Valid Debunk of Global Warming?

[Lord MJ]

Basically this guy observed temperature over the last 10 years to demonstrate that temperature is decreasing, and attributed recent spikes in temperature as a common occurrence. Any validity to what he is saying?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

[Mr Bean]

Basically this guy observed temperature over the last 10 years to demonstrate that temperature is decreasing, and attributed recent spikes in temperature as a common occurrence. Any validity to what he is saying?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Short term trends do to over-rule hundreds of years of observable phenomenon? I've not watched the videos but it is on the level with the idiot Fox News anchors who make smarmy jokes about global warming every time it's cold in winter?

[Lord MJ]

He also did look at trends over the thousands of years to observe the temperature spikes over that time which he felt demonstrated that man made global warming is false. I'm only part way through the videos right now though. I'm not a climatologist so I have only a vague understanding on whether this is correct or not.

[Samuel]

He also did look at trends over the thousands of years to observe the temperature spikes over that time which he felt demonstrated that man made global warming is false. I'm only part way through the videos right now though. I'm not a climatologist so I have only a vague understanding on whether this is correct or not.

Or you know there are natural trends that also change the climates temperature. It isn't as if we insist that only people can change the climate.

[Duckie]

world population dropped during the bubonic plague in the 1300s, therefore a youtuber with no formal training in 1400 can predict using stupid 2-point extrapolation to infinity via a compass and ruler without any scientific training that people in the year 2000 will be as numerous as they were in 5000 BC, and declare Global Population Rise debunked because it serves his ideological masters' corporate interests to believe that population will never rise.

also, if you believe there are only 2 options (climate shifts on its own; man changes it 100%) then you're an idiot. Past changes were not caused by man because we weren't around 140 million years ago and whatnot. However, the most recent spike is not supposed to be happening, is extremely fast, and correlates with anthropogenic CO2.

[Lord MJ]

world population dropped during the bubonic plague in the 1300s, therefore a youtuber with no formal training in 1400 can predict using stupid 2-point extrapolation to infinity via a compass and ruler without any scientific training that people in the year 2000 will be as numerous as they were in 5000 BC, and declare Global Population Rise debunked because it serves his ideological masters' corporate interests to believe that population will never rise.

also, if you believe there are only 2 options (climate shifts on its own; man changes it 100%) then you're an idiot. Past changes were not caused by man because we weren't around 140 million years ago and whatnot. However, the most recent spike is not supposed to be happening, is extremely fast, and correlates with anthropogenic CO2.

Well the video in question is a talk by a guy with formal training. How respected he is in the scientific community is yet to be determined. However from what I've seen, his two arguments are that over time there have been spikes, thus any current uptick in temperature can be explained by that, and that temperature has been decreasing over the last 10 years meaning that there is no uptick in global temperature.

Was wondering if this had any validity. This whole conversation was the result of a discussion with a conservative in that we need to stop global warming and he shot back with these videos saying that global warming has been debunked.

[Duckie]

in this thread an ideologically motivated 'scientist' on youtube pretends he doesn't know what statistical noise is



There have been spikes in the past, therefore this graph has not had a recent steep rise.



Further, any supposed rise will not continue, because look at the end- it's trending down. So if we continue to extrapolate to infinity by drawing a line between the current position and the hgihest point, the graph will bottom out in "this far"! Clearly this is true.

This is also why if the stock market goes up 20 points in a day tomorrow, that means in 8 years the DOW will be at 65,000 points higher than it was yesterday.

[Simon_Jester]

Is that an actual temperature graph, or did you do it freehand?

[Not a critical question, just curious because there's no axis labels or anything]

[Drooling Iguana]

Seeing as how I see at least one place where the graph goes backwards, I'm guessing it's freehand.

[Duckie]

Yeah, it's totally freehand. During that post I couldn't have been arsed to find the hockey stick graph and edit it. It works the same way regardless, since it's a charicature of the hockey stick graph.

