Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 149

Thread: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

  1. #81
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Here's a suggestion: rather than taking a statement in isolation as you have done, and again below (you'll notice that you have again cut off the comments that provide an explantion for the statement..) why not try addressing the whole statement? Clue: a paragraph denotes connected material..
    I cut them off because you do go on (as do I, I suppose). And most of it is not relevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    As regards your originally 'refutation' I chose to ignore it because it wasn't relevant.
    I appreciate that logic and evidence are irrelevant if you're preconception is all you listen to. Which is why this is my last reply to you on this topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Same here: Water vapour and water droplets that constitute cloud cover is estimated to have a 90-95% effect on Global temperatures - CO2 represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Which do you think is the primary cause of Global temperature change? I'm not saying that CO2 has no effect - what I'm saying that it's effect is dwarfed by much larger agents.
    Apples and oranges. All you say may be true. But that still doesn't touch the essence of the argument. Let's find the issues:
    • "Water vapour and water droplets that constitute cloud cover is estimated to have a 90-95% effect on Global temperatures" no idea where you got those estimates from. The general consensus is that water vapour probably between 36% and 72% of the greenhouse effect. I got that number from here.
    • "CO2 represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere" - yes. And? That's where you completely loose me. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the same as its impact as a greenhouse gas. You're presenting two very different numbers in comparison. If someone who knew what they were talking about did that deliberately, I'd call it 'lying' by misrepresentation. The estimates of the impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas varies between 9% and 26%.
    • The relative impact as a greenhouse gas only tells part of the story. If the shift in CO2 levels knock the system off one equilibrium, then it can have a massive effect. This a fairly basic characteristics of complex systems, like the weather. So even if CO2 did only have a 0.04% impact as a greenhouse gas, but changing the level adjusted the equilibrium of the entire system, then one could very easily see a large impact. To understand if it would have a large effect or not, you would have to model the weather systems and evaluate the impact. This is precisely what climate models do, rather that presuppose that "because it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere, it can't have a significant effect". It's the difference between science based on logic and an unsubstantiated claim to truth.

    I've made the same argument three times, in slightly different ways. The first time refuted your original claim. You've simply restated the same claim each time. Which is why I said it was not an argument or logic of any sort. It stil isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    I've not said Global warming has never occurred, because it has. What I have said is there is no proof of Global man made warming via anthropogenic CO2 - and you're chart is very useful because it again proves this. You'll note during the post war industrial cycle when anthropogenic CO2 was obviously increasing that Global temperatures decreased. You're chart also shows that despite the most dramatic period of increase in anthropogenic CO2 during the last 10 years that Global temperatures have also cooled again. So logic must dictate that man made CO2 is NOT the driver of Global temperature increases...
    That's the sort of thing you'd loose marks for in a stats exam. There's a spike in the 1940s. The 'drop' in the 1950s is returning down from the spike to the long-run mean, which shows the generally increasing trend. One expects variation around that mean, but the overall trend shows the mean increasing. Logic - actual logic, rather than presupposition - would dictate that you look at the correlation between the long-run trends in the two variables. And there is, funnily enough, a strong correlation - the middle graph plots the data on CO2 and temperature together. I know correlation isn't causality, but it's the correlation that you denied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Provide me with a logical argument and one that isn't just based on cutting out the statements in my post which validate my logic and we'll see...
    If you actually post a logical argument, I might.

    So far, this has been like arguing with a creationist.

  2. #82
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    "Water vapour and water droplets that constitute cloud cover is estimated to have a 90-95% effect on Global temperatures" no idea where you got those estimates from. The general consensus is that water vapour probably between 36% and 72% of the greenhouse effect. I got that number from here.
    • "CO2 represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere" - yes. And? That's where you completely loose me. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the same as its impact as a greenhouse gas. You're presenting two very different numbers in comparison. If someone who knew what they were talking about did that deliberately, I'd call it 'lying' by misrepresentation. The estimates of the impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas varies between 9% and 26%.
    • The relative impact as a greenhouse gas only tells part of the story. If the shift in CO2 levels knock the system off one equilibrium, then it can have a massive effect. This a fairly basic characteristics of complex systems, like the weather. So even if CO2 did only have a 0.04% impact as a greenhouse gas, but changing the level adjusted the equilibrium of the entire system, then one could very easily see a large impact. To understand if it would have a large effect or not, you would have to model the weather systems and evaluate the impact. This is precisely what climate models do, rather that presuppose that "because it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere, it can't have a significant effect". It's the difference between science based on logic and an unsubstantiated claim to truth..
    Doh! Now you see if you're going to post a link you really need to read the whole article (that is assuming you weren't just posting the bits from it that backed your argument..) And when you do you will see this little snippet:

    Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[31]

    So, between 66-85% including clouds, and you'll note that clouds are what I have been referring to all along. Then of course this is a general pro-climate change article. In reports by Svensmark (in his book, The Chilling Stars) who is the acknowledged specialist in this field, he cites 90-95% and I don't know about you, but I prefer to listen to specialists...

    You'll also note that it states at the end that water vapour (so this is not even including the droplets found in cloud formations) accounts for 2% of the entire atmosphere. As is well recognized, water vapour is a more effecient greenhouse gas than CO2 - so with CO2 at 0.04% and water vapour at 2%, disregarding everything else, including solar and cosmic ray activity, isn't it logical to assume that water vapour has 50 times more influence on climate change than CO2? And in fact much more when you factor in it's potency above CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Of course you mention equilibrium, and as there is no evidence at all as to how increases in anthropogenic CO2 could alter the equilibrium as a sole trigger within the natural system of climate change, we'll just have to ignore it won't we..

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I've made the same argument three times, in slightly different ways. The first time refuted your original claim. You've simply restated the same claim each time. Which is why I said it was not an argument or logic of any sort. It stil isn't.

    That's the sort of thing you'd loose marks for in a stats exam. There's a spike in the 1940s. The 'drop' in the 1950s is returning down from the spike to the long-run mean, which shows the generally increasing trend. One expects variation around that mean, but the overall trend shows the mean increasing. Logic - actual logic, rather than presupposition - would dictate that you look at the correlation between the long-run trends in the two variables. And there is, funnily enough, a strong correlation - the middle graph plots the data on CO2 and temperature together. I know correlation isn't causality, but it's the correlation that you denied..
    Various 'value adjusted' Ice core graphs..

