Moderated Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Tricky
- Start date
- Status
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
It's a non-sequitor. They're arguing against something that climate scientists haven't argued in favor of. Why should we expect to see a relationship between these two variables over this period of time with the naked eye on a graph?
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Isn't it Global Climate Change not Central England Climate Change.
Merton
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 576
Ice cores, maybe?
As for the OP, 1) looking at one specific location is a terrible way to gather evidence against global warming; 2) as Loss Leader suggested, the scale of the graph might obscure a warming trend that occurs at the very end; and 3) I wonder if the UK has a less severe warming trend because it is an island (just a SWAG). Anyway, these are my naïve concerns with this graph... perhaps someone more knowledgeable will have something specific.
Merton
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 576
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Another thing is that the red dash line at the top is doesn't correspond to anything on the x axis, so it's meaningless or worse yet intentionally misleading.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The Central England Temperature record is the longest series of monthly temperature observations in existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
Another problem is just looking at emissions, when it is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that goes through natural cycles as well as having human emissions that models look at.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Agreed I would have expected some impact on CO2 numbers from the Icelandic eruption of 1783-84
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,394
I once pointed out that humans had a ready-made carbon sequestration process in-place already with burial of yard waste in landfills, and that environmental concepts of composting and laws banning it were counterproductive, and the environmentalist I was yabbering with loudly stated CO2 was just a minor greenhouse gas anyway.
That's when I stopped caring. Just hand out air conditioners and get out of the way of power companies.
I'll take the worst of global warming, including moving back from the oceans over 100-300 years (buildiings and roads get old anyway) with the attendant more advanced tech that you'd have with a more powerful, unhobbled economy than a hobbled one with lower tech and more beachfront.
Screw that, you're no friend of humanity if you think otherwise. Not until tech largely cures death anyway.
That's when I stopped caring. Just hand out air conditioners and get out of the way of power companies.
I'll take the worst of global warming, including moving back from the oceans over 100-300 years (buildiings and roads get old anyway) with the attendant more advanced tech that you'd have with a more powerful, unhobbled economy than a hobbled one with lower tech and more beachfront.
Screw that, you're no friend of humanity if you think otherwise. Not until tech largely cures death anyway.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
paiute
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,394
I am going to guess that temperatures in central England owe much more to the presence and stability of the Gulf Stream than anything else. If the global climate warms and the Gulf Stream stops or shifts, then the temps on this graph will nosedive.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Climate is not just central England.
Specific examples of lying crap on this graph:
a) They invented the green straight line out of thin air. Notice that it is a terrible match to the data (the line is too high) for the entire 18th century, for example; there is no reason whatsoever to invent such a line and call it a "0.29 degree per century trend"; indeed, picking different time-ranges will give you whatever trendline you want. I suspect they picked this one specifically because (by overshooting the entire 19th century) it happens to makes the post-1980 warming look smallish.
b) They drew the CO2 *emissions* and the temperature on the same graph. No one ever said that temperature follows year-by-year emissions---it follows *accumulated* emissions, i.e. actual atmospheric CO2 content. Why choose the emissions graph? To suggest that "because the temperature doesn't do THIS, scientists are wrong", presumably.
c) Why put that dashed line way on top? To suggest "look, sheeple, temperatures would be up HERE if scientists were right"? No, if scientists are right temperatures will be up there in 100 years. What's wrong, denialists? Afraid to extend the x-axis to 2100 and show the actual prediction? Of course they are---the actual prediction is terrifying, and there's no fuzzy straight line game that makes it look non-terrifying.
Classic case of "how to lie with statistics".
a) They invented the green straight line out of thin air. Notice that it is a terrible match to the data (the line is too high) for the entire 18th century, for example; there is no reason whatsoever to invent such a line and call it a "0.29 degree per century trend"; indeed, picking different time-ranges will give you whatever trendline you want. I suspect they picked this one specifically because (by overshooting the entire 19th century) it happens to makes the post-1980 warming look smallish.
b) They drew the CO2 *emissions* and the temperature on the same graph. No one ever said that temperature follows year-by-year emissions---it follows *accumulated* emissions, i.e. actual atmospheric CO2 content. Why choose the emissions graph? To suggest that "because the temperature doesn't do THIS, scientists are wrong", presumably.
c) Why put that dashed line way on top? To suggest "look, sheeple, temperatures would be up HERE if scientists were right"? No, if scientists are right temperatures will be up there in 100 years. What's wrong, denialists? Afraid to extend the x-axis to 2100 and show the actual prediction? Of course they are---the actual prediction is terrifying, and there's no fuzzy straight line game that makes it look non-terrifying.
Classic case of "how to lie with statistics".
That's because you had reasonable questions and something for us to use to make sure they made sense. So many posters do not - some through ignorance (which I do not use perjoratively - I am ignorant of a good number of things - some of which I am simply disinterested in, some of which I am but do not have the info yet, and some of which I am also ignorant of my ignorance. But at least I know that!!
) and some because they are trolling and a few from willful malicious intent (related to but not necessarily trolling.CurtC
Illuminator
Another complaint about the green line - it's obviously intended to deceive. Why did they use a straight line? The temperature data from 1629 to about 1925 looks pretty flat if you averaged it out, then it begins to rise, with the greatest amount of rising on the right side of the graph. Had I overlaid a smoothed line over the temp data, it would look very much like the CO2 curve, especially if it were scaled properly.
- Status