Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 29th Nov 2009, 13:24
  #3041 (permalink)  

Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alles über die platz
Posts: 4,617
You're quite right Simonpro, if only the audience had such a balanced view and allowed Melanie to be heard without interruption.
SilsoeSid is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 14:49
  #3042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: CYZV
Age: 74
Posts: 1,259
It'd be interesting to find out just what time of year those experts went to the Arctic.
pigboat is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 15:46
  #3043 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
This is a 'cape job'. Ice melts cyclically depending on the Earth's inclination relative to the Sun. These are 'seasons' and have been well researched even without 'modelling' by grant driven professional students.

Ah, the Key to the problem? With less ice to melt, each year, more Sea (or dirt) is exposed. Troubling. Warming, Right?

Wrong. The most massive Ice deposits at each Pole coincide with warm GMTs. Why? In a cold trending Planet, there is less energy at the Equator to evaporate seawater into clean H2O vapor.

Now, with less energy on the Planet available to create the distribution mechanism (WIND) for this water to condense into water and Snow at the Poles, (to replenish ICE) well, we see the mechanism plainly, Yes?

This works only in TREND, after the lower temps. have taken hold, the ice redistribution 'levels' in a far more Southerly and Northerly Latitude, depending on Hemisphere.

It is ENERGY that drives Climate. In helping retain some radiated HEAT on site, CO2 plays a ROLE. So does H2O vapor, METHANE, and other gases.


ICE AGE deposition of Water ICE is far less concentrated at the poles, for reasons explained above ('dissemination'.)

Polar ICE declines = cold trending temps.

ICE migrating to lower lats. = cold trending temps.

ICE accreting at POLES = warming trend temps.

ENERGY from the Sun has a factor of GMT upset thousands (millions) of times greater than Fossil Fuel combustion, or Cow farts, or CO2.

The Toreador has caped the Bull, and for quite some time now.

SunEnergy has an immediate and unmistakable effect on Climate. The rapidity of change, up and down, is breathtakingly quick. CO2, I would submit, may have an effect over great time, but most likely NOT, although CO2 is possibly identifiable as a piggy backer, but only then as a matter of coincidence. As a Driver? NEVER, and most certainly not with parlor science invented by well paid 'scientists' who never left the protected confines of the classroom.

bear/right wing nutter (?)

Last edited by bearfoil; 29th Nov 2009 at 16:00.
 
Old 29th Nov 2009, 16:01
  #3044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 156
Simonpro

I assume from some posts by others you claim to be a Scientist, do correct me if I am wrong. But what you have written is totally meaningless

The temperature records (including raw data) are freely available online, so there's no need to say 'apparently'. You can go figure it out for yourself.
You'll find that you're wrong, by the way:
1999 Colder than 1998
2000 Colder than 1999
2001 Warmer than 2000
2002 Warmer than 2001
2003 Same as 2002
2004 Colder than 2003
2005 Warmer than 2004
2006 Colder than 2005
2007 Warmer than 2006
2008 Colder than 2007
2009 So far warmer than 2008
What on Earth does that mean?

So let me work this out then that nothing has changed much at all since 1998! Correct?

The temperature records (including raw data) are freely available online, so there's no need to say 'apparently'. You can go figure it out for yourself.
You'll find that you're wrong, by the way:
1999 Colder than 1998
2000 Colder than 1999
2001 Warmer than 2000 So warmer than 2000 but still colder than 98
2002 Warmer than 2001 Still colder than 98?
2003 Same as 2002 still colder than 98?
2004 Colder than 2003 Definitly still as cold as 98?
2005 Warmer than 2004
2006 Colder than 2005
2007 Warmer than 2006
2008 Colder than 2007
2009 So far warmer than 2008

I can't be nothered to go on after the first 4 lines. What is written is utter meaningless drivle. This is how the general population have been fed the garbage. Just give each year with the average annual temperature.
I just despair
Roger Sofarover is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 16:09
  #3045 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Roger

Absolutely the best data to suss climate with is total energy. Naturally, this does not lend itself well to an aggressive 'theory' of trace gas doom.

Too many Humans think something up and then search for evidence , selectively, to affirm their 'idea'. Mostly, science is about asking questions, and 'testing' (ruthlessly) any possible conclusion, and this over time, with everyone looking over one's shoulder. Oh, and by actual scientists who do not have Al Gore's number on speed dial.

Challenge to all. It is the Warm theorist's fact that our climate has warmed .8degreeC., in 157 years. Think. be patient, and consider the mathematical accuracy of that data point. A micrometer to measure an elephant?

bearcool
 
Old 29th Nov 2009, 16:19
  #3046 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
The Streetwise Professor: Code Breaking–or, Broken Code

In a couple of excellent posts, Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz notes that one of the most disturbing revelations resulting from the ripping open of the Hadley CRU’s kimono is the shockingly bad, ad hoc, sloppy, and (fill in own pejoratives here) nature of the computer code underlying the quantitative work that is such an important prop for the entire climate change policy edifice. Love points out that software is not peer reviewed, and that scientists are for the most part self-taught programmers who do not follow the strict protocols associated with commercial software development. For an endeavor like that undertaken at Hadley, incremental changes are made on the fly with little documentation, and soon the code resembles a rat’s nest, or an overgrown, weed-choked garden.

