Kurt Barlow Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Kurt, I do not know where is your example coming from, but it clearly shows that in this area the research method must be examined as it does not show any meaningful results and same for the climate sensitivity; still a lot of work must be done That particular example I made up but if you look at different studies into lung cancer probability does vary from one to another and is accounted for by the complexity of studying such a subject. The fact the variation in diffierent studies exists doesn't disprove that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. Same with Co2 and climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 That particular example I made up but if you look at different studies into lung cancer probability does vary from one to another and is accounted for by the complexity of studying such a subject. The fact the variation in diffierent studies exists doesn't disprove that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. Same with Co2 and climate. Kurt, your point in bold is clearly political and not scientific. it does not have any scientific value or sense. if different peer reviewed studies show very high variations it means that there is no causality or the studies use wrong method or the theory is wrong. if there was the causality the variation would have to be low. this is the way the scientific method works. applying democratic principles, consensus and committees do not work in science as the nature does not care as I mentioned above there is at least 20 different schools of psychology. surelly all of them can not be right ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Kurt, your point in bold is clearly political and not scientific. it does not have any scientific value or sense. if different peer reviewed studies show very high variations it means that there is no causality or the studies use wrong method or the theory is wrong. if there was the causality the variation would have to be low. this is the way the scientific method works. applying democratic principles, consensus and committees do not work in science as the nature does not care as I mentioned above there is at least 20 different schools of psychology. surelly all of them can not be right ... I made it up because I couldn't be bothered trawling up a dozen or so studies on the prevalence of lung cancer amongst smokers. However if I did it would show a spread of conclusions in regard to exposure and prevalence. Again this does not disprove the the link between smoking and lung cancer. Likewise a range of studies on Co2 forcing effect ranging from say 1 to 5 degrees C per doubling of concentration does not disprove C02 is a radiative forcing gas. Indeed the scientific community has come to a majority conclusion of approximately 3 degrees C. Naturally those with a contrarian view will focus on the outliers conveniently in the range that suits their agenda. I am quite surprised you are so adamant Co2 isn't a global warming gas given your support of nuclear. Beyond it's low CO2 footprint nuclear has very little going for it particularly when compared against natural gas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I made it up because I couldn't be bothered trawling up a dozen or so studies on the prevalence of lung cancer amongst smokers. However if I did it would show a spread of conclusions in regard to exposure and prevalence. Again this does not disprove the the link between smoking and lung cancer. Likewise a range of studies on Co2 forcing effect ranging from say 1 to 5 degrees C per doubling of concentration does not disprove C02 is a radiative forcing gas. Indeed the scientific community has come to a majority conclusion of approximately 3 degrees C. Naturally those with a contrarian view will focus on the outliers conveniently in the range that suits their agenda. I am quite surprised you are so adamant Co2 isn't a global warming gas given your support of nuclear. Beyond it's low CO2 footprint nuclear has very little going for it particularly when compared against natural gas yes, they did (some of them). but a new research from Briffa this month shows that MWP summer had same temperature as late 20th temperature summer. and also that Mann's Hockey Stick did not correctly interpreted Briffa's data http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract so somebody from these 2 guys must be wrong. or there is some new theory/fact coming in. in any case it is another point that the climate science is not settled at all ... as like the string theory which is not settled either ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 yes, they did (some of them). but a new research from Briffa this month shows that MWP summer had same temperature as late 20th temperature summer. and also that Mann's Hockey Stick did not correctly interpreted Briffa's data http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract so somebody from these 2 guys must be wrong. or there is some new theory/fact coming in. in any case it is another point that the climate science is not settled at all ... as like the string theory which is not settled either ... Sorry, but you are flogging a dead horse here. It is pretty obvious that at least one of the posters here has put their entire life savings into this scam so trying to have any sort of meaningful debate is pointless. The science is not proven, many scientists question it but most don't want to rock the boat for fear of losing their funding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Sorry, but you are flogging a dead horse here. It is pretty obvious that at least one of the posters here has put their entire life savings into this scam so trying to have any sort of meaningful debate is pointless. The science is not proven, many scientists question it but most don't want to rock the boat for fear of losing their funding I know; but I like to tease Kurt ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) Kurt, again you miss the point. I am not saying which one is correct one. I am just educating you that the climate science in this area is not settled yet and the scientific discussion is still ongoing ... and you can also see that even the core AGW alarmists such as Briffa are changing