|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 13:07:27 GMT
"But the laws of physics never change - in this epoch". I would have assumed that this was a given. We are not talking about some kind event equal to the 'big bang' or a 'big crunch'
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 13:20:23 GMT
Science evolves and changes. It's always in a state of constantly re-evaluating its own theories. Yes Lin, our understanding of science does change, but only in the face of new evidence and scientific study. So far with global warming the only challenges have came from people with a vested interest in resisting poltical/economic moves in tackling its implications. Of course that in itself is not the problem, but the quibbles they have are. If someone wishes to attack Global Warming, then they need to do this from a standpoint of a grasp of the science. Simply saying ‘snowing proves Global Warming is false’ or ‘it was warmer a thousand years ago’, ‘its sunspots’, ‘it’s a tax scam’ etc, simply won’t do. The fact that there are idiots (and I use the term advisedly) that think that AGW is flawed at that level and they will change the entire scientific history at such a superficial level does not exactly put a dent in science, does it?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 15:32:26 GMT
"But the laws of physics never change - in this epoch". I would have assumed that this was a given. We are not talking about some kind event equal to the 'big bang' or a 'big crunch' "You don't give ground gracefully" Something for you to work on. Science is often wrong as well as right. Get used to that one.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 4, 2010 15:55:16 GMT
Yes Lin, our understanding of science does change, but only in the face of new evidence and scientific study.
ah..that is a very big get out isnt it......this scenario so some one says there will be no snow in the himalayas....and governments act upon that ""scientific evidence"" and the next thing you know is there will be no snow in the himalayas in another 5,000 yrs if not longer or the sea rises in the south of england will be in the region of 10 metres..........................but not for x number of years..centuries etc etc .....its iresponsble...misleading and very unscientific
..its iresponsible
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 16:58:43 GMT
Science is often wrong as well as right. Get used to that one. I don’t see anything controversial in that statement. I agree that scientists can and do make mistakes. I am quite happy to concede that it is possible that evolution is completely wrong for example. I am quite happy to admit that it is possible that every scientist in the field is repeatedly making huge mistakes in their interpretation of data and there are several phenomena (God or alien intervention for example) in the pre historical time that no scientist has ever been able to detect whose implications would shatter the entire edifice into a million shards. I am happy to accept the possibility that these phenomena are absolutely undetectable and that every scientist on the planet that will ever exist will go to his or her grave totally ignorant that their theories are comprehensibly wrong. What I am never going to accept that we should announce the theory of evolution is wrong without any evidence. I am not prepared to accept that such inexplicable phenomena must exist merely because some people cannot handle the concept of evolution. If someone has a legitimate challenge to the theory of evolution then they better come equipped with some strong scientifically accepted evidence. A copy of the Old Testament, the scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard and simply a fervent desire that man is not related to apes is not going to convince me that evolution can be binned.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 18:42:25 GMT
Science is often wrong as well as right. Get used to that one. I don’t see anything controversial in that statement. I agree that scientists can and do make mistakes. I am quite happy to concede that it is possible that evolution is completely wrong for example. I am quite happy to admit that it is possible that every scientist in the field is repeatedly making huge mistakes in their interpretation of data and there are several phenomena (God or alien intervention for example) in the pre historical time that no scientist has ever been able to detect whose implications would shatter the entire edifice into a million shards. I am happy to accept the possibility that these phenomena are absolutely undetectable and that every scientist on the planet that will ever exist will go to his or her grave totally ignorant that their theories are comprehensibly wrong. What I am never going to accept that we should announce the theory of evolution is wrong without any evidence. I am not prepared to accept that such inexplicable phenomena must exist merely because some people cannot handle the concept of evolution. If someone has a legitimate challenge to the theory of evolution then they better come equipped with some strong scientifically accepted evidence. A copy of the Old Testament, the scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard and simply a fervent desire that man is not related to apes is not going to convince me that evolution can be binned. What you will 'never accept' is that AGW has yet to be proven.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 19:05:00 GMT
What you will 'never accept' is that AGW has yet to be proven. I think I have used the term AGW theory several times. AGW is never going to be formally 'proven' because we do not have any spare planet Earths lying about and endless eons to 'prove' it, but it is close to been proven as possile to get outwith actually finding several planets to test it. Evolution is 'just' a theory too as are thousands of other scientific theories that we take for granted.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 19:16:43 GMT
What you will 'never accept' is that AGW has yet to be proven. I think I have used the term AGW theory several times. AGW is never going to be formally 'proven' because we do not have any spare planet Earths lying about and endless eons to 'prove' it, but it is close to been proven as possile to get outwith actually finding several planets to test it. Evolution is 'just' a theory too as are thousands of other scientific theories that we take for granted. "it is close to been proven as possible " No it isn't. The fact is that every molecule in an atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect of the entire atmosphere. Some constituents such as CO 2 and CH 4 have a stronger effect than average but their quantities are so small that even large proportionate increases have no significant effect on overall atmospheric DENSITY. If one includes the much denser oceans as a component of atmosphere then increases in CO 2 become irredeemably trivial in terms of their power to alter overall density and thus the global heat retaining process. But then you knew that, didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 19:27:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 19:33:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 20:16:56 GMT
I cannot see why anyone would get their science from Right Wing Websites. Once Stephen Wilde has published in more mainstream publications and sees more peer review, then we will have a clearer idea of what he is attempting to say.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 20:28:04 GMT
I cannot see why anyone would get their science from Right Wing Websites. Once Stephen Wilde has published in more mainstream publications and sees more peer review, then we will have a clearer idea of what he is attempting to say. But outmoded notions of right and left have nothing to do with it. Are you saying you're a leftie? Means nothing to me. You can read, can't you? You know the laws of physics don't you, you keep telling us you do. Point out the flaws in what he says....
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 21:43:00 GMT
But outmoded notions of right and left have nothing to do with it. We both know that is not correct, it is the Right that have pushed the denialist agenda. It is the Right that has too much to lose from this and it is the Right that publish cranks for silly little publicity stunts like this. Now we are to believe that a solicitor and 'weather and Climate enthusiast' has spotted something that the World's climate experts have missed? Get real, fret! This guy cies no evidence, no sources no data or has been subject to peer* review. What is there to argue against? You have rather tipped your hand here fret, as you have now revealed your source of data for your dubious postings earlier. *In so far as a 'weather enthusiast' is actually in a peer grouping with the leading scientists.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 23:36:25 GMT
But outmoded notions of right and left have nothing to do with it. We both know that is not correct, it is the Right that have pushed the denialist agenda. It is the Right that has too much to lose from this and it is the Right that publish cranks for silly little publicity stunts like this. Now we are to believe that a solicitor and 'weather and Climate enthusiast' has spotted something that the World's climate experts have missed? Get real, fret! This guy cies no evidence, no sources no data or has been subject to peer* review. What is there to argue against? You have rather tipped your hand here fret, as you have now revealed your source of data for your dubious postings earlier. *In so far as a 'weather enthusiast' is actually in a peer grouping with the leading scientists. You do live in the past, left, right, the world has moved on even if you haven't; and you seem rooted in the 80s. That is one source, I thought you might like the easy one, but you couldn't actually pick any holes in it otherwise you would have pointed them out to me, so one has to conclude that you only spout what you are spoon fed, ie you don't actually know anything yourself. Your achilles heel, and you claim to be the scientist here, is that when discrepancies arise observations should carry greater weight than theory. But you accord greater weight to theory no matter what. The data clearly shows a downward trend in the line of least squares over the last decade, which bucks your theory. I dare say you'll put that down to the Hitler effect. Here are a few scientists who disagree with you. Its not an exhaustive list, there are plenty more of them. William Kininmonth, William M. Gray, George Kukla, David Legates, Tim Patterson, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Jan Veizer, Philip Stott, John Christy, Tad Murty, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ian Clark, David Douglass, Sallie Baliunas, Don Easterbrook, William Happer. Incidentally, MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be valid and compelling. The report said that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. It is not clear that Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. (From the Wegman report) The NAS report on McIntyre's blog Climate Audit said with respect to methods, the committee showed reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al. The committee noted explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it had always been claimed that the method had a significant nonzero validation skill. The work of the IPCC has attracted controversy and criticism, including some from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels. We've been here before, but its worth a recap. Roger A. Pielke contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned global warming. Pielke also perceived a conflict of interest in the IPCC assessment process, since the same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment. Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research for obvious reasons. Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. Ouch. In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations." It doubted the high emission scenarios and its "played-down" positive aspects of global warming. Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy, a contributing author, wrote: "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality." He later wrote: "I’ve written a number of papers about the precision of our climate records. The impact of Kyoto-like proposals will be too small for we scientists to measure due to the natural variations of climate and the lack of precision in our observing system. In other words we will not be able to tell lawmakers with high confidence that specific regulations achieve anything in terms of climate in this country or the world. Additionally, the climate system is immensely complicated and really cannot be tweaked for a predictable outcome." Now for the mainstream. I'm sure you are aware that in the push to survive the digital revolution, some peer review journals are putting publicity ahead of integrity – encouraging science reporting that cannot be verified against the source, and preventing readers from assessing the validity of the studies they read about. A lot of journals concentrate on their impact factor. For the benefit of those who are unaware of the IF it goes something like this... Lets take a year at, er, Random A= total cites in 2002 B= 2002 cites to articles published in 2000-2001 (a subset of A) C= number of articles published in 2000-2001 D= B/C = 2002 impact factor Primarily, Journal Citation Reports provide librarians and researchers with a tool for the management of library journal collections. In market research, the impact factor provides quantitative evidence for editors and publishers for positioning their journals in relation to the competition. Its nowhere near as clean as you'd like people to believe. Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the reviews of papers submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each journal normally sent papers out to two reviewers. Reviews of abstracts and oral presentations sent to two neuroscience meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its abstracts to 16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which provides a good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn analyzed the correlations among reviewers' recommendations by analysis of variance. That's ANOVA to you and me, right. Their report should be read in full; however, the conclusions are alarmingly clear. For one journal, the relationships among the reviewers' opinions were no better than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting abstracts, the content of the abstract accounted for only about 10 to 20 percent of the variance in opinion of referees, and other factors accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the variance. These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of peer review, but they give solid substance to what these critics have been saying. The core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely to be mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood of support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that provided by chance. Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority. Scientists frequently become very angry about the public's rejection of the conclusions of the scientific process. However, the Rothwell and Martyn findings, coming on top of so much other evidence, suggest that the public might be right in groping its way to a conclusion that there is something rotten in the state of science. As I have said so many times now, the jury is out and nothing has been proven. Not everybody believes in phlogiston as you do. You still keep faith in the IPCC even though it is up to its neck in politics, corruption and misrepresentation. Do let me know if you need any help taking those blinkers off.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 5, 2010 0:53:12 GMT
You do live in the past, left, right, the world has moved on even if you haven't; and you seem rooted in the 80s. If the World has moved on, why is that it is the ‘Right’ that promulgate this denailist nonsense? People like the Heartland foundation and other Right Wing groups. That is one source, I thought you might like the easy one, but you couldn't actually pick any holes in it otherwise you would have pointed them out to me. Pick holes in what? There is not a single shred of evidence for ANYTHING he has said. He has neglected to back up anything he has said with anything like evidence or even a source for any of his claims. This is nothing more than a few thought up sentences loosely held together by a pseudo scientific narrative of meaningless claptrap. There is far too much of this to fisk on a line by line basis. I would have to search through the whole document(s) and then go and find the contradictory evidence. Believe you me, I have done this on other boards, but it get tedious because you never get a satisfactory response. so one has to conclude that you only spout what you are spoon fed, ie you don't actually know anything yourself. Your achilles heel, and you claim to be the scientist here, is that when discrepancies arise observations should carry greater weight than theory. I have never claimed to be a scientist. The data clearly shows a downward trend in the line of least squares over the last decade, which bucks your theory. My theory? Not my theory, but the theory of climate science, but show your ‘data’ and source that you bucks the theory. Here are a few scientists who disagree with you. Its not an exhaustive list, there are plenty more of them. William Kininmonth, William M. Gray, George Kukla, David Legates, Tim Patterson, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Jan Veizer, Philip Stott, John Christy, Tad Murty, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ian Clark, David Douglass, Sallie Baliunas, Don Easterbrook, William Happer. Fred Singer, of course is no longer a scientist although he used to be. He is little more than a PR man. William Kininmonth retired and his never written a peer reviewed paper on climate change. www.desmogblog.com/william-kininmonthWilliam Happer? Can’t find him on any climate faculty. Sallie Baliunas? Is that the woman astronomer who claimed that there had been no warming trend for fifty years? www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdfW.M. Gray’s work on Global Warming has failed peer review. www.westword.com/2006-06-29/news/the-skeptic/fullRoy Spencer the creationist? As I have said so many times now, the jury is out and nothing has been proven. The jury is out? You are seriously deluded if you think that?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 8:32:39 GMT
Your notions of right and left mean nothing, they're something you cling to for your own rationale. They mean nothing to me. As I thought you know nothing. "I have never claimed to be a scientist." Verified, you never did say what you are qualified in. My guess was dentistry, you didn't deny that and trying to get you to be objective is rather like pulling teeth. See the data presented at Melbourne by Monckton @ Or if that is too 'right wing' for you try the 'left wing' BBC What happened to global warming? And I quote "But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise." Unquote. Explain that one away. No, please do I am interested in how you will. Will you ignore or include the the Pacific decadal oscillation? Remember I said: "When discrepancies arise observations should carry greater weight than theory. But you accord greater weight to theory no matter what. The data clearly shows a downward trend in the line of least squares over the last decade." You skirted around all of the criticisms of the IPCC - from insiders too. That was only to be expected. The hockey stick is a lost cause, which I think you probably now appreciate. Peer review has failed and I gave evidence for that so stop wasting everybody's time with it. If you genuinely believe in the hypothetico-deductive method you will accept that nothing has been proven, but somehow I doubt it. You treat this as a religion. Beware of false gods, Random.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 5, 2010 11:54:12 GMT
Lord Monkton? Are you seriously attempting to suggest that Lord Monkton has anything to add to the field of Climate science? You will be putting Nigel Lawson up next. Unfortunately for you, that is all you really have. A list of ex-politicians, ex-scientists or even a few current scientists speaking far out of their comfort zones… …and a self styled ‘weather enthusiast’ of solicitor, whose back of a fag paper ‘thesis’ on the ‘greenhouse effect’ has been hailed by deniers as the ‘final nail in the AGW coffin’. Even although he cites no references, research or evidence and his little essay would hardly pass muster as a Wiki page. These people are ably assisted various straw men you people erect so that you can knockdown these ‘obstacles’ in your path. You gave us half a dozen names of Global Warming deniers. I challenged some of their credentials, but you are not willing to defend them, why? Could it be that they have not backed up anything the have said with facts? Could it be that they are not even in a relevant field? Could it be that they have been ridiculed for shoddy work? Nobody has disputed that there are natural forces that influence the climate. Do one has predicted a year on year increase of temperature rises. 1998 was the highest worldwide temperature ever recorded, and no other subsequent year has reached that height, but so what? You will not find a scientist who suggested that this about comparing two or three years, this is about measuring trends, not individual years. In any case the theory is a bit more complicated than that: www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htmlAs NASA point out: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 12:26:44 GMT
Lord Monkton? Are you seriously attempting to suggest that Lord Monkton has anything to add to the field of Climate science? You will be putting Nigel Lawson up next. Unfortunately for you, that is all you really have. A list of ex-politicians, ex-scientists or even a few current scientists speaking far out of their comfort zones… …and a self styled ‘weather enthusiast’ of solicitor, whose back of a fag paper ‘thesis’ on the ‘greenhouse effect’ has been hailed by deniers as the ‘final nail in the AGW coffin’. Even although he cites no references, research or evidence and his little essay would hardly pass muster as a Wiki page. These people are ably assisted various straw men you people erect so that you can knockdown these ‘obstacles’ in your path. You gave us half a dozen names of Global Warming deniers. I challenged some of their credentials, but you are not willing to defend them, why? Could it be that they have not backed up anything the have said with facts? Could it be that they are not even in a relevant field? Could it be that they have been ridiculed for shoddy work? Nobody has disputed that there are natural forces that influence the climate. Do one has predicted a year on year increase of temperature rises. 1998 was the highest worldwide temperature ever recorded, and no other subsequent year has reached that height, but so what? You will not find a scientist who suggested that this about comparing two or three years, this is about measuring trends, not individual years. In any case the theory is a bit more complicated than that: www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htmlAs NASA point out: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/Get over it Random, observations trump theory.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 5, 2010 13:51:42 GMT
Get over it Random, observations trump theory. Do they? Only if the observations contradict the theory. If the observations can be accommodated within the theory then the theory holds firm. So fare you haven't shown us anything that disprove global warming and none of your straw men even come close.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 14:41:16 GMT
Get over it Random, observations trump theory. Do they? Only if the observations contradict the theory. If the observations can be accommodated within the theory then the theory holds firm. So fare you haven't shown us anything that disprove global warming and none of your straw men even come close. Oh dear, you just hate being wrong. How exactly can predictions of a temperature rise accomodate a trend that is falling? I don't know why I bother asking you, you never seem to know, anyway. If the temperature has fallen over the last ten years, and it has, then that contradicts the theory. With me so far? Here is not one, but four different sources confirming the trend. Source: Global ∆T °C HadCRUT - 0.595 GISS - 0.750 UAH - 0.588 RSS - 0.629 Average: - 0.6405°C If you wish you can download the UN statistics package, or you can use Minitab or SPSS to verify the data. And stick to the 95% confidence level. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of HadCRUT3 data file found at: hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthlyThe data files contain 12 columns: Column 1 is the date. Column 2 is the best estimate anomaly. Columns 3 and 4 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the station and grid-box sampling uncertainties. Columns 5 and 6 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the coverage uncertainties. Columns 7 and 8 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the bias uncertainties. Columns 9 and 10 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the combined station and grid-box sampling, and coverage uncertainties. Columns 11 and 12 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the combined effects of all the uncertainties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can copy the table data from here........ data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can do the same for UAH vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately Santa Rosa's data has a broken link, still, 3 out of 4 isn't bad. ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're obviously sticking with the straw fools at realclimate - the guys with half a model. Only they make the outlandish claim that cooling confirms warming. ["So fare you haven't shown us anything that disprove global warming "] Now I have realclimate's bogus statistics are debunked Here: colorado.eduObservations trump the theory. You have the data, if you choose to misinterpret it in the time honoured IPCC way that's your affair. Don't expect everyone to be as gullible as you.
|
|