Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

Poll: global warming

Threads that have run on UpTheSaddlers that might or might not be worth keeping...

Climate Change:

Poll ended at Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:33 am

It's real, it's man-made and we've got to do something NOW (think of the children!)
7
23%
It's real, it's natural, why change a thing?
17
57%
Who cares - we're all gonna die!
3
10%
Stafflers
3
10%
 
Total votes : 30
User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:20 pm

Exile wrote:How about, for once, you link to the science behind your AGW hypothesis?

Here's [yet another] crux of the matter (I'll keep shifting these as it's always quite amusing to read your inadequate responses :wink: ):

1 - the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback from rising CO2 being a positive forcer for temperatures, as modeled in their computer programmes, because they say...
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...
3 - there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
3 - I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...
4 - neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

What do you suppose this means? I'd hazard a guess that it means, to use a term common to computer programmers, 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.

PS - Criticism I have no problem with, but your withering attempts at putdowns are becoming embarrassing for you, not me. Don't get me started on slinging insults. I'd never stop. Here's your response to my poser above by the way:

saigon after consulting his favourite sites, will have wrote:something inadequate based on this


Still haven't seen this blown out of the water...


Separately, because I know you've come to expect it, here's another loony fringe website getting all shouty about global warming being natural

McSaddler
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:42 pm

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:39 am

I like this one
Dicky Desmond said
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.


would those scarce resources include fossil fuels?

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:01 am

Exile in link post shock!

Exile wrote: Boo Hoo!


More later.....

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:59 pm

Exile wrote:
Exile wrote:How about, for once, you link to the science behind your AGW hypothesis?

Here's [yet another] crux of the matter (I'll keep shifting these as it's always quite amusing to read your inadequate responses :wink: ):

1 - the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback from rising CO2 being a positive forcer for temperatures, as modeled in their computer programmes, because they say...
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...
3 - there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
3 - I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...
4 - neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

What do you suppose this means? I'd hazard a guess that it means, to use a term common to computer programmers, 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.

PS - Criticism I have no problem with, but your withering attempts at putdowns are becoming embarrassing for you, not me. Don't get me started on slinging insults. I'd never stop. Here's your response to my poser above by the way:

saigon after consulting his favourite sites, will have wrote:something inadequate based on this


Still haven't seen this blown out of the water...


Separately, because I know you've come to expect it, here's another loony fringe website getting all shouty about global warming being natural


The Daily Express - Jesus! :lol: They are quite shouty :wink:

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:34 pm

Oh dear. A 2005 article in a National Geographic that you no doubt kept for the pictures of topless piccaninnies on page 38, a 3 line precis and the IPCC report which is based on computer simulations not the real world. I'm quaking. Speaking of which, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before global warming is blamed for the earthquake in Haiti.


Firstly, the unfortunate use of the Haiti earthquake as a football in our debate is deeply regrettable and I’m sure that it wasn’t meant to trivialise the sad deaths of many 1000s of people. I would hope that it is not used in future.

Secondly, the science isn’t good enough for you. Fine if you are a post-grad climatologist with a deep understanding of complex weather phenomena. Not so good if you are a holder of undergraduate web-surfing who has difficulty distinguishing ice area graphs and ice depth and density! Sorry I keep harking back to this, but it was and is HILARIOUS, and an insight into your scientific awareness. If respectable science led journals, primary evidence and extensively referenced, peer reviewed material are not enough for you, then I apologise for over-estimating your scientific credentials.

But it doesn’t matter anyway, because you have a ready made response for the wealth of material that doesn’t suit. It’s made up. Banks of scientists are creating data, making up information and inventing statistics. I needn’t bother looking for anything then, as teams of professionals are already working on the latest fabricated papers!

