Ahahaha! Shoot this fish genius … plot today’s global temperature on this NASA chart … then I might tell you how statistcally significant it is, since you appear to have trouble with basic math …
BTW, nobody here needs a statistical anaylsis … just look at the data … it is perfectly clear 
Well, back from the library as promised.
I read the February,1974 Fortune article. Pretty well written, in-depth story about the state of the art at that time concerning climatology. But the article mis-spoke about the 2.7 degrees F. drop in temperature.
Quoting the article
Notice the bringing in of Iceland after the quoted figure. Unfortunately for the writer, the statement was in reference to a really great graph of 1000 years of Icelandic temperature changes on the opposite page. Poorly edited copy.
And, I guess this is how later both Time,Newsweek and the 1997 opinion article in The New American linked to by Flash Dancer came to repeat it.
Another thing–if you read that “popular press” article in Fortune carefully, you would not have accepted much of the diatribe offered in the opinion piece in The New American. Bryson was essentially out there by himself when it came to predicting at that time that the cooling effect was likely to continue as the dominant feature in global weather for the remainder of the century. The arrticle made it clear that there was much opposition to that view.
Absolutely true, and I’m not trying to justify the “pollute now, worry later” position favored by the quarterly report self-interest crowd. But climate change of some kind is inevitable, even without human intervention; long term, humanity needs to become capable of accomodating change rather than dogmatically insisting that “all is as it was and shall forever be,” a distinction often lost on those in the ecological-philosophical extreme. Logging up, drilling out, and otherwise developing federal nature preserves for short-term benefit is both short-sighted and a loss of an esthetic natural resource. Pumping pollutants into the atmosphere may continue to be an economic necessity, although there are clearly ways in which we can moderate the impact of such without the attendant economic desolation that some claim would be the result of a full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. (I find myself to be insufficienlty schooled on the agreement and the results to have a qualified opinion.)
In any case, comparing regional or global warming on Mars to climate change on Earth isn’t just apples and oranges; it’s pineapples and papayas. The planetary environments are substantially different, and while one can derive some general principles from observing one that may apply to the other, it’s hardly appropriate to claim that because climate change on Mars isn’t due to “SUV’s, pollution, etc…” invalidates those sources on Earth, as ftg addressed [post=7254424]early on[/post].
Stranger
Of course it is appropriate, if there are “natural” variances associated with global or even planetary temperatures. What statistical / probability basis are you postulating to discount these “real” variances? Are you saying based on historical temperature variances on Earth you can show that today’s “global warming” is statistically significant? Please tell …
There aren’t enough ::rolleyes:: on the Internet for that. What is “perfectly clear” about a chart in which the temperature axis isn’t even demarcated? Of course you can’t run a statistical analysis on it, or even assess any kind of confidence interval about it.
Be a mensch and admit to your error, or provide substantial evidence to back up your claims. Doing anything else is wasting everyones’ time.
Stranger
Ok. What political agenda would this be? Can you elaborate?
That’s quite evident in general. I was responding to your final statement in that post:
Please read the reports by the National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you evidently have not done. Since you show no evidence of the slightest familiarity with the actual data, it would be good if you would actually learn something about it.
Flash Dancer, you have been provided with very extensive peer-reviewed scientific citations documenting the evidence for global warming. In response, you have come back with nothing else than citations of decades old articles in Newsweek and bullshit websites, or have cited data that actually contradicts your position. You are apparently unable to read a simple graph (which you evidently have never seen before, even though it is cited frequently in discussion of global warming). You claim to be a statistician, but show no ability to critique the evidence so far provided on that basis.
Given that I’ve already linked to sources demonstrating the reality of current warming trends, it is up to you to provide citations of recent peer-reviewed articles showing that they do not exist, or else provide a statistical refutation of the conclusions of the NRC and IPCC.
Please do so. Please show your work.
Why are you offering a graph that ends in the early 1900s, if we are talking about current trends?
