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 26th Jun 2011, 07:53
  #8381 (permalink)  

Eight Gun Fighter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,127
Ice Patrol

Yeah, yeah,



and 90 percent is under water
Rollingthunder is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 09:22
  #8382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
It beats me...

'Why was the graph that Ken not picked up before?' asks an alert reader. Probably because it is like the difference between a duck, with each leg both the same, only a 1.5 mm. differnence between them all, practically NOTHING!!! As any fule kno. QED. (Thinks: The Evil Doctor Yang would be so proud of me, doing maths and all....)

You guys really fire back with the tough questions, which I shall try to answer as best I can until the white-coat posse comes riding to the rescue with more graphs and what-not.

I think that the reason that Ken's graph's individual points go overlooked is that what matters is the blue line and not the red dots, the derivative trend and not the immediate data. Even you guys cannot go so far as to pick one datum and argue from that, ignoring the trend.

That brings us to extrapolating from what we know about the trend, when it may be quite reasonable to come up with the AGW hypothesis and see that blue line shoot upwards in the near future. Or not, as the case may be, which is what we are arguing over.

I guess we have arrived at a stalemate, or perhaps victory for one faction, given that more voices are shouting for one version of the truth, albeit one that flies in the face of the scientific method. So, congrats! You win, for now, and if you really think that Professor Rahmstorf makes a weaker case than Dr Mörner then that is up to you.
chuks is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 09:38
  #8383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
I think that the reason that Ken's graph's individual points go overlooked is that what matters is the blue line and not the red dots, the derivative trend and not the immediate data. Even you guys cannot go so far as to pick one datum and argue from that, ignoring the trend.

That brings us to extrapolating from what we know about the trend, when it may be quite reasonable to come up with the AGW hypothesis and see that blue line shoot upwards in the near future. Or not, as the case may be, which is what we are arguing over.

I guess we have arrived at a stalemate, or perhaps victory for one faction, given that more voices are shouting for one version of the truth, albeit one that flies in the face of the scientific method. So, congrats! You win, for now, and if you really think that Professor Rahmstorf makes a weaker case than Dr Mörner then that is up to you.
The fact is that the "rising sea levels" lie has been fully debunked previously and therefore more evidence of that which has been debunked was not necessary until you started spouting lies and "projections" as proof. After all, since Rahmstorf's "model" has been proven to be irrelevant due to his "projected" rise not actually happening there is no need to discuss it further.

Now, to go back to your "1.5mm/yr since 1850 is 240mm, so how would you like to waken to 240mm of water in your house" nonsense, do remember that said annual rise has already happened and I don't see massive flooding in Holland or any other country. In other words, it's irrelevant.

Oh, Mörner's case is obviously stronger, his is based on what is actually happening. Rahmstorf's is based on guesswork and since 1990 his "projections" have been totally wrong. Only an idiot would claim some basis of truth in something that fails so miserably.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 09:58
  #8384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 57
Posts: 80
On our West coast I can see the old beach level from 125,000 years ago at 20 metres higher than the current high tide mark, two miles along the same coast I can see at low water spring tides the remains of petrified tree stumps and peat from about 10,000 years ago. Sea levels have been up and down since they were first formed. How can anybody differentiate between natural cycles and AGW?
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 10:15
  #8385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Can't find the data I was looking for, but here are a couple more graphs. The first is Holgate 2007, showing no positive acceleration.

http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf



The second is combined satellite data. There are two divergence problems here. The first is a higher rate (2.66mm/yr vs 1.74mm/yr) for the satellite data. The second is the divergence beween Envisat and the others. There are serious calibration problems trying to measure 2mm difference from space.



I try to stay out of this, because I'm not good with words, and tend to get very irritated much too easily. I prefer to stay in the backroom but I have a dog in this fight. I'm a geologist and my first degree is in Environmental Sciences from UEA. When I was there they had good people doing robust science. The best staff all left UEA around the time I graduated.

I have 30 years familiarity with palaeoclimate data and reconstructions. There are still many good scientists doing excellent work in the field. What I've seen at UEA and elsewhere is the science and particularly the funding has become politicised. When I look at what gets published, I almost always end up thinking "how do you reach these conclusions from these data". A divergence problem. That gets right up my nose.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 10:25
  #8386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
I try to stay out of this, because I'm not good with words, and tend to get very irritated much too easily. I prefer to stay in the backroom but I have a dog in this fight. I'm a geologist and my first degree is in Environmental Sciences from UEA. When I was there they had good people doing robust science. The best staff all left UEA around the time I graduated.

I have 30 years familiarity with palaeoclimate data and reconstructions. There are still many good scientists doing excellent work in the field. What I've seen at UEA and elsewhere is the science and particularly the funding has become politicised. When I look at what gets published, I almost always end up thinking "how do you reach these conclusions from these data". A divergence problem. That gets right up my nose.
ken,

thank makes you very qualified to comment and if you get irritated, then sorry those who cannot see the facts needs to, well, suck it up !
stuckgear is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 11:12
  #8387 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Ken thanks for your posts they're much appreaciated.

I almost always end up thinking "how do you reach these conclusions from these data". A divergence problem. That gets right up my nose.
Perhaps you should be on the peer review list for the IPCC. It might stop them publishing so much 'voodoo science'...........but I doubt it somehow.
green granite is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 12:37
  #8388 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
A very critical article on Kemp & Manns tidal hockey-stick paper.

Further Problems with Kemp and Mann | Watts Up With That?
green granite is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 13:56
  #8389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Kemp & Mann. Barrier coastlines are highly unstable, subject to storm and tide erosion and deposition. Also, sediment piles invariably compact through time. All that paper tells us about is changes at the sites studied. It tells us nothing whatsoever about regional, let alone global change. This paper should have been published in the Carolina Daily.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 14:36
  #8390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Ah, so...

A wonky satellite, eh?

Gee, Ken, that is too bad about the UEA (University of East Anglia, I assume). The best staff all left, you say? Where did they go? Is it all AGW nowadays at the UEA?

Some of you guys should be more careful with the grammar! That one about sucking up the facts, that sort of thing could put someone's eye out!
chuks is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 15:25
  #8391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Satellites. One records greater than 2mm/yr. Another records less. Which one is wonky?

Nick McCave (sedimentology, my speciality) left UEA to become Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge. Chris Baldwin, author of the chapter on siliciclastic seas in Reading (ed) Sedimetary Environments and Facies (the graduate/post grad textbook for sedimentology) moved to the USA.

Rob Raiswell moved from lecturer to senior lecturer in geochemistry at Leeds.

Jeff Boulton (Quaternary Geology) moved from senior lecturer to Professor of Geology at Edinburgh.

The two who were left behind were Fred Vine and Neil Chroston (Geophysics). Fred already had the chair at UEA. Fred (Vine and Matthews) was the man who interpreted magnetic stripes as sea floor spreading. The third and final piece of evidence vital to the theory of plate tectonics. Neil was a great lecturer and modest scientist approaching retirement.

Chuks. There's a fine line between mocking and being a total plonker.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 15:50
  #8392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Chuks. There's a fine line between mocking and being a total plonker.
And Chuks crossed that line some time ago.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 15:58
  #8393 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
And people wonder why there are skeptics, from former Senator Tim Wirth:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. ” – Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
green granite is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 16:20
  #8394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
I visit this thread from time to time, but stopped posting regularly after some pointless dust ups with some pro-warmistas. I nevertheless like to keep an open mind on everything whilst being unable to stand pointless rhetoric and refusals to answer questions.

Occasionally somebody with a dog-in-a-manger attitude and a refusal to accept any contrary view to the current religious dogma called global warming steps over the line and makes a complete and utter prat of themselves.

So......congratulations Chuks for achieving the "How can I get out of this embarrassing mess without being seen" award.

And a very well done Yamagata for helping him to achieve a superb level of embarrassment.
sisemen is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 16:25
  #8395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
And people wonder why there are skeptics, from former Senator Tim Wirth:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. ” – Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
More recently than that...
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer (2010)
stuckgear is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 17:13
  #8396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Yes, well...

Ken, you are the scientist so you tell me: When you get an outlying data set from one satellite, with the rest giving readings that are sort of similar, I guess the odd one out could be described as 'wonky,' couldn't it? Okay, 'out of calibration' or whatever the technical term is, but isn't it more likely that the one is out, since all the others are giving readings that are fairly close?

The funny thing is how this coterie of self-nominated experts didn't seem to have a clue something might be off there, despite my repeated questions about that. I suppose if it had shown an exceptional rise instead of a drop then they would have been all over that one.

That other thing, it just reads like '"The UEA went to the demnition bow-wows!" from Indignant of Tunbridge Wells,' but that could just be me. (I certainly can come across as Mr Grumpy when comparing my school from 40 years ago to what it is now.) Might it be so, though, that a good school can always attract more good people to replace the ones who left?

Here, what, I came second-best in a science contest run by the team that likes SHOUTING? Different people are embarrassed by different things, writing semi-literate English, for instance, or almost being beaten up in a bar... by a woman... twice. (The only saving grace there was, it was two different women.) How about spouting off about data this and data that but not being able to spot an obvious outlier despite repeated hints that something was off there? Clinging to Dr Moerner like limpets? This, embarrassing? No, sorry, not really!

P.S. '...over 20 of our environmental scientists shared with AL GORE (my emphasis) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize...' Now that is embarrassing! From the UEA website, doncha know...

Last edited by chuks; 26th Jun 2011 at 20:20.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 04:35
  #8397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Here's an excellent article from Dr.Roy Spencer about Ocean Heat content

More Evidence that Global Warming is a False Alarm: A Model Simulation of the last 40 Years of Deep Ocean Warming « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 07:12
  #8398 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
No doubt Chuks will vilify Dr.Roy Spencer as he's an evolutionist.
green granite is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 07:57
  #8399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Au contraire, dear Boy...

I think you mean that Dr Spencer is a proponent of 'intelligent design,' the notion that God gets into the design business Himself, rather than simply subcontracting that out to 'evolution.' That would make him the opposite of an 'evolutionist' if I understand your term correctly.

No, I have no problem with that at all, believing as I do in the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) who manipulates all reality with his noodly appendages in a mysterious and inherently unprovable way. What Dr Spencer calls 'God' I call the FSM but there is no functional difference between the two since they work in the very same way.

What matters more is the science, no? He might well be correct in what he posits; I could not possibly say, totally lacking expertise in his field. What some gang of yahoos thinks about his science is neither here nor there in terms of making it right or wrong; it could be a storm of applause or a shower of dead cats he gets, when neither matters.

As to his religious beliefs, well, it seems to me that we are on the same page, with each of us free to believe as we choose.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2011, 11:46
  #8400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
And here's Al Gore, pathetically blogging on 26th June saying that ice and snow are disappearing in Mount Rainier

Al's Journal : Ice and Snow Disappearing from Mt. Rainier

And here's a report about the actual snow situation in Mount Rainier, a newsreport dated 21st June

Deep Snow Delaying Opening of Sunrise Area at Mount Rainier National Park | National Parks Traveler

So this is the top spokesperson and scaremonger of the AGW movement, who can't even read current news and keep himself informed before blogging.
rvv500 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.