A MUST SEE! Global Warming Swindle!
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, July 3, 2009 16:48
VIEWED: 11643
PAGE 7 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have no evidence to suppose that they are hiding some of their adjusting factors.
I have no evidence that they are hiding anything. But adjusting factors when you can present straight data without adjusting is bad science. Bad science gives the appearance of manipulation for predetermined results, whether or not it is true.
Quote:I don't disagree about the trends. I disagree about the statistically significance. Until they submit SD data, which they can't because they never calculated a straight average, I have no basis to conclude that 13.89 to 14.55 is statistically significant, when earth's temperatures range from -89 deg C to 57 deg C. Statistical significance in context of this enormous temperature variance is simply not reasonable or intuitive.
...four very similar looking trends in temperature data very convincing that there is a statistically significant global average temperature difference from the 1880s, ...
They will say, we're not concerned about temperatures. We are concerned about climate, which has no variance. My response is this: climate has no variance because you are throwing it all away, and then treating climate like it's raw data. That is bad science at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Either way, it is not scientific enough to declare as fact or truth, which everyone likes to do.
As an aside, personally, I believe global surface warming exists and is very likely anthropogenic (though not CO2, but population growth, thermal energy waste, and radiation waste). I just have no proof of it. It is entirely speculation on my part, just like it is on their part. It's all science fiction, emphasis on the fiction.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't disagree about the trends. I disagree about the statistically significance. Until they submit SD data, which they can't because they never calculated a straight average, I have no basis to conclude that 13.89 to 14.55 is statistically significant, when earth's temperatures range from -89 deg C to 57 deg C. Statistical significance in context of this enormous temperature variance is simply not reasonable or intuitive.
True enough. I wonder if I could e-mail them? It would most likely be ignored, but maybe they might include information on standard deviation and propagation of error if I asked nicely.
Quote:
They will say, we're not concerned about temperatures. We are concerned about climate, which has no variance. My response is this: climate has no variance because you are throwing it all away, and then treating climate like it's raw data. That is bad science at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I'm concerned about temperatures, because I think they might drive climate. However, (I think this is what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong) I do think that climate can vary from their models, and I don't think we can predict it. And I also don't think climate itself can be treated like a variable all of it's own, and stuck into a complicated equation to spit out a description of how it will change.
Well... I should get to bed. About midnight where I'm at, and the past couple of nights I've been getting to bed at one and getting up early (for a weekend) which could screw up my sleep schedule.
I'll check back in tomorrow. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, that is what I'm saying. Computer models are not good for scientific predictions or conclusions. Reality is way too complicated for that.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
... I do think that climate can vary from their models, and I don't think we can predict it. And I also don't think climate itself can be treated like a variable all of it's own, and stuck into a complicated equation to spit out a description of how it will change.
--------------------------
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And your husband is the only scientist around?
The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend.
Quote:So any model... say, about the earth's gravitation... is too complicated? Models are no good? Can't get to the moon because computer models are too unreliable?
Computer models are not good for scientific predictions or conclusions. Reality is way too complicated for that.
-----------------
The biggest problem with the whole "sun is the driver of climate changes" is that we have been (for quite some time) in a significant solar minimum. The insolation (amount of light hitting the earth) has decreased by about 25%.
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1193&page=85
And we ARE in a sunspot lull, and have been since roughly the beginning of 2005.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
So clearly someone needs to go back and look at their theories.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And your husband is the only scientist around?
To reiterate (since you may not have read all of my posts), my point was scientists disagree on GW; there is no consensus and there are "experts" on both sides of the debate. As an example, no scientist we personally know, including all the ones at my hub's DOE lab, subscribe to the notion that there is scientific data supporting GW. My "scientist" comment, in context of the long conversation between Bytemite and myself, was that my hub disagrees not because of differences in energy priorities but on scientific grounds.
Quote:No, computer models are used all the time, particularly in engineering. In fact, my hub uses computer modeling himself extensively in his work.
So any model... say, about the earth's gravitation... is too complicated? Models are no good?
I apologize my statement was poorly worded. Let me clarify. Computer models (aka numerical simulations) are basically speculation, and speculation is used in science all the time, to generate hypotheses and to explain observations. But the cardinal requirement of science is experimentation. When numerical simulations / speculation are used to supplement and complement experimentation, they are very useful.
