Twisted agenda

This is a discussion on Twisted agenda within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >> because the two large components in the global warming debate are the two "hockey stick" graphs that have been ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    >> because the two large components in the global warming debate are the two "hockey stick" graphs that have been mainly disproved (one has, anyway) <<

    Just curious, but do you have any references to them being disproved? A very quick search led me to this page, although that is almost five years old:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-hockey-stick/


    >> Open-mind, sure... but I wouldn't ever suggest that someone assumes they aren't being screwed by someone. After all, I think an open-mind is one that considers the possibility that what they're being told is possibly untrue. <<

    My comment made sense in reference to Bubba. My impression is that he is convinced that any argument backing the idea of human-caused climate change is just a devious attempt to trick people. In that case opening his mind means considering the possibility that the article is above board. I was going further and asking him to basically assume it was, even though that might be difficult to do, because if he can do that he might see it from another perspective.

  2. #17
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,237
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    I generally stand on the "humans don't represent a dramatic impact in the weather patterns" side of the argument. Mainly because there is plenty of evidence that this is, in fact, cyclical. Two, because the two large components in the global warming debate are the two "hockey stick" graphs that have been mainly disproved (one has, anyway) and are both no longer recognized by the IPCC or the WMO or most other major weather authorities. Finally, three because plenty of scientific data show the carbon rise following the temperature rise... anyway, this is just random data I'm throwing off the top of my head.
    I don't reference the hockey sticks for the reasons you state. I'm just looking at the raw correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature. While it's true that the graph seems to show CO2 lagging behind mean temperature change, that's not enough to discount causality.

    One thing I've learned from DSP is that it's possible to construct a filter which seems acausal -- it seems to shift signals forward in time. In fact, it's not that difficult to do so. Of course, it's not really shifting anything forward in time (that's impossible), the filter is just predictive. If the input signal veers from the domain the filter can predict, it ceases the illusion of being acausal and enters wild oscillations.

    I won't go so far to say that the Earth is such a filter, but the fact that they exist means we can't just look at the graphs and say it's not possible that CO2 is actually the cause instead of the effect.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  3. #18
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,068
    Quote Originally Posted by daved
    Just curious, but do you have any references to them being disproved?
    I don't want to be rude, but the truth is that I don't have any immediate references to cite that disproves the hockey stick graphs and I really am uninterested to search for it to make this point... I'm just not that interested. The basic gist of it is that the formula used to generate the most well-known versions of the "hockey sticks" is designed such that any input would yeild the hockey stick shape. It's been tested with constant data and it still makes hockey-sticks.

    If you are curious... the only reference I can give you is Michael Chrichton's address to Congress on global warming. He cites this and I'm sure gives references... not to mention he's a doctor that could explain this well better than I have above. I hope it's enough to get you started cause I can see you're interested in this whole topic and I wouldn't want to leave you hanging without some sort of substance to my argument.

    Brewbuck, you know what you're talking about, but from what I'm seeing in your points is that you're just not certain about anything. You seem to have a very moderate view point that the evidence shows it "could" be this or that. This is accetable, of course, but my question to you is how much time and money should the government set aside on this limited certainty when there are definite problems out there that could make better use of the money?
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    Interestingly enough, I'm not that interested to do a lot of research either. I was just curious whether you had read or seen something specific or if that was just something you had heard or read a long time ago but didn't remember details of. The information you provided about Crichton and the constant data making a hockey stick is actually more information than I expected. Maybe if I'm bored later or this conversation continues I'll look it up.


    As to making better use of the money, I've seen people say (and it makes sense to me) that there are plenty of ancillary benefits. So if the bulk of the scientific community say it's a serious problem, then even if you're not convinced I would still think it is worth spending money to try to fix it even if the end result is just the ancillary benefits.

  5. #20
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    Good discussion and thanks for keeping it a debate and not resorting to personal attacks. I really don't think there is a conspiracy per se on the side of the scientists. I do think key politicians have manipulated it to their own ends to gain more control of various sectors of public policy. Of course we cannot blame the scientists for that since politicians have been manipulating data to further their own agenda since the dawn of man. Ok maybe not that long but soon after.

    As well I do think the mass media has been irresponsible in their broadcasts of the various stories concerning warming/cooling and ...pretty much every story they ever broadcast. So for news you either get extreme left or extreme right (for TV, internet, radio, etc). I've heard PBS has good factual news but I don't listen to them that often. I do like Lou Dobbs, however, not so much because he is neither left nor right or even b/c of his ideas, but because he is at least different than all the other junk you see and hear on CNN (regular CNN), MSNBC, FOX, etc. A breath of fresh air in a stagnant news and political climate.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-18-2009 at 11:23 PM.