Quite true. However, the real problem with the current changes is their sheer
, which will make it very difficult for humans and other organisms to adjust or adapt to them.
Rats.
Quite true. However, the real problem with the current changes is their sheer rapidity, which will make it very difficult for humans and other organisms to adjust or adapt to them.
You have got to be kidding right … you don’t have a single temperature point, let’s say 2000, and can’t measure the distance from the axis to that point to get a scale? :rolleyes:
You seem to be confusing me with Q.E.D. Given that you haven’t acknowledged any of your own many errors in this thread, I’m sure he’s not too worried about it.
OMG! Can’t do math nor read a graph! … what year does this graph end with genius? :rolleyes:
My own opinion is that:
I think those two facts should be widely accepted by both sides of this debate now. To believe otherwise makes about as much scientific sense as continuing to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
However, after you get past these basic facts, there is still substantial disagreement on the other issues, such as:
How much of the warming is due to man?
How much damage will this warming do to the planet if:
A) we do nothing
B) we take steps like the Kyoto Treaty,
C) we implment a crash program of eliminating a huge amount of our CO2 output
How much will it cost to undertake options B and C, and is the cost/benefit of those worthwhile?
Which solutions are politically possible?
Which solutions are possible scientifically/engineering-wise?
There are still plenty of disconnects on all sides. It’s frustrating to listen to a global-warming alarmist say that we’re in danger of literally destroying the human race with out of control warming, but then recoil in horror at the suggestion that we had better start a crash program of building nuclear reactors, because ‘nuclear waste is bad’. It would seem to beat the hell out of destroying the human race, wouldn’t it?
Far too many people use big issues like Global Warming to push their political viewpoint rather than seriously address the problem. The Kyoto treaty is immensely flawed, almost useless, and hideously expensive. But the Global Warming crowd latched onto it because it’s the kind of solution they like - big government, international treaties, a strong U.N. involvement, yada yada.
Too many focus on relatively trivial issues like SUVs vs cars, while ignoring the huge issues of the massive amount of power production increase in places like China and India, simply because their political framework doesn’t have any easy solutions for that problem.
To many focus on solutions that either won’t work or are economically impossible. The alternative energy crowd uses Global Warming as an excuse to push rooftop solar panels and windmills as an alternative to heavy power generation. The small is beautiful crowd uses it as a reason to force us back onto bicycles and abandon the suburbs. Everyone’s got an agenda, and the issue becomes totally clouded by all the political baggage the participants in the debate bring with them.
You really are quite hilarious. Did you even look at your own graph? It doesn’t include 2000, or anything past the early 1900s. You couldn’t possibly do a statistical analysis comparing current temperatures with past ones, even if you laboriously reconstructed the actual data points from the curve instead of using the original data (which you would have to have anyway to reconstruct the curve).
It quite clearly does not include data from the late 1900s, even if a curve is shown in that graph. See the graphs I linked to see the actual data. What you linked to is a simplified and inaccurate graph intended to illustrate the Little Ice Age, not an actual representation of the real data.
With all respect, you are an idiot! That graph ends in the year 2000. You really can’t be this stupid, right?
No wonder no one believes this global warming stuff with people like you on that side of the issue. Want to try 387 ppm again as a %?
Since you obviously have no deductive reasoning or actual data …
“The dashed lines are the present global average temperature of about 15° C (59° F)”
Can you figure out the variance now?
You might want to check the forum rules for GD.
Actually, he’s bringing plenty of data to the table, and certainly making a much more convincing case than you to this casual observer. Also, you might want to check who it was that made the math mistake. You’re the one currently making one.
See my previous post. If you had looked at any of the actual data, you would have understood that that graph is not a real one.
No one believes it? George W. Bush does:
I never tried it in the first place. Want to explain why you thought the graph I linked to showed a 2.7 F cooling?
Where does it say that on the graph?