    Ahh, ice core samples....

    Surely you're not suggesting that what was happening in Antartica regarding temperature and CO2 is representative of what was happening globally are you?? It's the only evidence scientists have, but it's very unlikely that it's an accurate reflection of what was happening in the rest of the World - and in fact what's happening in Antartica at the moment proves this.

    The other important point is that their absolute accuracy cannot be verified as there are no standard measurements to compare them against - it's back to pick a figure and choose what you want it to prove again...

    Anf if you want to talk about mean temperatures why not look at trends over the last 2,000 years rather than just at the point we came out of the Litte Ice Age in the mid 1800's? (From the lowest point on the graph you could find..) Oh, I know, it's because it doesn't support your argument..

    Try this

    So Global temperatures have been higher in the last 2,000 years on a number of occasions than they are today. So what you have described is not 'the overall trend showing the mean increasing.' but instead a return to normal Global historic temperatures..

    And guess what? Anthropogenic CO2 didn't trigger those warm periods either...

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    So far, this has been like arguing with a creationist .
    I think you'll find that the creationist tag suits you more than it does me... someone who is prepared to believe in things that have no foundation in fact whatsoever...

  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    ...with CO2 at 0.04% and water vapour at 2%
    Why, then, did you write "cloud cover is estimated to have a 90-95% effect on Global temperatures - CO2 represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere". You've obviously admitted, now, that those two numbers are measuring two completely different things. Was that intentional?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    And in fact much more when you factor in it's potency above CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Of course you mention equilibrium, and as there is no evidence at all as to how increases in anthropogenic CO2 could alter the equilibrium as a sole trigger within the natural system of climate change, we'll just have to ignore it won't we..
    You'll just have to ignore it. Personally, I'm going to stick with the science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Surely you're not suggesting that what was happening in Antartica regarding temperature and CO2 is representative of what was happening globally are you??
    Again, I'll stick with the science. So, yes. I will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    It's the only evidence scientists have, but it's very unlikely that it's an accurate reflection of what was happening in the rest of the World - and in fact what's happening in Antartica at the moment proves this.
    It's not the only evidence they have. And, yes, I will (once again) stick with the science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Anf if you want to talk about mean temperatures why not look at trends over the last 2,000 years rather than just at the point we came out of the Litte Ice Age in the mid 1800's? (From the lowest point on the graph you could find..) Oh, I know, it's because it doesn't support your argument..
    Again, I'll stick with the science. The key difference between the data I showed and the data you showed is the data I showed has been reviewed by other scientists. And is based on literally hundreds of studies.

  4. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Ahh, ice core samples....

    Surely you're not suggesting that what was happening in Antartica regarding temperature and CO2 is representative of what was happening globally are you?? It's the only evidence scientists have, but it's very unlikely that it's an accurate reflection of what was happening in the rest of the World - and in fact what's happening in Antartica at the moment proves this.

    The other important point is that their absolute accuracy cannot be verified as there are no standard measurements to compare them against - it's back to pick a figure and choose what you want it to prove again...
    I've said it before but I'll say it again. The only quantitative data is the absolute temperature measurements, and those only go back around 150-200 years. As Rocky said, the other data, tree-ring studies, ice-cores and the like are all too unreliable.

    Unfortunately the recent email leaks have suggested that we can't even rely on research published using the absolute temperature data because there is email evidence that the climate change scientists may have been massaging it.

    Best thing would be for a fresh and untainted research group to start from scratch with the original un-corrected temperature data and take it from there.

  5. #85
    Registered User MarkW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cheltenham
    Posts
    792
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Sorry to disagree with you Mark but is it the responsible scientists that in the Climategate emails have been shown not only alter the effect of data to try and hide the decline in Global temperatures, that have 'value' adjusted base data and then destroyed it and that have also been shown to restrict the access of data to researchers who they fear may disagree with them, that you're referring to?

    And how can you claim that there is a 'real possibility that human activities will cause man made global warming with devastating effects over timescales that are very short compared to normal timescales for changes in global temperatures..' when despite documented increases in man made CO2 over the last 10 years Global temperatures have actually declined?

    There is no proven link to CO2, man made or otherwise, triggering historical Global warming, and even over the last 100 years with obvious increases in man made CO2 Global temperatures have both risen and fallen showing that man made CO2 cannot be the cause.

    And as I've stated before, over the last 1,000 years we have had centuries of hot weather and centuries of extreme cold and if man made CO2 were to blame we would have surely had a steady increases in temperatures reflecting the increase in anthropogenic CO2 - and we simply haven't.

    But for me the most logical argument has to be this: How can a gas that makes up less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere have a significant effect that changes Global temperatures? Surely it's ridiculous to suggest that it can when we know for a fact that solar activity and cloud cover creates the most significant effects on Global warming.

    It's like hurling a ping pong ball at a bowling bowl in an attempt to stop it rolling - it might make you feel better to have a go, but it'll make no difference whatsoever...
    I had intended not to post in reply to this because geoff332 had already picked up on the "main logical argument" and demonstrated that it is actually illogical to assume that low concentration means no significant effect. But you have dismissed geoff332's valid argument so I will deal with your idea about concentration in the specific area of greenhouse gases.

    The most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen. Together they make up about 99% of the atmosphere.

    Water vapour varies in concentration depending on where in the atmosphere it is measured. I found a figure of 0.4% for the average atmospheric concentration of water vapour in wikipedia. I'll use that number as it is not a contentious figure.

    0.4% is hardly a large concentration and yet you have no difficulty in stating that water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas. You are even prepared to make the exaggerated statement that water vapour makes up "90-95% of the effect on global temperatures". And all this at a concentration of only 0.4%. The internal logic of your statements has already broken down. It gets worse.

    Concentration is only one factor in determining the effectiveness of a gas as a greenhouse gas.

    In order for a gas to be capable of being a greenhouse gas it is necessary for that gas to be able to absorb infra red radiation (IRR). This is the fundamental scientific underpinning of why there is a greenhouse gas effect at all.

    Oxygen and nitrogen are not capable of absorbing IRR. That is why they are not greenhouse gases even though they constitute 99% of the atmosphere.

    H2O and CO2 are both capable of absorbing IRR. At the molecular level CO2 is actually a more effective IRR absorber than H2O. But the greater concentration of H2O means that, overall, H2O has more of a greenhouse gas effect than CO2.

    You have ignored a very basic scientific concept by only thinking about concentration. This completely undermines the supposed logic of your "most logical argument" in the specific case it is addressing.

    It is possible for something to be influenced by a number of factors and for one of the weaker factors to be capable of producing a significant change. Let us take global temperature as a possible example. If the global temperature was 288K (about 15 Celsius) then it would exceed the background temperature of the universe by about 285K. (Background temperature 3K as measured by considering background cosmic radiation.) Most of this temperature increase over 3K is caused by being near the Sun. Let us, hypothetically, assume that about 30K of the temperature over 3K is caused by the greenhouse effect (i.e. all other things being equal the earth's temperature would drop by 30K if there was no atmosphere).

    Let us now assume that CO2 accounts for about one quarter of the greenhouse effect. That means it accounts for 7.5K. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now increases by 50% then that will produce an increase in temperature of nearly 4K.

    Now 4K out of 285K is not even as much as a 1.5% increase. But an increase in global temperature of 4K (especially if it is over a short time) would be very significant indeed. And all this from changing something that is by no means the top driver (the sun is clearly the main driver, if the sun stops shining nothing can save us).

    Clearly I have chosen round numbers and been very uncomplicated in this example. I am not saying that the above is precise. Please do not confuse this simple example with a detailed scientific model. But what I am saying is that it does show how something that may at first seem relatively unimportant (something producing 7.5K out of a 285K effect is only about 2.5% of what is going on) can produce changes in the total effect that do matter.

    To put it in your terms, CO2 in the atmosphere is not like a ping pong ball being thrown at a bowling ball. It is more like a tennis ball hitting a cricket ball - clearly a lower mass but still capable of making the cricket ball change course so that you'd notice.

    In summary, the "most logical argument" has been shown to be illogical as a general supposition, illogical in the specific area of greenhouse gases and to have ignored the basic mechanism by which a greenhouse gas works. Furthermore, your contention that something that is not a main driver can have no significant effect has been shown to be false. It depends on just how relatively weak a driver it is, how much the driver input changes and how much of a change in the result (e.g. temperature) is needed for it to be called significant.

    The kindest thing I can say of you, in the context of this thread, is that you clearly don't know much about science but you know what you like. Even so, I have treated your ideas about concentration with respect and given of my time in the hope that a clear and rational explanation will make you reconsider. Remember, this is your "most logical argument" about the science of global warming. Somehow I doubt you will change your mind at all. As someone else has said, it is rather like listening to a creationist when I read your posts.

    Away from this thread I consider you to be an excellent and knowledgeable dancer and I enjoyed the lesson I did when you were teaching at Southport recently. That is the Rocky I choose to remember.

    I intend this to be my last post in this thread. Hopefully I will be strong enough not to rise to any bait. There is a wealth of information out there on this subject. It does take a lot of time, a willingness to think things through, being prepared to read carefully views you instinctively find unlikely to be true and an open mind to draw your own conclusions.

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    I've said it before but I'll say it again. The only quantitative data is the absolute temperature measurements, and those only go back around 150-200 years. As Rocky said, the other data, tree-ring studies, ice-cores and the like are all too unreliable.
    I'm not sure you understand the difference between direct measurement and indirect measurement.

    Direct measurement is when you directly measure the thing in question. In direct measurement is when you measure other things and infer the thing in question from those measurements. Pretty much everything in science is actually based on indirect measurements (without drifting off too far into the esoterics of epistemology - our direct knowledge of anything is very, very limited).

    Let me give you one example: gravity. We have no means of measuring gravity directly. Instead, we can measure attraction between objects (that, in itself is usually an indirect measurement). From this measured attraction, we can infer the effect of gravity. This is why science relies on things like repeatability and prediction. We need to measure all sorts of indirect things and see if they are consistent with the theory we are testing. If they are, then the theory is not disproven. If they are not, then the theory is disproven. It either needs to be adjusted or discarded.

    I could have given other examples: electricity, light, thought, consciousness and, well pretty much everything.

    As I said, basically all science relies on this approach. Personally, I think the accumulated contribution of science to society has demonstrated that this approach works reasonably well. The computer's we're all typing these posts on are one example of technology built theories where the only valid data is indirectly measured. I assume, if you want to discard anything that is not directly measured, you'll also stop using your computer?

    In the case of climate science, the data you are so blithely discarding is the same data that underpins pretty much all of our knowledge of long-term weather patterns (these are the same models that predict global warming). I assume you're happy to rely on weather forecasts that use the same data. The main difference is that the global warming consequences of the same theory are far more inconvenient, so you want to disregard them.

    Fortunately, science doesn't rely on convenience.

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    Unfortunately the recent email leaks have suggested that we can't even rely on research published using the absolute temperature data because there is email evidence that the climate change scientists may have been massaging it.
    Really? You think that thousands of scientists from different countries, speaking different languages, engaged in different research in a large number of different disciplines and in different parts of the world, both men and women, of all different age-groups, employed by everything from multi-national research establishments to small universities, are all engaged in pulling the wool over our eyes to make governments all over the earth waste their time and effort in climate conferences, and their money (humungous amounts of it) in further research and developing avoidance and coping strategies, and frightening the willies out of us about using gas, electricity, petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, intensively processed products and so much more on the basis that it threatens the survival of our species - all this because of some dimly perceived half-detailed leaked emails?

    You do not even know that you can trust the source of the leaks not to stick just two or three untruths or exaggerations amongst the avalanche of leaked data? By the time Mr. Smoking Gun has had the time - amidst doing his usual day job - to go through hundreds of emails to make sure that every one of the 'leaked' emails is 100% accurate, the idea that there's something fishy going on is probably too deeply embedded to dislodge. I'm not saying this has happened (and of course Mr Gun would have looked first at the most egregiously offending emails), but let's face it - somebody had some motive to leak it all. What could that motive have been?

    I suspect people become (and/or don't cease to be) climate change denialists for very much the same reason that people believe in gods.

    It's more comforting than the alternative.

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    the data you are so blithely discarding
    Had to give you a 'hats off' for that, Geoff.

    Blithe is a word we just don't see enough of, these days...

  9. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    I'm not sure you understand the difference between direct measurement and indirect measurement.


    That's funny! I wondered the exact same thing about you when I read your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Direct measurement is when you directly measure the thing in question. In direct measurement is when you measure other things and infer the thing in question from those measurements. Pretty much everything in science is actually based on indirect measurements (without drifting off too far into the esoterics of epistemology - our direct knowledge of anything is very, very limited).


    As you rightly say, there probably aren't any truly 'direct' measurements. Arguably the measurement from a themometer is not a 'direct' measurement. When I take a 'measurement' with a thermometer I have nothing more than an observation that the mercury is in equilibrium at a certain position. That observation tells me very little about the physics and statistics of the particles that the thermometer was close to when I made the measurement. The 'measurement' means absolutely nothing on its own as it is purely relative. Humans have invented the scales for measuring everything based on pretty much arbitrary things like the density of water, freezing/boiling point of water and the distance between the two poles. However, we have managed to tie it all together in a way that makes sense with the SI system of units. Anyway, I'm really not sure we disagree on this so I'll move on.

    If you can accept that a measurement of temperature with a 'thermometer' is about as 'direct' as temperature measurements get then we might be able to make some progress. Alternatively, if you believe all measurements are not only 'indirect' but equally 'indirect' then there seems little hope of any useful discussion.

    It is only the 'direct' measurements of temperature, i.e. those using a dedicated temperature measuring device, that I am willing to put my faith in. The reason for this is simple, it is easy to make measurements with a thermometer that is calibrated to a known standard. Little or no interpretation of the reading is required or indeed possible (except by scientists of doubtful reputation).

    Contrast that with what I regard as 'indirect' measurements using data gathered from ice cores, tree rings and the like. 20000 years ago nobody was there (or anywhere else in the world) actually measuring the temperature with a 'direct' instrument such as a thermometer and so we have only theories, models, and extrapolations. I stop short of saying that this 'indirectly' obtained temperature data produced by the research is totally incorrect, because it may not be. However, there could well be other significant effects that were occuring 20000 years ago that the researchers analysing the ice-core and tree ring data are not aware of and maybe never will be aware of. An important part of carrying out good quality scientific work is being aware of the limitations.

    Now; crunch time. I can provide you with a calibrated thermometer certificated to an Internationally agreed Standard. In return, can you point me towards the relevant International Standards that correlate observations of tree-rings or ice-cores with temperature? If you can then you'll have convinced me that the 'indirect' temperature measurements from ice-cores, tree-rings and the like are on an equal footing with 'direct' thermometer derived measurements. You could try contacting NIST or NPL to ask them if they are able to supply you with tree-ring or ice-core standards calibrated in Degrees C or Kelvin. However, if the recipient of your request dies of laughter then it wasn't my idea. OK?


    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    In the case of climate science, the data you are so blithely discarding is the same data that underpins pretty much all of our knowledge of long-term weather patterns (these are the same models that predict global warming). I assume you're happy to rely on weather forecasts that use the same data. The main difference is that the global warming consequences of the same theory are far more inconvenient, so you want to disregard them.


    Errrrr no. Actually I'm not happy to rely on weather forecasts that 'use the same data'. I don't think you have to be a complete pessimist to admit that the Met Office often gets it wrong. The only forecasts I rely on in the slightest are those for the next 24 hours. I find it hard to believe that 100000s or even 1000s years of 'indirect' data 'underpins' those. Surely they're mostly based on current and *very* recent observations; temperature, pressure, wind speed/direction and radar images of cloud coverage. I pay little attention to longer term predictions which require complex models and large extrapolations. I've often spent a lot of time outside and I've learned to take all the forecasts with a pinch of salt, even those for 12 hours ahead.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Fortunately, science doesn't rely on convenience.


    No, and neither should it rely on or put too much weight onto theories, models and extrapolations that can probably never be proven. As I said above, nobody was actually there 20000 years ago (or anywhere else in the world) with a thermometer and a notebook when the ice from those ice-cores was formed.

    Let me know how you get on sourcing those tree-ring and ice-core International Standards.

  10. #90
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Doh! Now you see if you're going to post a link you really need to read the whole article (that is assuming you weren't just posting the bits from it that backed your argument..) And when you do you will see this little snippet:

    Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[31]

    So, between 66-85% including clouds, and you'll note that clouds are what I have been referring to all along. Then of course this is a general pro-climate change article. In reports by Svensmark (in his book, The Chilling Stars) who is the acknowledged specialist in this field, he cites 90-95% and I don't know about you, but I prefer to listen to specialists...
    Great stuff here from Rocky. Can't help noticing that nobody has attempted to discredit this yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Really? You think that thousands of scientists from different countries, speaking different languages, engaged in different research in a large number of different disciplines and in different parts of the world, both men and women, of all different age-groups, employed by everything from multi-national research establishments to small universities, are all engaged in pulling the wool over our eyes to make governments all over the earth waste their time and effort in climate conferences, and their money (humungous amounts of it) in further research and developing avoidance and coping strategies, and frightening the willies out of us about using gas, electricity, petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, intensively processed products and so much more on the basis that it threatens the survival of our species - all this because of some dimly perceived half-detailed leaked emails?
    You'd be surprised how much research can be spawned by the publication of one 'major discovery' A lot of these scientists are probably working on the basis that everything Phil Jones published 20 years ago was correct. This debacle has already happened in the area of medical research. I can't remember the exact area of research, it might have been Cancer, anyway, it was big news at the time. A researcher made up their data in a way that constituted a huge new finding, many other scientists then wasted valuable time and money going up a blind alley.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    You do not even know that you can trust the source of the leaks not to stick just two or three untruths or exaggerations amongst the avalanche of leaked data? By the time Mr. Smoking Gun has had the time - amidst doing his usual day job - to go through hundreds of emails to make sure that every one of the 'leaked' emails is 100% accurate, the idea that there's something fishy going on is probably too deeply embedded to dislodge. I'm not saying this has happened (and of course Mr Gun would have looked first at the most egregiously offending emails), but let's face it - somebody had some motive to leak it all. What could that motive have been?

