|
|
Post by gahooduk on Feb 15, 2009 18:56:20 GMT
Strange isn't it  No. Not a surprise to anyone who understands how unimportant co2 levels are in terms of effect on global temperature. Pity the fools. ITV UK news program main news....dire warning that GHG from power stations means warming is increasing at a greater rate than expected, picture of coal power station and antarctic iceburg melting and comments fron UK antarctic Survey about need to curb greenhouse emmisions Bit chillie here think i will turn the heating up |
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 16, 2009 6:05:15 GMT
Well, I guess when women do it no one gets upset because when women turn on the lights in neighborhoods without power we usually make friends with all the people because they come over and eat and have coffee and watch TV. Look, I've read the nonsensical claims about all these non-experts who disagree with CO2 based climate change. The test of correctness is peer-reviewed articles and recreation of the work. That's science -- do experiments, collect data, report on the data, validate the work, etc. and do it in an open and reproducible manner. If you don't understand science -- hey, fine by me. But please don't insult me with "Ten bazillion scientists who aren't in the field all want to tell the people in the field they are wrong!" well they are hardly non-scientists... I didn't say "non-scientists", I said "non-experts". A medical doctor might be able to say that human beings can handle warmer weather (I live in Texas -- I'm surviving just fine), but a medical doctor can't tell you what will or won't happen with climate if CO2 levels rise. Look, I have my issues with Gavin, et alia, but the science they are doing is rock solid. Yes, they do overlook the giant ball of fire in the sky, but they also know that sooner or later that giant ball of fire is going to exit the current minimum and then they'll be back in business. The only question in my mind is do we get smart and kick our fossil fuel addiction before things really get warm. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 16, 2009 6:48:31 GMT
Yes, they do overlook the giant ball of fire in the sky, but they also know that sooner or later that giant ball of fire is going to exit the current minimum and then they'll be back in business. The only question in my mind is do we get smart and kick our fossil fuel addiction before things really get warm. Rock solid science? How long do you think solar activity is going to be below average? 15 years? Predictions seem to be gravitating to cycle 24 maxing out at about 1/2 the amplitude of cycles that typified the recent grand maximum. . . .so if true the minimum for all intents and purposes effectively will last the entire cycle. Seems to me relying on an exit of the current minimum suggests sun cycles control temperatures. The AGW folks had a much better argument when they could ignore such stuff. Using it now for an excuse for the recent cooling is a crack in the wall thats likely to widen. |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Feb 16, 2009 7:25:11 GMT
Ah yes, Furry.
But even a child can observe that the emperor has no clothes!
Fortunately, the claims stemming from the "science" of AGW climate warming change are becoming so bad, it doesn't take a climatologist to recognize that something is awry.
When the "scientists" have to resort to obfuscation of data, shrill claims of impending doom, and absolutely will not even consider that there might be more to climate change than their theories conclude...
Then it is easier for even the lay people to question the theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 16, 2009 8:32:16 GMT
I didn't say "non-scientists", I said "non-experts". A medical doctor might be able to say that human beings can handle warmer weather (I live in Texas -- I'm surviving just fine), but a medical doctor can't tell you what will or won't happen with climate if CO2 levels rise. True you said non-expertys but you also said "Ten bazillion scientists who aren't in the field all want to tell the people in the field they are wrong!" If you have a look at the list, they aren't in non-related fields. Look, I have my issues with Gavin, et alia, but the science they are doing is rock solid. Yes, they do overlook the giant ball of fire in the sky, but they also know that sooner or later that giant ball of fire is going to exit the current minimum and then they'll be back in business. The only question in my mind is do we get smart and kick our fossil fuel addiction before things really get warm. I have total agreement with kicking the fossil fuel habit, but let's do it for real reasons huh? Finding fake reasons for it will simply rebound. Let's work on cleaning up our home, removing the economic structures that demand we all consume at an ever faster rate just to keep the corporates making their billions, but let's do it because those things are wrong ways for us to live, not to simply add more bazillions to the pockets of the filthy rich. Already I worry what is going to happen when the public finally realises how they've been manipulated - science is in for a low time & before we come out of it, ID is going to look like hard science compared to what is going on in the climate scam. I'm not sure where you find their 'rock-solid science' - there's a number of threads on here where we've looked for such & not found it. In fact when you look at how many versions there are of them & how poorly they work, I doubt you can even claim they are doing rock-solid computer modelling. Certainly it is obvious the IPCC fails to do rock-solid peer review or even rock-solid selection of the reviewers. Michael Mann is definitely not a rock-solid statistician. Science is about observations, hypotheses, experimenting & testing theories that can be falsified. Computer modelling is about structuring data & making assumptions to enable a computer to be able to run the program. Computer modellers are not necessarily good scientists in unrelated fields such as climate, & climate sicentists are not necessarily good computer geeks. |
