WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
weller2 said:
Malthusian reasoning is valid assuming no technological progress.
Click to expand...
And what has not progressed? Malthus made a static analysis that was deeply flawed.

Today Malthusians simply continue that bad analysis.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The chart I posted was not compiled by an AGW proponent. It was a Wikipedia summary of 11 different independent sources. You could argue that one or two of them were “doctored” to favor the global warming hypothesis, but all 11?
Click to expand...
No, I argue for continuing to use the same methods for collecting the data across the board and comparing instead of replacing it with more modern techniques.
LeafByNiggle said:
By the way, one of the reasons why temperature data is adjusted is that the data represents different gathering methods. In order to blend less accurate data from long ago with more accurate data from a few years ago, a proper amount of adjustment is the right thing to do. There is no reason to think that all adjustments are detrimental to the accuracy of the final ensemble of data, unless you had already decided ahead of time that any result that supports global warming must be corrupt.
Click to expand...
‘Adjusting data’ is bad science and it is a lie. Either you report the numbers measured or you throw them out. You don’t adjust them.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The forces that were in play millions of years ago and brought about those temperature extremes are not the same forces that in play today. If God wants to bring about the end of the world by giving us the Eocene again, then there is nothing we can do about it. But if we degrade our world by actions that we should have known would have those consequences, well, we won’t be able to blame God for that.
Click to expand...
Since co2 emissions are not a problem we are not degrading anything
 
lynnvinc said:
Wow, great chart.

Another way to think about China is what if it were divided up into 4 nations of equal pop size – with each being about the pop of the US – then the CO2 emissions of each of these would be about 1/4 that of the US.

But what strikes me is that there are plenty of nations with good development levels that are doing much much better than we are re emissions per capita. We are like profligate renegades who would rather burn our money with the autumn leaves than do things to reduce our profligacy.

Reminds me of an AC commercial where the family runs out into their front yard yelling to the neighborhood, “We’ve been robbed” (for not having a more efficient AC). 🙂

If only Americans could come to understand how we are robbing ourselves and others around the world and future generations by being so danged inefficient and non-conservative of energy & resources and contributing not only to AGW, but to local and regional harms and death.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure this tells us very much.

The “Human Development Index” is a composite of three things, as I understand it, one of which is life expectancy at birth. Different countries tally live births differently, so that element is skewed. Another is expectable years of education. In some countries it’s different than in others, for reasons having nothing to do with the advancement of the country or its quality of life, either one. Take Germany, for example, many people who might, for example, go to college in the U.S. are shunted to trade schools pretty early in life. But Germany is still an advanced country. In Mexico, the system is such that the terminal pre-college educational level is the sixth grade. So, those who do not go to college ALL end their education at six years, whereas they would normally go 12 years in the U.S. None of that tells us anything about achievement in either system.

This chart is weird in that it suggests development for countries in ways that have nothing to do with, say, GDP or wages per capita. So, for example, Mexico, which has higher GDP/capita and earnings/capita, than any eastern European country, is placed well behind them on this chart in terms of the “Human Development Index”.

Without going into the situation for each country, the U.S. consumes approximately 25% of the world’s petroleum, for example. But it also produces approximately 25% of the world’s goods and services. So, where’s the inefficiency in use? Countries that consume fuel energy are the ones who produce things because they have machines doing the grunt labor instead of human beings doing it with muscle power.

I suspect that’s probably true in most cases; the economic level is pretty much directly related to the energy consumption level.

This chart would extol a country that counted a child as “born alive” only if he survived his first year of life, took kids through years of indifferent education and then put them to work hauling stone blocks by hand afterwards. Ancient Egypt would probably rank very well on this index, but would we want to live there?
 
weller2 said:
I could buy a claim that for whatever reason cloud feedback kicked it after 1998 to stop further warming, however that still does not imply that you can pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into atmosphere with impunity – an increased positive CO2 feedback will ultimately overcome the cloud feedback.
Click to expand...
I didn’t make that claim. I was simply pointing out that the climate system cannot be reduced simply to the physics of IR absorption by CO2. If the climate could be so simply described then modeling it would be fairly easy, but as we know, it is extraordinarily difficult, suggesting that there is a lot more at work in the real world. The ideal gas is a useful construct …until someone mistakes it for reality.

Ender
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m not sure this tells us very much.

The “Human Development Index” is a composite of three things, as I understand it, one of which is life expectancy at birth. Different countries tally live births differently, so that element is skewed. Another is expectable years of education. In some countries it’s different than in others, for reasons having nothing to do with the advancement of the country or its quality of life, either one. Take Germany, for example, many people who might, for example, go to college in the U.S. are shunted to trade schools pretty early in life. But Germany is still an advanced country. In Mexico, the system is such that the terminal pre-college educational level is the sixth grade. So, those who do not go to college ALL end their education at six years, whereas they would normally go 12 years in the U.S. None of that tells us anything about achievement in either system.

This chart is weird in that it suggests development for countries in ways that have nothing to do with, say, GDP or wages per capita. So, for example, Mexico, which has higher GDP/capita and earnings/capita, than any eastern European country, is placed well behind them on this chart in terms of the “Human Development Index”.

Without going into the situation for each country, the U.S. consumes approximately 25% of the world’s petroleum, for example. But it also produces approximately 25% of the world’s goods and services. So, where’s the inefficiency in use? Countries that consume fuel energy are the ones who produce things because they have machines doing the grunt labor instead of human beings doing it with muscle power.

I suspect that’s probably true in most cases; the economic level is pretty much directly related to the energy consumption level.

