Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. One of those “your XYZ name” charts.
  2. A (possibly? likely?) better indicator of future climate trends than CO2.
  3. Oh, and about that “big” Heartland AGW skepticism threat.
  4. Two more posts, a little more reflective than reactive, on the med ethics journal article considering infanticide. Here and here.
  5. Upcoming mindless fun entertainment.
  6. Jeesh, 40+ posts mentioning Mr Breitbart’s death from the rabid/insane right before we get to one with suspicion and conspiracy. Hello, the guy must have had dozens if not hundreds of death threats from the loony left a week. Hey, back before blogging and the Internet, I spent a half year in the exercise of believing as true everything I read on alt.conspiracy … y’all are missing out on the fun.
  7. Slosh = Schlitz?
  8. Apology mania.
  9. Insurance troubles?
  10. Art leads to reflection.
  11. That pipeline.
  12. Statistics and genocide.

7 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. 9.Insurance troubles?

    If private insurance is in a ‘death spiral’, then where is the uproar? Look when it comes to relatively mild mileage regulations, the auto industry has known for a long time how to punch the “help the sky is falling if you don’t stop this” button. A brief moritorium on Gulf drilling after a major diaster caused by industry negligence? Again the uproar went up by industry lobbyists and PR. Yet here we are expected to believe a multi-billion dollar industry has been put on death row and it hasn’t even noticed it and made an uproar about it? Instead the most vocal uproar is by the Catholic Church over contraception coverage?!

    There’s only two possible explanations here. One is that a single industry has somehow, amazingly, put idiots in charge of all its major companies. The other is that, as usual, the critics either don’t know what they are talking about or refuse to honestly address what they are talking about.

  2. Re #2, not quite sure why you would think that sunspots are a better variable to associate with climate or temperature. You give us graphs of a variable that is clearly oscillating up and down, yet temp. is following a clearly upward trend.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    Has a graph going back over 100 years and while it’s not directly about sunspots it does seem to show little relationship between solar activity and earth temps. (note the scale of the solar side of the graph, clearly if the sun suddenly became half as powerful or twice as powerful it would have a very terrifying impact on earth’s climate, but day in day out the sun’s output varies only a bit and the earth’s system seems to buffer its impact).
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

  3. And I understand your ability to discuss math is handicapped by never bothering to study statistics, but you have to learn that it simply is not valid to try to pick up trends by ignoring data. In general more data is better than less, using temp. data going back only 10 or 15 years when you have 50-150 years of data, for example, is a good sign that you’re just cherry picking to get the relationship you want.

  4. Boonton,
    Good temperature data is less than 40 years old. You know that. I know that. Why don’t we pretend that’s the case.

    You should peruse the Rutan pdf on climate.

  5. You don’t toss out data and no we have good temperature data that goes back over a century. What you mean to say is the best temp. data is the most recent but that’s all that means. You’re not able to study a trend if you refuse to look at the data.

  6. Boonton,

    You don’t toss out data and no we have good temperature data that goes back over a century.

    No we don’t. We don’t have regular measurements with good thermometry over the majority of the globe until satellites. Again. You know that. And you know you “toss out” or irrelevant bad data (or at least treat it very differently).

  7. Presuambly the next 40 years might produce even better thermometry than satellite measures. Perhaps 100 years form now every square foot on eath will have one or two nanoites sending temp. data to a central monitoring station. Should the people of 2112 toss out the 40 years of data between 1972 and 2012 because it was from ‘mere satellites’?

    Let’s skip back 100 years or so and consider the faithful scientist who every day at dawn recorded the temperature on his mercury thermometer. Might he have made an error? No doubt, but over time errors are just as likely to be too high as opposed to too low. Also consider that it wasn’t just one guy writing down the temp each day in one location but many guys, many locations over many time periods. What are the chances that all of them would just happen to line up errors in such a way as to make it look like there’s been a long term warming trend? For that to happen all the recording devices in, say, 1900 or so would not only have to be primitive, not only have to make errors, but make errors in the direction of making the temp seem much lower than it really was. The devices of, say 1930 would have to all likewise line up to again make temps seem lower than they really were, but not as low as 1900, and so on and so on.

    The odds of that happening are basically impossible. While it would be nice to get more precise data by sending satellites back in time 100+ years ago, it wouldn’t alter the trend line, just give us a better fous on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>