Australian Politics Forum - Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?

(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15

Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? (Read 32466 times)

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #210 - Dec 6^th, 2009 at 8:31pm pjb05 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 1:39pm: Anonymous? Well it's a chat room like this one. I don't see you or Muso putting your names up here. Excellent point. Impeccable democratic credentials. Peer reviewed by this chatroom, you may want to say...
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #211 - Dec 7^th, 2009 at 7:52am

pjb05 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 1:39pm:

Have another look - he does cite papers. Anonymous? Well it's a chat room like this one. I don't see you or Muso putting your names up here.

PS - what is your opinion of the hacked emails? It would seem to be a raving scandal to me. Hasn't the head of the East Anglia's CRU research centre stood down over it? Isn't the UK met office going to start over again with a review of climate data?

Sorry, I finally lost my luck at avoiding Swine Flu, but I'm back on board briefly. There was a report on the Science Show about this. It's worth listening to that.

The main issue is access to raw data, and the 'bunker mentality' that the scientists have against denialists.

The science is so settled on this issue of global warming that it isn't funny, but what we have is well organised groups of people who launch personal attacks on scientists who are basically trying to do their jobs.

The natural reaction is to avoid giving them anything that could be used against them. They regard it as a war and denialists as the enemy.

How would you feel if a 2 year portion of your personal email was published on the net? I know I would be horrified. Given that kind of data, it's very easy to twist what is said and discredit somebody that way.

Regardless of all that, they have been told to be more transparent, so there will be changes in the way they make the data public.

NASA is already fairly transparent. CSIRO is most definitely not (LOL)
and the Brits have always been pretty opaque.

There is another issue with the raw data. It's commercial in confidence. They get the data from the Met Office (Hadley Centre) and that is totally separate to the CRU. THey have been instructed by the Met Office that the data is available only if they don't share it.

I understand that the data is available for purchase, exactly the same as with the BoM in Australia.

It's worth listening to the article on the Science Show.

PJB - I had a bad experience when I did not maintain my anonymity online, including death threats to my family, so I would prefer to remain anonymous. It shook me around quite a bit actually, but that's another story.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #212 - Dec 7^th, 2009 at 8:45am

Soren wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 11:34am:

Muso, I have read the six easy steps to AGW by CO2 but I find it unconvincing as an explanation of global warming.

CO2 is one of the trace elements. Its estimated effect at double the current saturation is treated in isolation. Much larger forces are barely touched upon, their effects and interactions are not presented. This is the gospel for the believers. Points 1-3 are pretty straightforward. It gets a bit wobbly at 4 and by 5-6 it has enough assumption to be treated as a hypothesis rather than an explanation of a causal link.

Good try but sorry, no cigar.

It's very difficult to explain this with so much disinformation out there.

Didn't you read my slightly allegorical post about trace materials ? (The cyanide one)

What are the much larger forces you're alluding to?

What do you mean by "double the current saturation'? The statement doesn't make any sense. Do you mean double the current concentration?

CO2 is not treated in isolation. In the current thinking, it's treated with other well-mixed greenhouse gases. The radiative forcing contribution is quite complex. There was a recent paper in Nature. I'll try to find the reference.

Even if it were, there is very little change to the overall greenhouse gas effect but the mixed gas approach has produced subtle changes to the results.

You can still use the simplest, earliest models to show that warming occurs. All we have added since then have been refinements, and there will be more refinements which will increase the overall effect.

There are some things we just don't know enough about, such as tipping points - the clathrate bomb, release of methane from thawing permafrost etc, but they will certainly add to the problem and not detract from it.

From an energy input perspective alone, it's obvious that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases heat retention. It's obvious that increasing temperatures results in higher average water vapour concentrations.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #213 - Dec 8^th, 2009 at 11:58am

muso wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 8:45am:

What are the much larger forces you're alluding to?

The important point is that these are complex phenomena that depend on the confluence of many factors, of which global warming is generally not the most important. Consider the following scenario: Person A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell, and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C, who was carrying a carton of eggs that dropped and broke. Would any rational person conclude that the best way to prevent this would be to prohibit kicking dirt? Yet this is precisely the “logic” that will dominate Copenhagen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article6933589.ece

Warning! Scenario (or 'model', if you prefer) is by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #214 - Dec 8^th, 2009 at 2:29pm

The analogy doesn't have any bearing on anthropogenic Global Warming.

It's a physical property of CO2 that causes it to trap heat. We can determine how much it is going to do this by some very basic physics, and we can account for the natural variations.

It's true that a number of climatologists were not happy with the accuracy of the models after 2007, but they have been refined further as a result. Do you think that any refinements have resulted in more moderate predictions? The answer is no.

