That portion, as scaled from zero at the y-origin (roughly):
Posted on 02/14/2007 7:33:25 AM PST by jonno
"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." -- Ellen Goodman
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians." -- Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Pundits, politicians, and the public have a hard time coming to grips with uncertainty. This makes the atmosphere for debating global warming policy especially foul, because the key issues with global warming are the uncertainties involved. Those who would try to reduce the issue of global warming to a yes-or-no question ("do you believe or do you deny?") are not scientists.
Real scientists understand uncertainty. Real science deals with uncertainty through relentless, skeptical inquiry. Real science resolves arguments not with consensus, but with data.
My understanding of global warming is influenced by my background in applied statistics and economics. There certainly are scientists who have spent more time than I have analyzing the meteorological data. However, before you call me a "hack," make sure that you are capable ...
(Excerpt) Read more at tcsdaily.com ...
That portion, as scaled from zero at the y-origin (roughly):
Thanks for proving my point.
Your accusation is unwarranted and outrageous. Unless the information in those charts is wrong, MDT has presented the data very fairly.
>Those who would try to reduce the issue of global warming to a yes-or-no question ("do you believe or do you deny?") are not scientists.
Unfortunately, too many here on FreeRepublic are just as bad as the alarmists in that respect.
And the "chicanery" would be what?
That's what that curve (roughly) looks like, "scaled from zero at the y axis" - it's not my fault the accelerating rate of change is still apparent to anyone who knows how to read a graph - it's going to be apparent no matter how you scale it - "'dems the numbers, doood".
(Hint: if you want it to go away for the innumerate, what you want to do is log scale that axis).
Bullshit.
The graph is deliberately deceptive.
Start the Y-axis at zero instead of 270 and that graph will look flat as a pancake.
Deceptive scaling intended to fool mathematical illiterates is the oldest statistical trick in the book.
No, it doesn't.
There are 270 units below your current data, and your image manipulation still doesn't show it.
You've made a graph of the icing and cropped out the cake. Squishing the image does not change a thing.
No, actually we're not. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause rather than the effect of "global warming". In fact, there is some data that says it is "global warming" that causes the increase in CO2.
And there have been periods when the CO2 level has been much higher. Earth survived that---so will we.
GW is alarmist BS propagated by those who want to use it as a political driver to institute "strong" global governance.
"global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers"
THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION The Gospel of St. Gore!!!
The Party has determined that all non-believers are heretics, and must be silenced, denounced, and decertified!
The Atheist Rapture is upon us! The ONLY thing that will save us is electing St. ALGORE as Global Dictator, and accepting Radical Socialism as our only Savior!
Let the Inquisition BEGIN!
I agree. I have long held that the education system needs to be overhauled and one of the most important changes needs to be is teaching inductive and deductive logic skills to elementary schoolers. The goal is not to convert them all into mini-Spocks running around being emotionless and totally logical, but to provide them with critical thinking skills that will come in handy in school and in life.
As for conventional wisdom - what passes for conventional wisdom these days is the current status of the American Idol contestants, thanks to the massive dumbing down that the schools have done.
That's the most succinct definition of GW I have seen. May I shamelessly steal it and claim it as my own?
(No sarcasm, I mean it!)
Sure it does, it shows what that line looks like plotted from zero at the origin of the Y axis.
"There are 270 units below your current data, and your image manipulation still doesn't show it."
And there are also an infinite number of undepicted "units" above it, and it doesn't show them, either.
For the last several hundred million years the atmospheric CO2 content has never been zero (in fact, overall it's been considerably higher that it is now), and it's never been infinite. The only two useful pieces of information we can derive from those graphs is 1) where the current level is in relation to the known range of levels, both recently and in the more distant past, and 2) rate of change in CO2 levels, and how does is compare to past rates of change. (By themselves, such graphs don't tell us anything about the sources of the CO2, and they don't tell us anything about it's implications).
As such, the four graphs a presented are standard such depictions of the movement of a variable through a know range, and such representations (of the data then available) predate the global warming controversy.
Global Warming and Pseudo-Science (Hawaii)Article excerpts...
The temperatures in those interglacial periods were all warmer than the current interglacial period by about 2 deg. C. Today’s temperatures simply are not that unusual when placed in historical context.
Thanks to the great literature work by Fred Singer and Denis Avery we now know that in the past 1 million years there have been 600 warming periods. The CO2 concentrations have varied as well during this time. However, the maximum temperatures usually occurred 600-800 years before the maximum of the atmospheric CO2. This calls into question the true relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Is there such a relationship and what is it? The Sun remains the primary suspect driving these climate forcing functions.
According to climatologist Robert Balling the sea level has been rising a modest 1.8 mm/yr for the past 8000 years, perhaps longer. We’d expect this after emerging from thousands of years in a deep ice age.
While it is permissible to suppress, ignore, adverse testimony in the courtrooms of the land, and to attack/discredit adverse witnesses, it is most assuredly not permissible in science.
The problem with this argument is that you then have to come up with a recent natural mechanism that's sequestering the CO2 we know human activity has produced in the last few hundred years. (We have good enough surrogates for CO2 production that we know it has to have been considerable, and in fact appears to be roughly in line with portion of the the observed rise attributed to human activity).
BUMP!
No it won't. There's a range of 20% in the data on the 1K year chart. The 400K year chart has a range of 50%.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhDB. CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD NO LONGER DRIVE PUBLIC POLICY
The discovery that the Vostok CO2 record is an effect of the oceanic solubility pump has profound effects on the science and on public policy.
Over those 420,000 years, warm ocean water has regulated the concentration of CO2 by release of this gas into the atmosphere. Because there is no trace of build–up of CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, or the oceans themselves, cold waters must be scrubbing CO2 out of the air. Since there is no difference between manmade and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate.
To the extent that the analyst’s Vostok temperature trace represents a global atmosphere temperature, so does the concentration of CO2. Thus, CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.
Do you know of historical data on the web for global coal and petroleum consumption for the last few hundred years? It'd be very interesting to correlate it with CO2 concentrations.
Not considerable...
Sources of Greenhouse Gases
NOTE: "Human additions" represent such a small percentage of the total Greenhouse Effect (0.28%) that they are barely visible in this "pie chart" at the scale represented.
If atmospheric CO2 levels cause global warming, do they also cause sunspots?
There's a lot stronger correlation between solar intensity and global temperatures than CO2 and global temperatures.
It's lots more likely that changes in CO2 levels are a RESULT of changes in global temperatures than a cause.
Heat the oceans up a degree, and they are able to absorb far less CO2 from the atmosphere. Cool them down a degree, and they are able to absorb far more. That's exactly why a hot beer sprays a lot more foam than a cold beer when you shake and open it. The partial pressure of CO2 is higher at higher temperatures, and therefore far less soluble in water.
Climate and the Carboniferous Period
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
