Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
http://www.mcgill.ca/research/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

"A study out of McGill University sought to examine historical temperature data going back 500 years in order to determine the likelihood that global warming was caused by natural fluctuations in the earth's climate. The study concluded there was less than a 1% chance the warming could be attributed to simple fluctuations.

'The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales. For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says.

His study [also] predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with — the IPCC's prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.'"
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
I'm not opposed to the findings, however, is 500 years enough for full temperature cycles?
No it's not, but I don't think that matters in this study:

Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
It's 43 degrees in Chicago today. What do you think it should be outside?
Come on, you know very well weather != climate.

One can flip a coin 3 times in a row, and you have a 25% of it being the same value all 3 times. That must mean the coin is weighted! It "should" have been some other value other than 3 in a row!

Now try it 1000 times. Or a million.

It's all about averages and trends.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,509
OBJECTIVE reality
Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty
This study won't matter a damn to those people who already know what they know. The books are cooked. Scientists are (somehow) making money off it. We're too puny to affect the environment. And God said he'd never destroy us again.

How many times do they have to explain that to you?

 

vega07

macrumors 65816
Aug 7, 2006
1,248
11
It's 43 degrees in Chicago today. What do you think it should be outside?
Wow, you ask the same exact question in several past threads. I'd recommend you re-read our answers...and unstick your head in the sand.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Wow, you ask the same exact question in several past threads. I'd recommend you re-read our answers...and unstick your head in the sand.
I think his point is that without global warming, the temperature in Chicago would have been 41º today.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Wow, you ask the same exact question in several past threads. I'd recommend you re-read our answers...and unstick your head in the sand.
Kind of odd that so called global warming can't have a real scientific control if all weather conditions = global warming.

Cold = global warming
Hot = global warming
Snows = global warming
Drought = global warming

All outcomes = a preconceived idea.

A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the single independent variable. This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.
So...the easiest control is "what should the weather be outside" if you think it's off.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Actually, I just checked Chicago's weather for the last week. Here were the daily highs ...

04/07 — 55º
04/08 — 57º
04/09 — 63º
04/10 — 64º
04/11 — 70º
04/12 — 80º
04/13 — 72º
04/14 — 64º <-- Today's high was 21 degrees warmer than Technarchy's reported 43º

Yes, tonight and the next few days will be colder than that.

That's what happens when a storm comes down from the north.

The weather tends to get colder.
 
Last edited:

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
Thankfully science and other governments are leaving the ... "doubters" behind and working to try and delay the really bad consequences.
 

vega07

macrumors 65816
Aug 7, 2006
1,248
11
Kind of odd that so called global warming can't have a real scientific control if all weather conditions = global warming.

Cold = global warming
Hot = global warming
Snows = global warming
Drought = global warming

All outcomes = a preconceived idea.



So...the easiest control is "what should the weather be outside" if you think it's off.
The majority of us here are not talking about "all weather conditions" or any certain weather condition. We're talking about averages throughout time. So please, if you can't contribute to this line of conversation, refrain from the detractors.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
The majority of us here are not talking about "all weather conditions" or any certain weather condition. We're talking about averages throughout time. So please, if you can't contribute to this line of conversation, refrain from the detractors.

When has the planet ever had a static climate or overall temperature?
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
What is the reason for this question, beside to further my point?



Earth has never had static climate; thus, the significance of averages.

What's the acceptable level of variance to suggest abnormal activity if static was never an option?
 

vega07

macrumors 65816
Aug 7, 2006
1,248
11
What's the acceptable level of variance to suggest abnormal activity if static was never an option?
I don't know. You don't know. We are not experts in the field. We, therefore, need to rely on those who are experts...and 97% of them agree that climate change (or whatever you want to call it) exists, and that is largely caused by man.

Have you not read the evidence, seen the graphs?

I'm actually baffled by your questions TBH. They lack any respect for the scientific process. They assume some sort of arrogance, as if your theories/questions (and in my humble opinion ridiculous detractors) somehow trump the consensus among climate experts and to the decades of work they have dedicated their lives.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
I don't know. You don't know. We are not experts in the field. We, therefore, need to rely on those who are experts...and 97% of them agree that climate change (or whatever you want to call it) exists, and that is largely caused by man.



Have you not read the evidence, seen the graphs?

I asked the question so obviously I don't know.

If you don't know you should be asking these questions too
 

vega07

macrumors 65816
Aug 7, 2006
1,248
11
I asked the question so obviously I don't know.

If you don't know you should be asking these questions too
I have asked my own questions...so I sought out the evidence. And the evidence seems pretty damn unquestionable to me.

----------

What is it about the current evidence that makes you question climate change?
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

I have asked the questions...so I sought out the evidence. And the evidence seems pretty damn unquestionable to me.

Conclusions obtained without a control would be dismissed according to the scientific method.

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

What are the eliminated variables? The acceptable deviations? With the earth not having a static atmosphere how is it possible this variable can be completely eliminated given our limited historical data?

If we are talking average what are most weighted variables?

I look forward to having these questions answered so that I may join Al Gore's inconvenient truthers.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
When has the planet ever had a static climate or overall temperature?
You seem to be in an argumentative mood. ;)

OK, here is a definition:

Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
Now, are you telling me that "climate" actually does not exist? For an average not to exist, certain statistical conditions have to apply. Do they in this case? So you dislike the whole idea of "average"?

Edward Abbey, the writer, liked to look at such challenges "superficially":

As for the "solitary confinement of the mind," my theory is that solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar. His logic may be airtight but his argument, far from revealing the delusions of living experience, only exposes the limitations of logic.
So, how far are you willing to go with this? Suppose I have a coin that is heads 55% of the time and tails 45%-- it is possible that you could still get tails 20 times in a row, right? How about we play a little game? We'll see whether or not averages exist. Reminds me of the Mark Twain story about whether poker was a game of chance or a science. ;)