  6. #21
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    I don't reference the hockey sticks for the reasons you state. I'm just looking at the raw correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature. While it's true that the graph seems to show CO2 lagging behind mean temperature change, that's not enough to discount causality.
    Rising temperatures will cause a rise in CO2. Higher temperatures increase the reate fo errosion of rocks and mineral formations, which contain large amoutns of geological CO2 embedded in them. There is no mystery here. Deforestation will cause an increase in surface albedo which results in LOWER subsurface temperatures as more of the suns energy is reflected back into space. It also reduces the rate at which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere. So deforrestation may be a cause of the increased CO2 levels remaining, but they are not the root cause of the initial temperature increase. The increased levels of CO2 are not even close to the amount necessary to sustain an increased rate of CO2 generation from geological deposits. Remember that the rate of CO2 absorbtion by plants at concentrations between 120 and 5000 ppm is very nearly a linear relationship based on concentration level. That is, a given biospheres plants, at 500 ppm, will absorb CO2 at twice the rate they will at 250 ppm. While we as human like to think that we are the masters of teh earth, adn that all oru acions have profound and important effects, it just isn't so. Total human CO2 production per anum barely reaches a double digit percentage of the CO2 generated from geological activity in a single day. The simple fact is that there is nothing we can or need to do to stop the increase in CO2. Geologic activity has been increasing over the last 10 thousand years as a natural cycle in the cores 54k year thermonuclear cycle. It will peak in another ~17k years and then begin to decrease.

    Deforestation and polution are still a bad thing, as it leads to desertification which reduces the arable land, and toxic chemicals in drinking water and food supplies.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  7. #22
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,237
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Rising temperatures will cause a rise in CO2. Higher temperatures increase the reate fo errosion of rocks and mineral formations, which contain large amoutns of geological CO2 embedded in them. There is no mystery here.
    I don't think it's a mystery as much as something that can never be proven one way or the other. The universe is not the sort of place where you can say "A caused B." Everything causes everything else. Look at the "butterfly effect." Yes, it's true that in a chaotic system, small changes can lead to massively different states, but is it really fair to say the butterfly "caused" a hurricane? At some point everything becomes an entanglement of global state, and you can't really ascribe causality to any one event.

    Total human CO2 production per anum barely reaches a double digit percentage of the CO2 generated from geological activity in a single day.
    I've never seen a legitimate reference that convinced me of that, but I'll of course give you the benefit of asking where you know that from.

    The simple fact is that there is nothing we can or need to do to stop the increase in CO2. Geologic activity has been increasing over the last 10 thousand years as a natural cycle in the cores 54k year thermonuclear cycle. It will peak in another ~17k years and then begin to decrease.
    The strange thing about this statement is that you give very precise numbers, which means you put faith in (certain sectors of) scientists to provide very accurate models. Yet there are other scientists providing models which predict dire circumstances. I wonder how you select which exact predictions to pay attention to and which ones to discount.

    Deforestation and polution are still a bad thing, as it leads to desertification which reduces the arable land, and toxic chemicals in drinking water and food supplies.
    What about, it makes the Earth look and feel like crap? I have more things to care about in life than pure survival. If my environment is ugly (and sure, that's subjective, but something a whole lot of humans at least loosely agree on), the quality of my life is adversely affected. I like forests not only because of their effects on water tables but because they're beautiful, and I enjoy walking in them.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  8. #23
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    What about, it makes the Earth look and feel like crap? I have more things to care about in life than pure survival. If my environment is ugly (and sure, that's subjective, but something a whole lot of humans at least loosely agree on), the quality of my life is adversely affected. I like forests not only because of their effects on water tables but because they're beautiful, and I enjoy walking in them.
    I like cities better than forests -- too many creepy crawlies in forests. That's why I live here and the trees live out there.
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  9. #24
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    I've never seen a legitimate reference that convinced me of that, but I'll of course give you the benefit of asking where you know that from.
    Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant, there are people who are still convinced that some supernatural sky daddy created the space time continuum by uttering 4 words. However, for your edification here are a few documents that should let you get started on forming an informed opinion.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1988/87JD00743.shtml
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_gr_mlo.txt
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Re...III-Berner.pdf
    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
    http://kirj.ee/public/oilshale_pdf/2...-4-465-484.pdf
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cad1eef214d984
    http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/....0.CO%3B2&ct=1
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...co2_human.html

    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  10. #25
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Australian fires (which are more and more pointing to arson),
    As was pointed out, the severity of the fires is due to an extended heat wave in Victoria.

    Without the heatwave the damage would have been no where near as extensive.

    That said, bushfires in my state can burn more area than the UK and not hit a homestead (few rail structures).

    Except this year that area (the Pilbara) is currently flooded. It is comming up to cyclone season but Ihave not seen it this bad in the last two decades.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Yet the founder of the Weather Channel does not quite agree
    Who is John Coleman apart from being a TV weatherman?
    What scientific credentials or qualifications does he have?
    What research did he do to support his opinion?
    Where does he reference those studies?
    Does he have a conflict of interest? (He profits in stiring up as much climate change debate as possible, as he has a finacial interest in weather journalism.)
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  11. #26
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,237
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant, there are people who are still convinced that some supernatural sky daddy created the space time continuum by uttering 4 words. However, for your edification here are a few documents that should let you get started on forming an informed opinion.
    You're comparing my skepticism with a belief in a "sky daddy?" Come on.

    I looked at your references, and none of them answers my question. How many gigatons of CO2 are produced through geological events per annum, vs. how many gigatons are produced by human activity?
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21