What the likes of Trenbarth et al were talking about at the time was the fact that we couldn't accurately predict certain tipping points and some of the effects of reduced albedo due to melting ice.

These effects will certainly not make the predictions better - they will make them much worse.

The argument today is not about whether it will happen, but about how serious the warming effects will be.

There are indeed some highly complex factors at play, and we know that if we set off some of these tipping points, it could easily double the temperature rise predicted by the 2007 report for the end of the century.

We're seeing some effects beteen last year's La Nina and this year's predominantly El Nino conditions in certain crops.

I bought some grapes last year from a local grower. They were black muscats and were plump and juicy. The change this year had not been all that drastic in terms of absolute temperature change, but I bought some grapes last week and the were very sad by comparison.

The rainfall has been about the same but the temperature was higher. What I'm not saying is that this dramatic reduction in yield was due to the longterm trend in global warming. What I am saying is that a minor temperature difference can make an incredible difference, and we can expect to see a systematic rise in temperature over the next few decades which will have some very detrimental effects on crop yields.

If the current trend continues, the productivity will be further reduced even in years that are cooler compared to the previous one.

Richard Lindzen is a professional denialist, not only for the energy companies, but for the tobacco industry. His "iris theory" was discredited back in the 80's and he has had a major chip on his shoulder since that time.

« Last Edit: Dec 12^th, 2009 at 7:31pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #215 - Dec 12^th, 2009 at 6:43pm

muso wrote on Dec 8^th, 2009 at 2:29pm:

It's true that a number of climatologists were not happy with the accuracy of the models after 2007, but they have been refined further as a result. Do you think that any refinements have resulted in more moderate predictions? The answer is no.

Deliver us from data refiners.
Smoking gun at Darwin Zero

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

the gist:

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

Another odd fact, the GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 (which covers much of the same period, and as per Fig. 5 is in excellent agreement with Station Zero and Station 1) totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them.

That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it “hides the decline”.

Muso, climate research done to prove AGW, predicting catastrophy and apocalypse is shot. Not just by this but by all the other shenaningas, intemperate jostling and overshouting and leninist sloganeering.

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #216 - Dec 12^th, 2009 at 7:15pm You have to apply correction to some temperature data to correct for such things as Urban Heat Island. It stands to reason. Watts already went through a similar exercise with US based Weather Stations. Watch the video and make up your own mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #217 - Dec 12^th, 2009 at 8:31pm

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 7:15pm:

You have to apply correction to some temperature data to correct for such things as Urban Heat Island. It stands to reason.

Watts already went through a similar exercise with US based Weather Stations.

Watch the video and make up your own mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

A greenman clip! I'm impressed.

Muso, you need to look at the data manipulation and the consequent changes in the graphs. Watts explains why he finds the exercise suspect. We know who Watts is. We know what he is saying. We have the data evidence for what he is saying.
A droning greenman on youtube is just one more question mark, not the refutation you think it should be.

As I said before, it is up to AGW alarmists to present a watertight case in view of the extraordinary demands they make on all of us. A sceptic needs to show only that the warmerists are not as convincing as they pretend to be. The whole denialist/alarmist debate is about your credibility.
Now a kid can yell out "THE WARMERSIST EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES' and nobody will ask if that assertion has been through peer review. If anything, it is more credible for not being peer reviewed.

It is now established that warmerists simply should not be and cannot be taken at their word. This means that the debate starts now. All your assumptions, all your prediction all your coulda-beens are subject to hostile scrutiny.

You can still turn out to be right but the level of proof required is now way up from the Gore Nobel Prize days. This is the big news now, that's where the debate is now - you need to go beyond the scary stories about the wolf.

China, with a trillion dollar surplus stuck in its socks is pleading for aid as a deserving poor developing country. How did we get to this? Because of the nonsense that has been peddled by the Goristas. And I am afraid you are one of them.

« Last Edit: Dec 12^th, 2009 at 8:39pm by Soren »

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #218 - Dec 13^th, 2009 at 6:51am

Soren wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 8:31pm:

You can still turn out to be right but the level of proof required is now way up from the Gore Nobel Prize days. This is the big news now, that's where the debate is now - you need to go beyond the scary stories about the wolf.

China, with a trillion dollar surplus stuck in its socks is pleading for aid as a deserving poor developing country. How did we get to this? Because of the nonsense that has been peddled by the Goristas. And I am afraid you are one of them.

1. Proof would not be a high enough standard for you.

2. I have already given my opinion about aid to China. My concern is about the certainty that unless we make the transition to renewables as soon as possible, we'll all be in deep 'water' by the end of this century. China and India etc have to be part of that one way or another. Talk about economic impacts now? You ain't seen nothing yet.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page