    I suspect people become (and/or don't cease to be) climate change denialists for very much the same reason that people believe in gods.

    It's more comforting than the alternative.
    I thought CRU/UEA had already acknowledged that the content of the hacked/leaked emails was bonafide. Logically, they would've been quick as a shot to deny the most damaging and most frequently quoted ones if they had been falsified in any way. We haven't had that. Instead, Jones is standing down as director until investigations are completed. They've made their own statements, check them out:

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements

    What was the motive? All kinds of people may have had a motive. That includes people who just want the truth to be outed and have little or nothing to gain either financially or politically.
    Last edited by Bubble; 17th-December-2009 at 01:19 AM. Reason: try to fix Rocky quote

  11. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    If you can accept that a measurement of temperature with a 'thermometer' is about as 'direct' as temperature measurements get then we might be able to make some progress. Alternatively, if you believe all measurements are not only 'indirect' but equally 'indirect' then there seems little hope of any useful discussion.

    It is only the 'direct' measurements of temperature, i.e. those using a dedicated temperature measuring device, that I am willing to put my faith in. The reason for this is simple, it is easy to make measurements with a thermometer that is calibrated to a known standard. Little or no interpretation of the reading is required or indeed possible (except by scientists of doubtful reputation).
    What I find curious is that you have arbitrarily decided which measurements are acceptable and which ones are not. A typical, scientific approach is one of triangulation - where we look at a variety of different measurements and attempt to develop a theory that accounts for all of the measurements. The notion of arbitrarily discarding anything sits uncomfortably with me. Generally, the people doing this sort of research tend to look at all of the available evidence (and recognising differences in the quality of different data sources). They develop a model that fits the available evidence. They then go and collect more data and see if the model still fits. Your suggestion - to throw away some of the data - is very bad science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    Errrrr no. Actually I'm not happy to rely on weather forecasts that 'use the same data'. I don't think you have to be a complete pessimist to admit that the Met Office often gets it wrong. The only forecasts I rely on in the slightest are those for the next 24 hours.
    Do you fly? Or by anything that's been flown anywhere? Or shipped? The forecasts for pilots and captains are reasonably accurate. Mostly because the data and models help them give very accurate predictions. This is reasonably important, because the wind direction and speed has a huge impact on the fuel load the aircraft or ship needs to carry. The less reliable the forecasts, the greater the reserve fuel-loads need to be. The greater the reserve load, the greater the costs. More accurate forecasting makes things cheaper for us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    I find it hard to believe that 100000s or even 1000s years of 'indirect' data 'underpins' those.
    What you believe has nothing to do with what actually is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    Surely they're mostly based on current and *very* recent observations; temperature, pressure, wind speed/direction and radar images of cloud coverage.
    That very recent data is interpreted in the same models of long-term weather patterns that are used to interpret climate change. The reason we understand el nino and el nina patterns is based on a combination of recent observations and data collected over thousands of years. From knowing those weather patterns, it allows forecasters to make more accurate predictions about what weather systems will emerge and how they will behave. And those predicitions will affect you - albeit indirectly.

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    The cancer research analogy is not very helpful. The issue there, surely, is that within a period of time the deceptive data/lying conclusions were, in fact, falsified by other research, which is how science works.

    You should know that no-one (at least, not me) is suggesting that there are no scientists, not even no climatologists, who tell scientific untruths. That would be stupid: scientists are humans and just as likely to tell lies as, oh, policemen or politicians. But no-one has falsified the AGW thesis. Some data has been shown to be less helpful, some to be less accurate, some to be positively misleading, some to be less reliable, some to be less valuable for extrapolation.

    But at the same time more data is coming in: more accurate, more reliable, more susceptible to useful extrapolation. The only explanation for that, if AGW is not in fact happening, is that the substantial majority of scientists are telling lies.

    As for tree rings. Some people would have you believe that this is just some sort of loose correlation between tree rings and climate.

    In fact, examination of tree ring data has been exhaustively analysed all over the world. The tree ring data accurately follows climate data over the last centuries; in North America they follow north American data, in Europe they follow European data, in Washington State they follow Washington State data, in France they follow French data, in Forestry Commission forests, they follow Forestry Commission data, in .... well, you get the picture.

    You can compare the young rings of a tree felled in 1950 with the older rings from wood of a tree felled in 1850, and they match. You can compare the young rings of the 1850 tree with old rings of a tree felled in 1750 - and so on. And you can do this with wood from Brazil, from Europe, from Africa, from the Far East, and so forth.

    Then of course, the understanding obtained from these studies can be used to extrapolate climate data from wood from trees that died long before the modern era. I have no doubt that the scientists concerned are aware of the limitations placed on this extrapolation.

    So, question: Could you convict somebody on the evidence of tree rings? Yes, I think so. The court would require evidence from an expert to lead the trier of fact from one step to the next - but at the end of the process I have no doubt that the expert could demonstrate that the evidence is reliable and consistent.

  13. #93
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Why, then, did you write "cloud cover is estimated to have a 90-95% effect on Global temperatures - CO2 represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere". You've obviously admitted, now, that those two numbers are measuring two completely different things. Was that intentional?.
    Umm... I wrote that because that's what's in the book by a specialist on the subject said and Umm... the article you posted (which you clearly didn't read that carefully..) corroborated it by suggesting that cloud cover accounted for 66-85%. Lookey see here - Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.

    I say 'corroborated' because the article you posted was a pro-climate change article using the (much critized) IPCC report as a base - so it's obviously skewed toward CO2. So 85% from a pro-climate change article to a specialist's report at 90-95% is not so far of a jump is it..

