Global Warming

[John Feeney]

My point is you noticed an apparent typo in one of countless reproductions of a famous graph. (I don't believe the image posted is from Mann's work.) What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is you noticed an apparent typo in one of countless reproductions of a famous graph. (I don't believe the image posted is from Mann's work.) What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo?

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh... only for you.

Feeney, your forgot a third option: They suck at marketing.


I have no idea why they would compress the top half of the graph. Here is another from a different source with the similar results and an uncompressed top half.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
They suck at marketing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, well yes, I was thinking the same thing - that the graph would more dramatically illustrate anthropogenic climate change if it were to continue with the top portion matching the bottom (and so stretching out the rise in the graph). That's another reason it didn't seem like much of a "catch."

[wet work]

i like the dennis miller joke on this...
"pardon me for not trusting the temp. readings from the 1800s..."

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
i like the dennis miller joke on this...
"pardon me for not trusting the temp. readings from the 1800s..."

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get it.

[FlFishOn]

"What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo? "

It tells me the folks advocating here are not scientists. Lobbyists? Maybe. Green warriors? Maybe. Scientists? Not a chance.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
It tells me the folks advocating here are not scientists. Lobbyists? Maybe. Green warriors? Maybe. Scientists? Not a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could certainly be right. There are lots of nonscientists on the Web arguing for and against human caused climate change. Best to learn about the issue from the experts.

Not that there was anything wrong with Wacki's posting the image. It did convey the general idea and had some useful additional info with it.

[FlFishOn]

"Best to learn about the issue from the experts."

I submit that there really can not be an expert here. So many of the important side issues involved are not understood by anyone and untestable. You can easily invent an hypothesis relating albedo, carbon cycle and atmosphere composition but you will not be able to test same. It's all feedback loops, non-linear stuff, impossible to untangle.

I use this idea as my guide: Assume the future of humanity depends upon raising global temperature 2 deg. C. in 40 years. Could we do it? Could we even develop a consesus plan? I betting 'don't pass' here.

[NoamChomsky]

That's the worst bet you could ever make. Who's gonna pay you?

[FlFishOn]

LOL