Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What do YOU think about CO2 & Global Warming watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: global warming & carbon emissions
    I don't believe CO2 is warming up earth/global warming is our fault/etc
    15
    24.59%
    I think it's happening and its our fault and we should minimise carbon emmisions
    38
    62.30%
    I don't care one iota about it all
    8
    13.11%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know.

    That's all anyone can say, really.

    However I do believe that regardless of whether there is a problem with climate change, that we do need to have less of an environmental impact anyway. This doesn't just extend to a cult-like obsession with carbon, although I do think that getting rid of fossil fuels as soon as possible is the logical option if we are to avoid extinction, but to immediately halting deforestation and to begin looking at reforestation of natural forests (no plantations), implementing a global moratorium on non-indigenous fishing until ecosystems recover, redoubling efforts to clean up the oceans from all the trash we've left lying around, lowering water consumption, reducing the intensity of agricultural farming, and investigating ways to make cities consume less space and resources, such as by building new, very tall structures rather than an entire estate on greenbelt land, by totally redesigning street networks to encourage pedestrians and public transport, by improving building energy efficiency and by looking at moving agricultural production inside city boundaries through building multi-level hydroponics farms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkPhilosopher)
    Mike is Michael Mann, not the film director but the scientist from Penn State. “Nature” is the journal that Mike printed his chart that used the “trick”. The “trick” is…well…let’s let Mike explain it.

    On November 26 of this year a Pennsylvania newspaper asked Mike about the emails:

    Mann said his trick, or ''trick of the trade,'' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998.

    He combined the two kinds of measurements, he said, because scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator. Recent pollution and other factors have distorted tree-ring widths and density, he said.

    ''The decline'' in Jones' e-mail refers not to a decline in temperatures, but to a decline in the scientific usefulness of tree rings that have formed in the last five decades, Mann said, noting his chart clearly identified where all his data came from.

    So the “trick” isn’t a deceptive trick, it’s a “trick of the trade”. Something he and other scientists do to ensure accurate data.

    The tree rings are unreliable and so they substitute real temperatures beyond 1960. Kind of shiesty I know, but the “trick” is stated on the chart. No one tried to hide the “trick”. In fact the trick is almost advertised.
    You don't have to be pushing conspiracy theories to see problems with what they did here. You just need to understand the scientific method, and realise the kind of questions that have to be asked (which unfortunately the person who wrote this piece didn't). What they did was grossly unscientific, and I'll spell out why for you.

    Firstly what did they actually do? They've constructed a baseline for global temperature going back about a thousand years. Obviously no thermometers back then so they have to use proxies for temperature, the most prominent of which is tree ring data. Also obviously you can't simply read a temperature out of a tree - you look at tree rings from a period when you do have thermometer data, and produce an equation to calculate one form the other (and allow for other variables like moisture). Not as accurate as a thermometer, and there's always the possiblity of errors in this calibration.

    They hit the problem that continuing to use this method for modern times they found that a) the tree ring data didn't match the thermometer data, and b) the tree ring data showed temperatures decreasing slightly. They therefore replaced the tree ring data from 1960 onwards with thermometer records, which showed an increase.

    Now if this was presented for peer review, it should have been immediately rejected for several reasons.

    1)Most obviously it is dishonest to present a continuous dataset for data from two such disparate sources as tree rings and thermometers. It gives the impression they have the same accuracy, collection methodology where they don't. A sudden spike in the data (which is at about 1960) is much less convincing if the data on either side were collected by different methods. Despite what Mann said, this was not made clear in the original paper at all.

    2)If the tree ring data doesn't match temperature data for recent decades, what evidence do you have that it did at any point in history? The period used for calibrating the proxy is useless for testing as it will inevitably match. We have no way of checking the older data. In other words, the only time the proxy has been tested it didn't work. That throws into doubt the thousand year baseline for climate variation, and you can't claim the climate is changing unnaturally unless you know the normal background variation. It's all very well trying to attribute this to pollution and "other factors", but these are hardly confined to the 1960s onwards. A scientist cannot simply assume the method is sound only where it agrees with their expectations and only unsound where it doesn't, which is exactly what they've done here.