This chart would extol a country that counted a child as “born alive” only if he survived his first year of life, took kids through years of indifferent education and then put them to work hauling stone blocks by hand afterwards. Ancient Egypt would probably rank very well on this index, but would we want to live there?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is difficult to figure “development level,” and I don’t think GDP per capita is the end-all measure. I’m wondering if they also included the WHO’s index of “Overall [health] efficiency in all WHO member states” in which the US figures 37th, below Costa Rica (see pg 18 of who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf ).

I had a chance to meet the president of Costa Rica some years back – he had given a talk at our campus re how he and his country had decided to put their resources into improving their people’s welfare and health, etc, instead of military prowess and other “development” schemes to make the rich richer. He didn’t know about WHO’s index and was a bit surprised when I told him his country scored above the US.

The point is what a country values will determine what it considers “development” – life issues (like health, nutrition, and well-being for current and future generations) or just plain ole money in the bank and fancy cars in the garage (Hint: you can’t take it with you 🙂 ), or military might, arms-flexing, and at least one war every 20 years to make (violent) “men” out of our boys each generation. 😦

To each his own…
 
RGCheek said:
The data is commonly available.
Click to expand...
Is it? I didn’t think it was available at all. Isn’t this the data CRU said they deleted because it was taking up too much storage? Reading the comments in the code it would appear that even the people at CRU didn’t have access to all of it.

Ender
 
RGCheek said:
No, I argue for continuing to use the same methods for collecting the data across the board and comparing instead of replacing it with more modern techniques.
Click to expand...
You could do that, but then the data would be less accurate.
‘Adjusting data’ is bad science and it is a lie. Either you report the numbers measured or you throw them out. You don’t adjust them.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The fact that the data was adjusted was documented and included with the data set. There was no attempt the deceive. It is possible to derive the raw data if you want to, but if you want to do any serious research with that data, you will want to adjust the data for better correspondence with modern techniques anyway. This way the data is immediately useful to researchers without everyone having to repeat the adjustments.
 
Ender said:
Which outlandish claim? The one that the raw data is commonly available?

Ender
Click to expand...
No, the claim that RGCheek made that temperature rose 2 deg. C in 50 years following the Little Ice Age. I call that claim outlandish and asked for a citation to support it. I cited a data set that said something quite different about that question.
 
I encourage you all to attend the NYC climate march if you live close by, Sun, March 21st. See the film leading up to the march, DISRUPTION. CLIMATE. CHANGE. at watchdisruption.com/
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, the claim that RGCheek made that temperature rose 2 deg. C in 50 years following the Little Ice Age. I call that claim outlandish and asked for a citation to support it. I cited a data set that said something quite different about that question.
Click to expand...
That was not my claim. I said that it looked like a 1 degree increase for each 50 year period, with a total of 2 degrees change since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Lol, maybe your ‘speed reading’ needs to slow down a bit?

The raw temps are here: metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

Took all of about 5 minutes to find them.
 
lynnvinc said:
Yes, it is difficult to figure “development level,” and I don’t think GDP per capita is the end-all measure. I’m wondering if they also included the WHO’s index of “Overall [health] efficiency in all WHO member states” in which the US figures 37th, below Costa Rica (see pg 18 of who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf ).

I had a chance to meet the president of Costa Rica some years back – he had given a talk at our campus re how he and his country had decided to put their resources into improving their people’s welfare and health, etc, instead of military prowess and other “development” schemes to make the rich richer. He didn’t know about WHO’s index and was a bit surprised when I told him his country scored above the US.

The point is what a country values will determine what it considers “development” – life issues (like health, nutrition, and well-being for current and future generations) or just plain ole money in the bank and fancy cars in the garage (Hint: you can’t take it with you 🙂 ), or military might, arms-flexing, and at least one war every 20 years to make (violent) “men” out of our boys each generation. 😦

To each his own…
Click to expand...
Costa Rica is 97th in the world in per capita income. Not something to emulate despite left wing nostalgie de la boue, indulged from afar.
 
lynnvinc said:
I encourage you all to attend the NYC climate march if you live close by, Sun, March 21st. See the film leading up to the march, DISRUPTION. CLIMATE. CHANGE. at watchdisruption.com/
Click to expand...
Oh, great! Burn a bunch of fossil fuels and dump a bunch of greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere so I can travel to New York City and attend an event protesting the dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

:rolleyes:

I think I’ll take a rain check.
 
RGCheek said:
That was not my claim. I said that it looked like a 1 degree increase for each 50 year period, with a total of 2 degrees change since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I trusted to memory when replying to Ender. But even at 1 degree per 50 year period, that is still 10 times faster than it looked like to me from the summary data I posted in post #149. Still outlandish.
The raw temps are here: metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records
Click to expand...
Is that really where you looked to conclude that temperatures rose 1 degree per 50 year period? I find that hard to believe, since the HadCRUT3 data you reference here is a 9 Megabyte ZIP file of numerical data for individual reporting stations, most of which do not go back far enough to say anything about the Little Ice Age. (I did find one Czech station that started in 1805). You would have had to write a computer program to read in all these station reports to average them. Then you would have had to devise a policy of how to handle station data (discard or whatever) that does not go back far enough. Did you really do that? I am getting more and more curious how you came to your 1 deg. C per 50 year figure, as it would take me at least a day to develop such a computer program to analyze that HadCRUT3 data, and I am a professional computer programmer. I showed you my source for my figure of 0.6 deg. C over 300 years, and you can just look at it and see what I see. Why can’t you do the same for me and show me a summary graph of global temperatures that show the warming after the Little Ice Age was 1 deg. per 50 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top