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

Climate Change debate

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

Climate Change debate

Old 23rd Sep 2013, 15:01
  #961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 74
Of course I'm using the transient sensitivity. As long as a date is quoted that is within the time frame of CO2 still changing then the transient figure is the correct one to use. the equilibrium figure is only used when all CO2 concentration changes have finished AND the time lag for the transient effects have expired.

As my calculation was based on your comment that we are on track to reach 600 ppm of CO2 by 2100, there is absolutely no justification in using the equalibrium number.
Ka6crpe is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 15:47
  #962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,023
Science works like this:
1. Formulate a hypothesis
2. Make predictions based on your hypothesis
3. Compare reality to prediction.
4. If 3 matches 2 within experimental error, then the hypothesis may be correct.

Therefore whatever the IPCC are doing, it isn't science (Reality doesn't match prediction, but our hypothesis is right anyway....).

Last edited by Fitter2; 23rd Sep 2013 at 15:48.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 07:39
  #963 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
oggers -

You are not quoting actual raw data, you are using the Greenie mantra and quoting

manipulated, computer GIGO 'facts'. Are you a fan of Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen -

of course you are!
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 07:57
  #964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 58
Posts: 80
I've got into a debate about sea levels elsewhere and idly questioned the degree of accuracy we are able to measure sea levels. We are currently being told that globally sea levels are rising at 3.2mm a year.
In a previous life I was one of a team that submitted tidal data to the UK Hydrological Office in Taunton, UK so they could work their magic and publish tide tables.
I know from personal experience that up to about the late 1990's we were measuring tide by a clockwork mechanism that was wound up once a week and a piece of graph paper was attached to a drum that revolved due to the clock mechanism unwinding. Now then, the ink line was that thick that you would be lucky to get better than 50-100mm reading the graph and the float was an empty whisky bottle inside a 'still' tube, which in fact was an old piece of drainpipe. This seemed to be quite a common way to do things across the industry. Don't forget, tide gauges were used originally as aids for the safe navigation of shipping. Looking at a static tide gauge nailed to a quay I don't reckon even on a still day you would read it better than with a 100/150mm degree of accuracy. When our clockwork tide gauge wasn't working we would record the tide height by the latter method.
I've looked at numerous sites online trying to see how they correlate between tide gauges like mine and the satellite altimeters and can't find any info at all. From what I have found, various sites are describing the Jason2 satellite as having an accuracy between 50mm-5mm, and the list of historic tide gauges (some going back a couple of centuries) are claiming accuracy of a thousandth of a millimetre.
I personally just don't believe it is possible to measure sea levels to anything like the degree of accuracy as is claimed. There are so many variables to compensate for. Air pressure, isostatic rebound, tides, settlement, sedimentation, ionospheric interference, gravity from other planets, something I learnt during this search was that the earth is becoming more of a total sphere due to seismic activity.
Has anybody got any credible and reliable links or any thoughts on this?
All the sites I've looked at soon degenerate into using phrases like 'estimate', 'adjusted' etc,etc....
Here is one site I've been reading for example which illustrates the point I'm making.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

I really hope I'm missing something and that I've been barking up the wrong tree, I must be surely??
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 09:38
  #965 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 76
Posts: 723
I notice the BBC is still broadcasting The Facts, i.e. that Global Warming is Man-Made.

Oh sorry that should have been posted on the BBC Rant of the Day thread.
OFSO is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 10:04
  #966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 68
Posts: 195
OFSO, it's not The Facts, it's THE GOSPEL!!

MagnusP is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 10:33
  #967 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 76
Posts: 723
Time to Dispatch War Rocket Ajax, methinks.
OFSO is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 10:49
  #968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by beaufort1 View Post
I really hope I'm missing something and that I've been barking up the wrong tree, I must be surely??
No you are quite correct beaufort. When I did my Environmental Sciences degree back in the 1970's we also had methods of measurement which were equally inaccurate compared to today. Some tried and tested methods are still in use but most have been upgraded or changed completely.

So data going back over several decades has to take greater error bars into account. The greater errors will often swamp the accuracy of data taken then.
Flap 5 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 10:50
  #969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 699
beaufort

Has anybody got any credible and reliable links
Not sure what's wrong with the link you already provided except:

I personally just don't believe it is possible to measure sea levels to anything like the degree of accuracy as is claimed
If you make enough observations over a long period the errors are noise and cancel out. When working out the average, the error approaches zero as sample size increases. If you get a trend in a large sample, it is either real or observation bias. You can check for bias by looking for anomalies between data sets from different types of observation. If you get consistent trends from multiple lines of evidence then you have a real trend and move on to attribution.
oggers is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 11:36
  #970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,654
oggers; but when the quoted rise (3.2mm) is a small fraction (0.02)of the range of error (up to 150mm) how can you state, that the delta is measurable to one decimal point of accuracy as the individual readings from each monitoring point are not consistently different?

To clarify, if a measurement is consistently wrong by 100mm lower than the correct level then this can be taken into account. However, in the case of the sea level remaining the same over two sampling periods and the reading is wrong by 75mm lower on the first sampling period and then 75mm higher on the second sampling period this gives the impression of a 150mm delta even thought the level hasn't changed. This is the level of inaccuracy that is implied by beaufort1's statement about the inaccuracy of the gauges.
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 12:23
  #971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
warm ballast < correction

The Australian gets it wrong on global warming, again
CORRECTION:
A report in The Australian on Monday ... said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had dramatically revised down the rate of global warming over the past 60 years. In fact, the new rate of 0.12C every decade is almost the same as the IPCC’s 2007 figure of 0.13C every decade over the 50 years to 2005.

— The Weekend Australian, 21st September, 2013
Duff Man is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 12:51
  #972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 699
oggers; but when the quoted rise (3.2mm) is a small fraction (0.02)of the range of error (up to 150mm) how can you state, that the delta is measurable to one decimal point of accuracy as the individual readings from each monitoring point are not consistently different?
As I said already, it is about having a large sample size.

if a measurement is consistently wrong by 100mm lower than the correct level then this can be taken into account. However in the case of the sea level remaining the same over two sampling periods and the reading is wrong by 75mm lower on the first sampling period and then 75mm higher on the second sampling period this gives the impression of a 150mm delta even thought the level hasn't changed. This is the level of inaccuracy that is implied by beaufort1's statement about the inaccuracy of the gauges.

Do you think annual sea level rise is based on just two data points per year, or thousands perhaps? Can you see that over a large sample the sum of random errors approaches zero? Can you see that a consistent error will not give a false trend, merely a false absolute value?
oggers is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 12:55
  #973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,177
...Can you see that a consistent error will not give a false trend, merely a false absolute value?.
Sorta sums up the global warming hysteria religion..










.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 13:23
  #974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 58
Posts: 80
I've gone back and had a look at some of the more credible sites on this subject (I can't find many). I'm frankly astounded, everything is basically guessed at, estimated or certain events totally ignored. e.g. Sedimentation.
This is one of the better sites and I can see more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

Another site I came across said that the satellite doesn't bother measuring sea level near coasts as the 'attraction' of land skews the readings. Excuse my ignorance but isn't that where the greatest concentration of people live and where the tide gauges are sited? It's not surprising I can't find any correlation between historical tide gauges and the satellite record.

oggers It's irrelevant how big the sample size is if the information is incorrect. I explained how/why historical tide gauges aren't accurate enough. Can you show me a site that explains where some tide gauges get their readings down to a thousandth of a millimetre? How many tide gauges haven't been moved due to subsidence/relocation etc?? How are ships wakes taken into account?
Moving onto the satellite altimeters, how accurate are the readings involving water vapour between the altimeter and the surface? Gravity effects are only very recently being taken into account.
Where I live over a distance of less than 100nm's the tide varies in one location from a range of approximately 6.8 metres to a range of over 14.0 metres in another location. I see from that link that I provided they are using the reflectivity of the surface to calculate wind speed and therefore wave height, I can show you standing waves in my locale over 2 metres high on totally calm days due to tide, no mention is made of this anywhere.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 13:25
  #975 (permalink)  

Untitled
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Despite the best efforts of the BBC green mafia (with eco-loon Harrabin one of the ring-leaders) they appear to be finding it increasingly difficult to hold the line.

Polikarpov is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 14:37
  #976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,177
oggers, i'm a bit mystified. Yer ol mate in the video's yer linked to in #866 refers to an obscure AGW sceptics web site ah never heard of: "Plant Fossils" Seems defunct when i had a lookee. 'False flag' link perhaps..

Ol mate makes a snide remake about WUWT (aprox 9.20) and yet he has been making a fool of himself posting there..

Back to the vid...








.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 17:17
  #977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 699
beaufort

oggers It's irrelevant how big the sample size is if the information is incorrect. I explained how/why historical tide gauges aren't accurate enough. Can you show me a site that explains where some tide gauges get their readings down to a thousandth of a millimetre?
Not necessary. You are labouring under a misconception. You quoted an accuracy of 150mm for your tide gauge. If you are correct - and the principle holds regardless - then if you took 225 samples your uncertainty of the mean would already be down to 10mm (Δx/√N = 150/√225 = 10)

Sorry to get all mathy on you but you didn't get the plain english explanation.
oggers is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 18:30
  #978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 58
Posts: 80
oggers you still haven't answered any of my previous points.

It's not possible to measure your 'mathy conclusion'. The 150mm isn't accurate, how can it be? It's up to approximately 150mm depending on a number of factors. Spring/neap tides, wind speed/direction, surge, air pressure etc.etc... The inaccuracy varies from one minute to the next it's not constant.

Why do people have to make up words when trying to debate climate? There is no such word as 'mathy'.

Never mind, don't bother, that was a rhetorical question.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 22:55
  #979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,177
Re oggers post #866...

oggers, yer ol mate got one thing right. At beginning of video: "Climate change is natural"

@ .25 of vid: "...what climatologists want to know is what causes the climate to change. And after two centurys of research they now have a pretty good idea..." Except they don't. Exhibit: 17 odd years of no statistical warming when they forecast continued heating..

@1.05 of vid: "can amplify by positive feedback..." Hmmm, wadabout 'negative' feedback ? Ol mate has just been covering some of the possible 'feedbacks' that are ether + or - feedbacks and yet finishes of focusing on only one side of the ledger. Via Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research: "...in the real world there are lots of things happening that can 'feedback' on surface temperature. Some of them amplify and some of them reduce any change caused by an increase of CO2..."


oggers, i'm barely a minute in and yer ol mate is lookin a bit bruised..

Work to do, later...









.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 23:02
  #980 (permalink)  

Official PPRuNe Chaplain
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 76
Posts: 3,502
This is one of those topics where there's an awful lot of opinion and conjecture, and not a lot of properly verified meaningful empirical data and analysis (for the reasons quoted by beaufort1, as well as others).

The ice caps are melting more than they did a while ago. Man is making more carbon dioxide than a while ago. Those two do not necessarily correlate, however much the protagonists may want them to (or want them not to). I've not seen conclusive analysis that will convince me either way.

What I have seen is an awful lot of anger/wrath/ire from various parties. I've also seen politicians rubbing their hands with glee as they impose "carbon taxes" as if tax were the panacea that will cure whatever ill there may be. They then allow trading of "carbon credits". It reminds me of Terry Pratchett and the Assassins' Guild, the Thieves' Guild, etc.

My rule-of-thumb in such cases is to treat the one who shouts most as being probably the one with the weaker argument. On that basis, I'm more sceptical than convinced about anthropomorphic global wobbulation (or whatever AGW stands for).
Keef 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.