 Poster: A snowHead
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Ok then, by the very end of 2008 temperature has pretty much returned to the level it was at the beginning of 2000.
In that period of time, MM CO2 has increased in a fairly linear manner.
Proponents of MMGW contend, nay proclaim, that MM CO2 is directly causing GW.
So as to my original question, how do you reconcile the two.
John. |
Erm, by pointing out that there's not a direct linear correlation between the two, that no climate scientist expects there to be and that it's a specious argument.
On a separate but related note, I'd also point out that you have picked an arbitrary period to look at. What's so special about the year 2000? Why would you measure trends from this point? I've referred you to the long term trend and long term data several times.
I've also pointed out that the specific claim you made about the post 2000 data was wrong. But you used a clever statistical tool to try and make yourself seem a little bit right, "moving the goalposts".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Seany, in your haste to argue you seem to have overlooked the fact that I wasn't arguing against AGW. However I stand by the fact that from 1998 to now the Hadley series is more or less flat lining (if we drop 2009 as it's only May the Hadley trend from 98 is -0.01c), that IS NOT what we were told was going to happen back in 1998. The Met Office seems to have learnt to be a bit more cautious than they were in 2007 with their prediction of warmest year ever and has pulled back from predicting every year to be warmest yet.
Exaggerated and/or misleading claims on Climate Change that aren't met is damaging to the credibility of Climate Science in the eyes of the public and increases cynicism. Even the Met Office have acknowledged this, but you seem to have conveniently missed the links and comments about the Met Office Press Release "stopping misleading climate claims" , yet on the same day the Met Office were also feeding the Scotsman more cowdoo to regurgitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Seany wrote: |
| I guess I'm in good company in being 'closed minded', Nasa, Met Office, all those governments that signed up to Kyoto and their chief scientific advisers, the Royal Society and all of these scientific academies that endorsed the IPCC findings: |
Can you point to any of those authorities saying around the turn of the century that the global mean temperature would pretty much flatline over the next decade?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
Seany, in your haste to argue you seem to have overlooked the fact that I wasn't arguing against AGW. However I stand by the fact that from 1998 to now the Hadley series is more or less flat lining (if we drop 2009 as it's only May the Hadley trend from 98 is -0.01c), that IS NOT what we were told was going to happen back in 1998. The Met Office seems to have learnt to be a bit more cautious than they were in 2007 with their prediction of warmest year ever and has pulled back from predicting every year to be warmest yet.
Exaggerated and/or misleading claims on Climate Change that aren't met is damaging to the credibility of Climate Science in the eyes of the public and increases cynicism. Even the Met Office have acknowledged this, but you seem to have conveniently missed the links and comments about the Met Office Press Release "stopping misleading climate claims" , yet on the same day the Met Office were also feeding the Scotsman more cowdoo to regurgitate. |
It seemed you were arguing the anti-AGW line and I was just about to remind you of your previous post 
| Quote: |
| I didn't say it invalidated the long term trend. The 'problem' as you call it, is that through scaremongering and the resultant hype, if the long term trend is not seen continuously even at short timescales it will discredit the climate science even where valid in the eyes of the public. No matter how sound the science is, the public must be carried if action is going to be taken. |
Why start with 1998 though? You are aware that 1998 is not a good year to pick as a starting point if you want to make any meaningful judgements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
time and again you refuse to even take anything else apart from your belief system.it's got to be peer reviewed and also by people you agree with.
you have a belief, not science. |
If you knew anything about science you'd realise just how ridiculous it is to say that insisting on peer reviewed evidence is symptomatic of 'belief' rather than 'science'. Do you even know what peer review is, how it works or what it is for? |
thats not what i said, again. you seem to disregard things if they dont suit your argument. that is not science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| I guess I'm in good company in being 'closed minded', Nasa, Met Office, all those governments that signed up to Kyoto and their chief scientific advisers, the Royal Society and all of these scientific academies that endorsed the IPCC findings: |
Can you point to any of those authorities saying around the turn of the century that the global mean temperature would pretty much flatline over the next decade? |
Pretty much flatline? OK, I guess you're talking about the slowed rate of increased warming that the long-term trendlines show. Or are you looking at post 05 Hadley data and extrapolating into the future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
time and again you refuse to even take anything else apart from your belief system.it's got to be peer reviewed and also by people you agree with.
you have a belief, not science. |
If you knew anything about science you'd realise just how ridiculous it is to say that insisting on peer reviewed evidence is symptomatic of 'belief' rather than 'science'. Do you even know what peer review is, how it works or what it is for? |
thats not what i said, again. you seem to disregard things if they dont suit your argument. that is not science. |
<head><desk><head><desk>
You've even quoted what you said in your post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Ok then, by the very end of 2008 temperature has pretty much returned to the level it was at the beginning of 2000.
In that period of time, MM CO2 has increased in a fairly linear manner.
Proponents of MMGW contend, nay proclaim, that MM CO2 is directly causing GW.
So as to my original question, how do you reconcile the two.
John. |
Erm, by pointing out that there's not a direct linear correlation between the two, that no climate scientist expects there to be and that it's a specious argument. |
Erm................So MM CO2 is not causing MMGW, there is no direct correlation between the two, that's what scientists expect, and it's not what were being asked to believe?
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Erm................So MM CO2 is not causing MMGW, there is no direct correlation between the two, that's what scientists expect, and it's not what were being asked to believe?
John. |
Direct linear correlation, i.e. they don't track each other exactly. Because of El Nino & La Nina events etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seany, you're playing with words. In the last decade, any change to the global mean temperature has been within experimental error, as the divergence between HADCRUT and GISTEMP shows. Whether it's apparently a little bit up or a little bit down depends on what dataset you choose and your choice of start and end dates. Either way, it's nothing to get excited about.
Contrary to your suggestion, I do not extrapolate at all and have absolutely no prediction on how the climate will develop. I just think that a lot of climate scientists are much less skilled at prediction than they would have you believe.
Now, could you answer the question?
| Quote: |
| Can you point to any of those authorities saying around the turn of the century that the global mean temperature would pretty much flatline over the next decade? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Erm................So MM CO2 is not causing MMGW, there is no direct correlation between the two, that's what scientists expect, and it's not what were being asked to believe?
John. |
Direct linear correlation, i.e. they don't track each other exactly. Because of El Nino & La Nina events etc etc. |
I have never, ever, said that there is a direct linear correlation between MMCO2 production and MMGW. Only a fool would say that. It is obviously not that simple.
There has been a fairly linear increase in MMCO2, and as a general trend that, if we are to believe what we are told, should be reflected in an increase in global temperature, though not neccessarily in a linear fashion.
And I am personally reluctant to use absolute specifics (though they are needed to prove a point), I believe the general trends of the data that is available should be used, in this particulr instance. Otherwise you can't see the wood for the trees.
And I have no time for people who nit pick over the finer points of data, and semantics, while refusing to see the bigger picture.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| There has been a fairly linear increase in MMCO2, and as a general trend that, if we are to believe what we are told, should be reflected in an increase in global temperature, though not neccessarily in a linear fashion. |
The Hadley figures suggest that average surface temperatures have fallen - however the Hadley figures exclude the area of the Arctic Ocean, because there are no permanent weather stations there. And there is evidence that this excluded area is actually the part of the Earth that's been warming the fastest.
But whatever has actually been happening to surface temperatures, the heat content of the world's oceans has increased since 1999. Surface temperatures fluctuate with El Nino and La Nina events - what matters more is the amount of heat energy being stored in the oceans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
BCjohnny, you don't see the 'bigger picture' as being a pointillist one then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| laundryman wrote: |
Seany, you're playing with words. In the last decade, any change to the global mean temperature has been within experimental error, as the divergence between HADCRUT and GISTEMP shows. Whether it's apparently a little bit up or a little bit down depends on what dataset you choose and your choice of start and end dates. Either way, it's nothing to get excited about.
Contrary to your suggestion, I do not extrapolate at all and have absolutely no prediction on how the climate will develop. I just think that a lot of climate scientists are much less skilled at prediction than they would have you believe.
Now, could you answer the question?
| Quote: |
| Can you point to any of those authorities saying around the turn of the century that the global mean temperature would pretty much flatline over the next decade? |
|
I'm not playing with words at all. Playing with words would be asking a pretty silly question that is little more than a leading statement of your own argument. So no, I can't answer the question, not in the rhetorical way you've posted it.
Firstly, to demonstrate that the 'authorities' were wrong I'd have to spend hours and a fortune on Lexis trying to find out what predictions were made 'around the turn of the century'. Secondly, you aren't clear about which decade you are talking about, 1998 to 2008 or 2000 to 2010. I'm sure you know why the former wouldn't be a good dataset and the second isn't over yet. Which decade do you have in mind? Or are you talking about the period 2000-2008? Hadley data shows a negative trend while GISS data shows a positive one(+0.06 from memory). Using the Hadley data there are two clear local trends, 2000 to 2005 and 2005 to 2008. Both are pointless arbitrary timescales. As is 2000 - 2008. As I have already pointed out. Several times. And referred to the long-term trend which is still, erm, updwards. Why is tyour focus so much on the last decade (or really the last couple of years)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| And I have no time for people who nit pick over the finer points of data, and semantics, while refusing to see the bigger picture. |
Yeah we shouldn't be precise when we're working with data or trying to interpret it! Really??
And there's a certain amount of irony (about a shedful) in talking about 'refusing to see the bigger picture' when you've focused on short-term data sets that demonstrate the square root of absolutely fa and I've been referring you to long-term datasets.
I'm wearing a hole in my desk here, I'll start banging my head against the wall instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Seany wrote: |
| Why is tyour focus so much on the last decade (or really the last couple of years)? |
Is it?
| laundryman wrote: |
I have a problem with "THE trend". It implies that a single straight line can meaningfully model past conditions and that it can be projected into the indefinite future. I don't think the climate works like that, seeming to oscillate on a whole variety of timescales.
The Met Office graph is just as cherry-picked as the one starting in 2000, starting as it does at the end of the Little Ice Age. It would tell a different story if it began in the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum or the Allerød Period... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| Why is tyour focus so much on the last decade (or really the last couple of years)? |
Is it?
| laundryman wrote: |
I have a problem with "THE trend". It implies that a single straight line can meaningfully model past conditions and that it can be projected into the indefinite future. I don't think the climate works like that, seeming to oscillate on a whole variety of timescales.
The Met Office graph is just as cherry-picked as the one starting in 2000, starting as it does at the end of the Little Ice Age. It would tell a different story if it began in the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum or the Allerød Period... |
|
Well, the first part of that post focussed on short term data, as have all the subsequent ones you have made. And in response to your qupte above i said:
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
snow on bbc2 last night was good.. it appears british rail were correct when they famously said 'its the wrong kind of snow' back in '91.. and that winter in the early 60's looked a bit special!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
oops just seen the other thread....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| BCjohnny, you don't see the 'bigger picture' as being a pointillist one then? |
Yes I do, but if you stand to close to the image, all you see are the individual colours.
If you stand back a little, maybe squint a touch, you begin to see the WHOLE picture.
I believe to much emphasis has been placed on readings taken over a very short timescale and from that you can somehow work out where the planet's going, definitively, at the same time ignoring unfolding evidence that, well, it's not. Oh, and also the tens of thousands of years of data we have as climatic proof, not just some easily manipulated computer model.
My argument is a very simple one, too simple even for my own liking, but actually based on what we are being force-fed. I didn't pick the argument parameters, and anyone with any sense knows it must be more complicated, but that is the gospel:
"MM CO2 is directly causing MMGW (or AGW)". If were not being told that then please correct me.
The easiest thing is to trawl the internet finding articles that support your point of view. The hardest thing is to give fair reading to the ones that don't. Maybe just five years ago I firmly believed that MMGW was a done deal, but then I began to read reports about how certain scientist were being derided, ridiculed, even threatened (physically and financially) for challenging this.
Being reasonably fair minded, I looked into it and it was apparent that for a number of years legitimate scietific debate had been stifled by little more than mob tactics. Why?
Sponsorship/finance seemed to be thrown at anyone trying to prove MMGW, in a pretty zealous way, and denied to those who weren't. Why?
And so it goes on.
Science to me (regarding this particular issue) is using data to form a theory and then see how that theory correlates with the facts. Well it did, but now it doesn't, and rather than go back and look at why, the proponents of MGW seem more concerned at discrediting the opposition than proving consolidating their own argument. The normal trait of any group that is starting to lose confidence in the position it holds.
At the least the whole issue is bad science. At worst it just stinks. I'm not a scientist, as most with opinions here aren't, but you don't have to be to work that one out.
I'm quite prepared to accept that MMGW may actually be the outcome of all this, to what extent, who knows. But I'm increasingly minded to think it all a crock of $hit, science playing second fiddle to politics and agenda.
Anyway I'm outta here. Believe what you like.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seany, you talk a lot about science and scientists. But science is a method, and the most basic requirement for a scientific theory or "law' is to make clear, quantitative, measurable predictions. Find proof of reliable long term temperature predictions, and you'll be a lot more convincing. That's the point of my previous post, and also laundryman's
Basic scientific methodology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seany, this is getting nowhere, and you're not doing yourself any favours here with your highly dismissive approach. mugen may not be arguing on a basis of evidence, but laundryman is a formidable debating opponent, and appears to have plenty of knowledge and facts to hand. I think he's wrong on this, but don't have anything like enough knowledge of the subject to stand a chance of backing up my own prejudices, but it sounds like you may well do so (and your background is relevant - if you are a climate scientist or something of that ilk your word may well be informed by the evidence and knowledge of the scientific majority, if you're just a general pleb like me it's no better than that of any of the rest of us). I was lloking forward to seeing a reasoned debate between the two of you, without political points scoring, but that's not happend yet  . Could you do us a favour, get off your high horse and debate with him in a more constructive and considered manner?
Whether the last decade is +0.06 or -0.01 is sort of irrelevant - the year on year variations are way larger than that and clearly don't fit such a straight line measure, and whatever the trend is it is it doesn't sound like a continuation of e.g. the "hockey stick" graph. So it would seem incumbent on those supporting the AGW hypothesis to explain why this is the case. If it's La Nina, is there a credible/accepted model that quantifies that effect, and so correct the measured data, revealing the underlying trend? Is it a change in solar radiation? Do we have any predictions of the effects and durations of these cyclic/anomalous influences? The fact that the hottest 10 years on record happened in the last 12 (or whatever the exact numbers are) sounds a pretty convincing starting point, but is a result of the trends of the previous few decades - so why has the trend flattened off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| sugardaddy wrote: |
Seany, you talk a lot about science and scientists. But science is a method, and the most basic requirement for a scientific theory or "law' is to make clear, quantitative, measurable predictions. Find proof of reliable long term temperature predictions, and you'll be a lot more convincing. That's the point of my previous post, and also laundryman's
Basic scientific methodology. |
It's a bit more complicated than that. There will never be a climate 'law' because climate is a product of physics, chemistry and biology and modelled using mathematics. You're trying to impose a simplistic methodological approach to a field that encompasses a number of different disciplines. Complex systems don't lend themselves to quantitative measurable predictions in the way you seem to think they do. Climate scientists know this and work with erros bars and confidence intervals. Armchair pundits look for specific correlations, simplicity and lines drawn a through data points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. So once upon a time we were supposed to change our use of fossil fuels because of predictions of dire climate change. Now we can expect no 'quantitative measurable predictions'. Hey ho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Seany, one last time I'll ask if you any views on the following:
"Stop misleading Climate Claims":
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html
Do you agree or not that NGOs, environmental groups, the stop climate chaos (oxymoron) campaign, the media and even the very Met Office itself have ramped up warming, made unverifiable, or unlikely to verify claims in the name of AGW and that repeatedly doing so actually damages the cause of getting people to act, because breeding cynicism is what is achieved by AGW scaremongering.
With regards the Meto Press release above, the Met Office's own Alex Hill who the same day fed the following to the Scotsman the day after the best snow weekend of the Scottish Ski Season this Feb. This kind of claptrap has little to no basis in climate projections (unless UKCIP09 is being held back to hide/re-check something ghastly) and is entirely about using the emotive connection to snow to score political points without giving a damn about the consequences. It's damaging real jobs, real businesses and real livelihoods HERE AND NOW not because of climate change, but because of the perception of climate change - which is currently running ahead of the worst case 2080 scenarios with people already believing the Scottish Mountains are all but snow free. The worst national example being the BBC's Global Warning series where a programme started with the unbelievable phrase "it's now five years since it snowed in the UK". 
| Quote: |
Skiing is 'doomed' …
Alex Hill, the chief government adviser with the Met Office, told The Scotsman there was no future for skiing in Scotland because climate change would see winters become too warm for regular snowfall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
global cooling is the next big scare.. falling sea levels, diminishing crop yields, trying to keep the country warm with our new windmills ........ then everyone will panic about the global population as food gets expensive.. naturally, this will reach its peak, and huge taxes will be imposed on having kids, at the exact time we will be needing more kids as the global demograpghic time bomb really kicks in.. about 30 years from now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CANV CANVINGTON, you make our politicians sound like mindless idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Seany, this is getting nowhere, and you're not doing yourself any favours here with your highly dismissive approach. mugen may not be arguing on a basis of evidence, but laundryman is a formidable debating opponent, and appears to have plenty of knowledge and facts to hand. |
I agree, it is going nowhere. I don't think I've been completely dismissive though. Sure, I've called a clown a clown and made some 'robust' points in the course of the debate, but I've done that based on the state of the evidence as set out by good sources (not blowhard bloggers) and I've also engaged with as many of the questions as I could deal with.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| I think he's wrong on this, but don't have anything like enough knowledge of the subject to stand a chance of backing up my own prejudices, but it sounds like you may well do so (and your background is relevant - if you are a climate scientist or something of that ilk your word may well be informed by the evidence and knowledge of the scientific majority, if you're just a general pleb like me it's no better than that of any of the rest of us). I was lloking forward to seeing a reasoned debate between the two of you, without political points scoring, but that's not happend yet . Could you do us a favour, get off your high horse and debate with him in a more constructive and considered manner? |
I already said that my background is irrelevant. I don’t recall any political point scoring as I’ve stuck to the science. Perhaps your perception says more about you than it does about me.
How I choose to argue is up to me. I’ve addressed the science which I think was constructive. I think the whole tread has been fairly tame, certainly by thestandards of discussions about helmets.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Whether the last decade is +0.06 or -0.01 is sort of irrelevant - the year on year variations are way larger than that and clearly don't fit such a straight line measure, and whatever the trend is it is it doesn't sound like a continuation of e.g. the "hockey stick" graph. So it would seem incumbent on those supporting the AGW hypothesis to explain why this is the case. If it's La Nina, is there a credible/accepted model that quantifies that effect, and so correct the measured data, revealing the underlying trend? Is it a change in solar radiation? Do we have any predictions of the effects and durations of these cyclic/anomalous influences? The fact that the hottest 10 years on record happened in the last 12 (or whatever the exact numbers are) sounds a pretty convincing starting point, but is a result of the trends of the previous few decades - so why has the trend flattened off? |
I’ve already shown that short-term data sets are useless and arbitrary and that trend lines over the long-term are more instructive. I also provided links to explain the reasons for what has happened over the last couple of years. And I think the Met Office and Nasa explain it better than I do.
Which brings me back to where I started, I really don’t understand why so many people choose to defer to non-experts on this. It’s like ignoring cosmologists when they come up with a cosmological hypothesis and deferring to a bloke with a pair of binoculars, a spreadsheet and a blog. He could be right but the odds are very slim that he will be.
It’s right to examine the evidence from both sides of the argument but I get the impression that a lot of people will blindly accept the anti-AGW argument because they don’t want AGW to be true and it’s more comforting to believe what Jeremy Clarkson says, or the interweb equivalent of the bloke down the pub (a computer programmer with too much time on his hands, a blog and an inadequate grasp of the science). It’s a lot easier too because it doesn’t require any thought.
It’s pointless to have a ‘debate’ with those people because they don’t have any evidence to back up their arguments. Or if they have some shoddy evidence they will never accept that it is shoddy. Partly because they can’t distinguish between good and bad evidence and partly because they won’t change their position anyway. You can’t reason people out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
For that reason, I’m out [/bannatyne]
(Apologies for the derail.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Seany wrote: |
| ...I already said that my background is irrelevant. ..... |
Hmm.
| Quote: |
| Or if they have some shoddy evidence they will never accept that it is shoddy. Partly because they can’t distinguish between good and bad evidence ... |
Which rather suggests that you believe have a background that equips you to determine wich is good and bad evidence - except you have a credibility problem because you won't declare what your background is.
| Quote: |
| You can’t reason people out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. |
Pot. Kettle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
laundryman, that's very interesting. However, he is only analysing 4.5 years data, he does seem to be being very selective with his data range. That does make me wonder what effect adding an extra year or two to the start of the time period might have - quite possibly none, but then again.
This paper, on the other hand, does suggest that ocean heat content has continued to increase over that period: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
There will never be a climate 'law' because climate is a product of physics, chemistry and biology and modelled using mathematics.
|
So not quite as Newton's laws, which was your basic assertion.....
| Quote: |
Complex systems don't lend themselves to quantitative measurable predictions in the way you seem to think they do. Climate scientists know this and work with erros bars and confidence intervals
|
Sorry. After a Bsc in Industrial Engineering and a Master's degree in Psychology (surprisingly enough, psychology studies are VERY focused on research methodology) , I know quite a bit about confidence intervals and complex predictions. In the end, the fancy math does not change the basic requirements for scientific research, no matter the field
| Quote: |
I really don’t understand why so many people choose to defer to non-experts on this. It’s like ignoring cosmologists when they come up with a cosmological hypothesis and deferring to a bloke with a pair of binoculars, a spreadsheet and a blog
|
There's your problem - science is not based on the identity of the source, only on abiding to the correct procedure. In a religion, OTOH, the head of the church has "seniority" over lesser members. I think the following links meke my point clearer
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| sugardaddy wrote: |
| Quote: |
There will never be a climate 'law' because climate is a product of physics, chemistry and biology and modelled using mathematics.
|
So not quite as Newton's laws, which was your basic assertion.....
|
I said I was done but this is ridiculous. Go back and re-read what I have written. Then apologise for being either too lazy to look up what I had written or apologise for deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
Just one last point. The actual science is being done by the climate scientists. You can check the results of what they do in the journals. You've probably got access to a lot of them so there's no excuse not to. If you think their methods or results are invalid then write to the journal editor, they love to publish academic spats. Or do your own research and submit it for publication.
All those thousands of real scientists doing real research using rigorous methods and submitting what they do to peer review and publication in the literature are doing 'cargo cult science' are they? And the so-called 'sceptics' who wouldn't know what the scientific method was if it bit them tirelessly trotting out the same old debunked non-arguments again again are doing the real research?
Feynman must be spinning in his grave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seany, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that cast doubt on the AGW "consensus". If you don't recognise that, it's you who are are being lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sugardaddy wrote: |
| ......After a Bsc in Industrial Engineering and a Master's degree in Psychology ...... |
What a fascinating combination. You must be very interesting to work with/for. An engineer with strong formal education well beyond just engineering. Excellent. Sorry. OT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
sod science that mob change their minds more time than my missus... history is the way er.. forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
