I don't necessarily have an issue with smoothing as long they aren't purposely manipulating the overall picture. However, I do have a problem with the first three charts showing a straight upward march for CO2 by leaving out the time when temperatures dropped and pulled CO2 down with it. Also, why 1744 as a starting point for CO2 charts that are from proponents of global warming? They always start at 1850/1880 for charts on temperature? It isn't because of lack of measurement, they get CO2 levels from a logical analysis of ice cores and such. Temperatures are derived in a no less scientific way.If we look at the graphs in post 63, I think #2 and #4 are too smooth to be accurate. The absence of noise suggests oversimplification to me, and makes me suspect the presenters' agendas.
Let's concentrate on #4, which can be determined to a high degree of precision from extant physical records, e.g. ice cores.
Here's your graph from bbc.co.uk ... it looks like a low-order polynomial fit; it's so smooth.
Now here are other graphs covering the same time period. Note the features missing in the too-smooth curve, like the bobbles in the early 1800s, ~1925 and ~1950.
Then there's this one ... different ordinate range, but now there's an outright inflection in the early 19th.
These are datafrom the same narrow set, and presented differently, they evince completely different gut responses from the person looking.
So yes, I do think that graphs can lie even while not deviating (with apparent significance) from fact. cn
Global warming
- Thread starter Saltrock
- Start date
The human race will continue either way. We have been through hot and cold times before. It might cull our population, but we will survive.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Cathorsis,
Don't worry. Obama will tax gas at $100 a gallon. All non-green energy will actually gey taxed so high, we'll go back to Little House days. The MMGW will then reverse itself during Obama's fourth term.
Don't worry. Obama will tax gas at $100 a gallon. All non-green energy will actually gey taxed so high, we'll go back to Little House days. The MMGW will then reverse itself during Obama's fourth term.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
OR co2 dragged the temperature down
http://faculty.eas.ualberta.ca/wolfe/EAS%20208/12_Early_Anthropocene.pdfDid plagues cause the Little Ice Age?
Is there really a relationship between
plagues and ice core CO2?
The Little Ice Age (1450-1850 AD) as the
capstone to Ruddimans early Anthropocene
hypothesis
Plagues eliminated sufficient populations globally to
reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Ice-core [CO2] was thus reduced by 10 ppm (~0.2 Wm-2)
Coincidence with reduced solar forcing of the same order
(~0.2 Wm-2)
Protracted cold acted as a feedback on global human
health, until modern sanitation was linked to epidemics,
and plagues were largely overcome in the XIX c. through
medical advances
EDIT hmm graphs arent showing up
EDIT: goto page 14 + 15 on link
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
we'll survive the temperature one way or another probably with a much smaller population base. but if we go too far i doubt very much that we would survive an anoxic ocean event
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
deprave
New Member
I am not republican, I do not dispute global warming, with that said..It is still a scam, government can't fix it by taxing us to death, they just want their greedy fingers on our wallets. This is what they do best, of course its their job. We can't just throw money at politicians and expect them to fix our problems, they could care less about our problems. Your a fucking complete moron if you feel that giving politicians money and letting them corrupt the market is going to save us from ANY doomsday scenario, its complete propaganda..Pure profit motive.
Cathorsis is a different person. Carthoris is a charter in a book.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I would be guessing, but perhaps that 1744-ish sample was from some air that was trapped and was not in a situation to exchange CO2 out or in. We can reconstruct past pCO2 that way, but not temperature.
But this is admittedly a free-range guess. cn
It is possible. However, it is still disingenuous to do it for one measurement but not another to match the information to a hypothesis that otherwise would not have evidence.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I found this chart that contains the courtesy of labeled sources. I'm not seeing where the temp drop (are you referring to the Little Ice Age?) pulled down CO2. That could be for a couple of nondisqualifying reasons however ... the LIA could have been too short to express a full feedback cycle, andor the data are too noisy. cn
<edit> there is a very shallow downtrend from 1400 to about 1700.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
I found this chart that contains the courtesy of labeled sources. I'm not seeing where the temp drop (are you referring to the Little Ice Age?) pulled down CO2. That could be for a couple of nondisqualifying reasons however ... the LIA could have been too short to express a full feedback cycle, andor the data are too noisy. cn
<edit> there is a very shallow downtrend from 1400 to about 1700.
all these graphs that show a massive increase over the last 50 years or so collect data from ice cores, then its all about "fuck ice cores! we can get great data from the side of an active volcano!"
if i waanted to collect data on the co2 levels and average temperature of my house i would not gather my baseline data from the living room, bedrooms and basement for 20 years then switch to temperature measurements from inside my oven and in the summer, also include my attic, while only measuring co2 in a room full of passed out partygoers, at the tailpipe of a running car in the garage, and the basement next to the furnace.
sniffing co2 on the side of a volcano and intimating that this is the key data in global co2 levels is PATENTLY DECEPTIVE since volcanoes release massive amounts of co2 and other gasses. urban centers also have much higher local concentrations of co2 and temperature due to the number of people vs plants, the number of automobiles, furnaces, industrial facilities and the well accepted heat island effect.
even polar weatherstation data is suspect, since 3/4 of the weather stations were simply excluded from the data with no reason given for the UN climate change panel's reports. a report which made claims directly opposite the data collected by several nations who also have their own weather stations. most notably the "shrinking himalayan glaciers" which the indian government climatologists showed were advancing, not retreating during the report period, and data sets from russian weather stations that are diametrically opposed to the data the russian stations actually recorded.
the himalayan glaciers are being reported as melting at an alarming rate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125826.htm
and also increasing in mass
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/world/asia/glacier-himalayas-gain-mass/index.html
and also melting super fast again!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100172868/himalayan-glaciers-are-melting-rapidly-after-all-say-scientists/
and also "fuck we dont know!"
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/academy-finds-mixed-climate-impacts-on-himalayan-glaciers-water-supplies/
meanwhile the indain weather experts, and the russians are saying "fuck you guys" to the UN's crazy climate fearmongers and opening their own studies. such an action would be political suicide in the US since so many people have swallowed the bait, and even saying "lets check those numbers" makes one a climate change heretic, a racist luddite, or a dangerous lunatic.
the UN with it's long history of graft corruption and impotence on every issue laid before it is not trustworthy, and unfortunately the US's cilmate research agencies have hitched their wagons to a stone and cant dispute the UN's claims or even re-examine them without becoming a laughingstock.
but for those of us who remember the new ice age scare of the 70's, theres already plenty to laugh at.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Dr., here's from the Wikipedia ice-core page.
Firn is incompletely consolidated and susceptible to gas diffusion. Only below the firn-ice horizon are the data, uhm, frozen in. cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i understand that ice core data may not be reliable when its still a "snow core" but tree ring patterns, sediment patterns, and a host of other data sources could be examined, but no,, they always go back to MASSIVE CO2 INCREASES**
**reported from the side of an active volcano...
and the brainiacs who are suppposed to be monitoring this "situation" just grab the most dramatic, shortest term, least comparative, and most historically brief and unverifiable source and ride that pony til it drops.
you cant determine the chlorine level of a swimming pool by checking the puddle from the sprinklers 3 blocks over, and you cant determine global CO2 levels by testing only areas with localized CO2 emissions on a GEOLOGIC scale.
if i put a BAR 90 smog tester behind the ass of a dog that just ate cheese, im gonna get unburned hydrocarbons, SO2 and CO readings that are off the charts. this does not mean my house has an overall carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and methane problem, it means my dog is farting. and thus, global climate change. time to freak out, and declare my house a superfund site...
or i could light a match.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
graphs are fun, especially when they offer only OPINIONS
Attachments
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
opinions of the people most knowledgeable on the subject instead of the opinion of a bircher on a pot website.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
yet again dr keynes regales us with a solid page of him talking shit
im not even going to address the majority of the verbal diarrhoea just the links that he posted
clicking on the link you immediately see a different narative than the one keynes if trying to spoon feed you
"Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions: Consequences for Water Supply Remain Unclear"
the title makes it clear they are not talking about entire region as keynes is suggesting
"ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2012) Glaciers in the eastern and central regions of the Himalayas appear to be retreating at accelerating rates, similar to those in other areas of the world,"
the article then goes straight into saying the region that they're talking about
"while glaciers in the western Himalayas are more stable and could be growing, says a new report from the National Research Council."
well thats nothing like keynes was pretending lets look at link 2
again from the moment you click the link the title shows its not saying what keynes is pretending it does
"
Study: Glaciers in western Himalayas bucking global melting trend"
this is looking increasingly dishonest of keynes
"Data examining six regions in the Karakoram mountains in the western Himalayas, which contains 7,700 square miles (nearly 20,000 square kilometers) of glaciers, revealed more than half of them are either stable or have been advancing in recent years."
you have to be deliberatly trying to lie to people by this time keynes
"The majority of glaciers have been shrinking rapidly across the studied area in the past 30 years Professor Yao told Nature Climate Change, the journal that published the study."
whats that? they say the "majority" yeah only person trying to fool people again is you keynes
and this article is saying the same as the others
"Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others; Consequences for Water Supply Remain Unclear, Says New Report"
seems all the pieces of "journalism" that you have posted is doing a reasonable job of representing the "science" unlike yourself who's used it to create strawmen on lies and a smokescreen to hide the fact your talking out of your arse
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kynes is an idiot who saves his stuff to copy and paste wherever he can.
i mean, he is so dumb that he exalts the john birch society, and their theory that fluoride is a communist plot to overtake america.
i mean, he is so dumb that he exalts the john birch society, and their theory that fluoride is a communist plot to overtake america.