Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty 869
An anonymous reader writes "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.'"
Re:more pseudo science (Score:3, Interesting)
I did, the maths are applied to temperature estimates lacking in necessary accuracy and precision, and so are rubbish
Ahh, statistics (Score:3, Interesting)
Temperature goes up more or less linearly, and CO2 goes up more or less linearly. Thus they are well-correlated. There's not a lot of power to that correlation, as the article demonstrates itself by trying it with different lags (from 0 to 20 years -- would have been interesting if he'd tried negative lags); the data is too featureless to show anything interesting.
Re:Five hundred years? (Score:1, Interesting)
Ask for a standard deviation of the annual temperature that gets posted here often, and you get no or derisive replies.
Plus, the "climate change" is arguing the rate of change. If that rate were the same as it was 500 years ago, no one would give a rip. The "climate change " would be too slow for you or me to worry about, everyone would be use to the slow changes and would have adjusted. But "we" must do "something" NOW, which bothers us.
Re:Five hundred years? (Score:2, Interesting)
And the remaining weather stations turned out to not be very reliable either, with most being more than 2 degrees Celsius error.
http://www.surfacestations.org... [surfacestations.org]
Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (Score:2, Interesting)
"I don't get it, after reading the comments here, why is there so much resistance accept that man is causing climate change?"
See the science on human reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy. If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
Personally I reckon that human activity probably does play a reasonably large part in accelerating climate change that was happening anyway (although 99% sets off my bullshit meter given that we're in an interglacial period), or pushing it over the point where we won't return to the next ie age, but in order to address it we'd have to get developing titans like India and China to play along, and good luck with that.
The best policy for the forward thinking nation is perhaps to simply prepare for flooding and adverse weather conditions.
Uh-huh (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a 7 degree rise for ages:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte... [mnn.com]
Now that's the high end of the "prediction".
In 2010 NASA said this:
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
And "New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]
In 2011 it was "Discovered" trees eat CO2:
Originally found at: http://www.google.com/hostedne... [google.com]
Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – 5 days ago
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
Also odd how this guy in 2007 was able to predict this winter's 100-year record breaking cold from things the IPCC have nothing to do with climate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Do the alarmists have an explanation for these?
Re:Buy a Prius as your next car... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ha ha ha! Your reference to this "being no myth" is a site that is guest hosting Ann Coulter, and calls Global Warming a myth! Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. The bird killing aspect of wind turbines is just a myth made up by the same anti-science people that deny global warming.
And, BTW, fracking has been around since the 40's. Whats you're problem? Are you one of those enviros that opposes everything?
I would have thought the fact that I said build nuclear would have answered that for you. And I don't care whether fracking has been around since the 1840s, it's an environmental blight and a serious health problem.
the damn commies in China
You're a fucking imbecile. No wonder you linked to a Ann Coulter supporting site.