The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
(4 votes)
Results 26 to 50 of 3435

  1. Post
    #26
    That's a bit vague isn't it? So your saying their methods to use tree rings as a proxy for climate in a certain area don't match with thermometer readings in the same area at the same time?

    What if their tree ring data comes from a forest in the USA, and their ice core data comes from Siberia, and their thermometer readings come from where - say global averages? You wouldn't expcet these to all match up exactly would you, not without calibration?

  2. Post
    #27
    Yup, even the graphic above contradicts itself. Saying ice core data is reliable, tree ring data is reliable, then says they 'compensated' by moving the data. If they start 'compensating' from multiple data sources (above graphic admits they tweak both tree ring and ice core data) where does it end? It even says they found tree ring data didn't match what they wanted it too so they discarded it after 1960.

    They are picking and choosing the data sources to meet the outcome they desire. That is not science. That is religion.

  3. Post
    #28
    UnholySoldier wrote:

    Vulcan makes a good point, the ice cores are treated as a record of great accuracy, but scientists simply move and change the data when it doesn't meet the preconceived conclusion, this is no kind of science at all. Same with tree rings, actually moreso without any known reason tree ring data becomes unreliable from 1960, did trees suddenly come to a consensus and change their growth patterns?. When data doesn't match up to the preconception, it's either changed or written off as anomalous. If this were a court case mankind would be walking away as freely as David Bain.
    Did you even look at the OP's picture with regards to the ice cores? Just where is this shifted and changed data that you're talking about?

    Vulan wrote:
    Yup, even the graphic above contradicts itself. Saying ice core data is reliable, tree ring data is reliable, then says they 'compensated' by moving the data. If they start 'compensating' from multiple data sources (above graphic admits they tweak both tree ring and ice core data) where does it end? It even says they found tree ring data didn't match what they wanted it too so they discarded it after 1960.

    They are picking and choosing the data sources to meet the outcome they desire. That is not science. That is religion.
    Yes, they compensated. That isn't to say they found completely contradicting data and warped it to fit a preconceived conclusion.

    These compensations occur in nearly all scientific research, yet I don't see you having an issue with germ theory.

  4. Post
    #29
    There's compensating and then there's discarding data you don't want to see.

  5. Post
    #30
    Say you date a rock using K-Ar dating and obtain an age of 900,000 plus or minus 50,000 years. Then some other independant dating technique obtains an age of 950,000 years. Wouldn't you revise your original date of 900,000 to 950,000 years?

    The same happens with tree ring and ice core data, they calculate a date or temperature or whatever and their calculation has an error attached with it. And sometimes other data helps them to compensate, and alter their original data to reduce the error.... why is this a bad thing?

  6. Post
    #31
    Vulcan wrote:
    There's compensating and then there's discarding data you don't want to see.
    And what is this data? The tree rings from 1960?

    Did you even look at the picture? Have another read.

  7. Post
    #32
    So we discard recent data because it doesn't match our needs, but older data from the same source does - so we keep that.

    The predictions around AGW are so flakey as it is that the IPCC will stick to terms like 'likely and maybe'. When your data is tweaked into that model the GIGO effect comes into play.

    I'm not against cutting Co2 emissions. But I see articles about how islands like Kiribati are screwed and looking for bailouts from NZ because of global warming. When in fact the problem is them dynamiting their reefs for making roads and fishing, destroying their natural protection barriers. So we so OK, we'll give you these carbon tax funds, and they keep dynamiting their reefs. Or we have the amazon dying... it's not dying because of warming, it's dying because we're cutting it down.

    Now NZ has polluted rivers like those in canterbury, or manawatu, but that's no longer important... paying our carbon tax is!

  8. Post
    #33
    ^ they discarded 'some' tree ring data from high latitudes because this small amount of data shows a decrease while all the other tree ring data (and ice core data, temperature data etc) for the same time period shows an increase. They also told you that they discarded the data. What a conspiracy!