    And CO2 does represent 0.04% of the atmosphere - so I have to say you've lost me as to what you're getting at here?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    You'll just have to ignore it. Personally, I'm going to stick with the science....Again, I'll stick with the science. So, yes. I will...It's not the only evidence they have. And, yes, I will (once again) stick with the science..
    This really makes me laugh... well, what the science is telling you is that at for the last 10 years Antartica has been bucking the Global warming trend some scientists believe is occurring, because of the hole over the Ozone layer. Therefore it's geographical location is producing results which is not Globally representative. So you have absolute scientific proof that Antartic temperature variations can sometimes be localised - and you want to rely on them going back 600 million years to prove Global temperature changes??

    And as for the 'well, it's the only evidence we have' argument... seriously?? Now that's real scientific..Also, nice to see you like to contradict yourself..

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    What I find curious is that you have arbitrarily decided which measurements are acceptable and which ones are not. A typical, scientific approach is one of triangulation - where we look at a variety of different measurements and attempt to develop a theory that accounts for all of the measurements..
    Well, obviously as regards ice core samples you don't..

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Again, I'll stick with the science. The key difference between the data I showed and the data you showed is the data I showed has been reviewed by other scientists. And is based on literally hundreds of studies .
    No, the difference is that your's very specifically focused at providing the highest figure you could for Global temperature change from the lowest point at the end of the Little Ice Age to the present day - whereas mine showed the last 2,000 years so that it was possible to see that change in context with historic Global temperature variation - and that showed what many of us already know, which is that Global temperatures naturally cycle and the warm period we have had over the last 150 years is not uncommon.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    The notion of arbitrarily discarding anything sits uncomfortably with me.....Your suggestion - to throw away some of the data - is very bad science.
    .
    What you mean like what Prof Phil Jones and his colleagues at the UEA have done....

  14. #94
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post

    It is possible for something to be influenced by a number of factors and for one of the weaker factors to be capable of producing a significant change. Let us take global temperature as a possible example. If the global temperature was 288K (about 15 Celsius) then it would exceed the background temperature of the universe by about 285K. (Background temperature 3K as measured by considering background cosmic radiation.) Most of this temperature increase over 3K is caused by being near the Sun. Let us, hypothetically, assume that about 30K of the temperature over 3K is caused by the greenhouse effect (i.e. all other things being equal the earth's temperature would drop by 30K if there was no atmosphere).

    Let us now assume that CO2 accounts for about one quarter of the greenhouse effect. That means it accounts for 7.5K. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now increases by 50% then that will produce an increase in temperature of nearly 4K.

    Now 4K out of 285K is not even as much as a 1.5% increase. But an increase in global temperature of 4K (especially if it is over a short time) would be very significant indeed. And all this from changing something that is by no means the top driver (the sun is clearly the main driver, if the sun stops shining nothing can save us).

    Clearly I have chosen round numbers and been very uncomplicated in this example. I am not saying that the above is precise. Please do not confuse this simple example with a detailed scientific model. But what I am saying is that it does show how something that may at first seem relatively unimportant (something producing 7.5K out of a 285K effect is only about 2.5% of what is going on) can produce changes in the total effect that do matter.
    Unfortunately this uncomplicated drivel where you pro rata data to get an answer doesn’t work. The weather I am afraid is very complicated.

    Try out this site if you want to learn more about the complexities

    http://www.netweather.tv/

    A great site and you will pick up a few points re climate and how things interact, the greatest minds are still in discussion but I’m sure they will take your points on board.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    What I find curious is that you have arbitrarily decided which measurements are acceptable and which ones are not. A typical, scientific approach is one of triangulation - where we look at a variety of different measurements and attempt to develop a theory that accounts for all of the measurements. The notion of arbitrarily discarding anything sits uncomfortably with me. Generally, the people doing this sort of research tend to look at all of the available evidence (and recognising differences in the quality of different data sources). They develop a model that fits the available evidence. They then go and collect more data and see if the model still fits. Your suggestion - to throw away some of the data - is very bad science.
    Do you fly? Or by anything that's been flown anywhere? Or shipped? The forecasts for pilots and captains are reasonably accurate. Mostly because the data and models help them give very accurate predictions. This is reasonably important, because the wind direction and speed has a huge impact on the fuel load the aircraft or ship needs to carry. The less reliable the forecasts, the greater the reserve fuel-loads need to be. The greater the reserve load, the greater the costs. More accurate forecasting makes things cheaper for us.
    What you believe has nothing to do with what actually is.That very recent data is interpreted in the same models of long-term weather patterns that are used to interpret climate change. The reason we understand el nino and el nina patterns is based on a combination of recent observations and data collected over thousands of years. From knowing those weather patterns, it allows forecasters to make more accurate predictions about what weather systems will emerge and how they will behave. And those predicitions will affect you - albeit indirectly.


    Geoff like MarkW because you are gooling everything you just sound silly for those who have studied climate change for 20 years

    The whole point behind AGW is the fact the data is flawed (you can google to find out why)
    We don’t have EL Nino patterns going back thousands of years etc etc etc .

    Before you go off and google and sate well that got it from tree rings and seed weed and mother hen please read up further.

  15. #95
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Unfortunately this uncomplicated drivel where you pro rata data to get an answer doesn’t work. The weather I am afraid is very complicated.
    The calculations used to arrive at 7.5K aren't actually relevant to his point (and MarkW says himself that they are simplistic). The main point was 7.5K is small relative to the total warming of the Earth (relative to the 3K base temperature that a non-radioactive body in deep space would be expected to have), but it would by no means be a small change for "real-world" temperatures.

    Personally, I think a better example of the point would be something like:

    Company buys a million widgets in 2008 for £999 and sells them for £1000.
    Profit = £1M
    Next year, there's a 1% rise in the selling price to £1010.
    Now profit = £11M
    So a 1% rise has caused an 11-fold change in the result.

    Note: none of this is commenting on the actual calculations or conclusions of climate change theories. It's a commentary on "How can a small change to input conditions make a big difference?". Whether or not it does make a big difference depends on the correct equations. But it is wrong to argue that it can't simply because it is small.

    Geoff like MarkW because you are gooling everything you just sound silly for those who have studied climate change for 20 years
    Not half as silly as someone who keeps posting "You're all wrong but I can't be bothered to tell you why".

    The whole point behind AGW is the fact the data is flawed (you can google to find out why)
    If you're going to claim something as fact, onus is on you to provide the links and references.