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 16, 2009 16:15:16 GMT
I didn't say "non-scientists", I said "non-experts". A medical doctor might be able to say that human beings can handle warmer weather (I live in Texas -- I'm surviving just fine), but a medical doctor can't tell you what will or won't happen with climate if CO2 levels rise. True you said non-expertys but you also said "Ten bazillion scientists who aren't in the field all want to tell the people in the field they are wrong!" If you have a look at the list, they aren't in non-related fields. Well, then you might as well include auto mechanics and trash collectors because they are the ones who are going to be fixing electric cars and recycling waste streams. EVERYONE is ultimately in a "relate field" because the solutions are going to affect everyone. But the only people with the knowledge to determine if CO2 levels are going to cause global warming are climate scientists. If you look at Real Climate and the number of times "Woe is me! Renewable Energy won't work!" is muttered you see what happens when non-experts get involved. I've spent much of the past two years working with Renewable Energy experts, and even been working on solving many of the problems of Renewable Energy, and the climate science armchair quarterbacks are still thinking in the 1990's. So, yes, expertise matters and Gavin, et alia, are the experts and my car mechanic and physician and the guys who collect my trash aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 16, 2009 16:17:06 GMT
Look, I have my issues with Gavin, et alia, but the science they are doing is rock solid. Yes, they do overlook the giant ball of fire in the sky, but they also know that sooner or later that giant ball of fire is going to exit the current minimum and then they'll be back in business. The only question in my mind is do we get smart and kick our fossil fuel addiction before things really get warm. At this point we have nothing we've experienced before to indicate that SC24 will do anything but simmer quietly on the back burner. In fact, since SC24 is going to be so very low, it's all but a certainty at this point that SC25 will be lower than "normal" too. Lower cycles are (from all we've experienced) longer cycles and have lower/longer minimums between. Unlike the warm and fuzzy minimums from the previous cycles (spanning MAYBE two winters if we were unlucky) these monstrous minimums will span 3-5 winters and not properly recover. The sun will surely come out of it's funk but it will most likely be 50+ years off. If human activity had any significant impact on global temperatures (making them rise, I mean) then we just dodged a bullet and should be THANKFUL for that extra warmth. Otherwise we'd be complaining about the rapid expansion of glaciers. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 16, 2009 16:27:51 GMT
I've spent much of the past two years working with Renewable Energy experts, and even been working on solving many of the problems of Renewable Energy. So your bread and butter is going to get more jam on it if the alarmists have their way and shut down coal fired power stations. Thanks for declaring your interest. I'm a graduate of a degree in the history and philosophy of science and I know junk theory when I see it. Gavin et al doing rock solid science? You're having a giraffe mate. Where are the convection parameters in their models? Latent heat of evaporation? Understanding of tectonic movements on geological timescales and their effect on glaciation? Effect of deglaciation on plate hysterisis? Understanding of proper statistical methods? The only rock solid thing about Gavin is between his ears. |
|
|
|
Post by solartrack on Feb 16, 2009 18:56:09 GMT
So many Orwellian battles here. The first misleading claim is that warmer is bad. I have yet to see convincing proof that warmer by 2 degrees is worse for mankind than colder by 2 degrees. Historically warmer was always better. Colder always bad. Until they (you know who you are) get out of the parking space on this one, the rest is just silly string.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 16, 2009 19:48:20 GMT