  9. Post
    #34
    falco wrote:
    ^ they discarded 'some' tree ring data from high latitudes because this small amount of data shows a decrease while all the other tree ring data (and ice core data, temperature data etc) for the same time period shows an increase. They also told you that they discarded the data. What a conspiracy!
    Should you not average that data then? I notice a trend in pro-AGW circles to average the data when it suits (note the above graphic re the warming period in medieval times where they refer to the southern hemisphere), and to not average the data but discard it when it suits them.

    If you discard the data that you don't like, you skew the average to the figure you desire.

  10. Post
    #35
    The difference between taking an average and what has happened here is that this data is an anomaly. If you have a set of data which all fit a nice trend, and then you have an anomaly, averaging that anomaly into the data is arguably even worse than discounting it all together.

    However, when you have a large set of varied data, that is when you take an average (only if it's a meaningful average, of course)

  11. Post
    #36
    They don't have a reason to drop the 1960 + tree ring data, they don't know why it doesn't coincide with what they had expected, I thought it was at this point a good scientist comes up with a hypothesis, not throws the data away.

    Also why don't they have tree rings post 1985 ?

  12. Post
    #37
    UnholySoldier wrote:
    They don't have a reason to drop the 1960 + tree ring data, they don't know why it doesn't coincide with what they had expected, I thought it was at this point a good scientist comes up with a hypothesis, not throws the data away.

    Also why don't they have tree rings post 1985 ?
    It isn't that it doesn't coincide with what they had expected, it is because the tree ring data (a small part of the overall data used) did not agree with all the other data collected at the time.

    Let's say you think your CPU is overheating. You open up the case, and touch the heat sink - it's hot. You use an IR camera to get a reading - it's hot. You use a thermocouple to get a reading - it's hot. You check the internal thermometer via the computer and get a reading - it's cool.

    What do you do?

  13. Post
    #38
    Marados. wrote:
    Let's say you think your CPU is overheating. You open up the case, and touch the heat sink - it's hot. You use an IR camera to get a reading - it's hot. You use a thermocouple to get a reading - it's hot. You check the internal thermometer via the computer and get a reading - it's cool.

    What do you do?
    Ignore it and wait till it blows up, obviously. Or start with the internal thermometer, see its cool, and put heatsinks on the RAM.

  14. Post
    #39
    Marados. wrote:
    It isn't that it doesn't coincide with what they had expected, it is because the tree ring data (a small part of the overall data used) did not agree with all the other data collected at the time.

    Let's say you think your CPU is overheating. You open up the case, and touch the heat sink - it's hot. You use an IR camera to get a reading - it's hot. You use a thermocouple to get a reading - it's hot. You check the internal thermometer via the computer and get a reading - it's cool.

    What do you do?
    Set computer on fire and wait til the internal thermometer agrees with reality.

  15. Post
    #40
    Marados. wrote:
    Let's say you think your CPU is overheating. You open up the case, and touch the heat sink - it's hot. You use an IR camera to get a reading - it's hot. You use a thermocouple to get a reading - it's hot. You check the internal thermometer via the computer and get a reading - it's cool.

    What do you do?
    Fill the case with oil and have a fry-up.

  16. Post
    #41
    Marados. wrote:
    It isn't that it doesn't coincide with what they had expected, it is because the tree ring data (a small part of the overall data used) did not agree with all the other data collected at the time.

    Let's say you think your CPU is overheating. You open up the case, and touch the heat sink - it's hot. You use an IR camera to get a reading - it's hot. You use a thermocouple to get a reading - it's hot. You check the internal thermometer via the computer and get a reading - it's cool.

    What do you do?
    I replace the motherboard because the temperature monitoring is faulty, this feature controls the speed of cooling fans, and my CPU could be damaged by overheating.