  16. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Global warming is subset of climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by straycat View Post
    Why? Surely global warming is a form of climate change?
    The Earth may keep the same overall temperature but the climate locally or globally can change very significanlty. Our climate depends very much on the jet stream and The Gulf Stream. We are dealing with cahotic systems. Very small changes, even those due to mankind, can produce big results.

  17. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    gooling?

    cahotic?

    sate well?

    Aren't you people using spell check facilities within your browsers?

  18. #98
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    ...Water vapour varies in concentration depending on where in the atmosphere it is measured. I found a figure of 0.4% for the average atmospheric concentration of water vapour in wikipedia. I'll use that number as it is not a contentious figure..
    Umm... well it is I'm afraid. In the pro-climate change link posted by Geoff on Wikepedia it says this: According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[31] And anyway, it's not just the effect of water vapour that I've been banging on about, as we'll see later yet again - you need to get your glasses sorted out Mark..

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    ...0.4% is hardly a large concentration and yet you have no difficulty in stating that water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas. You are even prepared to make the exaggerated statement that water vapour makes up "90-95% of the effect on global temperatures". And all this at a concentration of only 0.4%. The internal logic of your statements has already broken down. It gets worse..
    Umm... no, I've stated repeatedly that it's cloud cover I'm referring too and not just water vapour and the same pro-climate change article from Wikapedia suggests cloud cover could have up to a 85% effect on climate change (it's Svensmark the specialist on the subject that in his book refers to the 90-95% figure)

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    ...Concentration is only one factor in determining the effectiveness of a gas as a greenhouse gas...In order for a gas to be capable of being a greenhouse gas it is necessary for that gas to be able to absorb infra red radiation (IRR). This is the fundamental scientific underpinning of why there is a greenhouse gas effect at all...You have ignored a very basic scientific concept by only thinking about concentration. This completely undermines the supposed logic of your "most logical argument" in the specific case it is addressing..
    Umm... no, my logical argument stems from all the research on the subject and comments like this:

    The Earth's surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapour, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons,[26] absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth.

    You'll notice the phrase 'chiefly cloud droplets and water vapour' - it's a dead giveaway that this means it's the major factor...

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    ...Let us now assume that CO2 accounts for about one quarter of the greenhouse effect. That means it accounts for 7.5K. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now increases by 50% then that will produce an increase in temperature of nearly 4K..
    Let's not, because if you believe the cloud data (and it does say 'chiefly' above.. and also up to 85% in the IPCC based pro-climate change article Geoff posted and the 90-95% Svensmark claims) then even if we take the low figure of 90% then what's left is 10%. Now, taking into account methane and ozone that would give us, at a push, maybe a 5% value for CO2.

    But then I don't believe this either (so don't bother doing your calculations again..) for 2 reasons:

    Firstly, CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas has been over egged in its importance and cloud cover importance (even though we have a figure of 85% plus) has been reduced by using a calculation deriving a value called the GWP (Global Warming Potential). This value takes into account not only the effect of the gas in question but also it’s longevity as a molecule in the atmosphere. Water vapour has a longevity of 9 days whereas CO2 is quoted as having a value of '10's of 1,000's of years', so CO2 has GWP rating but water vapour doesn’t. So the GWP rating totally ignores the fact that water vapour and cloud formations are being constantly replenished on a daily basis and in a way that’s almost impossible to measure (that’s why they don’t have a GWP rating) and also ignores the effect of how cloud formations themselves react in a different way to separate water vapour molecules (a cloud being a mixture of water vapour, water droplets and ice crystals). So guess what? Even at 85% the importance of clouds in Global climate change has been reduced and CO2’s importance has been increased…. Hmmm… wonder why that would be?

    Secondly, all of these figures ignore the effect of solar radiation. Now there’s lots of controversy over sun spot activity and global warming. If however, you believe the scientists in the pro-man made climate change camp, the view is that solar activity is not the main driver of climate change. And it probably isn’t, but it IS still a factor that’s been ignored in calculating the value of climate change as measured by greenhouse gasses alone. Even in pro-man made climate change articles the Sun’s importance has been calculated as having a 25% effect on Global temperature change (and the lowest I’ve seen is 14%) – so the conclusion is it’s not the major factor. But it is still a significant factor that’s ignored in the greenhouse gas GWP calculations as far as I can see.

    So taking the pro-man made climate change figures (to be fair) we start with an overall climate change value of 100% and deduct 20% (the difference between the lowest value I’ve seen of 14% and the average value I’ve seen of 25%, for solar climate effect) before we start calculating the relative values of other agents. That leaves 80%. So at 90% of this (which is the lower end of Svensmark’s, the cloud specialist’s, figures) we have a percentage of Global climate change attributed to cloud cover of 72%. The remaining 8% we may (although I don’t believe it..) attribute say 4% to CO2. So in conclusion we can say that 92% of global warming is due to cloud formation and solar activity and just 4% to CO2. It’s like I said, CO2’s affect on Global climate change is like chucking a ping pong ball at a bowling ball….

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    ...Away from this thread I consider you to be an excellent and knowledgeable dancer and I enjoyed the lesson I did when you were teaching at Southport recently. That is the Rocky I choose to remember..
    Thank you. Of course there's is no controversey over these facts..

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    ...I intend this to be my last post in this thread. Hopefully I will be strong enough not to rise to any bait. There is a wealth of information out there on this subject. It does take a lot of time, a willingness to think things through, being prepared to read carefully views you instinctively find unlikely to be true and an open mind to draw your own conclusions.
    Never say never Mark..

    But listen, what's obvious from this debate is that your's and Geoff's comments (and I do respect you both as obviously bright and informed individuals) is at odds with mine - I keep banging on about the cloud effect in Global Warming and you two keep dismissing it. But then, with respect, I can't help but feel that you're both just a little under informed on this particular subject...

    My view is that if you want to debate anything you need to know all of the relevant facts both for and against the argument - and as regards this debate Svensmark studies on Cosmic rays and Global warming, for me, has been a real eye opener in looking for alternative views on climate change, and it's a book, that if you're serious about debating climate change, you have to read. Because then if you read it you can at least rubbish it if you feel the need from a point of strength rather than from a point of being unaware of the detail.

    So, if you both PM me your address, I'll get a copy sent onto you as an Xmas present and then you can make your own minds up. I can't say fairer than that can I?
    Last edited by Rocky; 17th-December-2009 at 02:34 PM.

  19. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    What I find curious is that you have arbitrarily decided which measurements are acceptable and which ones are not. A typical, scientific approach is one of triangulation - where we look at a variety of different measurements and attempt to develop a theory that accounts for all of the measurements. The notion of arbitrarily discarding anything sits uncomfortably with me. Generally, the people doing this sort of research tend to look at all of the available evidence (and recognising differences in the quality of different data sources). They develop a model that fits the available evidence. They then go and collect more data and see if the model still fits. Your suggestion - to throw away some of the data - is very bad science.


    The way you are applying the scientific process of triangulation to this discussion is odd to say the least. By your understanding and logic what you seem to be saying is that it would be acceptable to redefine points on the temperature scale to make the ice-core data fit. After all, the measurement of temperature using a thermometer is just theory and so we can modify the theory if need be, right? For example, a climate scientist using ice-core data and by a process of triangulation establishes that the freezing point of water should be regarded as 280 on the Kelvin scale rather than 273.15. Are there any theories you're not prepared to modify via a process of triangulation to make the ice-core data fit?

    I haven't yet had sight of the calibrated International Standards for temperature measurement via ice-core and tree-ring observations. Therefore, I maintain my belief that only the absolute measurements of temperature, i.e. those taken using dedicated temperature measurement instruments can be relied on 100%. All the rest are models, theories, and extrapolations; nothing more. I don't think that's so very arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Do you fly? Or by anything that's been flown anywhere? Or shipped? The forecasts for pilots and captains are reasonably accurate. Mostly because the data and models help them give very accurate predictions. This is reasonably important, because the wind direction and speed has a huge impact on the fuel load the aircraft or ship needs to carry. The less reliable the forecasts, the greater the reserve fuel-loads need to be. The greater the reserve load, the greater the costs. More accurate forecasting makes things cheaper for us.


    All ships and aircraft carry much more fuel than they need to allow for contingencies. Even if an airline captain receives predictions of a strong tail wind it would be gross negligence not to carry enough fuel for the exact opposite scenario. Similarly, stormy weather can prevent a ship docking for several days, they have allowances for this and they carry the fuel regardless of the forecast. Airliners are also able to dump fuel very quickly to lose weight if there are difficulties during take off and they are too far down the run way to stop safely. The dumping fuel scenario has been reported this year as has the running out of fuel situation. In the dumping case the pilot had problems with the flaps, in the running out of fuel case I strongly suspect that the pilot had applied insufficient contingencies (he was flying in a very remote area).

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    The cancer research analogy is not very helpful.


    Oh? Why not? Is it because it perfectly demonstrates how one bad scientist and publication can topple numerous follow on scientists and their publications? It's like a fan shaped domino topple. If the single domino at the centre falls down most of the rest will also fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    But at the same time more data is coming in: more accurate, more reliable, more susceptible to useful extrapolation. The only explanation for that, if AGW is not in fact happening, is that the substantial majority of scientists are telling lies.


    I think it's the scientists rather than the data that are susceptible to useful or un-useful extrapolation and fabrication. The data is always correct, it is only ever the interpretation that is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    As for tree rings. Some people would have you believe that this is just some sort of loose correlation between tree rings and climate.


    I'll give you an example. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there is an optimum temperature for maximum tree growth rate? We know that above certain temperatures trees can start shedding leaves or even branches because they are not well adapted to such high temperatures. That would suggest that the relationship between tree growth and temperature is a parabola rather than a straight line. As soon as you have a parabola relationship there are at least two, perhaps very different temperatures that could've given the same tree ring growth measurement. So you see, it's not so simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    So, question: Could you convict somebody on the evidence of tree rings? Yes, I think so. The court would require evidence from an expert to lead the trier of fact from one step to the next - but at the end of the process I have no doubt that the expert could demonstrate that the evidence is reliable and consistent.


    An 'expert witness' on the subject of tree-rings?

    I prefer the Scottish legal system here as they have Innocent, Guilty, and the third choice of Not-Proven.

  20. #100
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    The calculations used to arrive at 7.5K aren't actually relevant to his point (and MarkW says himself that they are simplistic). The main point was 7.5K is small relative to the total warming of the Earth (relative to the 3K base temperature that a non-radioactive body in deep space would be expected to have), but it would by no means be a small change for "real-world" temperatures.

    Personally, I think a better example of the point would be something like:

    Company buys a million widgets in 2008 for £999 and sells them for £1000.
    Profit = £1M
    Next year, there's a 1% rise in the selling price to £1010.
    Now profit = £11M
    So a 1% rise has caused an 11-fold change in the result.

    Note: none of this is commenting on the actual calculations or conclusions of climate change theories. It's a commentary on "How can a small change to input conditions make a big difference?". Whether or not it does make a big difference depends on the correct equations. But it is wrong to argue that it can't simply because it is small.

    Not half as silly as someone who keeps posting "You're all wrong but I can't be bothered to tell you why".

    If you're going to claim something as fact, onus is on you to provide the links and references.
    I apologise for using the word drivel it was clearly a post that required some effort. However I agree your example is better.

    However should we spend billions on an unknown. Its real money we are talking about.

    Lets hope more then 0.00034% of the budget can be looked into storing CO2

    http://fossil.energy.gov/recovery/pr...erization.html

    What i am please about now is that there is at least a 'debate' going on and the Nazi AGW dont hold on to all power.

    Nothing is 'fact' in the climate debate, apart from their now being a debate


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Change of username request
    By Kathleen in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th-May-2008, 09:28 PM
  2. how do I change my user name
    By ray.ferreday@talk in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24th-April-2008, 02:11 PM
  3. SUNDAY HERALD - Change Your Life in 80 Ways
    By Sandy in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd-January-2003, 12:29 AM
  4. Swing Sunday Xmas Party - change of venue
    By Lindsay in forum Social events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th-December-2002, 09:27 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •