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 25th Jun 2011, 07:39
  #8361 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 70
Posts: 1,768
Sod climate change!! I'm cold, three days after "Mid summer" and I've put the heating on.
When i find those responsible midsummer murder will be committed.
Lon More is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 08:33
  #8362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
What it means...

'Nature laughs at complex math.' is what is known as BS or nonsense; it is something essentially meaningless that is meant to legitimize ignorance and the failure to engage in scientific inquiry.

I wish it were so! All those hours spent studying for the British ATPL, having to figure out a balanced field length, the likely strength of a CB, or the likelihood of thick fog... I could just say that nature laughs at such things, so that the 'Suck it and see,' approach is the correct one, tra la.... So what, then, the CAA guy just blushes later at being caught out being unreasonably demanding and gives me a 'pass' on the writtens? As if!

We use complex math to model the real world. It doesn't always work but it can often get us 'close enough for government work;' we can get a handle on nature. Even a relatively simple system such as an aircraft on a runway doing a take-off is complex enough for math sometimes to fail, shown by the occasional accident! Even so, we still use (relatively) complex math as a tool.

Of course global weather is insanely complex, when it's obvious we can easily fail to model it accurately using math that while complex may not be complex enough to achieve accuracy, but what do you expect us to do, just shrug and say, 'No idea what's going on there. So, what's on telly?'

The question I put to Mr Binghi was a simple one: What else but AGW do you see causing rising sea levels? He had already agreed, for the purposes of the discussion, that sea levels were rising, so that the next, logical question is, 'Why is that?' AGW as a cause makes sense to me, but perhaps someone else sees that it is just hocky sticks.

So far, answer to this simple question from the anti-AGW faction has come there none. We had one idle request for the usual flood of useless information, science papers too complex for laymen easily to comprehend, one correction of the author's name (Stefan for Stephan, sort of like Mörner for Moerner or Morner) with no reference to agreement or disagreement with what he wrote, and now this bald statement of fact, that 'Nature laughs at complex math,' which is not factual at all but simply an opinion. Can someone try to answer the question? It is not very complicated; all you have to do is say what you see as the cause of rising sea levels.

Last edited by chuks; 25th Jun 2011 at 09:27.
chuks is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 12:23
  #8363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
The question I put to Mr Binghi was a simple one: What else but AGW do you see causing rising sea levels? He had already agreed, for the purposes of the discussion, that sea levels were rising, so that the next, logical question is, 'Why is that?' AGW as a cause makes sense to me, but perhaps someone else sees that it is just hocky sticks.
Explain how "AGW" is causing the sea level rise when sea levels have been gradually rising to the present levels for the last 6000 years.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 12:50
  #8364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
So far, answer to this simple question from the anti-AGW faction has come there none.
Nah, if you look at the pages of threads and links, you will see the anti-AGW crowd has offered up plenty of substitute hypotheses, including increased solar activity, earth axis tilting, natural climate cycles, la niña, el niño, and so on.

Me, I just naturally tend to look at snake oil salesmen, AGW and otherwise, with a bit of scepticism, especially when the likes of Elena and Chomsky jump on board.

This has all been played out before, aptly documented by Cervantes, Molière and Voltaire. There's too much invested in AGW now. Imagine all the faculty BMWs purchased by tax-funded grants. Human vanity is a powerful thing.
Matari is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 13:15
  #8365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
The question I put to Mr Binghi was a simple one: What else but AGW do you see causing rising sea levels? He had already agreed, for the purposes of the discussion, that sea levels were rising, so that the next, logical question is, 'Why is that?' AGW as a cause makes sense to me, but perhaps someone else sees that it is just hocky sticks.
I'm trying really really hard to stay away from this data-free borrox, but some compulsion keeps bringing me back. Data.



Sea levels are rising because the Earth is still re-equilibriating from the last glacial. Basically the ice sheets are still melting, at a slowing rate.



The latest satellite data (envisat) show 0.76 mm/yr and no acceleration. How do you explain the divergence between hypothesis and observation?
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 13:45
  #8366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
It is the darnedest thing, but...

If you go to Stefan Rahmstorf's site and look at 'The 5 most important data sets' for 'Global Warming' (sorry), everything looks completely different, when they cannot both (what is shown here and what is shown there) be correct. How odd... So we just square off and choose what to believe, I suppose, making this business as usual.

So I guess I can forget getting a simple answer to my data-free question; we are back to The Battle of the Graphs! None of which mean anything since 'Nature laughs at complex mathematics.'

Can you come up with a projection that shows the same steady rise, or even the drop that one satellite shows, in sea levels into the rest of this century? The stuff I am looking at shows a dramatic rise, hence all the 'hysteria' about places such as the Maldives being submerged and the Dutch facing much more of a rise than they had anticipated.

Just looking at that envisat graph I cannot come up with an explanation for the divergence between hypothesis and observation, no. In fact, you should say that sea levels are falling rather than either smoothly rising or else staying steady, just going by the data since mid-2010, so how do you account for that? Is it so that the next set of data points should show a jump upwards to match the slope of the blue line?

On the other hand, there are other data that lead one to still go with the hypothesis. It takes more than one set of facts to make me let go of that!
chuks is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 13:49
  #8367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Chuks.

Just answer my point. Explain how AGW is to blame for a constant sea level rise for 6000 years.

(Of course, I don't expect an actual answer. Just your usual waffle like you just did in reply to the proof that the "sea level rise due to AGW" is not actually happening)
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 14:16
  #8368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Thank you chuks. I'll come up with more data. It may take a day or two.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 14:44
  #8369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Chuks

The stuff I am looking at shows a dramatic rise, hence all the 'hysteria' about places such as the Maldives being submerged and the Dutch facing much more of a rise than they had anticipated.
Maldives

Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise | Watts Up With That?

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/...alevelrise.pdf

Now, the Netherlands. As has been stated here, the issue is not sea level rise but the small matter of the Netherlands SINKING. The Dutch have the most comprehensive records of sea levels in the world, and they record virtually NO actual sea level rise in that area (only 1.5mm/yr since 1850) and not the fantasy you are referring to which would have been based on the exaggerations and fantasies of those who have an interest in making the "doomsday" scenario plausible so they get more research grants. And how you can rely on the scare stories regarding the Netherlands when the IPCC couldn't even get the amount of the country that is below sea level (they tried to claim that 55% of the country was below sea level. An out and out lie, despite the "research" leading to that claim being included in the IPCC report being properly "peer reviewed") and claim them as somehow "fact" is beyond me.

The Dutch experience of sea-level rise « Climate Audit


Oh, one last thing. Stefan Rahmstorf's site has pretty graphs, etc, which are all about his "guesstimations" on what will happen based on the computer models designed by him and his team and the data they put into them, everything on Rahmstorf's graphs after 1990 is pure guesswork/fantasy. The satellite graph from Ken is ACTUAL sea level as measured by the satellite and is not a "projection". Guess which one should be believed.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 15:17
  #8370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
After me...

'I'm a beeeliever, yes indeed...' Ah yes, The Monkees... so rare to meet another fan of that unjustly ignored pop group. Welcome aboard!

Seriously, though... the data from Ken show a dramatic fall in sea level since mid-2010! Why not tell us that is what is happening?

That aside, why would you quote the Dutch measurement of 'only 1.5 mm/year,' of rise (what you choose to call 'NO' rise, even though 1.5 times 160 equals 240 mm, which makes me wonder how your missus would feel about 240 mm of water in the living room).

It would seem that you guys are not reading your own data in a totally uncritical way, which I can only agree with.

Yes, it would seem that Professor Rahmstorf is making educated guesses there, hypotheses, given that we are in 2011 and not in 2100, say. He does go into rather a lot of detail about how he has made these guesses but at the end of the day it is correct and very observant of you to point out, essentially, that he is not in possession of a time travel device that allows him to work from data from the future.

Well, come to that, I bet that you guys have put away the parkas and snow shoes, having made your own guesses about what sort of weather tomorrow may bring. In other words, guessing is not necessarily unsound, in the same way that simply reading off that envisat data is not necessarily sound. Otherwise I should be reading here that sea levels are dropping because that one graph of data says so, no?

The fun part is, of course, the way so many graphs so beloved of the AGW camp go a bit mad from now, projecting very dramatic changes in temperature, sea level and interesting things of that sort, when the anti-AGW camp seem to feel that nothing much is going to change despite climbing levels of greenhouse gases just for one thing among many.

So, it is not that the sea is rising off the coast of the Netherlands, it is that the Netherlands is slowly sinking, and the Maldives are going to have no problem at all with wet feet? Both of these things are simply 'warmist hysteria,' and that is the definitive answer?

Almost forgot to ask, 'the ice sheets are melting at a slowing rate,' is correct, Ken-san? Golly, I thought it was that they are melting at an accelerating rate, so where did you get that one from?

Last edited by chuks; 25th Jun 2011 at 19:42.
chuks is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 16:53
  #8371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
That aside, why would you quote the Dutch measurement of 'only 1.5 mm/year,' of rise (what you choose to call 'NO' rise, even though 1.5 times 160 equals 240 mm, which makes me wonder how your missus would feel about 240 mm of water in the living room).
Which part of ONE POINT FIVE MILLIMETERS PER YEAR do you have trouble comprehending? After all, you have turned that into a "multiplication" which has no resemblance to what is happening in the real world (a bit like the scary "predictions" which mean nothing since the ACTUAL rise is shown perfectly in Ken's satellite data). As far as why I quote the Dutch measurement, if you had actually read things you would realise how they have the most comprehensive records on sea levels dating back to 1850. That is far more reliable than some scientists scary-ass "guesstimate". I thought you could even see why that is relevant.


So, it is not that the sea is rising off the coast of the Netherlands, it is that the Netherlands is slowly sinking, and the Maldives are going to have no problem at all with wet feet? Both of these things are simply 'warmist hysteria,' and that is the definitive answer?
Yes, same as the hysteria over Tuvalu. Another scare story your beloved "warmistas" loved to pump out, despite the fact that it was a complete fantasy. Oh, and if you actually read things that are posted you would see that there is some arguments regarding the state of the Maldives, especially since they are entirely coral atolls, which your beloved scare stories do not take into account either.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 17:46
  #8372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
....even though 1.5 times 160 equals 240 mm, which makes me wonder how your missus would feel about 240 mm of water in the living room).
Since when is a century 160 years, chuck?
And in that time-frame, I would expect my nephews and nieces great-grandchildren to have figured out how to add another foot of height to the dykes, and to add a plank in front of the door, plus a few sandbags, rather than let the water into the living room....

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 19:41
  #8373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Higher mathematics...

My esteemed correspondent cited NO, or should that be NO rise, actually meaning 1.5 mm./year since 1850. Last time I checked that was 160 years ago (2011 minus 1850 equals 161 rounded off to 160) and 1.5 mm./year times 160 years equals 240 mm. Centuries don't come into this.

Buddy, I don't know how to break this to you but people do this kind of thing all the time, using a rate and a time span to come up with an amount. 1.5 mm./year may not seem like much but it does add up.

I don't know what sort of house anyone else keeps but here at Chez chuks, Her Indoors would go into a spazzy fit if she came back to find 240 mm. of dihydrogen monoxide sloshing around, even if I told her, 'Relax, Darling, it's practically nothing.'

The part to worry about, go into 'hysterics' over (even if the present screaming seems to be coming from the other camp) is the projected rise as this century wears on, what with AGW causing the Greenland ice cap to melt along with half of Antarctica. Now, that is just a projection, an hypothesis and a wild-ass guess; it may never happen, even though some pretty sharp scientists say it might.

For every graph that shows a steady, low-state rise, no rise, or even as this graph of Ken's shows, a decline since mid-2010 I can point you to two that show a sharply increasing rise. (Why not shout and scream about what that graph shows, guys? Is there some problem with doing that, something you might want to tell us about using data?)

Now this AGW thing might just be a fad, something like the Hula Hoop, all those science bods getting together to scare the pants off us for fun and profit, as the anti-AGW crowd here seem to think. That seems unlikely to me, but what do I know?

I would suggest taking a look at Professor Rahmstorf's site and then taking a look at Dr. Mörner's interview with the LaRouchies. After that, ask yourself which of those two is more persuasive.

Last edited by chuks; 25th Jun 2011 at 19:55.
chuks is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 20:34
  #8374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
My esteemed correspondent cited NO, or should that be NO rise, actually meaning 1.5 mm./year since 1850. Last time I checked that was 160 years ago (2011 minus 1850 equals 161 rounded off to 160) and 1.5 mm./year times 160 years equals 240 mm. Centuries don't come into this.
Again, read things properly. I said VIRTUALLY NO rise, only 1.5mm/yr which is realistically NOTHING and certainly nothing remotely like the fantasy "projection" you have been touting as "fact".

And, again, as far as Ken's post goes, that is ACTUAL sea levels as measured by satellite. Again, that is not some fantasy "guesstimate" like the one you are quoting as fact. Ken's data is real, yours is not.


And I know which one of the two I take as more persuasive, one is actually based on hard evidence whereas Rahmstorf's graphs from 1990 are pure speculation.


You'll be telling us that "The Day After Tomorrow" is a documentary and not fiction next.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 06:34
  #8375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
No...

I will be telling you that you wrote 'virtually NO' for a rate of 1.5 mm./year. If you multiply that rate by 160 years you do not end up with 'realistically NOTHING' but instead realistically SOMETHING, namely 240 mm. of water depth. Multiply that by the area of the Netherlands and you end up with quite a lot of water, actually.

I think I see part of the problem here. A strident tone, typographic SHOUTING and occasional name-calling can take the place of basic math skills in what has been presented as a science-based discussion. Well, no they cannot, actually! In some little corner of the intertube, if you attain a critical mass of ignoramuses then you can win the odd argument, but out in the real world, this might be part of the reason why all those irritating smarty-pants scientists are able to frighten so many people with their projections about the results of AGW. They can take 'realistically NOTHING' and turn it into a lot of water. That might not be fair but that is science, just playing by the rules of math, that X/Y times (Z times Y) equals Z times X and not 'realistically NOTHING' even if one very much wants to disregard how much of X is going to be lapping about one's feet, say.

You really cannot just look at some little number such as 1.5 mm. and put that out of mind as 'realistically NOTHING' when a couple of simple math operations show that to result in a very big something. That is exactly the same as pooh-poohing a temperature rise of, say, 2 degrees C., something you cannot even feel, as almost nothing. Well, to raise the global temperature by that amount represents one hell of a lot of energy. Yet people who take this ignorant approach to math (a very basic, useful tool for processing information about the physical world) can feel competent to critique scientific papers in really scathing terms.

A German general said something very interesting once, about four different sorts of officer, when there can be lazy or energetic ones who can also be stupid or intelligent. Lazy and stupid, no probs! Energetic and intelligent, not optimal but okay. Lazy and intelligent, the fellow you want for high command. Energetic and stupid, though, is good for nothing. He's the kind of guy who is going to be able to do an ace 'Powerpoint' presentation, graphs up the wazoo and buzzwords flying around like bees, but with no useful grasp of what he is talking about, an inspired leader who will take you right off a cliff.

Don't take that approach into aviation! A 1.5% over-run on a ten thousand-foot runway is 'practically NOTHING' looked at in one way, but 150 feet into the weeds looked at in another way, and a pretty big deal, even if the fire crews get there in good time.

As to that graph Ken-san was so kind as to attach: If 'that is ACTUAL sea levels,' (sic) why the big drop from mid-2010? I would have thought that would have resulted in big headlines about how sea levels are falling. Instead, nothing, even from you guys. Why is that? Come to that, why do this 'smoothing' thing to get a steady, rising blue line from a jagged red line? Heck, that is like calling 77% '80%,' isn't it?

Last edited by chuks; 26th Jun 2011 at 06:50.
chuks is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 06:39
  #8376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
'Nature laughs at complex math.' is what is known as BS or nonsense; it is something essentially meaningless that is meant to legitimize ignorance and the failure to engage in scientific inquiry.
We can't elucidate the entire thermodynamic refrigeration cycle of the planet accurately enough to make the prediction claimed...untenable; the earth sciences are mostly about much smaller phenomenological elucidation...QED!
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 06:56
  #8377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Well...

I see your phenomenological elucidation and raise you that I obsquatulate your postulations, and QED to you too! In other words, I think you are bluffing!

So, if nature laughs at complex math, why do those annoying scientists do so darn much of it? What is the point? 'It cannot be used to figure out anything really big,' is that what you are trying to say?
chuks is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 07:21
  #8378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
how does one include weather, clouds, GIA, biological cellular respiration and photosynthetic activity, microclimate variability, the oceans and other heat sinks and put that into a predictive model based on a thermodynamic refrigeration cycle-as they essentially claim to do? impossible!!!
where the study of each individual factor is in itself very complex, too many variables...whereas any one factor taken separately is a vast research body in itself

obsquatulate???
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 07:22
  #8379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Ahh, so a rise of 1.5mm/yr is not noticed by anyone, nobody touches any flood defences so we suddenly wake up one morning flooded by 240mm of water. That's bullcrap and you know it.

Let's see, average lifespan is, say, 85 years so we would only witness a rise of 127.5mm in our houses IF we all lived on the high tide line which we don't. So, in reality, since flood defences, levees, etc are maintained the 1.5mm/yr rise, which is natural and sod all to do with AGW since the sea level has been rising at a near constant rate for 6000 years (still claiming that AGW has been causing that 6000 year rise?), it is relatively NOTHING since it has been going on for so long and is factored into sea defences. So all you are doing is the typical warmista ploy of scaremongering without any attempt to look at the actual reality of the situation, unless you say that a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario is coming NOW (which I still think you believe is a documentary).

Why was the graph that Ken not picked up before? Because the lies about sea level rises had been fully exposed and debunked earlier. This time YOU are the one who has brought them up again in an attempt to continue the scaremongering after getting your ass kicked over other things.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 07:23
  #8380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
So, if nature laughs at complex math, why do those annoying scientists do so darn much of it?
Simply because it keeps them in government grants. Pay the piper and he'll play whatever tune you want. Grants for political purposes, while grants to prevent cancer research and other debilitating heart breaking family and social pain goes wanting.

Some of the debaters here would best think of the present mass suffering by millions instead of what will happen if a 1mm sea level rise makes my rural property waterfront and increases it's value 100 fold in 100 years.

By debating this nonesense, you give credibility to the mercenary Authors/ fiscal scientists, who are "simply and obviously in it for a quid".

personally I blame the Sputnick! (volcano's, elephant farts, coriols force, overpopulation, flavescent politicians, gun laws, wogs and infadels).

Apathy is a curse, but who gives a fcuk?........... Not me.
Frank Arouet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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