    3)Bias. The only reason the data from 1960 onwards was switched out was because it didn't show the result they wanted - warming. This is a textbook case of confirmation bias. If you start searching for correcting factors only when the results don't match your expectations you will inevitably bias the data towards your expectations even if all those corrections are themselves justified. If tree ring data is suspect, why didn't they add in the entire thermometer record rather than 1960 onwards? Because it was only from that point that it didn't show what they wanted, not because that was the point where the accuracy became suspect.

    This was a really sloppy piece of science, and should never have made it through peer review. It is flawed enough that conclusions can't really be drawn from it, and shows a worrying level of bias from those conducting it. It doesn't require any conspiracy theory. I've no doubt the scientists concerned believe their results. It's confirmation bias that's the problem.

    Does that mean global warming isn't happening? Not necessarily. But there do seem to be very poor scientific standards in the field of climate science. Very rudimentary errors of the scientific method, which would get papers thrown out in a moment in other fields are slipping in. Personally I think there needs to be a serious audit of climate research in general, by scientists from other fields and with full disclosure, because it seems to be becoming so detached from the normal standards of science.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should do everything we can to prevent it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just love how unqualified people somehow no for certain the global warming isn't happening, when the qualified researchers have proved it is.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think no one needs to have an opinion on the matter unless they are a scientist, especially the media and their lies.

    Stop talking about the CRU case instead of tackling the REAL question with REAL solutions.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's not my place to say, I am not a climate scientist or geo-engineer, so my view is as worthless as a homeopath's view on your liver failure :holmes:. The general scientific consensus is of support for anthropogenic climate change and therefore my stance is broadly of support for anthropogenic climate change. If the consensus changes then I'll go with that - GCSE Geography and reading newspapers does not a climate scientist make.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's best to assume it is, even if you have doubts, which I don't really... because we're polluting/damaging the planet in so many other ways anyway, trying to change attitudes and encourage more sustainable behaviour across the board is not going to do any harm.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    It's no longer referred to as global warming, but climate change.

    You don't need to be a genius to work out why they desperately needed to come up with that name change.
    This is a google news result for global warming:

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=glo...4efdff163bf914

    Many of the articles are just hours old, it's still called global warming, you are talking rubbish.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I do believe it is happening, but what is to be done? Nobody seems certain in the things we can do, and if something is suggested, e.g. using public transport rather than using cars, a VAST amount of people would have to do that even to make the tiniest difference :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Got to love the eco warriors denying the obvious facts that are before their eyes. Amazing stuff.

    I've honestly never seen anyone try to tell me something that is in black and white (the e-mails) is wrong.

    Brilliant.

    SAVE THE TREES MAN.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrCynical)
    You don't have to be pushing conspiracy theories to see problems with what they did here. You just need to understand the scientific method, and realise the kind of questions that have to be asked (which unfortunately the person who wrote this piece didn't). What they did was grossly unscientific, and I'll spell out why for you.

    Firstly what did they actually do? They've constructed a baseline for global temperature going back about a thousand years. Obviously no thermometers back then so they have to use proxies for temperature, the most prominent of which is tree ring data. Also obviously you can't simply read a temperature out of a tree - you look at tree rings from a period when you do have thermometer data, and produce an equation to calculate one form the other (and allow for other variables like moisture). Not as accurate as a thermometer, and there's always the possiblity of errors in this calibration.

    They hit the problem that continuing to use this method for modern times they found that a) the tree ring data didn't match the thermometer data, and b) the tree ring data showed temperatures decreasing slightly. They therefore replaced the tree ring data from 1960 onwards with thermometer records, which showed an increase.

    Now if this was presented for peer review, it should have been immediately rejected for several reasons.

    1)Most obviously it is dishonest to present a continuous dataset for data from two such disparate sources as tree rings and thermometers. It gives the impression they have the same accuracy, collection methodology where they don't. A sudden spike in the data (which is at about 1960) is much less convincing if the data on either side were collected by different methods. Despite what Mann said, this was not made clear in the original paper at all.

