Skip to comments.The Warmist Crisis [Global Warming Becomes a Hot Topic]
Posted on 04/09/2013 5:36:47 AM PDT by Moseley
The Warmist conspiracy has reached a critical point, with doubters in the establishment speaking out. One of Sweden's top climatologists now admit global temperatures have barely changed (translated from Swedish): "The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observation is the only way to go."
In March, a scientific study "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data" found that global warming is caused by that big yellow thing in the sky. Earth's orbit varies over the centuries. Changing distance to the sun affects temperature. Furthermore, Russian scientists have determined that the global temperature will cool by 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. (Reported in German in Bild.)
The conspirators had banked on panic to help expand government control over the world's economies. But momentum in public opinion has swung against the doomsayers. As an example of the depth of opposition to the Warmists, consider some of the well-informed commenters on American Thinker who have made valuable points of their own commenting on three recent articles.
As an example of the depth of opposition to the Warmists, consider some of the well-informed commenters on American Thinker who have made valuable points of their own commenting on three recent articles.
RICK Z quipped: "It is without question that Global Warming is a result of Mann. It was Michael E. Mann who published the (fully discredited) 'Hockey Stick' analysis of Global Warming."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The following discussion from American Thinker comments may help explain the article:
It is a fundamental scientific principle — one of many violated flagrantly by modern scientists — that you SHOULD NOT consider the final calculation to more “significant digits” than the original data.
So let’s say you are simply calculating an average measurement. For the high school junior varsity football team you have weights on file of:
182.456 pounds, 179 pounds, 165.44 pounds, 189.4243543 pounds, 185 pounds, 187.34 pounds, 193.324234 pounds, 190.43 pounds, 188.45 pounds, 169.88 pounds, and 174.54 pounds
The only scientifically correct average is 182 pounds.
The only scientifically correct calculation is: (182 + 179 + 165 + 189 + 185 + 187 + 193 + 190.43 + 188.45 + 170 pounds + 174.54 / 11 = 182
The greater accuracy of some of the measurements must be ignored.
The presence of less accurate measurements in the calculations renders the greater accuracy of some measurements completely meaningless and deceptive.
If you report the average to the greater level of accuracy, it will be a false and misleading result.
That in a nutshell is Anthropogenic [Mann-made] Global Warming: GUESSES from observing bacteria content in fossils, from tree rings, and from gas samples trapped in ancient ice are being combined with modern thermometer readings.
Dear Morons and scientwists:
We are getting all the energy, light, heat, radiation from the SUN and 11 year sunspots cycles cause the variation.
Just look at the changes: day/night, summer/winter and temperatures changes associated with them.
Humans have as much effect on climate change as Zero pissing in the ocean and causing global flood.
GET IT ?????
It is another scam to skin the taxpayer sheep.
I think I know where you are going with that but I am not sure. Could you explain it to me, please?
Your final result can have no more significant digits than your least-precise measurement.
A corollary: If something weighs 182.00 punds, don’t forget to write down the 2 decimal places - they matter (despite what Microsoft Excel thinks).
Thanks. I get it now.
Depends entirely on the accuracy of the scale’s reporting device. If it’s 182 pounds and you are using a load cell that has a processor that gives you 10 digits of precision, then it’s 182.0000000000 pounds ~ so were you rounding off the readout from a digital scale or what?
But what you are assuming here is the whole point:
What if the measurements were made on all different scales at different times and at different places?
What is some of the weights were measured on a home scale from K-Mart, some were measured on a doctor’s office scale by the football players doing it themselves, and some were performed by high-accuracy laboratory scales?
Now you try to combine different measurements from different sources that are not consistent.
That’s the problem.
Climateers want to combine guess-timates from counting the entrails of lizards (counting bacteria in fossils), tree rings, and ice core samples, and then combine those with modern thermometers.
The result must necessarily be wildly inaccurate.
As far as temperatures go, the world didn't have nearly enough thermometers of any kind to measure the whole globe in any sort of coherent fashion until just shortly before we started launching satellites.
The particular chemical the young man used for his proxies is rather more advanced than tree rings.
Speaking of Doctor Mann he used tree rings from down in a valley along the Lena river for part of his collection and then tree rings from high up in the mountains along the Lena river for another part of his collection.
It seems he would have used rings strictly from the top but the local climate had deteriorated and killed all the trees up there so he couldn't update his collection. That's when he got rings from downhill ~ there's a really big temperature difference between the mountain tops and the near sea level base along that river ~ probably 50 degrees C ~ easy!
He actually had to tone down his reported proxy temperatures for his famous hockey stick so he wouldn't look like a nutball.
It is important to remember that just because you hope to be able to measure something, sometimes you just can’t.
Scientists may be very creative and inventive. But it requires a healthy dose of humility to seek the truth.
You wrack your brain and brainstorm to try to find clues in the physical record. But you have to bear in mind that sometimes it just isn’t there. You can want it. You can search for it. You can try to find a creative solution.
But you have to be ready to admit it if the clues just aren’t there.