For those not inherently biased or influenced by strange websites, a summary of the issue:

The science is that water vapour is the most important greenhouse, but CO2 forces an artificial enhancement of the warming effect. A background here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/

And a link to support for this in these scientific journals Nature, and Science:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_DelGenio.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 06207.html

Since water vapour is such a comprehensive absorber, many of the [specroscopic] absorption lines of these gases do overlap with it, so it’s difficult to pin an exact number on how much any individual gas contributes to the natural greenhouse effect. However, with radiative transfer models it is possible to calculate the strength of the greenhouse effect if we just had other greenhouse gases, without water vapour or clouds. When we do so, we get about 35% of the total. We can also calculate the strength if we just had water vapour, but no other gases. When we do this, we get about 85%. So the truth is that water vapour and clouds are responsible for somewhere between 65 and 85% of the natural greenhouse effect. This is not the 99.9% effect claimed by sceptics.
The current problem has arisen because we are artificially “enhancing” this natural balanced phenomenon through our carbon emissions from vehicles, industry and power generation using fossil fuels. Indeed, we’ve been upsetting this balance significantly since the middle of the twentieth century and some would argue since the dawn of the industrial revolution in the nineteenth.
By massively increasing the amount of non-water vapour greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we are increasing the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. Not only that, but warmer temperatures are causing more water to evaporate into the atmosphere. A British scientist proved this in 2007 (see footnote reference). So not only are humans artificially enhancing the non-water part of the greenhouse effect, we are also increasing levels of water vapour as well. And that has to be a lose-lose situation.

Willett, K., Gillett, N., Jones, P., & Thorne, P. (2007). Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence Nature, 449 (7163), 710-712 DOI: 10.1038/nature06207

These studies used the AIRS data to show that surface warming leads to an increase in water vapor. This water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas and amplifies the surface warming. The AIRS observations are also consistent with warming predicted by numerical climate models, increasing confidence in model predictions of future warming.

Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003'2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333.
Gettelman, A., and Q. Fu, 2008: Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback. J. Climate, 21, 3282'3289
.


And again, not three lines but 4 seperate studies in support.

Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000 found that... water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed.

Let's see next what you have in relation to the WHOLE of your position.....

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:11 pm



Not really. I didn't understand the equations. Do you? Really? 'Science bits'. Doesn't use references. Not a blog is it? Oh, yes it is! Another desperate effort to distort, and not a good one.

Clouds and energy: http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdfThe work of Ferenc M. Miskolczi - his detractors mostly complain that they can't understand him, but he's interesting nonetheless. A layman summary is found here - the comments thread is worth reading too, if you can follow it.


You found it 'interesting' :lol: , it's renowned bobbins, I won't go into the vacillating blog support.

Complete rebuttal here:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

Heat storage in the atmosphere: http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html#anchor_62Nahle's work is of interest.


Summary:

It is evident that water vapor is a much better absorber-emitter of heat than carbon dioxide. Under the same conditions, water vapor transfers 160 times more heat than carbon dioxide.


What's new there? A chance to post some of the most damaging links in AGW history and you come up with...this? See water vapour information in previous post for the science.

TSI and warming: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4319v1.pdfScafetta could cast some light on things.


Disputed by mainstream science, including this:

We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.

Received 17 December 2008; accepted 13 May 2009; published 21 July 2009.


Citation: Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.

Solar warming shows no correlation with warming since 1980. More evidence than this is required to resurrect it (don't bother, it isn't there)



It's that blog you linked to (much) earlier. Blogs are individual thoughts expressed as fact. So are yours and mine, but I back up my statements with real evidence, not outdated theories or rhetoric.

SaigonSaddler wrote:If you would like to support any of the controversial statements you have given over the last 15 pages then I would be delighted to have a look.

I have. Please review the last 15 pages for examples of your own proofs. I tried last night and got to page 9 before giving up.


Look around page 11-14, where I have linked extensively in diligent support of my arguments from a wide variety of respected sources.

Do you want a hanky to wipe that egg off your face later?


Not bloody likely mate! :lol:

I'm not going anywhere (maybe Colombia) and neither is this thread. I confidently predict more and more evidence appearing in scientific journals throughout the year. You have a reliance on a dwindling supply of collective musings and disavowed attempts to derail the science. Good luck (again) as you need it more than me.