When numerical simulation / speculation is the main source of predictions, to substitute for experimentation--well, no science is being done. Speculation, no matter how educated and intelligent, isn't sufficient to stand in for actual scientific experimentation. Because speculation itself is not scientific.
--------------------------
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But since climate cannot be experimented on (at least not in any controllable way) then the ONLY way to understand the phenomenon is thru modeling.
When numerical simulation / speculation is the main source of predictions, to substitute for experimentation--well, no science is being done. Speculation, no matter how educated and intelligent, isn't sufficient to stand in for actual scientific experimentation. Because speculation itself is not scientific.
You model a process. It predicts certain events. You check the model against the actuality, then figure out where you think it went wrong, tweak it, and check it again. Ideally, your model comes closer and closer to reality as it begins to account for more and more processes and interactions. So understanding complex phenomenon which cannot be reduced to lab-scale experiments, like regional air pollution, climate, cosmology, ecology etc. often depends on models.
I also reiterate that the sun has been in a distinct LULL for the past several years, as observed both by sunspots and insolation. There is some speculation that we're entering a Maunder minimum (that idea is also based on a model since we obviously cannot experiment with the sun). There is also speculation in the opposite direction: that this minimum is only temporary, and that we'll soon experience a solar event the like of which the modern world has not yet seen. (Imagine half of the world's power lines acting like big antennae and sending a frying surge through all of our transformers and big industrial motors. Imagine half of our communication, weather, and positioning satellites knocked out in one fell swoop. But that's another story!)
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I said it years ago; it's a natural trend being hurried somewhat by man. That's all. And if all the man-made pollution stopped cold tomorrow, it'd still happen.
My point is: it's REAL, and we can't deny it IS happening. But anyone who wants to debate the cause(s), feel free.
Pollution should be addressed just for it's toxic effect on us, if for no other reason.
The laughing Chrisisall
-------------------
Well put is all
Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have my own doubts as to how global temperature measurements are made and calculated, and I certainly doubt that ~100 years of barely reliable thermometer data tell any kind of dependable story. Also, I've found climate modelers less than forthcoming as to the actual details of how they weigh their measurements and carry out their calculations. (Try emailing one yourself and asking for details. I'm a geophysicist, I've played in that field. It's messy.)
But here's where I finally found a few solid data-based ideas about climate change:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html
Some of his later chapters are rather silly, but Ruddiman's description of ice core data, climate modeling, and the history of human agriculture are pretty convincing. A small sample: methane levels and solar radiation.
This is methane levels measured from Vostok ice cores plotted against incident solar radiation. See the correspondence? More sun on the northern land masses = more methane in the atmosphere = hotter ("hotter" is not an assumption, but is found from oxygen 18 isotope levels in the ice cores. I won't try explaining - read the book!)
Right now we're in the minimum of solar radiation on the far right of the graph. hmmm... but what's happening with the methane level in the last ~8,000 years? The last solar maximum brought to an end the most recent ice age 10,000 years ago, but the methane levels are doing something they've never done before.
So yes, the sun and our non-perfect orbit force earth's climate to change. But why the difference this time around?
Hint: ask yourself - where does methane come from, and what is new on the earth in the last 10,000 years? Ruddiman puts out a theory, along with similar arguments regarding CO2 levels.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Interesting! Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Some of his later chapters are rather silly, but Ruddiman's description of ice core data, climate modeling, and the history of human agriculture are pretty convincing. A small sample: methane levels and solar radiation.
I have no time to read this book, to tell the truth. Not right now. Could you give us more than a hint? Maybe a synopsis of his observation and hypothesis?
Thanks.
--------------------------
Television is like a really, really good screen saver.
-- Bill Machrone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You model a process. It predicts certain events. You check the model against the actuality, then figure out where you think it went wrong, tweak it, and check it again. Ideally, your model comes closer and closer to reality as it begins to account for more and more processes and interactions.
I appreciate the limits reality puts on climate research. I really do.
But having limits doesn't grant you a free pass to call non-experimental research "science," and to claim the same amount of certainty in your findings as you would with experimental research.
If you're limited to fancy speculations, then limit your conclusions to the level of certainty that comes with fancy speculations. And don't, by any means, claim scientific consensus and an end to all debate based on said fancy speculations.
--------------------------
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
-- Michael Crichton, author, film and TV producer (1942-2008)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME