Climate watch???? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2013, 07:08:32 pm
content: 2012 figures confirm global warming still stalled'One more year of numbers not significant', says NASAhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/16/2012_temperature_figures/Be Nice!

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2013, 08:58:44 pm
content: Only if journalists studied English... and anything STEM related.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2013, 11:17:50 pm
content: for the sake of completeness here is the graph and not just a quote.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2013, 11:31:53 pm
content: Which part of that graph doesn't show a slow warming of the planet?

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 12:44:21 am
content: Beats Me! It's a British Publication. Is that graph the correct one?

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 01:13:07 am
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on January 16, 2013, 11:17:50 pmNow remember what necroscope said:Quote from: necroscope on January 11, 2013, 02:41:01 amThat graph only shows 1950-2012. That's aselective samplefrom 62 years. Therefore we can't infer anything from it. Right?*Ahem*Anyway...I'd like to gently remind everyone of the danger of mixing up causality and correlation:Evenifthe global temperature is rising (which I currently don't believe is happening), I have not seen any definitive research proving exactlywhatis causing it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 02:14:52 am
content: Quote from: SoftwareSamurai on January 17, 2013, 01:13:07 amThe interesting thing about facts, are that they are true regardless of whether or not you believe themQuoteAnd you won't, because the earths climate is an incredibly complex system, lots of factors are involved. It's possibly the most complex system in science to try and measure, model, and predict. I certainly would want to be in that game.But the current prevailing science says we are fairly sure (there is an actual % figure on it) that increased human induced CO2 is the result, and that's a fact (that that's the prevailing scientific opinion) whether anyone likes it or not.If anyone thinks they (the scientists) are wrong, then they can go devote their life to it and contribute to the science. Anyone else is just a useless arm waver pissing up the proverbial flag pole.Dave.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 02:39:04 am
content: QuoteYes I agree 62 years is a bit short, but I can imagine the accuracy falls off earlier than that.Anyway I wasn't saying this graph was right,wrong, misleading or whatever I just thought rather than just quote an excerpt from the report, it might pay to display the graph too, especially as it 'seems' to contradict the quote.QuoteI agree there has been a lot of hot air expelled on this subject consequently I think it is good to stick as close to measured data as possible.And also to look sceptically at all claims and claimants.

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 04:17:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 17, 2013, 02:14:52 amAllow me to re-phrase: I don'tbelievethe "prevailing scientific opinion" that the Earth is continuing to increase in temperature in any significant measure.Furthermore, I don't believe that there is even a majority among the real scientists that study the Earth that there is an alarming rise in the Earth's temperature. What I've read is that the majority of the scientists who have reviewed the data presented by the AGW people and have concluded that their data and their conclusions are inaccurate. It's like I tried to say previously: Anyone can twist facts to justify an inaccurate conclusion. (Correlation does not imply causation!) Saying that I personally don'tbelievethe conclusions the AGW people have presented is different from saying I don't believe their "facts".Side note on facts: Even "facts" that are indisputable can be wrong. Example: An outdoor temperature monitoring station. If it records the temperature every hour over the day, those are facts, yes? True, you can't dispute that the hardware accurately recorded the temperatures at its location. However, that doesn't mean those "factual numbers" are true for what you wish them to represent. What if the temperature sensor was placed right next to the exhaust vent of my clothes dryer? If I don't tell anyone (or I didn't know), I could be presenting the "facts" of the huge increase in temperature every evening around 5pm as some new Earthly phenomena never seen before - And then blame the increase in CO2 for it. So are my temperature records still "facts" that are true regardless if anyone believes in them or not?Quote from: EEVblog on January 17, 2013, 02:14:52 amYes, I agree that the Earth's climate it far too complex for any human to accurately model it via a computer simulation with any accuracy past a few days into the future at best. That's why I don'tbelievethese AGW people and their 20 year, 50 year, 100 year computer simulations. (FYI: Computer simulations is what I do for a living, so I have a pretty good idea about how easily they can be skewed to a certain result, either intentionally or not.)I also find it very difficult to accept that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has caused any significant change in the Earth's temperature. If we believe the historical records of CO2 content in the atmosphere, why is it we see vastly different levels where the temperature didn't change very much? The chart posted byTerraHertzclearly shows (to me at least) no correlation with average global temperature. Is this chart's "facts" wrong? And an interesting article byTimothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)leads me to seriously question the whole "greenhouse gas" concept in the first place.So sure, I may just be uselessly arm waving and pissing up flag poles, but IMHO, increased CO2 is only going to lead to more plants on the land and more phytoplankton in the ocean, both of which are good!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 04:36:34 am
content: Quote from: SoftwareSamurai on January 17, 2013, 04:17:01 amThat's because you haven't done years or decades of real full time research into it.Personally, I don't have that kind of time to put into it either, so rather than call BS on it, I'd prefer to believe the scientists that are working on it. Just like I'm willing to bet you do for almost every other scientific subject out there. But somehow climate change seems to be the odd one out, where every Tom, Dick, and & Harry with an internet connection thinks they can smell a rat in 50 years worth of climate scienceUnfortunately climate science has reached the level of religion, where everyone seems to think that just because theybelievesomething, that gives them a equal voice and place in some "debate"Thread locked, back to electronics.Dave.