    2)If the tree ring data doesn't match temperature data for recent decades, what evidence do you have that it did at any point in history? The period used for calibrating the proxy is useless for testing as it will inevitably match. We have no way of checking the older data. In other words, the only time the proxy has been tested it didn't work. That throws into doubt the thousand year baseline for climate variation, and you can't claim the climate is changing unnaturally unless you know the normal background variation. It's all very well trying to attribute this to pollution and "other factors", but these are hardly confined to the 1960s onwards. A scientist cannot simply assume the method is sound only where it agrees with their expectations and only unsound where it doesn't, which is exactly what they've done here.

    3)Bias. The only reason the data from 1960 onwards was switched out was because it didn't show the result they wanted - warming. This is a textbook case of confirmation bias. If you start searching for correcting factors only when the results don't match your expectations you will inevitably bias the data towards your expectations even if all those corrections are themselves justified. If tree ring data is suspect, why didn't they add in the entire thermometer record rather than 1960 onwards? Because it was only from that point that it didn't show what they wanted, not because that was the point where the accuracy became suspect.

    This was a really sloppy piece of science, and should never have made it through peer review. It is flawed enough that conclusions can't really be drawn from it, and shows a worrying level of bias from those conducting it. It doesn't require any conspiracy theory. I've no doubt the scientists concerned believe their results. It's confirmation bias that's the problem.

    Does that mean global warming isn't happening? Not necessarily. But there do seem to be very poor scientific standards in the field of climate science. Very rudimentary errors of the scientific method, which would get papers thrown out in a moment in other fields are slipping in. Personally I think there needs to be a serious audit of climate research in general, by scientists from other fields and with full disclosure, because it seems to be becoming so detached from the normal standards of science.
    Best post I've ever seen on here.

    Take a bow sir.
    Offline

    15
    Global warming = climate change=


    therefore we should do something about it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01010000 01001010)
    I think no one needs to have an opinion on the matter unless they are a scientist, especially the media and their lies.
    So you want to tell people what to think, and what not to think.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by U.S Lecce)
    I just love how unqualified people somehow no for certain the global warming isn't happening, when the qualified researchers have proved it is.
    Except that the "qualified researchers" have put out a bunch of politically motivated garbage that wouldn't past muster for a 11-year old's science homework.

    Come on, where else in the scientific community do you conceal your methodology and work "because other people will only criticize it". Are they serious? Climate scientists do not believe in the peer review process?

    What these people are practicing is not science, it's religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    is anyone else just more worried about actually RUNNING OUT of fossil fuels and the like, as opposed to the pollutants they dish out? i know we can actually create oil, but not on a large enough scale!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Global warming = climate change=


    therefore we should do something about it.
    so how exactly did global warming cause this? melting the ice?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Except that the "qualified researchers" have put out a bunch of politically motivated garbage that wouldn't past muster for a 11-year old's science homework.

    Come on, where else in the scientific community do you conceal your methodology and work "because other people will only criticize it". Are they serious? Climate scientists do not believe in the peer review process?

    What these people are practicing is not science, it's religion.
    :rofl: good one!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    I think it is the greatest fraud ever to be visited upon the human race.
    That would be religion?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Except that the "qualified researchers" have put out a bunch of politically motivated garbage that wouldn't past muster for a 11-year old's science homework.

    Come on, where else in the scientific community do you conceal your methodology and work "because other people will only criticize it". Are they serious? Climate scientists do not believe in the peer review process?

    What these people are practicing is not science, it's religion.
    *Lets stop countering the evidence we have for GW and pick on the scientists instead*

    *Oh, we may as well use CRU as an example of how all scientists conduct their research*

    It's hilarious how many people are opposing things like GW, GM crops, NDNAD etc with NO scientific background what so ever (along with not understanding the scientific concepts of the subjects, more often than not), but due to the nature of many scientists (in terms of their often inept communication skills to the layman) the media will always win.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There's a whole lotta Lord Christopher Monckton propaganda being spewed out in this thread!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 27, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.