The code of the Hadley folks and their confreres (or should it be co-conspirators?) is mainly related to data preparation and analysis. Many of the tasks it performs are relatively pedestrian in concept; the difficulties arise from dealing with the messiness of the underlying data (and, arguably, the perceived necessity of fitting the data to the theory).

But it does raise questions in my mind about the other major prop of the climate change policy edifice: dynamic climate change models. These are huge and complex. I know from much personal experience on simpler but related problems in finance that the kinds of equations they are intended to solve are extremely touchy. Solution techniques can be very brittle. Errors can be subtle and hard to catch.

It is my understanding that this code, like the Hadley programs, is written by scientists. So, my questions: what is the quality of the climate model code? Is it documented properly? Has it been tested? Has it been audited? By whom? What confidence can we have in its reliability? (Reliability in the relatively simple sense that it is bug-free, and properly performs the calculations implied by the underlying theories it is intended to implement. The reliability and completeness of the underlying theories–relying, as they do, on “fudge factor” parameterizations and incomplete characterizations of potentially first order phenomena like clouds–are other issues altogether.)
ORAC is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 16:20
  #3047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 156
Bearcool (cooler) (coolest) (cooling)

trace gas doom
Roger Sofarover is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 16:25
  #3048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of England
Posts: 119




PMSL
22 Degree Halo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 16:36
  #3049 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
ORAC

With respect, the 'models' are moot. Not one (sic) has served to gain CRU or Mann credibility, as this code-slop demonstrates.

This is a rapidly moving and agile debate, no, push. Gore was not wrong, the science is (effectively) settled, but he was wrong about the debate being over. Not even the Nittany Lion is defending the 'science'. He has been busted repeatedly with morphed DATA, let alone considered conclusions. His Tiljander graph was submitted with flipped data (Twice) to 'Science' magazine, and they published it, knowing the graph was specious. 'Science' is at the top of 'reputable' publications, and since the gravity of their "mistake" will not be felt for some time, it is clear they were trying to help salvage some of Mann's credibility, with atrocious consequences for themselves.

This should serve to frame the importance and immediacy of action at Copenhagen. 'Science' will be held up by the advokaten often, and the "Press" will be dazzled.

ORAC thank you for your presence here. Your data and comment have been crucial to the struggle.

bear

will fraser (from Streetwise Professor))

"It is beyond poor science, and has manifested as outright criminal activity.......
Grants are a species of Public Assistance, and as such are subject to the People's Laws. The 'Scientist' in destroying DATA or in preventing its release, is guilty of crimes that can be punished by Prison. A new Breed of politician may not be restrained from enforcing the People's Laws."

Last edited by bearfoil; 29th Nov 2009 at 16:55.
 
Old 29th Nov 2009, 19:23
  #3050 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
As I was saying, why trust some guy on youtube but not the scientists? Blind faith is a bad thing no matter which way you take it.
I presume you do understand why we take the AGW scientists currently with a pinch... erm.. a truckload of salt?

Thanks for evaluating the youtube code video. Care to evaluate also the Harry_Read_Me file (aka data horribla)? In this files there are comments such as:

OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
My bold.

or
"IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density' records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures."
So when temperature rises acc the tree rings all is dandy and as soon as the temperatures drop they're not valid anymore and data has to be modified? Cherry picking perhaps? Surely not science..

another interesting one:
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
My bold.

BTW is it correct that Hadley has stated that all original data has been deleted and we have to do it with the optimized version, so no possibility to determine how they optimized the data? The dog ate my homework. Another inconvenient truth...

Last edited by Capt.KAOS; 29th Nov 2009 at 19:45.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 19:32
  #3051 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Tree ring data is useless in pegging temperature up OR DOWN, because they do not grow in Summer.

Can I make it any simpler for everybody?
 
Old 29th Nov 2009, 19:39
  #3052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of England
Posts: 119
You can try making it simpler for this unwashed one:

BBC News - Sir Paul McCartney urges meat-free day to cut CO2

Why are "pop stars" such as Bob Geldof, McCartney, Annie Lennox, U2 et al jumping on the do-gooding band wagon at every chance?

Ps, wasn't Linda a veggie ?
22 Degree Halo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 19:42
  #3053 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Can I make it any simpler for everybody?
By using it upside down?

Korhola, Finnish professor of environmental change (caveat: not a denier)
Atte Korhola: "Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world's most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science - or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often - that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem."
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 19:52
  #3054 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I won't re-post the Mann 'Science' graph, and that is the reference our dendrologist is referring to.

I have been here almost two years in three different iterations, saying the same things, plainly, as I see it. Criminetly, Icemang, No one wants simple, every tool in the box has to have 'complicated'.

The tree rings as used for the Hockey Stick (Mann, et al.) based temperature on the width of pith v. cambium each growth cycle. In any growth cycle, there are dozens of growth factors, not the least of which is the short growth cycle itself, as little as two weeks, and usually after thaw, though not always. In any given year, the tree may grow in a hot/short Spring bust out, in a year that may have been uncommonly cold expressed as GMT.

The tree rings are bogus, bogus, bogus. It's like three card monte with one card, and you still lose. Peepo............. get a grip.
The Stick was debunked years ago, OK?
 
Old 29th Nov 2009, 20:08
  #3055 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 78
Posts: 3,513
What would be really interesting would be to be able to read the e-mails that have been flying about between Jones and Mann over the last couple of weeks.
green granite is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 20:30
  #3056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 78
Posts: 4,579
ORAC:

I have had the task, on several occasions, of updating computer code that was written by people who were experts in their field (heat transfer, thermodynamics, instrumentation, etc.), and often it took me a substantial amount of time to decode their code. What I frequently found was programming that was logically incomplete; math models without bounding, missing error traps, etc. (In the days of FORTRAN, we called this "spaghetti code", because of all the "GO TO ___" statements that wound around the program.)

The resulting output was very good if the raw data was high quality, but if it was garbage in, the output might or might not look reasonable.

I took it upon myself to include error traps to insure that the process worked as intended, and if an internal parameter violated a "sanity check", a warning flag would be raised so the operator would know the output was questionable, and perhaps dead wrong. I was never sure if management recognized the time bombs I had defused.
barit1 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 20:34
  #3057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Expiriment

In the spirit of Simenpro's warmer/cooler argument, here's some hot-off-the-press data ...

S 171
O 200
N 192
D 178
J 206
F 198
M 195
A 185
M 199
J 202
J 233
A 208
S 234
O 200
N 206
D 212
J 205
F 213
M 234
A 211
M 220
J 195
J 213
A 194
S 201
O 256

In isolation, What statistical information does this data provide?

Is there a trend apparent? If so, how strong is it? If no trend, why not?

If a trend is apparent, where would future extrapolatation take us (statistically)?

Given answers to these questions are uncertain, then how much additional data would be needed to remove any significant uncertainty? (eg more data points?, What the data represents? The estimated distribution of the data, etc)

How much uncertainty (and however much, why) would be removed by each of those?

Without knowledge of what the data represents, how hesitant will Simenpro be to explain how he would analyze the data statistically and provide his rationale?
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 21:02
  #3058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Apocalyptic predictions have been around since man began to speak. They have a way of getting listened to more in periods of low confidence: economic crises, war, etc. They take two forms: the “Chicken Little” form and the “You’ll all go to hell!” form. We all do it and are familiar with both.
In the “Chicken Little”, someone takes up the call that the sky is falling and this causes a group of people to huddle together in fear. Why this happens probably has more to do with group dynamics than I can explain, but it occurs and generally the people most susceptible to this cry have very little idea why the sky is falling; they just feel comfortable huddled in a group.
The second form is the “You’ll go to hell if you don’t repent!” form. Generally, this comes from a person with a little knowledge who loves to make judgments on others. Why? I don’t know, but it seems to be human nature to point fingers. “You’ll go to hell and I won’t because I have a back-up and I know something that you don’t.”
The third aspect which raises its head and is now appearing in the pro-AGW camp is, “The end justifies the means.” Goal oriented, Type-A personalities focused on an apocalyptic projection of the world coming to an end who will bend the processes on the way to reaching a goal. It’s tough to make a convincing argument when these tactics are used because it divides people into two extreme camps: those who think the sky is falling and won’t go to hell and those who don’t accept the sky is falling and appear doomed to go to hell. Unfortunately, these arguments have also swayed politicians into choosing camps. A good leader would rise above it and deny the doomsday scenario with expressions of hope and common sense. KRudd can’t take a view any further than wanting to be the biggest Chicken Little.

Last edited by Lodown; 29th Nov 2009 at 21:16.
Lodown is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 21:42
  #3059 (permalink)  
Silly Old Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: saiba spes
Posts: 3,729
Start with no more "Boat feet"

Kelvin Thompson wants the Government to cap Australia's population at 26 million and he says failure to act will create an environmental disaster.

Populate and perish, warns Labor MP - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
tinpis is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2009, 22:15
  #3060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
A global shakedown?

Upfront money needed to ease UN climate deal - Yahoo! News

NEW YORK – Money on the table — perhaps $10 billion a year or more — could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the U.N. conference could end in discord.
"Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012," the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen.

His goal gathered backing in recent days, including from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said his nation would contribute $1.3 billion over three years.
The proposed emissions targets by industrialized nations for 2020 — and China's plan to slow emissions growth — fall short of what scientists say is needed to head off damaging climate change. But if developing nations accept the quick-start financing, a deal might be reached at Copenhagen on a framework for putting all elements in a binding agreement next year, with an eye toward deeper emissions cuts and heftier financing beyond that.

"Short-term finance would be used as an opportunity to get a political buy-in for the other elements of an agreement," said Athena Ballesteros, a climate-finance expert at the Washington think tank World Resources Institute.
Chucking $10 billion dollars to third-world countries for "political buy-in."

What could possibly go wrong?
brickhistory is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.