the mind ... We're surely arguing about semantics here. If "The science is settled" is taken to mean "AGW has been the dominant factor influencing climate over the past few decades and likely will be for the next few centuries", then virtually all climatologists would say: "Yes, the science is settled." If, on the other hand, "The science is settled" is taken to mean "We know exactly how AGW has influenced and will influence climate", then of course the science isn't settled and probably never will be. It is perfectly normal for scientists to refine their theories and estimates in the light of new thinking and evidence. The fact that there is debate on the exact magnitude of CO2 climate sensitivity is not a logical reason to assume that it is zero (as Game_Over does) or insignificant (as you seem be be implying). Edited November 4, 2012 by snowflux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 We're surely arguing about semantics here. If "The science is settled" is taken to mean "AGW has been the dominant factor influencing climate over the past few decades and likely will be for the next few centuries", then virtually all climatologists would say: "Yes, the science is settled." If, on the other hand, "The science is settled" is taken to mean "We know exactly how AGW has influenced and will influence climate", then of course the science isn't settled and probably never will be. It is perfectly normal for scientists to refine their theories and estimates in the light of new thinking and evidence. The fact that there is debate on the exact magnitude of CO2 climate sensitivity is not a logical reason to assume that it is zero (as Game_Over does) or insignificant (as you seem be be implying). Look, 1934 was the hotter than the sun, game_over's children didn't study science and there are various schools of psychology, therefore we can safely ignore any of this evidence stuff. And since those millionaire scientists disagree about whether it'll get hotter or much hotter, it's definitely going to get colder. Pretty persuasive stuff. Oh and something about string theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Look, 1934 was the hotter than the sun, game_over's children didn't study science and there are various schools of psychology, therefore we can safely ignore any of this evidence stuff. And since those millionaire scientists disagree about whether it'll get hotter or much hotter, it's definitely going to get colder. Pretty persuasive stuff. Oh and something about string theory. Ha ha - fabulous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 We're surely arguing about semantics here. If "The science is settled" is taken to mean "AGW has been the dominant factor influencing climate over the past few decades and likely will be for the next few centuries", then virtually all climatologists would say: "Yes, the science is settled." If, on the other hand, "The science is settled" is taken to mean "We know exactly how AGW has influenced and will influence climate", then of course the science isn't settled and probably never will be. It is perfectly normal for scientists to refine their theories and estimates in the light of new thinking and evidence. The fact that there is debate on the exact magnitude of CO2 climate sensitivity is not a logical reason to assume that it is zero (as Game_Over does) or insignificant (as you seem be be implying). Again as in my previous posts Briffa's paper from last 2 weeks prove these climatologists wrong. Or he is wrong, But he is in the same CAGW team as Mann. But all of them can not be correct as they contradict each other. So the climatology is not really settled in this point yet: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Again as in my previous posts Briffa's paper from last 2 weeks prove these climatologists wrong. Or he is wrong, But he is in the same CAGW team as Mann. But all of them can not be correct as they contradict each other. So the climatology is not really settled in this point yet: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Did you bother to read the rest of Snowflux's post after the bit you highlighted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Again as in my previous posts Briffa's paper from last 2 weeks prove these climatologists wrong. Or he is wrong, But he is in the same CAGW team as Mann. But all of them can not be correct as they contradict each other. So the climatology is not really settled in this point yet: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Well, looking at this one first.. What they have found is that for this one location, known to be a region with a strong MWP effect, SUMMER warmth was comparable to the 1950-2000 period. That's a refinement in tree ring based paleoclimatology. Not some sort of scientific revolution. If scientists build upon each others work or refine it, does that discredit the entire field? (I'd add that if the MWP was in fact globally warmer then generally thought, the logical consequence is that climate sensitivity is higher than generally thought. Strange how the MWP obsessives don't seem to get that..) Previously, you've picked out a series of forcing calculations, strangely omitting some. You do understand that selective omission of data (without both acknowledging the existence of the data and giving a reason for omission) is the very antithesis of science? As it is, even the ones you choose all agree with the consensus with the exception of one outlier. Generally speaking, if you have 10 results giving one answer, and one result well of the scale giving a physically-implausable answer, you need an exceptionally good reason to throw away the 10 results that agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Look, 1934 was the hotter than the sun, game_over's children didn't study science and there are various schools of psychology, therefore we can safely ignore any of this evidence stuff. And since those millionaire scientists disagree about whether it'll get hotter or much hotter, it's definitely going to get colder. Pretty persuasive stuff. Oh and something about string theory. And remember, you have to be old and senile wise before you are allowed to talk about science at all.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Again as in my previous posts Briffa's paper from last 2 weeks prove these climatologists wrong. Or he is wrong, But he is in the same CAGW team as Mann. But all of them can not be correct as they contradict each other. So the climatology is not really settled in this point yet: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. I don't think your post is complete without reference to Vikings in Greenland or grapes in Yorkshire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I don't think your post is complete without reference to Vikings in Greenland or grapes in Yorkshire .. combined with a witty* reference to viking longboats being diesel powered or medieval SUVs .. *Not witty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Sorry, but you are flogging a dead horse here. It is pretty obvious that at least one of the posters here has put their entire life savings into this scam so trying to have any sort of meaningful debate is pointless. The science is not proven, many scientists question it but most don't want to rock the boat for fear of losing their funding Wouldn't you like to think that. I am however in the process of pulling most my savings and assets out of the UK which gives me a warm fuzzy feeling as I know I'll no longer be contributing towards your welfare cheques Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I don't know why people bother engaging with climate change deniers. It is simple - there has been a decision made by the PTB across the globe that there will be a shift to renewables along with other adaptation and mitigation activity. What is happening in the UK is happening globally, indeed in many respects UK government policy is seriously behind the curve. The shift to renewables will happen slowly over a period of decades, but it is going to happen. Fossil fuels are seen now as a stop gap and serious amounts of money are being spent on R&D. Costs will come down as the technology improves. It is a shame some on here are on the wrong side of history and don't like or understand what is happening but there you have it. In life you need to understand that you can run alongside the bus or get on the bus. It is highly unlikely you'll get to drive the bus. You can pretend you are free and stand in front of the bus if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. The UK is well placed, if it so chooses, to be a green industry frontrunner. I doubt however that it will grab the opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I don't know why people bother engaging with climate change deniers. It is simple - there has been a decision made by the PTB across the globe that there will be a shift to renewables along with other adaptation and mitigation activity. What is happening in the UK is happening globally, indeed in many respects UK government policy is seriously behind the curve. The shift to renewables will happen slowly over a period of decades, but it is going to happen. Fossil fuels are seen now as a stop gap and serious amounts of money are being spent on R&D. Costs will come down as the technology improves. It is a shame some on here are on the wrong side of history and don't like or understand what is happening but there you have it. In life you need to understand that you can run alongside the bus or get on the bus. It is highly unlikely you'll get to drive the bus. You can pretend you are free and stand in front of the bus if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. The UK is well placed, if it so chooses, to be a green industry frontrunner. I doubt however that it will grab the opportunity. No to busses! It's all fraud and conspiracy by a bunch of elitist liberal "academics" in cahoots with the bus company who want to force subsidised public transport on the free market! Get in your 4x4! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Well, looking at this one first.. 1/ What they have found is that for this one location, known to be a region with a strong MWP effect, SUMMER warmth was comparable to the 1950-2000 period. That's a refinement in tree ring based paleoclimatology. Not some sort of scientific revolution. If scientists build upon each others work or refine it, does that discredit the entire field? 2/ (I'd add that if the MWP was in fact globally warmer then generally thought, the logical consequence is that climate sensitivity is higher than generally thought. Strange how the MWP obsessives don't seem to get that..) 3/ Previously, you've picked out a series of forcing calculations, strangely omitting some. You do understand that selective omission of data (without both acknowledging the existence of the data and giving a reason for omission) is the very antithesis of science? As it is, even the ones you choose all agree with the consensus with the exception of one outlier. 4/ Generally speaking, if you have 10 results giving one answer, and one result well of the scale giving a physically-implausable answer, you need an exceptionally good reason to throw away the 10 results that agree. 1/ Briffa was the original data source behind the Mann's Hockey Stick work; the original Hockey Stick and current Briffa's work using the same methodology contradict and one of them is wrong. I personally believe it is Mann 2/ no; it means the complete opposite that the CO2 climate sensitivity is lower and the temperature changes in 20th century are not driven by man made CO2, but by the same mechanism as during the MWP 3/ I did not omit any data. I showed you a wiki page which states that climate sensitivity was estimated by multiple peer reviewed papers from 0.5 to 7 degrees for CO2 doubling, where 0.5 is no problem and 7 means we will all die next year; this proves that the climate science in this area is not settled yet 4/ No, it means that your method or theory is wrong or there is no causality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Wouldn't you like to think that. I am however in the process of pulling most my savings and assets out of the UK which gives me a warm fuzzy feeling as I know I'll no longer be contributing towards your welfare cheques Actually as my daughter is now working I don't get a penny from the government. Well - apart from free glasses and dentistry. However because 'I is poor' my sons are both getting their degrees paid for. I didn't create