Ho-hum... More Climate Change Confirmation

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
New York Times...

U.S. Science Body Urges Action on Climate

WASHINGTON — In its most comprehensive study so far, the nation’s leading scientific body declared on Wednesday that climate change is a reality and is driven mostly by human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.



Does this move anybody off the fence?

Or turn anyone's doubt into acceptance?

No?

Yeah... I know... borrrrring! *YAWN*
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
New York Times...

U.S. Science Body Urges Action on Climate

WASHINGTON — In its most comprehensive study so far, the nation’s leading scientific body declared on Wednesday that climate change is a reality and is driven mostly by human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Does this move anybody off the fence?

Or turn anyone's doubt into acceptance?

No?

Yeah... I know... borrrrring! *YAWN*
You dare quote the NY Slimes and expect ANYONE to believe that biased source? What a joke. :rolleyes:
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
Well if they don't want us to burn fuels they better start spending our taxs on greener alternatives.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,759
totally cool
Al Gore must be pissed that his new mansion is so close to the ocean. :D


If I could get everyone off fossil fuels tomorrow I would, but the truth is that oil makes the world go around right now. Everything is tied to it in some fashion and unless there is a MAJOR paradigm shift in the next couple years you'd better start moving inland.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Oh, the problem is that an increase on your graph equal to the length of...

Well, let's just say a tiny increase causes MASSIVE problems.

In this case, unlike yours, the size of the increase does matter when it comes to the motion of the ocean.

Thank you, come again. Oh wait, nevermind.
Im still not scared, not until you add a few grim reapers and some blood onto that graph that is.
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,166
4
Denver, CO
If I cared enough, I'd replot that data on a scale of 0-50,000 Kelvins and thus prove conclusively that the Earth has never experienced any temperature variation at all, and is actually quite cold.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
If I cared enough, I'd replot that data on a scale of 0-50,000 Kelvins and thus prove conclusively that the Earth has never experienced any temperature variation at all, and is actually quite cold.
My graph isn't all that extreme, most humans can't tell the difference between a 5 degree shift in temperature. If I am going to show these graphs to regular people (ie. Al Gore) I am going to use increments they can understand (my graph is plotted in 1 degree increments).
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
My graph isn't all that extreme, most humans can't tell the difference between a 5 degree shift in temperature. If I am going to show these graphs to regular people (ie. Al Gore) I am going to use increments they can understand (my graph is plotted in 1 degree increments).
So, a human not noticing the difference between 5 degrees is the important issue. Wow, it doesn't feel hot. Meanwhile, glaciers are melting. Polar ice caps are melting. There are massive dead zones in the ocean. There are massive changes in climate. None of those things matter because you don't need to take off your sweater.

Seriously, that's the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

(edit)
Even cancer starts out as a couple of cells.
It's a shame they weren't brain cells.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Oh the humanity.
A chart without any data on the x-axis? :eek:

What good is that? :confused:

Here's a little tutorial I found on Line Charts from Microsoft's Excel...

Creating XY (Scatter) and Line charts

A Line chart distributes category data evenly along the horizontal category axis (x-axis), and distributes all value data evenly along the vertical value axis (y-axis).

The x-axis of a Line chart can be either a category or a time axis, both of which can display non-numeric data. Depending on which data is used, the scaling options are limited compared to the scaling options of the Scatter chart's x (value) axis.


See, ZA? You haven't shown us anything at all if the data for the x-axis isn't provided. Perhaps you could show us the complete chart so we can judge it more thoroughly.

I promise to be good, and not use the 'p' word... even though I get the feeling it might easily apply here too. ;)
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Yeah thats probably just the first time you've seen it. This debate has been going on for months if not years here and the same two graphs are always posted. I think you still get the point though.
Yes, one graph shows the science in a scale that helps you understand the changes that are occuring, the other is a disinformation piece of junk being used to try to hide the facts.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
So, a human not noticing the difference between 5 degrees is the important issue. Wow, it doesn't feel hot. Meanwhile, glaciers are melting. Polar ice caps are melting. There are massive dead zones in the ocean. There are massive changes in climate. None of those things matter because you don't need to take off your sweater.

Seriously, that's the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

(edit) It's a shame they weren't brain cells.
I was referencing the fact that we are showing non-scientists data that they can't quantify in their heads. So I made the graph so a common person can see whats actually going on.

I guess if our polar ice caps are melting and all that other terrible stuff I won't get to laugh in 20 years. Somehow I think I will though.

A chart without any data on the x-axis? :eek:
The chart was built in another thread, it replicates the data used for the graph posted by mcrain but on a different increment (1 degree vs. .02 degrees). .Andy has already criticized my not using a legend, title, etc, so that has already been dealt with. (I am lazy, deal with it).
 

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Oct 29, 2007
5,313
154
CA
The chart was built in another thread, it replicates the data used for the graph posted by mcrain but on a different increment (1 degree vs. .02 degrees).
No, the graph you posted doesn't have any minor division amount (let alone a major division amount) compared to the other's 0.2 division.

Hell, without any division anywhere close to the actual data, you may as well have just made it logarithmic.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
I was referencing the fact that we are showing non-scientists data that they can't quantify in their heads. So I made the graph so a common person can see whats actually going on.
So, why not compose a graph with a line that if the average temperature goes above than line, we are facing catastrophe. Oh I know, because then you don't get to lie to people about how climate change is affecting the world.

I guess if our polar ice caps are melting and all that other terrible stuff I won't get to laugh in 20 years. Somehow I think I will though.
Climate change is long term change, not 1 year, not 3, not 10, not 20, but long term. Things are changing, and if you are comfortable killing your children and grandchildren, then you are no better than the guy with his hands on the gas chamber valve. Or are you?

The chart was built in another thread, it replicates the data used for the graph posted by mcrain but on a different increment (1 degree vs. .02 degrees). .Andy has already criticized my not using a legend, title, etc, so that has already been dealt with. (I am lazy, deal with it).
In other words, hiding the truth.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Climate change is long term change, not 1 year, not 3, not 10, not 20, but long term. Things are changing, and if you are comfortable killing your children and grandchildren, then you are no better than the guy with his hands on the gas chamber valve. Or are you?
Well in 20 years we will have a pretty damn good idea of whether human interaction by carbon emissions is really a problem or not. I am still not convinced and since our CO2 emissions will continue to increase as developing countries get going we most assuredly won't be cutting back on world emissions so you are basically dooming the Earth no matter what.


I don't buy it.

Either way I will be further North than most of you.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I think ZA may be onto something.

I created the chart below. The top line tracks the number of donuts I ate each day. Day one, I ate one donut. day two, I ate two... up to day ten when I ate ten donuts!

That line shows that I have a serious issue with donuts.

The bottom line shows the same donut data, but instead of counting one donut as one donut I counted one donut as one-tenth of a donut.

That line shows that the issue I have with donuts isn't so bad after all.

That line proves that donut-caused waistline change is just a lie intended to control my consumption of donuts! :D
 

Attachments

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Just ignore him. There's far more interesting things to discuss about climate change than to engage someone so scientifically ignorant and purposefully trolling for attention.
 

bamaworks

macrumors 6502
Nov 9, 2007
390
1
Lexington, KY
I think ZA may be onto something.

I created the chart below. The top line tracks the number of donuts I ate each day. Day one, I ate one donut. day two, I ate two... up to day ten when I ate ten donuts!

That line shows that I have a serious issue with donuts.

The bottom line shows the same donut data, but instead of counting one donut as one donut I counted one donut as one-tenth of a donut.

That line shows that the issue I have with donuts isn't so bad after all.

That line proves that donut-caused waistline change is just a lie intended to control my consumption of donuts! :D
What you posted here isn't accurate. He changed the scale not the values. You'd make a far more accurate mockery of his actions with two separate graphs, one with the scale equal to one donut which appears to show significant and acute change over time, and the next with a scale equal to ten donuts which would show far less significant change over time, though the values are the same and represent the same data.