12 Dec 07
2 edits
From this IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
Of the more than 29,000 observed significant changes, 28,115 were in Europe.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Further complicating the problem is that they had more than 80,000 data sieres and threw out over 50,000 of them. They threw out most of the data, some for very good reasons and some simply because it did not show significant change.
The number of significant ghanges that are consistent with global warming were 26,285. 96% of those are in Europe.
And the crazy bit, there was only 752 significant changes in all of North America theat were consistant with global warming. I would have that that with us being the big bad pollution machines, we would have observed something similar to Europe.
If 96% are in Europe and only a few percent are in the North America where we do all that evil polluting, can it really call it global?
13 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkScraping the bottom of the barrel really aren’t we?
From this IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
Of the more than 29,000 observed significant changes, 28,115 were in Europe.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Further complicating the problem is that they had more than 80,000 data sieres and threw out over 50,000 of them. They threw out most of the da ...[text shortened]... cent are in the North America where we do all that evil polluting, can it really call it global?
This is getting really tired...
Oh, by the way, Europe and the US do not make up the globe. In the grand scheme of things, they are actually a small part of it.
13 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MerkIf 96% of the significant changes where measered in Europe. Then that can mean one or more of the following things.
From this IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
Of the more than 29,000 observed significant changes, 28,115 were in Europe.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Further complicating the problem is that they had more than 80,000 data sieres and threw out over 50,000 of them. They threw out most of the da ...[text shortened]... cent are in the North America where we do all that evil polluting, can it really call it global?
1) The effects are higher in Europe
2) Europeans can measure
3) Europe did more measurements
4) The Europeans measurement are done in a honest way, without throwing away data that is not convenient.
If you want to know if you are "the big bad pollution machines". Then measure the pollution and compare that to the other continents (not only Europe and Amerca). Measuring the effects, is doing exactly that measuring the effects not your part in causing it.
It is called global warming, because it is global. If the effects are truly higher in Europe then that COULD still be be the cause of North America.
Then another thing.
Throwing out data is just stupid.
If afterwards you claim that you threw it away because it showed no difference....
Well,... you can not state that anymore.
because uhhm,......
You threw it away!
You cannot base or state anything on data you do not have.
😞
edits: Spelling
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThe Globe is warming. There is no debate.
From this IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
Of the more than 29,000 observed significant changes, 28,115 were in Europe.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Further complicating the problem is that they had more than 80,000 data sieres and threw out over 50,000 of them. They threw out most of the da ...[text shortened]... cent are in the North America where we do all that evil polluting, can it really call it global?
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkNEVER throw out data.
From this IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
Of the more than 29,000 observed significant changes, 28,115 were in Europe.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Further complicating the problem is that they had more than 80,000 data sieres and threw out over 50,000 of them. They threw out most of the da ...[text shortened]... cent are in the North America where we do all that evil polluting, can it really call it global?
The space shuttle Challenger exploded because data on temperature when there were no O-ring failures was thrown out (only failures were studied).
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThese are studies showing the impacts of global warming on biological and physical systems, what are you trying to debate? That carbon dioxide produced over the USA stays put? This is about where the damage done, and which places will need support, or to plan ahead over the coming years.
From this IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
Of the more than 29,000 observed significant changes, 28,115 were in Europe.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Further complicating the problem is that they had more than 80,000 data sieres and threw out over 50,000 of them. They threw out most of the da ...[text shortened]... cent are in the North America where we do all that evil polluting, can it really call it global?
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyI'm saying that the IPPC study points pretty clearlt to the Global Warming actuallybeing European Warming.
These are studies showing the impacts of global warming on biological and physical systems, what are you trying to debate? That carbon dioxide produced over the USA stays put? This is about where the damage done, and which places will need support, or to plan ahead over the coming years.
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by Merk...because most of the data is from europe? The data points obtained are of physical/biological systems that have been effected. Look at graph SPM1. Redder colours indicate greater temperature changes - present across much of the terrestrial northern hemisphere - not just europe.
I'm saying that the IPPC study points pretty clearlt to the Global Warming actuallybeing European Warming.
Now look at the boxes, and you'll see that all areas of the globe have similar percentage values for significant changes consistent with global warming.
The reason that data points were thrown out is here "A subset of about 29,000 data series was selected from about 80,000 data series from 577 studies. These met the following criteria: (1) ending in 1990 or later; (2) spanning
a period of at least 20 years; and (3) showing a significant change in either direction, as assessed in individual studies." - they were making sure all the data was over a certain timespan.
Just because europe has been measured more, doesn't make it warmer.
15 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyIt doesn't way Europe was measured more. It says damn near all of the Significant Changes included in the study were from Europe.
...because most of the data is from europe? The data points obtained are of physical/biological systems that have been effected. Look at graph SPM1. Redder colours indicate greater temperature changes - present across much of the terrestrial northern hemisphere - not just europe.
Now look at the boxes, and you'll see that all areas of the globe have sim r a certain timespan.
Just because europe has been measured more, doesn't make it warmer.
Nowhere does it say what was thrown out. Out of 80,000 data sets, they included less than 30,000 in the study. I can't find anywhere in that report where the discarded data was collected from. Nor how much was thrown out for each of the 3 reasons they listed for tossing out data. Did they toss out only a few for not showing significant change or thousands for not showing significant change?
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThese are changes in environment, not temperature. This may be indicative that the climate changes are affecting europe more, european studies are more likely to span the timeline, more studies went on in europe, more fragile ecosystems tended to be studied in europe, and so many other factors. Why not write an email and ask them where the data went? The reason they threw out the non-significant changes is as this paper is to highlight the places that are being damaged by climate change. It is not evidence of climate change, but research based on it.
It doesn't way Europe was measured more. It says damn near all of the Significant Changes included in the study were from Europe.
Nowhere does it say what was thrown out. Out of 80,000 data sets, they included less than 30,000 in the study. I can't find anywhere in that report where the discarded data was collected from. Nor how much was thrown out for each ...[text shortened]... only a few for not showing significant change or thousands for not showing significant change?
If you want to see the areas of temperature change, look at the colours on the map, and you'll see clearly that europe is not the only region in red.