Also, people who show the planet from millions of years ago and compress it are full of shit. You can't see anything at that scale- a rise over a million years and a rise over a hundred years look the same. It makes it look as if the current rise isn't anything special, when it's in truth absurdly fast.

And the people who take the hockey stick graph and draw the red line of the slope of the past 10 years, saying '2004 was the peak therefore it'll go down from now' are the kind of people who talk about how since Obama lost a percentage point in his polls, in less than 100 days he'll have alienated every single person. Mindless extrapolation is bad, a tiny downward jigger for a few years hardly matters in a huge uptick.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, it's totally freehand. During that post I couldn't have been arsed to find the hockey stick graph and edit it. It works the same way regardless, since it's a charicature of the hockey stick graph.

Also, people who show the planet from millions of years ago and compress it are full of shit. You can't see anything at that scale- a rise over a million years and a rise over a hundred years look the same. It makes it look as if the current rise isn't anything special, when it's in truth absurdly fast.

And the people who take the hockey stick graph and draw the red line of the slope of the past 10 years, saying '2004 was the peak therefore it'll go down from now' are the kind of people who talk about how since Obama lost a percentage point in his polls, in less than 100 days he'll have alienated every single person. Mindless extrapolation is bad, a tiny downward jigger for a few years hardly matters in a huge uptick.

I cant echo this enough. Look, the current issue is not the actual rise in temp. The earth has been much hotter and much cooler than it is now in its history. It is the rate of change. The temperature increase we are looking at, at the rate it is going will cause a mass extinction without the generation of more thermally suitable organisms to go along with it. No nice smooth transition from one organism to another which is better adapted to the new climate, but rather... everything in that lineage just dies with nothing to replace...

[Lord MJ]

Yeah, it's totally freehand. During that post I couldn't have been arsed to find the hockey stick graph and edit it. It works the same way regardless, since it's a charicature of the hockey stick graph.

Also, people who show the planet from millions of years ago and compress it are full of shit. You can't see anything at that scale- a rise over a million years and a rise over a hundred years look the same. It makes it look as if the current rise isn't anything special, when it's in truth absurdly fast.

And the people who take the hockey stick graph and draw the red line of the slope of the past 10 years, saying '2004 was the peak therefore it'll go down from now' are the kind of people who talk about how since Obama lost a percentage point in his polls, in less than 100 days he'll have alienated every single person. Mindless extrapolation is bad, a tiny downward jigger for a few years hardly matters in a huge uptick.

I cant echo this enough. Look, the current issue is not the actual rise in temp. The earth has been much hotter and much cooler than it is now in its history. It is the rate of change. The temperature increase we are looking at, at the rate it is going will cause a mass extinction without the generation of more thermally suitable organisms to go along with it. No nice smooth transition from one organism to another which is better adapted to the new climate, but rather... everything in that lineage just dies with nothing to replace...

I definately agree with that, however what is being presented here in these videos is that there is no temperature increase, in fact there is a decrease. This guy also argues that an Ice Age is coming.... If I'm to debunk this guy I'll need something to address the whole "temperature decrease" argument.

[Duckie]

LOOK IT DECREASED A LITTLE IN THE 1990s SO IT MUST BE GOING DOWN TO INFINITY THEREFORE ICEAGE

If you're so dense you have to require me to reiterate my obvious pointing out of the flaw in his argument thrice, leave debunking him to adults and professionals.

[Lord MJ]

LOOK IT DECREASED A LITTLE IN THE 1990s SO IT MUST BE GOING DOWN TO INFINITY THEREFORE ICEAGE

If you're so dense you have to require me to reiterate my obvious pointing out of the flaw in his argument thrice, leave debunking him to adults and professionals.

He never claimed that temperature is going down to infinity. I still need to read his papers on the ice age so I can't comment on how he is reaching his conclusions about that.

But what he did mention as I watched on is that he addressed that over the last 5000 years the rate of temperature change has been 2.5 degrees/century. Over the last 20 years of 1900s the rate has been about 1.5 degrees per century. He disputes the idea that there is anything unusual about the rate of temperature change.