the system - I have that well known genius G.Brown to thank for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I don't know why people bother engaging with climate change deniers. It is simple - there has been a decision made by the PTB across the globe that there will be a shift to renewables along with other adaptation and mitigation activity. What is happening in the UK is happening globally, indeed in many respects UK government policy is seriously behind the curve. The shift to renewables will happen slowly over a period of decades, but it is going to happen. Fossil fuels are seen now as a stop gap and serious amounts of money are being spent on R&D. Costs will come down as the technology improves. It is a shame some on here are on the wrong side of history and don't like or understand what is happening but there you have it. In life you need to understand that you can run alongside the bus or get on the bus. It is highly unlikely you'll get to drive the bus. You can pretend you are free and stand in front of the bus if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. The UK is well placed, if it so chooses, to be a green industry frontrunner. I doubt however that it will grab the opportunity. I take it you do not listen to the news or read papers. The UK has given up on wind turbines, as has Germany and both India and China have built and are still building hundreds of coal fired power stations. Meanwhile the UK is about to have a shale gas energy boom so we will be burning gas for the foreseable future. However, if you get a warm fuzzy feeling believing that our politicians sole mission in life is to save the planet then who am I to question your beliefs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 1/ Briffa was the original data source behind the Mann's Hockey Stick work; the original Hockey Stick and current Briffa's work using the same methodology contradict and one of them is wrong. I personally believe it is Mann 2/ no; it means the complete opposite that the CO2 climate sensitivity is lower and the temperature changes in 20th century are not driven by man made CO2, but by the same mechanism as during the MWP 3/ I did not omit any data. I showed you a wiki page which states that climate sensitivity was estimated by multiple peer reviewed papers from 0.5 to 7 degrees for CO2 doubling, where 0.5 is no problem and 7 means we will all die next year; this proves that the climate science in this area is not settled yet 4/ No, it means that your method or theory is wrong or there is no causality Wasting your breath The theory of MMGW has nothing whatever to do with science - it is a politically motivated cult. If I light a match I will warm the atmosphere - that's a scientific fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) I take it you do not listen to the news or read papers. The UK has given up on wind turbines, as has Germany and both India and China have built and are still building hundreds of coal fired power stations. Meanwhile the UK is about to have a shale gas energy boom so we will be burning gas for the foreseable future. However, if you get a warm fuzzy feeling believing that our politicians sole mission in life is to save the planet then who am I to question your beliefs? Editied to add - we will continue to burn fossil fuels until they are superceded by newer technologies one of the latest avenues of research is Thorium reactors - here's a link. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 Interestingly MMGW is being used to counter previous 'green' objections to nuclear power - which is one of the political drivers of the cult. Apologies for duplicate Edited November 5, 2012 by Game_Over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Happy reading from arch conspirators the IEEE: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fQp7JH8bEKIJ:www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf+wind+power+myths+debunked&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShBYwqyNyHmLyVljDILNqudg0fBzdtcNkxmKuFiVM3A4Q3llkriAJDIrKWHIZTS_IRy8lMXEDr7LwfdzhXHA3LGFG3ORrI_EngQqszMoECI9NYCJ9d0NrAmffEF9TSHgXRnzmlr&sig=AHIEtbSFs7G_L8AeVSNTePiaoHjV90FxTw Also - Beyond the Bluster: http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/9564/beyond-the-bluster-why-wind-power-is-an-effective-technology Edited November 5, 2012 by sossij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Happy reading from arch conspirators the IEEE: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fQp7JH8bEKIJ:www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf+wind+power+myths+debunked&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShBYwqyNyHmLyVljDILNqudg0fBzdtcNkxmKuFiVM3A4Q3llkriAJDIrKWHIZTS_IRy8lMXEDr7LwfdzhXHA3LGFG3ORrI_EngQqszMoECI9NYCJ9d0NrAmffEF9TSHgXRnzmlr&sig=AHIEtbSFs7G_L8AeVSNTePiaoHjV90FxTw Also - Beyond the Bluster: http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/9564/beyond-the-bluster-why-wind-power-is-an-effective-technology I just had a read of the second article because I liked the sound of 'beyond the bluster' - lets analyse the summary of the article The report addresses two commonly held misconceptions around two important, often misunderstood, questions: Is wind power an effective way of reducing carbon emissions? Is wind power a secure and reliable source of energy for the UK? It shows unequivocally that wind power can significantly reduce carbon emissions, is reliable, poses no threat to energy security, and is technically capable of providing a significant proportion of the UK’s electricity supply with minimal impact on the existing operation of the grid. Straight away it starts with a false premise because no one asserts that wind turbines produce less carbon emissions than say a gas fired power station. Also no one questions the fact that a wind turbine in a field in England is more 'secure' than gas coming down a pipeline than Russia. Also wind is clearly 'reliable' in that we will always have wind at a fairly predictable average level over a given period of time, but again this is not the issue. Also what constitutes a significant proportion 2%, 5%, 20% ? The article therefore manages to successfully refute arguments that no one who is opposed to wind turbines is making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.