|
Puzzle
Mar 24, 2010 16:39:09 GMT
Post by northsphinx on Mar 24, 2010 16:39:09 GMT
The risk and probability need to be set in perspective Steve.
The probability that more than 15 million children dies in starvation every year is right now 100%. Every year. The rich worlds risk for that is 0. It just happens in poor under developed countries. No one really cares here. Because it is a piece of cake to fix if the god will was here. Right now is it someone else problem.
If the AVERAGE temperature rise 1 degree in 100 year is that first a uncertain probability and in fact a very low risk for deadly problem here. One degree is still in normal climate fluctuations. With a large margin. So where should the world put in some efforts?
Shall we tell the underdeveloped countries that they cant use fossil energy as we do because that will maybe cause us some problem in the future. We need to rise the world price for energy with CO2 tax so they don't get the crazy idea to use our low prized energy. That was the message in Copenhagen. Someone forgot the children here.
Or shall the world put in some effort to make clean energy available to the lowest possible price for the benefit of mankind? Then is it probably not a question of CO2, but rather sulfur, CO, particles, land use and more things like that. Real problem here and now. The solution is probably solar and renewable energy sources as well. The CO2 bubble is draining money into a small problem with low risk from large problems with larger risks. Mankind benefits from clean low priced energy.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 1:12:17 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 25, 2010 1:12:17 GMT
This discussion is going off the rails. The proposition is that since we don't know for a 100% fact that CO2 will cause damaging warming, it remains unproven and therefore we should do nothing about it. The proposition has come about because I have tried to paint nautonnier into a corner by showing that it is reasonable to claim that the belief that CO2 is likely to cause damaging warming is based on good science, and that the belief that something else is causing the warming is based on bad science or no science. It is therefore reasonable and logical to suggest that politicians consider action to limit the risks. The alternative proposition is that since science rarely or never comes up with 100% facts we should therefore do nothing about anything. And that to do so (icefisher's input) should open up anyone who acts on this science to pillory if things don't go as planned. Of course I don't doubt that there will be a lot of scientists losing their jobs and credibility even if something completely unexpected comes out of the woodwork to undermine the science. I'm not arguing that they be given gold-plated payoffs because they "tried hard" even if they were doing a good job in their particular area of the science. "The proposition has come about because I have tried to paint nautonnier into a corner by showing that it is reasonable to claim that the belief that CO2 is likely to cause damaging warming is based on good science, and that the belief that something else is causing the warming is based on bad science or no science. It is therefore reasonable and logical to suggest that politicians consider action to limit the risks."The problem we have here is that there is no agreement that CO 2 will cause damaging warming because the 'science' is hypothetical and has not been demonstrated in the real world. You are painting in a virtual corner Steve The optimums in recent history had temperatures of similar or higher magnitude to now - and London and Amsterdam did not flood. So now explain why these apocalyptic events will happen now when they have not happened in the past. Well we know your answer to that already - you have rewritten the past to inflate future risk - is that right?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 3:58:23 GMT
Post by poitsplace on Mar 25, 2010 3:58:23 GMT
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 5:46:43 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 25, 2010 5:46:43 GMT
As it happens, a couple of years ago a friend (an amateur plumber) told another friend that he should get his pipes replaced when he got his bathroom redone. The plumber refitting the bathroom said "no they're fine". My other friend now frequently has to clean out his toilet cistern, his boiler gets blocked and cuts out, and his new bath is stained with rust from the pipes. The plumber is happy because he got his money for the bathroom refit, and didn't get his hands too dirty. Sheeesh, you didn't even read what I posted. In this case, the guy recommending a repipe was proven right and the guy recommending it not be done is proven wrong. . . .so the guy I am never ever ever ever calling again is the guy that said I didn't need a repipe. If they are wrong, how accountable will the executives of Exxon etc. and the coal and motor industry be for their decisions to fund lobby groups to stop emissions control and get tax incentives? Simple answer there Steve. . . .as accountable as citizens want them to be. If you want them to be accountable, will you be supporting Hansen in his call for trials when they turn out to be wrong? Will I live to see retired former exectutives being dragged out of their expensive homes high above the water line to make living space for the residents of New Orleans? I haven't hired them to advise me Steve so why should I hold them accountable? Not so sure what is wrong with spending your money on a lobby group. Pro-AGW groups have been outspending the oil companies for a decade now at a ratio probably in excess of 10 to 1. It seems to me the people to hang out and dry are pollticians, civil servants, and anybody that takes public funds and uses those funds to advance special interests. Those people are stealing my money. p.s. The oil company spectre is the one always raised by the ignorant. But the fact is the oil companies do not have a pecuniary interest in the AGW topic. Indeed an oil executive is probably 90% more likely to be anti-global warming than not but that is a philosophical difference not a personal gain issue. Why is that so? Well the oil industry operates like an oligarchy. Its not a competitive marketplace primarily due to the amount of regulation the industry operates under. If demand is constrained by taxation they will raise prices to cover costs and provide a profit. Further the alternative energies are more likely to put upward pressure on prices than downward pressures even with stiff subsidies. . . .thats because only so much will be available for subsidies and for politicians its a kindergarten class let loose in the candy store so the amounts actually reaching alternatives will be a token amount.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 11:31:17 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 25, 2010 11:31:17 GMT