Thinking though that trying to convey what is being argued in the video is less productive by having more qualified people watch the videos and either confirming or debunking what is said, I can only give a half assed cliff notes version of what is being discussed.

However just looking at your temperature model the numbers shown here appear much different than what is presented in his presentation. The most significant difference is that there is a sharp rise in temperature in the 2000s where he claims that temperature has been "in stasis" in the 21st century.

[Darth Ruinus]

Why would a valid debunk of global warming be on Youtube and not anywhere more important? The moment you realized those were Youtube links some eyebrows should have been raised. Does this guy have published papers or just some presentations?

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. I don't know why the hell anyone takes an argument seriously when it's deliberately published toward the least intelligent audience imaginable.

[JBG]

Indeed. I don't know why the hell anyone takes an argument seriously when it's deliberately published toward the least intelligent audience imaginable.

I'm curious. Does the mere posting of a video of a speech or a conference on YouTube automatically render whatever was said invalid or beneath contempt?

[Twoyboy]

Indeed. I don't know why the hell anyone takes an argument seriously when it's deliberately published toward the least intelligent audience imaginable.

I'm curious. Does the mere posting of a video of a speech or a conference on YouTube automatically render whatever was said invalid or beneath contempt?

No, but if it the primary reference is Youtube, for example if it's only there or if it started there, you have to wonder why it wasn't first picked up by a scientific journal or website, or hell, even a legitimate news site. There are some large organisations on the side of GW denial and if even they won't pick it up and run with it and the crackpot theorist has to use Youtube as an outlet... well that says it all really.

There have been many Youtube clips aimed at explaining various theories and ideas in a movie form, but they didn't first post their information on Youtube.

Indeed. I don't know why the hell anyone takes an argument seriously when it's deliberately published toward the least intelligent audience imaginable.

Because the least intelligent audience isn't qualified enough to realise they're the least intelligent audience. It would be admitting that they are somewhat retarded to admit that Youtube is aimed at the lowest common denominator.

[Lord MJ]

Just a background. The guy is an Australian university professor and the recording seems to be of a talk he gave to an audience in Australia.

[Twoyboy]

Just a background. The guy is an Australian university professor and the recording seems to be of a talk he gave to an audience in Australia.

Yes, he has a bunch of credentials, but if I understood correctly, his prime argument is also one that has been repeated dealt with, and despite his impressive record of scientific undertakings, he's not a climate expert, and as far as I can tell, there's no journal article to back this up... hence Youtube is the primary source. Also, in the first minute he states "Science is not about consensus"... which is pretty much saying there is a consensus against him on this issue. What he fails to say is that the consensus is also based on evidence and is made by people more qualified than he is.

[ray245]

Just a background. The guy is an Australian university professor and the recording seems to be of a talk he gave to an audience in Australia.

Professor of what subject?

[Twoyboy]

Just a background. The guy is an Australian university professor and the recording seems to be of a talk he gave to an audience in Australia.

Professor of what subject?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

[Themightytom]

I've seen this argument before, and typically it ends with "So the Earth will survive, but man may not."

Even if global warming fits within the boundaries of "natural" variation of temperatures over millions of years, do we REALLY want to ignore it, contribute to it or otherwise fail to get control of a situation that could significantly change our environment? Take the polar ice caps. Sure, fine, maybe they haven't always been frozen, but if we can keep them from melting, raising sea level and flooding low lying areas, why would we not??

[KrauserKrauser]

The question is then can what we do actually have some impact on the temperature changes.

If you believe we can, then actions should be taken. If you believe we can't, then steps should be made to mitigate the expected damage, whatever it may be.

Currently the scientific community believes that we can in fact change things and is advising actions that follow from that hypothesis.

[Mayabird]

There's an old Georgia Tech chemistry professor who's been going on an Intelligent Design circuit claiming to debunk evolution via the usual bullshit. Being a professor doesn't automagically shield people from being lunatics, especially once they have their tenure in.