    Climate change scientists apparently would write off the onboard temp as an anomaly and hope nobody notices. While continuing the claims the air inside my case must be heating the CPU due to CO2 levels and the computer is doomed, however the scientists will need more funding to find out exactly how long the PC has got.

    Reality being that a correctly functioning fan is all thats needed, but wheres the ongoing research funding in that ?

  17. Post
    #42
    UnholySoldier wrote:
    I replace the motherboard because the temperature monitoring is faulty, this feature controls the speed of cooling fans, and my CPU could be damaged by overheating.

    Climate change scientists apparently would write off the onboard temp as an anomaly and hope nobody notices. While continuing the claims the air inside my case must be heating the CPU due to CO2 levels and the computer is doomed, however the scientists will need more funding to find out exactly how long the PC has got.

    Reality being that a correctly functioning fan is all thats needed, but wheres the ongoing research funding in that ?
    I don't know if this is coherant or not. But an analogy is merely a descriptive device. It will only ever describe within a narrow set of circumstances. You cannot extend the analogy and use this as a evidence of being invalid because its still valid for its intended purpose. If you're making a seperate analogy while still using the same example then you just come across as a prat.

  18. Post
    #43
    UnholySoldier wrote:
    I replace the motherboard because the temperature monitoring is faulty, this feature controls the speed of cooling fans, and my CPU could be damaged by overheating.
    So to match that analogue scientists would have to replace the atmosphere, the feature controls speed of cooling and the humans could be damaged by overheating.

  19. Post
    #44
    It's not my fault the analogy was crap. Marados was comparing a faulty simple manufactured device that serves a specific function, to tree ring data, that nobody has claimed is faulty.

  20. Post
    #45
    The point of the analogy was that you have several different, independent indicators all saying one thing, and one specific anomaly saying the other. That is the situation with the tree ring data that was removed.

  21. Post
    #46
    No the point is you don't discard the information because you don't understand it.

  22. Post
    #47
    Ok just to be clear we are talking about Dendroclimatology right? i.e. the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily properties of the annual tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are difficult. (stolen from wikipedia, meh).

    So they had this tree ring data from all over the world. And they were able to check the modern tree ring data against known (measured) temperatures, right? And so they discover that even though we know temperatures are increasing at high latitudes from thermometer measurements etc, this portion of tree ring data does not match, because the annual tree ring sizes don't match.

    So they dont use the data because they know it is wrong. They know it is wrong because they have direct measuremnts of temeprature since 1960 they don't have to use these proxies.

    Maybe these certain trees since 1960 have been subject to less sunlight hours? Or some sort of virus which is stunting their growth rate? or less rainfall?

  23. Post
    #48
    And if you want a better analogy than the CPU one above, think of it like this:

    Your outside with your friends and you want to know what the time is. And most of your friends say 'Oh its about 1pm'. Then one of your friends says 'Oh I think its 10am'. Then you remember that you have a watch on (i.e. the measured temperatures) so you read your watch and its 1pm. And you know your watch is right because you calibrated the time this morning with the world clock. So what is the time?

  24. Post
    #49
    Its time you stopped asking others when you have a watch.

  25. Post
    #50
    falco wrote:
    Ok just to be clear we are talking about Dendroclimatology right? i.e. the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily properties of the annual tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are difficult. (stolen from wikipedia, meh).

    So they had this tree ring data from all over the world. And they were able to check the modern tree ring data against known (measured) temperatures, right? And so they discover that even though we know temperatures are increasing at high latitudes from thermometer measurements etc, this portion of tree ring data does not match, because the annual tree ring sizes don't match.

    So they dont use the data because they know it is wrong. They know it is wrong because they have direct measuremnts of temeprature since 1960 they don't have to use these proxies.

    Maybe these certain trees since 1960 have been subject to less sunlight hours? Or some sort of virus which is stunting their growth rate? or less rainfall?

    So how do we know the tree data from 1959 is right, and 1958 etc...