Finally, an insight into who and why deniers, sorry sceptical contrarians exist:

http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/contrarians.php

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:42 pm

Quality. Another link to realclimate, run by a bloke in his spare time at his desk at a certain University not unadjacent to East Anglia (so of course can only be relied upon to tell it like he wants it to be), and some protestations about who a contrarian might be, with a little muckspreading thrown in.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
- Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

Straight from the horses mouth. The IPCC models can't hindcast, can't forecast and certainly can't be relied upon as a guide to future climate. As any football fan might say - they don't know what they're doing.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:16 pm

Exile wrote:Quality. Another link to realclimate, run by a bloke in his spare time at his desk at a certain University not unadjacent to East Anglia (so of course can only be relied upon to tell it like he wants it to be), and some protestations about who a contrarian might be, with a little muckspreading thrown in.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
- Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

Straight from the horses mouth. The IPCC models can't hindcast, can't forecast and certainly can't be relied upon as a guide to future climate. As any football fan might say - they don't know what they're doing.


Keep going.

It will make the year all the sweeter if this debate is going in the hottest year on record.

IPCC isn't perfect, but it's the best there is - the contrarians have yet to field an international panel on how to tie shoelaces.

As a football fan might say "shall we sing a song for you"

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:56 pm

Here's how it all began...

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

"We've created a monster!"

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:27 am

ooh, look! Here's a report on how the IPCC chapters, supposedly written by those thousands of top scientists (that you keep reading about) based on peer-reviewed science (that you keep reading about) are written:

those glaciers may not be melting, let alone in 25 years time

Looks like some underling, on the back of inadequate research, has jumped on a press release by a group with a vested interest in the outcome, and come to a very unsatisfactory conclusion hoping nobody would notice. This was duly put into the IPCC report for governments as FACT. Wonder how many other times this sort of misrepresentation has happened. Talk about propaganda.

IPCC: Mickey mouse reports written by mickey mouse 'scientists' based on mickey mouse hearsay, misrepresented to support their micky mouse aims. [IPCC mode] very likely - probability > 90%[/IPCCmode]

This is the standard of proof required to satisfy SaigonSaddler? Some people are easily pleased.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:18 am

I hate to break this news to Saigon, but...

here's the lowdown from science on Antarctic ice looks like one little corner of a huge continent is photogenic for calving icebergs but as for the rest of it.... it keeps on growing. One thing's for sure, it isn't reacting the way the UNIPCC models ever thought. That tells us that those models are, as suspected, based more on the Garbage In, Garbage Out principle than on true empirical science.

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:42 am

SaigonSaddler wrote:IPCC isn't perfect, but it's the best there is - the contrarians have yet to field an international panel on how to tie shoelaces.

That's not really the point though is it? The burden is on the IPCC to prove their assertions that we are approaching a man made climate apocalypse. The IPCC are the organisation that are demanding we change our whole way of life and spend (waste) billions chasing some pipe dream of a wind powered utopia. The more people dig into how the IPCC works and how it comes up with its conclusions, the more ridiculous it looks.

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:07 pm

Exile wrote:ooh, look! Here's a report on how the IPCC chapters, supposedly written by those thousands of top scientists (that you keep reading about) based on peer-reviewed science (that you keep reading about) are written:

those glaciers may not be melting, let alone in 25 years time

Looks like some underling, on the back of inadequate research, has jumped on a press release by a group with a vested interest in the outcome, and come to a very unsatisfactory conclusion hoping nobody would notice. This was duly put into the IPCC report for governments as FACT. Wonder how many other times this sort of misrepresentation has happened. Talk about propaganda.

IPCC: Mickey mouse reports written by mickey mouse 'scientists' based on mickey mouse hearsay, misrepresented to support their micky mouse aims. [IPCC mode] very likely - probability > 90%[/IPCCmode]

This is the standard of proof required to satisfy SaigonSaddler? Some people are easily pleased.

Also in the Times today -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"The (IPCC) report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.""

"Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"" Sounds like someone else we know :wink: Dismissing criticism out of hand, with a sneer and a put down.

"Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC.....admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region"

These are the "scientists" we are meant to trust then?

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:07 pm

What a coup!

Whoop, whoop!

So we have news that glaciers are reducing at a slower rate than someone predicted. Wow. Only 5 metres a year! The glaciologist quotes 60 years as the timeframe.

Why would anyone who believes earnestly in a cooling earth take comfort in this? Surely news that glaciers are advancing would be news to get excited about. This is yet another feature undermining your untenable position, you now admit to glaciers melting – and have provided the proof. :D

Glaciers.
Are.
Retreating.

The science doesn’t change. And neither does your introspection.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:12 pm

As for the sea ice measurements. It appears your frantic attempts to search for anything in defence of your isolated view is snapped up without regard for the actual facts. You have fallen into exactly the same kind of foolish cause and effect trap that you did for the ice in the Northern hemisphere.

You know when the ice that has been sitting in the Antartica for the past millenia melts – you know the kind of stuff that we get the 740,000 year ice cores from? Do you think it
a) floats off into space
b) is dragged off by aliens to support a dying planet or
c) makes it’s way into the seas surrounding the continent?

Knowing the extent of your scientific awareness as I do, I’m going for either a or b. Answer c of course, would increase the extent of the sea ice bobbing around in the Southern ocean, resulting in the kind of measurements you excitedly linked to. Don’t you think ice thickness, density and melting rate would be a better measure?

:lol:

With stuff like this, you really expose your scientific naivety.

But please don’t post that vast list of sceptic scientists you teased me with via PM. That would surely herald the end of the argument. How could I possibly accommodate the fact that so many people are in support?

:lol:

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

You look at this and it doesn't give you pause for thought about the methods of the IPCC?

There's a storm brewing about the data being "warmed up" by the removal of cold sites from the record in recent years in order to make recent warming look unnatural. I don't suppose this would bother you either?

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:36 pm

I still havent had the evidence I have wanted yet from Saigon. I also didn't know he was a Climatologist. But it explains why he is how he is - going into those dark dangerous crevasses leaves it mark ;)

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:40 pm

Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:I still havent had the evidence I have wanted yet from Saigon. I also didn't know he was a Climatologist. But it explains why he is how he is - going into those dark dangerous crevasses leaves it mark ;)


:?:

:D :wink:

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:09 pm

PJD wrote:You look at this and it doesn't give you pause for thought about the methods of the IPCC?

There's a storm brewing about the data being "warmed up" by the removal of cold sites from the record in recent years in order to make recent warming look unnatural. I don't suppose this would bother you either?


Simply another little vehicle for the conspiracy clowns to harp on about for a few years. The science isn't effected, the glaciers are still melting and CO2 is to blame.

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:16 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:
PJD wrote:You look at this and it doesn't give you pause for thought about the methods of the IPCC?

There's a storm brewing about the data being "warmed up" by the removal of cold sites from the record in recent years in order to make recent warming look unnatural. I don't suppose this would bother you either?


Simply another little vehicle for the conspiracy clowns to harp on about for a few years. The science isn't effected, the glaciers are still melting and CO2 is to blame.



but no proof.... Just correlations. I.e X (CO2 going up) results in Glaciers Melting (down) that is just a negative correlation - if yo uwere a scientist you would know that you cannot infer causality at all from correlations - so no 'blame' can be issued.

Refuted. :wink:

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:24 pm

Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:
PJD wrote:You look at this and it doesn't give you pause for thought about the methods of the IPCC?

There's a storm brewing about the data being "warmed up" by the removal of cold sites from the record in recent years in order to make recent warming look unnatural. I don't suppose this would bother you either?


Simply another little vehicle for the conspiracy clowns to harp on about for a few years. The science isn't effected, the glaciers are still melting and CO2 is to blame.



but no proof.... Just correlations. I.e X (CO2 going up) results in Glaciers Melting (down) that is just a negative correlation - if yo uwere a scientist you would know that you cannot infer causality at all from correlations - so no 'blame' can be issued.

Refuted. :wink:


Is this where you have to get results below the 5% threshold for them to have any meaning.

I'd forgotten about that bit of undergraduate science.

So, for example, a comet with a 1% chance of hitting the earth is nothing worry about :idea:

We discovered in 1896 that CO2 warms the atmosphere, we know how much CO2 there is now in the atmosphere compared to a date in the past. We are seeing the earth rise in temperature with no other rational explanation that the increase in CO2. Your solar warming theory is dead in the water (has been since 1980). Maybe the aliens have a giant mirror directing the sun at us, or other bizarre theory (anything but the preposterous conspiracy theorum please!)

Also - I'm glad you like that new word! :wink:

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:29 pm

Undergrad science? Nope, just all science. In fact I don't even look at .05% alpha levels, I am far happy with the probability of committing a Type I error at less than .0001% That's being wrong only one time by chance out of 1000 times and more.

The probabilit yof you committing a Type I error is huge. Just to inform, that is rejecting the null hypothesis (normal climate trends) when in actuality it is true.

;)

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:51 pm

Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:Undergrad science? Nope, just all science. In fact I don't even look at .05% alpha levels, I am far happy with the probability of committing a Type I error at less than .0001% That's being wrong only one time by chance out of 1000 times and more.

The probabilit yof you committing a Type I error is huge. Just to inform, that is rejecting the null hypothesis (normal climate trends) when in actuality it is true.

;)


Type 1 errors or false positive errors are common in psychology aren't they, but I'm afraid this is rather more complicated than a simple experiment with a null hypothesis. Firstly, there is a vast range of mutually supporting evidence to confirm that the earth is warming - this is what has generated most of the debate with me and Exile. Secondly, there is a confirmed link between atmospheric CO2 and warming, of how much CO2 warms the atmosphere and where we stand to be in 10, 50 and 100 years. The evidence is summarised below:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

If the evidence is not enough for you, then I would invite you to join the 3% of scientists who disagree with it, but have no other explanation apart from - it's not that!

I believe Exile has a list somewhere....
:D

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:52 pm

You can have all the 'evidence' in the world, but if there is no proof of causality then I couldn't care less how much there is!

It's all based on supposition and deduction.

Just ask yourself, is it possible that global warming theory is wrong? That is all im trying to show you.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:00 pm

Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:You can have all the 'evidence' in the world, but if there is no proof of causality then I couldn't care less how much there is!

It's all based on supposition and deduction.

Just ask yourself, is it possible that global warming theory is wrong? That is all im trying to show you.


There's no causality that links gravity with an orange hitting the floor, just lots of probability.

There's no causality for evolution, just lots of probability.

Depends where your probability threshold is. Yours appears to be very high on this, but in order to make sense there has to be an alternative. The probability for it being anything else is very low. So it's about choosing the most likely explanation. That's all I've ever done, and if anyone were to come up with good intelligence on a rational alternative then I would honestly switch without prejudice. They haven't because there isn't. And even if there were I'm not going to find it on UTS am I?

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:05 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:
Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:You can have all the 'evidence' in the world, but if there is no proof of causality then I couldn't care less how much there is!

It's all based on supposition and deduction.

Just ask yourself, is it possible that global warming theory is wrong? That is all im trying to show you.


There's no causality that links gravity with an orange hitting the floor, just lots of probability.

There's no causality for evolution, just lots of probability.

Depends where your probability threshold is. Yours appears to be very high on this, but in order to make sense there has to be an alternative. The probability for it being anything else is very low. So it's about choosing the most likely explanation. That's all I've ever done, and if anyone were to come up with good intelligence on a rational alternative then I would honestly switch without prejudice. They haven't because there isn't. And even if there were I'm not going to find it on UTS am I?