Well, then you might as well include auto mechanics and trash collectors because they are the ones who are going to be fixing electric cars and recycling waste streams. EVERYONE is ultimately in a "relate field" because the solutions are going to affect everyone. But the only people with the knowledge to determine if CO2 levels are going to cause global warming are climate scientists. If you look at Real Climate and the number of times "Woe is me! Renewable Energy won't work!" is muttered you see what happens when non-experts get involved. I've spent much of the past two years working with Renewable Energy experts, and even been working on solving many of the problems of Renewable Energy, and the climate science armchair quarterbacks are still thinking in the 1990's. So, yes, expertise matters and Gavin, et alia, are the experts and my car mechanic and physician and the guys who collect my trash aren't. So shouldn't a climate expert have degrees or significant knowledge in physics, chemistry & meteorology as a minimum? On top of their apparent computer modelling skills of course. See the problem is the people who are pro-agw & making the headlines & performing the 'science' to which you refer are not, according to what I can tell, doing science at all - unless you count their ongoing investigations into the abilities of computers to run models of chaotic systems. And they aren't doing well at that either - they've yet to be able to tell us what the weather will be over the next couple of weeks with any accuracy let alone the cascading series of events that provide the longer term 'climate' they are predicting. And calling it 'weather' as some kind of excuse for not being able to deal with it doesn't wash - their 'weather' is what precipitates the patterns. If they say we're heading for warm climate & the weather keeps trending cold, from where does their warm come? If they tell us all about tipping points & we go past it & the tipping point quite obviously doesn't come to fruition, how do they get 'expert' in their description? If they tell us loud & long about how unstoppable the CO 2-generated rise of temperature is & the weather gets colder, how can these 'experts' suddenly change their minds & begin to tell us about all these other things which can mask or divert their catastrophic rise? Maybe they need deeper knowledge of atmospherics & oceanology to round out their skill set? If these 'experts' know so much, why are they labelling plant food as a contaminant? If they're correct we're going to need those plants. Related subject, how can these' 'experts' not take into account that all the times CO 2 has been higher (in some cases very much higher) than current day, the plant coverage of Earth has been extraordinary? The very fossil fuels they claim are killing the planet were formed in such times. Perhaps we better add Geology & Archaeology to the list such 'experts' need. I'm sure some of these people are most earnest in their endeavours, but they simply don't know enough & don't seem to be willing to look into other fields for the information they require. If Michael Mann (sorry to keep using him but he does exemplify the problem with the agw crowd so nicely) had bothered to check his work with even a modest statistician, he wouldn't have opened the agw crowd to such ridicule. If he was a real scientist he wouldn't have kept re-presenting his cherished graph with different descriptions but using the same flawed logic that simply showed he would defend his flawed presentation no matter how wrong it was shown to be. The 'experts' you seem so in awe of have consistently failed their own predictions, moved the goal posts & failed again. The political agenda behind them has corrupted science at its most basic, & it has been in place long enough for a couple of generations of new scientists to have grown up within that system. The 'experts' are mostly among that bunch so they have, mostly, become contaminated by the system - they go into their work already 'knowing' that agw is a fact of life so their work confirms their 'knowledge' - any doubts get washed away in the sea of funding or they find themselves out of a job. Hard to get science done under that kind of load. Expert - X is the unknown quantity, spurt is a big drip under pressure. ;D Edit: Correcting smelling pistakes |
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 16, 2009 23:28:27 GMT
I find it hard to take anyone serious as a scientist who is obviously frothing at the mouth when he/she writes.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 16, 2009 23:36:43 GMT
True you said non-expertys but you also said "Ten bazillion scientists who aren't in the field all want to tell the people in the field they are wrong!" If you have a look at the list, they aren't in non-related fields. Well, then you might as well include auto mechanics and trash collectors because they are the ones who are going to be fixing electric cars and recycling waste streams. EVERYONE is ultimately in a "relate field" because the solutions are going to affect everyone. But the only people with the knowledge to determine if CO2 levels are going to cause global warming are climate scientists. If you look at Real Climate and the number of times "Woe is me! Renewable Energy won't work!" is muttered you see what happens when non-experts get involved. I've spent much of the past two years working with Renewable Energy experts, and even been working on solving many of the problems of Renewable Energy, and the climate science armchair quarterbacks are still thinking in the 1990's. So, yes, expertise matters and Gavin, et alia, are the experts and my car mechanic and physician and the guys who collect my trash aren't. Climate Science appears to be an oxymoron NONE of the climate models in the 'IPCC set', where they chose the very best - the creme de la creme of climate models - has been correct. NONE of them - Not one. So the climate 'scientists' are going back and fiddling with their assumptions and finding out brand new things about solar effects and arguing about whether PDO is negative or positive or if it exists, and quibbling about ENSO events and being totally unclear about what forcing is and what is feedback and they have no clue whether clouds are negative or positive (or rather they do - dependent on the group clouds are negative and/or positive but who knows how much) but they carry on publishing papers anyway....... And these modelers who have totally failed to model what is actually happening in the real world are doing 'rock solid science'?? They are doing research along the lines of some of Einstein's research where he said: " Of course we don't know what we are doing - if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called research would it." There is nothing wrong with research - but researchers have to realize that until they have verified their methods and validated their results - their output MUST NOT be used for anything 'real' as it may be wrong. And if it is wrong people may die. But these researchers in their rush to get their papers published and obtain research grants (and I have been there too) have forgotten, or reneged on, their responsibilities. It may be just what the politicians want - but you have to have the ethics to say - " My research should not be used as it has yet to be validated and its results may not be correct." You will find that doctors and engineers do this routinely - but not climate 'scientists'. Rock solid science  
Please note I am not talking about the industry climate scientists giving advice to builders and local regional government on hydrology and drainage safety of home sites etc. They at least show some level of accountability. Although many of them seem to accept AGW without demur being led by the nose by their 'rock star' climatologist researchers. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 16, 2009 23:50:30 GMT
Well, then you might as well include auto mechanics and trash collectors because they are the ones who are going to be fixing electric cars and recycling waste streams. EVERYONE is ultimately in a "relate field" because the solutions are going to affect everyone. But the only people with the knowledge to determine if CO2 levels are going to cause global warming are climate scientists. If you look at Real Climate and the number of times "Woe is me! Renewable Energy won't work!" is muttered you see what happens when non-experts get involved. I've spent much of the past two years working with Renewable Energy experts, and even been working on solving many of the problems of Renewable Energy, and the climate science armchair quarterbacks are still thinking in the 1990's. So, yes, expertise matters and Gavin, et alia, are the experts and my car mechanic and physician and the guys who collect my trash aren't. Climate Science appears to be an oxymoron NONE of the climate models in the 'IPCC set', where they chose the very best - the creme de la creme of climate models - has been correct. NONE of them - Not one. So the climate 'scientists' are going back and fiddling with their assumptions and finding out brand new things about solar effects and arguing about whether PDO is negative or positive or if it exists, and quibbling about ENSO events and being totally unclear about what forcing is and what is feedback and they have no clue whether clouds are negative or positive (or rather they do - dependent on the group clouds are negative and/or positive but who knows how much) but they carry on publishing papers anyway....... And these modelers who have totally failed to model what is actually happening in the real world are doing 'rock solid science'?? They are doing research along the lines of some of Einstein's research where he said: " Of course we don't know what we are doing - if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called research would it." There is nothing wrong with research - but researchers have to realize that until they have verified their methods and validated their results - their output MUST NOT be used for anything 'real' as it may be wrong. And if it is wrong people may die. But these researchers in their rush to get their papers published and obtain research grants (and I have been there too) have forgotten, or reneged on, their responsibilities. It may be just what the politicians want - but you have to have the ethics to say - " My research should not be used as it has yet to be validated and its results may not be correct." You will find that doctors and engineers do this routinely - but not climate 'scientists'. Rock solid science
Please note I am not talking about the industry climate scientists giving advice to builders and local regional government on hydrology and drainage safety of home sites etc. They at least show some level of accountability. Although many of them seem to accept without demur being led by the nose by their 'rock star' climatologist researchers.Speaking of climate models, RPS has written extensively on the matter. His latest is: Real Climate Misunderstanding Of Climate Models climatesci.org/2008/11/28/real-climate-misunderstanding-of-climate-models/Gavin Schmidt has a reputation for, how shall I put it........not be exactly honest? |
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Feb 17, 2009 2:53:14 GMT
With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. John von Neumann |
|
