"Global Warming Ended 16 Years Ago"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by classicaliberal, Oct 18, 2012.

  1. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #1
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

    Curious what the different takes from the data has been so far. Seems like this story failed to gain much traction in the current media climate surrounding the 2012 Elections, etc.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Do you have a real source?

    EDIT: A real source debunks it completely.
     
  3. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #3
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html


    [​IMG]

     
  4. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #4
    For the OP, I demand you remove liberal from your forum name and keep your head deep in the sand where it's relatively cool. :p
     
  5. AhmedFaisal, Oct 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2013
  6. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
  7. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #7

    It's classical liberal, it's where liberals uses to be before they moved so far to the left and shifted conservatives with them.;)
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Using the Daily Mail as a source is not considered good form in serious discussion.
     
  9. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #9
    The source doesn't matter, as the data remains unchanged. Your source utilizes the exact same data, from the exact same place. You're generally right about the Daily Mail... the way I consume media though, it doesn't really matter. As a skeptic, I don't put much weight in the 'opinions' or conclusions drawn by the author... just the data. The data is indisputable, the only question is whether or not it's statistically relevant.


    NASA data seems to show similar flattening in the last decade and a half. The difference in the data here appears to be only the TIME PERIOD. Like I said above, the fact that warming has stalled over the past 15 years is not debatable... it obviously has. The question is whether such data is statistically relevant and whether it's just a hiccup in the larger trend or the new norm.

    You can demand all you want, but the truth is I'm much more of a 'liberal' i the original sense of the word than those who claim to be here. I'm a liberal in the same way the founders were... I actually believe in liberty, small government, and personal freedom. I know it's unpopular to be a classical liberal around these parts... but I am what I am. ;)

    I agree. Seeing trends over the past century + makes any particular period of 15 years fairly irrelevant. If it goes on for another 10, 20, I'd say it means a lot.

    Back when liberals actually stood for liberty. Yep.
     
  10. vega07 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #10
    OP, don't you understand that the graph from NASA also demonstrates other periods of stagnant temperature rises?

    Your title is grossly misleading, and so is your graph that leaves out the rest of the numbers.
     
  11. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #11
    You must have missed the quotes around the title, and the giant graph immediately following which instantly clarified what was being implied. ;)

    BTW, if you back the graph up far enough, you could say we're in a cooling period and that the last 100 years are simply an anomaly or a stagnant period. The question is not whether we're experiencing global warming, or global cooling, or how far we stretch our data... the question is whether or not humans are affecting the climate, and if they are, if that affect is enough to justify the trillions of dollars being misallocated, misused, etc. if the data doesn't pan out.
     
  12. NT1440, Oct 18, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012

    NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    For anyone who simply lacks the ability to figure it out.

    It's anthropogenic climate change.

    It's going to get hotter in some places, and cooler in others. It's the climate changing not the average (what a ****ing joke) temperature of a given year.

    Even if "the data doesn't pan out", how the hell can investing in clean, renewable technology NOT pay off? You have research being poured into buildings thatpay for their own operation costs which will pay off into buildings that generate more power than they use. In what great leap of the mind does that not payer off?
     
  13. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #13
    From what I understand, and as shown in the graphs, there has indeed been a flattening of the warming trend in the past dozen or so years. Which, judging by the state of the navigable northwest passage, is not even enough, we need to take steps to actually reverse the trend.

    But there is an explanation for the plateau. It is not simply a statistical anomaly, it is the result of the Chinese industrial machine ramping up to match US and world demand. Sulphur/SO2 emissions from Chinese coal-fired power plants increase the earth's albedo, reducing the sun's energy input – curiously, this story was reported by the very same Daily Mail, amongst others.

    SO2, of course, is a major contributor to the acid rain problem, so it would hardly serve as any kind of offset to greenhouse gas emissions without tremendous/unbearable cost. China is even now working to clean up their power plants, so the upward trend is entirely likely to resume.

    Oh, and "liberal", often with the "neo-" prefix is used in parts of Europe to denote an ideological position somewhat akin to America's Tea-Baggers. It is kind of cognate with "glibertarian".
     
  14. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #14
    You ought to visit the conservative Berkeley Earth site:

    http://berkeleyearth.org/

    One of the interesting graphs they have:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    But my source points out that the Daily Mail's conclusion is complete rubbish.

    You are expecting a paper who thinks it is acceptable to publish sexualised pictures of underage teenage girls on its website to have the morality to tell the truth about anything at all - when it reality it is essentially a peodo paper.
     
  16. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #16
    Yeah, and if I exclude all data outside of 2006-2007 (according to the OP's graph), we can "prove" that global temperatures are falling dramatically.

    The truth is, human presence on earth (let alone a 25 year sample) is a blip in the time scale of the earth.

    is it rising more than normal? we don't know for sure.
    is it falling more than normal? we don't know for sure.

    Fact is, we are actually still coming out of the last ice age.


    however pumping crap into the air can't be good for us either way.
     
  17. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #17
    Right, but my point is that the author's takeaway on either article is pointless. Just look at the charts and draw your own conclusions. The Daily Mail's headline is 100% accurate. there has been no global warming according to this data over the lat 16 years. Now think critically... does that actually mean anything? If we draw the chart over a longer term, does this imply a trend, or simply a statistically irrelevant blip? What if you back it up even further? Does global warming during the past 100 years look to be a trend or nothing more than a statistically irrelevant 'blip'? The point is that people need to stop relying on articles to draw conclusions for them. The data in the two sources is the same, so draw your own conclusions... trusting any media source is a big mistake. A healthy dose of skepticism would do us all good.



    "I find your lack of faith..." appealing. ;) Agreed on all points.
     
  18. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #18


    tl;dr A (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  20. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #20
    Until the next time...
     
  21. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #21
    In other news, gas prices under Obama are not higher than they were under Bush. All you have to do is start the graph at July 1, 2008 to see that.
     
  22. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #22
    Unfortunately the damage is already done. This fake story will be referenced by climate change denialists for years to come.
     
  23. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    And the story continues ...

    In the last episode, Physicist Richard Muller was turning out convincing denialism in the disguised as reputable research for the Berkeley Project, under sponsorship of the Koch Brothers.

    In today's episode, Muller goes off script, having become a firm supporter of AGW/ACC,

    “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

    The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

    He calls his current stance “a total turnaround.”

    Some leading climate scientists said Muller’s comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully.

    (Yes, Muller is a physicist, not a climate scientist, take that as you will. And yes, July 30th is not "today"-ish.)
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    That's not what the headline says. It says;
    Climate change hasn't stopped according to that graph. To claim so is a misunderstanding (or purposeful misrepresentation) of how climate trends are determined. The met office didn't release a report quietly or otherwise that said so. And the chart does not prove it. 3 from 3 claims fraudulent. Not even close to 100%.
     
  25. northernbaldy macrumors 6502a

    northernbaldy

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Location:
    the north, UK
    #25
    The weather is certainly messed up here in the UK
     

Share This Page