And this is why the emphasis is on the _original_ data being available for each paper to allow rework and reassessment. It is also important once a hypothesis has been built based on preceding research that it is falsifiable AND validated against real world observations; and of course all these observations and methodology must be made available as data to other researchers. It is only by making this extra effort that the 'sigma' generative errors can be reset. The checks that this extra effort had been made used to be part of peer review.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 11:50:23 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 25, 2010 11:50:23 GMT
I don't need to rewrite history. The "optimums" in recent history had temperatures of similar or higher magnitude to now in parts of the Northern Hemisphere during some or all of the year. Reasonably, this may be due to the fact that the earth's orbit and rotation have gradually resulted in less and less summer sunshine in the Northern Hemisphere. During this whole period the sea level has mostly been rising. Towns and cities have flooded during this time. eg. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#FloodsIt's a very simplified view of history that assumes that cities are fixed entities in time and space.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 12:01:42 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 25, 2010 12:01:42 GMT
Icefisher,
I think I better understand where you are coming from. I do not think we are in the position of saying that the climate scientists have made sufficiently big mistakes. The science is barely untouched by climategate. So the judgements are still reasonable based on the available evidence. If the judgements turn out to be wrong then people's jobs, careers and grants will be cut.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 12:38:29 GMT
Post by hunter on Mar 25, 2010 12:38:29 GMT
If the AGW promoters are wrong, we will have wasted many tens of billions of dollars chasing bogus crap. Not one claim regarding any aspect of a climate catastrophe has been as AGW promoters have predicted. When enough of us finally agree that AGW has been an amazing social panic, a massive tulipomania, will be able to get our money back? Will we be able to put that money to work actually helping people or the environment?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 13:11:08 GMT
Post by trbixler on Mar 25, 2010 13:11:08 GMT
While often noted here (light bulb in micro wave is a good story)... "Global warming: Bigger than Climategate, more important than Copenhagen--it's statistical analysis! " "This is just too true to be good. An unassuming climate scientist from the Netherlands, Bart Verheggen, who specializes in studying the effects of aerosols on climate change, (and who has corresponded with me frequently in a very genteel fashion) has a well-mannered, even tempered weblog called My View on Climate Change. About half the posts are in Dutch. Bart is a polite member of the anthropogenic global warming consensus--he believes strongly that human emission of greenhouse gases have caused significant temperature rises and pose a threat to development going forward. And what's going on on his website is one of the most signficant and unexpected happenings in all the debate on global warming. For three weeks now, a discussion on something as unlikely as statistics is coming close to rewriting climate change history. Because for just about the first time, scientists from all parts of the spectrum are engaging in almost real time on an issue of substance that can actually be resolved in front of the viewing audience. It has engaged the attention of physicists, statisticians, webloggers and an army of viewers. If you read through it you will never think of the term 'unit root' in the same way again." www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Global-warming-Bigger-than-Climategate-more-important-than-Copenhagenits-statistical-analysis
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 13:23:14 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 25, 2010 13:23:14 GMT
"People defending a 2-sigma science are loons, pseudointellectual weeds that are trying to infect not only their contaminated sub-world but all of science and all of modern civilization with a diarrhoea of bullshit. And that's the memo." Excellent and he even established that fact mathematically! Unfortunately as pointed out even careful record keeping and public availability of those records doesn't stop the BS. . . .the solution to this dilemma is going to only come from working both ends the problem. Two Sigma science is something a CPA uses but only for low risk accounts. Since a CPA is personally liable for his work he would be a fool to build an opinion on something that has a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong. . . .that makes for a short career leading to poverty. Our institutions seeing the lobbyist control of our government by the NGOs have turned into houses of prostitution to compete for those dollars. With their systems of tenure and guaranteed retirement plans they don't feel the heat to actually produce substantial product. Its time to put the dog on a diet. Climate science should be put to work on 11 day forecasts. . . .once they get proficient at that. . . .then they should tackle 12 day forecasts. As it stands now billions are being wasted on divining rods. Way too much pie in the sky is being tolerated in academia and our government institutions.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 14:07:59 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 25, 2010 14:07:59 GMT
Icefisher, I think I better understand where you are coming from. I do not think we are in the position of saying that the climate scientists have made sufficiently big mistakes. The science is barely untouched by climategate. So the judgements are still reasonable based on the available evidence. If the judgements turn out to be wrong then people's jobs, careers and grants will be cut. Largely I agree with that. Especially in your recognizing that we are discussing judgment here, not science. But you are mistaken to suggest that there is a single judgment. That quite simply is false. Further, judgment in the field of science should only be used to determine what the next experiment will be. And keep in mind that judgment is a matter of faith. When everything is established in fundamental science no judgment is necessary. In this forum it becomes obvious as each challenge for fundamentals is followed by a deafening silence demonstrating the degree of faith and the paucity of facts. p.s. I like William Hopper's take on this. Its not acceptable that the science community act like its reading from a text that nobody else understands. The history of civilization is steeped in such sidetracks. Only when men are free to form their own opinions to does progress move forward. Hopper claims that there is no mystery to physics that is beyond the common man. When the science community is unable to demonstrate clearly their conclusions. . . .its the conclusions that are likely the problem. I had a high school physics teacher that understood that who rather than trying to force his students through thick texts took the demonstration route for teaching. It was extremely effective and inspiring. It was reflective in our school topping the statewide physics test scores.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 16:04:55 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 25, 2010 16:04:55 GMT
While often noted here (light bulb in micro wave is a good story)... "Global warming: Bigger than Climategate, more important than Copenhagen--it's statistical analysis! " "This is just too true to be good. An unassuming climate scientist from the Netherlands, Bart Verheggen, who specializes in studying the effects of aerosols on climate change, (and who has corresponded with me frequently in a very genteel fashion) has a well-mannered, even tempered weblog called My View on Climate Change. About half the posts are in Dutch. Bart is a polite member of the anthropogenic global warming consensus--he believes strongly that human emission of greenhouse gases have caused significant temperature rises and pose a threat to development going forward. And what's going on on his website is one of the most signficant and unexpected happenings in all the debate on global warming. For three weeks now, a discussion on something as unlikely as statistics is coming close to rewriting climate change history. Because for just about the first time, scientists from all parts of the spectrum are engaging in almost real time on an issue of substance that can actually be resolved in front of the viewing audience. It has engaged the attention of physicists, statisticians, webloggers and an army of viewers. If you read through it you will never think of the term 'unit root' in the same way again." www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Global-warming-Bigger-than-Climategate-more-important-than-Copenhagenits-statistical-analysisThat is probably the most important post here in a long while ...its far bigger than Mann's hockey stick stats issue. To go further down the cited website.... "The B&R paper finds that, when cointegration is applied to available data,” … greenhouse gas forcings do not polynominally cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance.” Hence, available data do not support the physics based hypothesis.
This type of statistical result simply demonstrates the relationship (or lack thereof) in available data. It is what is!! This result stands (unless there are problems in execution – e.g., the analysis was implemented incorrectly, or the data are faulty, etc.). No appeal to theory or to alternative analyses of different types of data that support the hypothesis changes this single analytical result. Again, it is what is! It is what the data are telling us. In this case the data are telling us that bumble bees can fly (i.e., real world data – observations — are inconsistent with the formulated, mathematically based hypothesis)."www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Global-warming-Bigger-than-Climategate-more-important-than-Copenhagenits-statistical-analysisI hope AJ is still dropping in as he could go to the original site and manage the Dutch.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 25, 2010 17:27:04 GMT
Post by scpg02 on Mar 25, 2010 17:27:04 GMT
While often noted here (light bulb in micro wave is a good story)... "Global warming: Bigger than Climategate, more important than Copenhagen--it's statistical analysis! " "This is just too true to be good. An unassuming climate scientist from the Netherlands, Bart Verheggen, who specializes in studying the effects of aerosols on climate change, (and who has corresponded with me frequently in a very genteel fashion) has a well-mannered, even tempered weblog called My View on Climate Change. About half the posts are in Dutch. Bart is a polite member of the anthropogenic global warming consensus--he believes strongly that human emission of greenhouse gases have caused significant temperature rises and pose a threat to development going forward. And what's going on on his website is one of the most signficant and unexpected happenings in all the debate on global warming. For three weeks now, a discussion on something as unlikely as statistics is coming close to rewriting climate change history. Because for just about the first time, scientists from all parts of the spectrum are engaging in almost real time on an issue of substance that can actually be resolved in front of the viewing audience. It has engaged the attention of physicists, statisticians, webloggers and an army of viewers. If you read through it you will never think of the term 'unit root' in the same way again." www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Global-warming-Bigger-than-Climategate-more-important-than-Copenhagenits-statistical-analysisI've passed this on to a couple of science friends in the Netherlands.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 8:22:58 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 26, 2010 8:22:58 GMT
That is probably the most important post here in a long while ...its far bigger than Mann's hockey stick stats issue. This indeed an interesting debate that challenges the claim that the models have predictive value based upon observations of warmer recent years. This link has the debate in English: ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#commentsThis is clearly a major extension of Steve McIntyre's work in exposing the soft underbelly of statistical expertise in the field of Climatology and reinforces what many of us here have already perceived in the data as not representing a new trend that needs a new explanation as others believe so fervently. The debate is fascinating and this brings a math to the question that rejects the notion of a new trend and so far appears to be completely unrebutted by the AGW crowd.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 26, 2010 9:58:38 GMT
Post by poitsplace on Mar 26, 2010 9:58:38 GMT
Yes, and as one poster there suggested...it impacts ALL sciences. There's a ton of junk science, probably quite a lot of which formed under similar circumstances. On the bright side, this means the unintended benefit from climate "science"...is that of cleaning house.
|
|