http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
"...An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.
"This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers," Lovejoy says. "Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it."
Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%."
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. 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. "This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models," he adds.
While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy's findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study 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.
"We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.
"While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other."
..."
This shows a clear understanding on how logic should be used to rationally estimate the probability of a hypothesis.
Although they didn't make this explicit, I suspect they may have used formal Bayesian logic here. The man made global warming deniers would, of course, not use any such formal logic or at least apply it incorrectly.
Originally posted by humyIn before Eladar says "Nuh uh…"
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
"...An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
The study, ...[text shortened]... arming deniers would, of course, not use any such formal logic or at least apply it incorrectly.
Originally posted by humyI'll remember this article when we get verification of the runaway greenhouse effect, because just like the guy who says "I'll just do it until I need glasses", the conservatives will want to continue raping the earth until it is finally too late.
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
"...An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
The study, ...[text shortened]... arming deniers would, of course, not use any such formal logic or at least apply it incorrectly.
Edit: Wow, talk about mixed signals. I thought this was claiming that global warming was a natural cycle of temperature variation. Yeesh, lrn2read, indeed.
Four Months Till The Al Gore Ice-Free Arctic
Posted on April 29, 2014 by stevengoddard
At his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Al Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2014. Al and Reggie have their work cut out for them. They better get their blowtorches out.
Governments all around the world have chosen to force our children to listen to Al Gore’s mindless nonsense, over and over again.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Originally posted by RJHindsI have always found it fascinating how so many americans think Al Gore invented global warming. The only video I watched by Al Gore, he made it quite clear that he himself was ignorant of the subject until someone explained it to him and he realized the problem and decided to let others know. But this was many years after other governments around the world had already made agreements with regards to global warming etc. If I recall correctly, I first heard about it as a child in the early 80s.
Governments all around the world have chosen to force our children to listen to Al Gore’s mindless nonsense, over and over again.
So is this an example of successful censorship in the US media? Or is something else going on?
Originally posted by twhitehead
I have always found it fascinating how so many americans think Al Gore invented global warming. The only video I watched by Al Gore, he made it quite clear that he himself was ignorant of the subject until someone explained it to him and he realized the problem and decided to let others know. But this was many years after other governments around the worl ...[text shortened]...
So is this an example of successful censorship in the US media? Or is something else going on?
I have always found it fascinating how so many americans think Al Gore invented global warming.
Me too. I am afraid this is not only in America but very much in the UK ( where I am ) and the rest of the world. I guess ignorant delusions breeds ignorant delusions wherever you are. I bet many of these same people also think either Darwin or Dawkins invented atheism ( or perhaps they were in on it together with the help of time travel? ) or that evil agnostic Einstein invented the atom bomb or that Neil Armstrong invented the rocket 😛 -it is all part of the same vast mass world lefty conspiracy against 'normal' 'everyday' right-wing people and these evil 'lefty' people control all the worlds media though their censorship of all news, internet, information presented in all science text books etc 😛
Originally posted by humyWhat do you expect after Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet?I have always found it fascinating how so many americans think Al Gore invented global warming.
Me too. I am afraid this is not only in America but very much in the UK ( where I am ) and the rest of the world. I guess ignorant delusions breeds ignorant delusions wherever you are. I bet many of these same people also think either Darwin or ...[text shortened]... h their censorship of all news, internet, information presented in all science text books etc 😛
Originally posted by RJHindsSo he claimed to have invented the internet, and not only did you believe him, but you decided he must have invented global warming too?
What do you expect after Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet?
Or are you just doing your usual 'post before you think', or rather 'post and never think'?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was pointing out that maybe you people should expect exaggerations about global warming when it is known that the same man exaggerated his role in creating the internet. How gullible can you get?
So he claimed to have invented the internet, and not only did you believe him, but you decided he must have invented global warming too?
Or are you just doing your usual 'post before you think', or rather 'post and never think'?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't seem to understand. Gore is not the person whose ideas global
I was pointing out that maybe you people should expect exaggerations about global warming when it is known that the same man exaggerated his role in creating the internet. How gullible can you get?
warming as a concept relies on. He's a self-proclaimed spokesman on the
subject, not a climatologist. You want the facts on global warming, what the
relevant scientists have to say on the topic, you go read their papers.
Originally posted by C HessThat's just it. You can find some on either side of the issue. So why must some exaggerate the problem, when they are just speculating that there may be a problem?
You don't seem to understand. Gore is not the person whose ideas global
warming as a concept relies on. He's a self-proclaimed spokesman on the
subject, not a climatologist. You want the facts on global warming, what the
relevant scientists have to say on the topic, you go read their papers.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsTo be perfectly honest I don't know much about global warming, but are you
That's just it. You can find some on either side of the issue. So why must some exaggerate the problem, when they are just speculating that there may be a problem?
sure you can find climatologists on either side of the fence?