there is a cooling trend. A cold year as your first year then the graph shows a hot year. So the whole "trend" argument is worthless.

Barb, then there's the bigger issue of the limitations inherant in trying to "measure" the mean temperature of the globe. How exactly do you do this? Tree ring data measures the temperature of that particular tree's area (with a huge margin of error). Ice core data measures the temperature of that spot in greenland (with a huge margin of error). Weather station data measures that particular weather stations temperature (with an unknown margin of error, due to poor record keeping, changes in the accuracy level of measuring techniques and the rise of urban sprawl). Sattellite data? How does that actually work? Can you explain it to me?

To even generate a graph to show a 100 year trend, is so complicated and combines and reconciles so much disparate data that it is "cherry picked" by definition. It is too reliant upon assumptions of those people who generate the final data. (as we have seen in recent emails, both sides can manipulate the factors that go into the algorithims in order to get the result they want.

So, its not that I reject that global warming is occurring, or that global cooling is occuring - its that I reject that anyone could actually ever know whether the earth is cooling or warming.

I am a global warming agnostic

Also, lets say that a scientist could in fact actually measure the mean temperature of the earth over a 10 year period. Let's say the data showed a 1 degree rate of warming over the 10 year period. That scientist could never predict based on the past data, what the future data was going to be.

So even if we could know the trend, we could never know whether the trend would continue or reverse itself. Climatologists aren't that smart. Or if any of them are, they quit their jobs a long time ago and went to Vegas and became millionaires playing roulette.

-rethinker

Barbarian observes:
I don't think you can show a cooling trend at all right now, even with cherry-picked data.



If you make the sample small enough. But try it over a decade and see what happens. Even if you cherry-pick, you still end up with a mathematically-significant trend.



Try it and see. You'll find the regression line goes up. You can, by cherry-picking, minimize it, but the trend is too strong to hide over a decade-long set of data.



Take data over the surface of the Earth. Use ground stations or satellite data. Very reliable.



That is only used for times before general data was directly collected. It's pretty well calibrated with actual measurements.



What? How?



Um, records seem to be pretty good. Accuracy cuts both ways, of course, and urban sprawl is part of the warming trend. More CO2 generators, more heat.



Analysis of radiant energy at different wavelengths. It requires that one infer surface temps from the energy emitted.



No. "Cherry picking" is selecting the data one needs to get a specific result.



The Associated Press had some neutral statisticians and scientsts go through the stolen emails. They found no sign of that.



The data are rather consistent, and the fact that one researcher called the precise curve of warming about a decade ago (not to mention two independent sources of data came up with the same results) pretty much nails it.



Not only can, but did, do a very good precision.



Turns out that nature is mostly deterministic, and roulette wheels aren't. At least they aren't to the degree that one can accurately predict them. I heard rumors of an AF systems analyst at Las Vegas who put a computer in his shoe, and found a way to analyze the minute variations in wheels, but I'm skeptical.

Ironically where I come from, the quickest way to get these would be to kill all the farm animals. Go you greenies, go!!

Hi Karl,

The value of the carbon credits would be a fraction of what the farm animals are worth alive, so the farmers will keep them alive (unless it was previously a very marginal decision and the carbon credits tip the balance).

Andrew.

You keep referring to that. But didn't the researcher present 3 scenarios? One of them was correct within a degree?

I can predict who will win the world series next year if you give me enough scenario's to predict. That seems to me to be cheating. But maybe you can explain what happened in this case, I must be missing something.



I agree that weather is deterministic. But its so geared to initial factors that its impossible for any non-deity to calculate. This is called the "butterfly effect" - a butterfly flaps his wings in tokyo and the weather changes in new york.

a roulette wheel is a good example, and its much less complicated than weather in that there are only a couple of variables in the equation.

Given a perfectly spherical and balanced ball with a given weight

and given exact dimensions of the wheel, including all of the relevant distances between all the pegs and every other factor needed to simulate exactly how the wheel spins

and given the friction factor between the ball and the various surfaces of the wheel

and given the exact velocity of the toss of the ball and the spin of the wheel

then one should be able to calculate every time exactly where the ball will land.

But in reality, this could never happen even given an infinitly fast and efficient quantum computer, this calculation could never occur. Because there is no such thing as a perfectly spherical and balanced ball, and there is no way to perfectly measure distances between any 2 points and there is no way to assign a non-margin of error factor for the friction between any 2 surfaces and there is no perfectly accurate way to toss the ball and spin the wheel at a predictable velocity.

And then again there are other factors that come into play. What is the exact gravitational pull of the wheel to the ball to the earth etc? how do the air molecules interact with both the wheel and the ball? for that matter, how many virtual particles pop in and out of existence in this wheel's spin and how do they interact with the various components. etc. you could go on and on listing the factors, all of which would need to be perfectly calculated and non of which can be. ever.

Tiny imperfections in all of these factors quickly overcome your calculations and you will never win more than the next guy who just randomly picks a number.

I said above that only a deity could predict the weather, let me be more specific.

A god who is merely omniscient but also temporal, would know no more or less that the infinitely powerful and efficient quantum computer. He could no more measure the exact distances between 2 points on that wheel than any other theoretical intelligence. That's because there is no end to the infinite degree of scale in our universe. What does he do, round up to the nearest nanometer? the nearest plank length? He's still rounding up, and thus there is still a margin of error however minuscule.

But if the God was outside of time and space (had 3 dimensions of time in which to freely operate) then he could predict the weather and always win at roulette by merely jumping forward to time, observing, then jumping back to time and making his bet.

that is unless the sum-over-history theory of multiverses is correct.........

Barbarian observes:
The data are rather consistent, and the fact that one researcher called the precise curve of warming about a decade ago (not to mention two independent sources of data came up with the same results) pretty much nails it.



Yep. One was if the increase in CO2 continued to rise exponentially. Second was if we introduced strict controls immediately. The third was assuming that the rate of increase would moderate, and at least on major volcanic eruption during the 90s. The third one is the one we actually got, and Hansen's prediction for that eventuality was spot on.



Well within. More important, he got the shape of the curve precisely right.



He called the shot over a decade in advance. Didn't have control over how much carbon was going to be dumped, or how many volcanoes (if any) were to have major eruptions, but for the conditions we actually saw, he called it precisely right.



Don't see how. He said that under three sets of conditions, three different results would happen. The one that did happen precisely matched his prediction for those conditions.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that nature is mostly deterministic, and roulette wheels aren't. At least they aren't to the degree that one can accurately predict them. I heard rumors of an AF systems analyst at Las Vegas who put a computer in his shoe, and found a way to analyze the minute variations in wheels, but I'm skeptical.



We're talking about climate, not weather. Weather is so sensitive to initial conditions that we can't accurately predict it more than three days in advance. But climate is, as Hansen demonstrated, much easier to predict.



But we aren't talking about weather.

Please define this "climate".

I sometimes wonder if its like the ID's definition of CSI.

Hi Random,

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.