I agree, and I happy you have concluded it's only probable and not definitive. :wink:

:D

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:06 pm

Saigon - that 'warmest' data'll be the data based on the HADCRUT3 temperature databse, which is the one that's been mangled beyond belief by the scientists in charge of it. I don't trust that in the slightest, given that it's creator, Phil Jones, has been stood down under investigation after the Climategate email scandal, with his repeated suggestions to other scientists not to co-operate with Freedom Of Information Act requests, his threat to delete data rather than reveal source and his ugly relationship with his peers to manipulate journals and peer reviewed papers to his advantage. He's even stated on record that he's lost the original, unadjusted, data so nobody can check his methodology. He's no scientist, he's a political beast with an agenda. Note also that in your linked paper, graphs show CO2 lags behind temperature increase by up to 800 years, suggesting that higher temperatures lead to higher CO2 concentrations, not the other way round.

Can't recall if I posted this before, but here's a paper all about forecasting, and how inadequate it is in the IPCC:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/fi ... udit31.pdf

No doubt saigon can find something in realclimate to refute this. Realclimate, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is a partisan blog site and meeting place for members of the Church Of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:07 pm

Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:
Bangor Cymru Saddler wrote:You can have all the 'evidence' in the world, but if there is no proof of causality then I couldn't care less how much there is!

It's all based on supposition and deduction.

Just ask yourself, is it possible that global warming theory is wrong? That is all im trying to show you.


There's no causality that links gravity with an orange hitting the floor, just lots of probability.

There's no causality for evolution, just lots of probability.

Depends where your probability threshold is. Yours appears to be very high on this, but in order to make sense there has to be an alternative. The probability for it being anything else is very low. So it's about choosing the most likely explanation. That's all I've ever done, and if anyone were to come up with good intelligence on a rational alternative then I would honestly switch without prejudice. They haven't because there isn't. And even if there were I'm not going to find it on UTS am I?


I agree, and I happy you have concluded it's only probable and not definitive. :wink:

:D


Have I been refuted? :D

Anyway using the same rationalisation, nothing can be concluded. You just have to go with the best option.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:16 pm

Here's a paper discussing data adjustment in temperature sets. it can't be done for UK based data as the data as been lost/mangled/denied to scientists thus interrupting scientific best practice.


Balling Jr., R.C. and Idso, C.D. 2002. Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database. Geophysical Research Letters 10.1029/2002GL014825. wrote:
What was done
The authors examined and compared trends among six different temperature databases for the coterminous United States over the period 1930-2000 and/or 1979-2000.

What was learned
For the period 1930-2000, the RAW or unadjusted USHCN time series revealed a linear cooling of 0.05°C per decade that is statistically significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. The FILNET USHCN time series, on the other hand - which contains adjustments to the RAW dataset designed to deal with biases believed to be introduced by variations in time of observation, the changeover to the new Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), station history (including other types of instrument adjustments) and an interpolation scheme for estimating missing data from nearby highly-correlated station records - exhibited an insignificant warming of 0.01°C per decade.

Most interestingly, the difference between the two trends (FILNET-RAW) shows "a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically significant, increase of over 0.05°C per decade." With respect to the 1979-2000 period, the authors say that "even at this relatively short time scale, the difference between the RAW and FILNET trends is highly significant (0.0001 level of confidence)." Over both time periods, they also find that "the trends in the unadjusted temperature records [RAW] are not different from the trends of the independent satellite-based lower-tropospheric temperature record or from the trend of the balloon-based near-surface measurements."

What it means
In the words of the authors, the adjustments that are being made to the raw USHCN temperature data "are producing a statistically significant, but spurious, warming trend in the USHCN temperature database." In fact, they note that "the adjustments to the RAW record result in a significant warming signal in the record that approximates the widely-publicized 0.50°C increase in global temperatures over the past century."


In short, if you adjust the data to show a warming, it'll show a warming.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:17 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:nothing can be concluded. You just have to go with the best option.


Best option: do nothing but monitor the climate, which will do as it has always done: change.

PreviousNext
Return to UTS Classics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests