Global Warming: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

[GracieRuth]

I think perhaps the greatest skill I ever learned was how to read statistical data. Every time I turn around, I see various groups trying to manipulate data. I found this graph in an artical on Global Warming. The conclusion is supposed to be that although Global Warming has been going on, that it stopped ten years ago. Can you spot the problem?

 

[Sriracha]

If you are interested in scientific data on global warming, look at the data published after Sept 11, 2001 when air traffic was grounded for three days.

 

[Sebastian]

The second graph shows a different time scale and only shows the decade for which the claim is being made so I can't compare it to anything (to say if it's increased our decreased over time)... Is that part of it?

 

[Lerxst]

Their sample size also wasn't large enough to allow for the margin of error. The end of 2010 it drops almost 1.25 degrees C vs rather steady readings before that. Means there was some error or variable they didn't account for but used it as part of their "proof" regardless. That is, assuming their data wasn't fictional to begin with.

 

[jimtaylor]

There are a few issues I can point out.
One: Looking at the top graph you can see that if you where to put, I can't remember the dang name of the line, but essentially it's the mean or average growth of all data points, it is an obvious increase from 1975-present.
Two: On the second graph it is looking at very small sample data to support it's evidence but if you where to look at any decade it would probably be very similar.
Three: Not much data is provided. Is that the average increase from year to year or is that just the average temp for the year? There are just too many questions to say this is a valid analysis.
Four: If it is just looking at the world tempeture from year to year, then it has to be taken in context. Even a slight increase in tempture (1degree or less) can majorly effect all types of ecosystems.
Five: I am guessing they are also making the argument is look at the average temp for 2010 and then 2000 and see that they are not that different but this does not make it a valid argument.

 

[GracieRuth]

You are all correct. The second chart uses a completely different scale, both in time and in temperature. In order to see the increase in earth temperature, you have to look at the chart over a LONG period of time. The second chart shows only ten years, which is insufficient to predict any significant generalization. What if you look at the ten years between 1840 aned 1850? Based just on THAT data, one might conclude we were entering another ice age! There's about ten other comments I'd like to make, but I think I'd rather just emphasize THIS particular one, since generalization from too small a sampling is perhaps the most common misuse of statistics.

 

[subwayrider]

I don't understand how there can be so much dissent even within a group of people who are supposed to be informed experts. I've had people with PhDs in the natural sciences tell me that this is happening, and I've had others tell me that it isn't.
Must be in the interpretation of data or something.
Good observations.

 

[GracieRuth]

I can only speak from my own experience: there really is a virtual consensus that the planet is warming. The disagreement is about WHY. Is it due to our use of fossil fuels? Is it sun spots? We know there have been times in the planet's history where the climate HAS been signifiantly warmer, so obviously non-human causes MAY be at play.

I also find it very UNmysterious that most of the "skeptics" of global warming who are of non-scientist status are the same subset that believes that Jesus is coming back soon, so drill baby drill, there is no population problem, and we will never use up our resources before the end of the earth. IOW, there is a minority of people who have an underlying belief that "G-d would never create a world which we could destroy." They summarily reject any theory (inlcuding global warming) that runs contrary to this assumption.

On the other side, it is also worth noting that the Media is into sensationalism, and has a longstanding bad habit of trying to scare people about things that are insignificant. I'm certainly not going to trust the media to accurately relate data about global warming.

Here is my pet peeve: Why don't I hear anyone screaming that we should plant more forests? It seems to me that the easiest and most natural way to alter our environment to lower carbon dioxide and raise oxygen levels is to inrease plant life. Instead every one seems silent while the rain forests of the world are being demolished.

From Fern Gully:
Crysta: But how can you live without trees?
Zack: Easy
Crysta: But trees give life! They, they make the clouds, the rain, the air....

[video=youtube;HsE7ZiDPreI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsE7ZiDPreI&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL2E638963810A9521[/video]

 

[InvisibleJim]

I saw these graphs too, it's compelling. Lets have a look historically, since the climate change scientists only show whatever supports their motives.

Here's the northern hemisphere (arguably the important one)

Hmmmm, looks like our climate scientists are duds since changes of 1.5-2.5oC are within the normal temperature swings.

And heres the world - The prefered one for climate scientists because it changes massively, note how they don't show it over a long period of time...

actually, 10,000 years ago we were 5oC hotter than today.

It's like pulling teeth with climate scientists really.

 

[Kanamori]

I think it's ridiculous to think our actions won't or can't have any negative impact on the environment. I'm sure the holes in the ozone layer, or having tons of co2 in our atmosphere is a whatever sort of thing.

 

[Next]

I think it's ridiculous to think our actions won't or can't have any negative impact on the environment. I'm sure the holes in the ozone layer, or having tons of co2 in our atmosphere is a whatever sort of thing.

Co2 emissions have no affect on temperature, the climate has always been changing, and it's no different today. The temperature's responsible for the Co2 levels, without temperature rising, co2 levels would remain constant, the propaganda by the media was used to create a perception that's no more scientifically valid than a spiritual dimension, so that they could enforce the new green tax, LEZ etc the result is, the rich becoming richer, poor getting poorer, as always. Nonsense.

 

[the]

The mistake is that the graph shows global warming. /conservativerepublican

 

[Kanamori]

Co2 emissions have no affect on temperature, the climate has always been changing, and it's no different today. The temperature's responsible for the Co2 levels, without temperature rising, co2 levels would remain constant, the propaganda by the media was used to create a perception that's no more scientifically valid than a spiritual dimension, so that they could enforce the new green tax, LEZ etc the result is, the rich becoming richer, poor getting poorer, as always. Nonsense.

You're right, good luck with that.

 

[Next]

The mistake is that the graph shows global warming. /conservativerepublican

Why is that a mistake? global warming's the gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, so technically, the graph just shows temperature relative to time.

 

[the]

Why is that a mistake? global warming's the gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, so technically, the graph just shows temperature relative to time.

Whoops, right over your head.

 

[Coldspot]

I don't believe in global warming, I believe in polar warming. That being said, I'm more worried about an Ice Age than the world thinking that its getting warmer.

 

[subwayrider]

Well, guys, we will be running out of petrol pretty soon, so whatever effect burning it all up had on our atmosphere will correct itself in a relatively short time.

Ironically enough, I read that cars, when they were first invented, were believed to be the invention that would save our atmosphere. Why? Before cars, horses were used as the most common means of transport, and in urban centers there were piles of hundreds of pounds of manure on every other street corner. Decomposing manure produces four gaseous compounds in significant amounts: hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and, yes, carbon dioxide.