What Do We Think About Climate Change

"The Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Gaia principle is a controversial ecological hypothesis or theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeorhesis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,[1] it was named the Gaia Hypothesis after the Greek primordial goddess of the Earth, at the suggestion of William Golding, Nobel prizewinner in literature and friend and neighbour of Lovelock.[2] The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism."

 

Just a further clarification: The extra year and a half or two of extra data I included compared to the data you included doesn't really make much difference. The slope of the fitted line with one set of data is within 5% of the slope of the fitted line with the other set of data.

I guess I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make in post #7838. It sort of seemed like you were trying to de-emphasize the possibility that there is a trend in the data.

One of the troubles with noisy data like this is that it is not easy to say if there is an underlying linear trend, as shown in my fit, or more of a jump separating two more or less level regions, as shown in your fit. (Those are not the only possible models for the shape of the underlying trend in the data.) One way to try to make a decision on this would be to look at the residuals (i.e. difference between the data an the fitted function). Typically, as you probably know, one would compare the sum of the squares of the residuals to give some kind of estimate of the quality of the fits. I am not going to try to do that comparison. (I have those parameters for the linear fit, but not for your fit.) However, my guess is that there would probably not be a great difference between the quality of your fit (the jumped-plateau model) and my fit (linear regression).

I have not read Komitov's papers because I have only a limited amount of time I can spend on the climate change discussion. I am studying for a professional certification exam, and I am behind in my studies for the exam.

 

no worries Allan Im sure you will do fine

G
the answer you are seeking Alan gave a while back when he said that the last few years are statistically insignificant.

also of note is that these last few years that you pointed out are well within the upward trends variability which also lends weight to Alan's point

repeating an oft quoted point of the deniers camp there is always variability, no one said there wasnt its just that the trend and the rate of change really is quite alarming as can be seen in the longer term graphs you presented

cheers
B

 

OK, the hypothesis seems to imply the Earth as a whole is a somewhat self-correcting system. What's wrong with that, from your viewpoint?

 

It is self-correcting, Troy. The problem is that these people are wont to consider that humans are not a valid part of the system, it is their preferred homeorhesis, nay chreod, as delineated by our short span of empirical observations and defined as "how it was when we were kids", or more succinctly, "homeostasis" - not "homeorhesis".
I actually feel that it could be a healthy way to look at Earth but shouldn't we then consider that Earth, itself, is part of a larger organism, a complex subsystem of other systems, that being a part of this system dictates that we are required to act like humans to maintain, part and parcel, Earth in this green-defined chreod?
Then, the "A" in AGW would actually be a good thing, as there would have been an ice age on the horizon if we didn't go about our business or a hot age if we didn't bring on a mini iceage, etc. If we're a part of nature, all we do is a part of nature as well and nature is cruel. It is our duty as humans to mess with Gaia, to change her in many ways, to leave our mark on the MILF.
The real danger is that when Gaia believers suggest that any altering of Earth is bad and that maintaining their chreod is more important than human civilization, itself. That's messed up and if all the green-*** MF'rs think man has infected Gaia with some virulence to this point, wait until they see what anarchy does for her, because that is the logical progression after ruining Western civilization.
I wonder... will the hippies, metrosexuals, etc. then prevail...or the people with guns?

 

"...seems to be a tendency in this thread to blur the distinctions..." - there's a distinction?

 

its not all that self regulating

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CDAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2F03%2F100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming%2F&rct=j&q=snowball%20earth%20theory%20evidence&ei=6vkWTMyEIZOinQfA9sWxCg&usg=AFQjCNF9iqURd7lrrmMieCrzfJEW56qbNQ&sig2=Niwe70gXpyE-L-r_6ZjjPg

this is the first in the U tube series of I think the same flicker



thing is we are asking it to self regulate an radical shift in the atmospheric chemistry
not likely that the system has developed to make such large adjustments
mater of fact it certainly looks like its not regulating very well given the rapid rise in temp associated with those changes in atmospheric chemistry

 

I (naïvely) asume you are not this Alan Rockwood, then.

 

It's somewhat frustrating for me your lack of time to read more about climate issues. I realize you're missing most of the papers and articles I post about. This limits debate with you, a pity to me considering I think you are the only really interesting opponent in this thread (thanks for that).

Whenever you're ready, I suggest you to read Komitov's papers I & II on the Sun-Climate relationship and then I'll send to you Paper III

Cheers

 

Probably. That's precisely what I meant about the various possible interpretations of data. Which is one of the many things the faithful ones of the Church of the Warmnotology blindly refuse to even consider.

Cheers.

 

I believe he is that Alan Rockwood. Why should you be surprised that a professional needs to keep his certifications up to date?

Even in my job, the DOT requires that someone come around and test me every five years, to make sure I haven't forgotten how to run a compressor station, or how to avoid over-pressuring a pipeline.

 

I pretty much love this!

 

The eaerth is a single organism and we are the fleas. The green party is working on a treatment.
Apparently it will be called F.P.F.S. or the "Frontline Plus Final Solution" to be added to airline fuel.
(Adolf is soo proud and is clapping from the grave.)

 

Finally, you have said something to which we can all relate and agree.

 

Performing Fourier analysis

Those of you wanting to analyze time series and play with Fourier analysis and the like, regarding temperature, sunspots, CO2, etc, etc, visit Wood for Trees site and use its excellent interactive tool. Enjoy!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/

Attached graph was got using such tool.
Short term cycles in temperature (HadCrut3) compared with CO2 (Mauna Loa)

A variable several months to more than one year lag between CO2 (red line) and temperature cycles (green line) is evident.

Cheers.