If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Good news on the global warming front: you're going to freeze to death   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 278
    More: Interesting, Maunder Minimum, Earth, global warming, national solar observatory  
•       •       •

8439 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2011 at 3:29 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-17 12:30:56 PM

Damnhippyfreak: How do you figure the bit in bold? Reason it out here instead of just making a bare assertion.


On second though, I can see where you're coming from here. You apparently believe that no temperature increase would ensue from an increase in CO2 concentration. However, I would caution that this really isn't "building conclusions into the "experiment:" in that the experiment isn't meant to address the question of the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Note that assuming that just increasing CO2 in isolation is a meaningful analogue to the real world would therefore also be "building conclusions into the "experiment:" according to your own reasoning.
 
2011-06-17 01:02:24 PM

chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: It's also worth noting that a global temperature rise will have a net negative impact on agriculture, largely because it will deplete freshwater resources in general, and redistribute what quantities we do have. Lots of literature on this-- many types of geologically sudden change to terroir will disrupt agriculture.

You're talking about a food catastrophe, and worrying about how your farking WINE tastes? Let them eat cake, huh?

Terroir refers more broadly to the soil, nutrients, acidity, etc.


How about no? DEFINITION (new window):

winemaking the combination of factors, including soil, climate, and environment, that gives a wine its distinctive character

English:1 -- Pretentious poser: 0


Of course, we were smart enough to mitigate acid rain pollution via a cap and trade solution. Two decades ago, anti-science shills like you screamed that it would be the death of the coal industry. Now that cap-and-trade program is more successful than the original high-end goals set by the first Bush administration.

I see the many times I've explained this have gone for naught. Getting rid of a few impurities in a burning process is a good thing. Getting rid of carbon dioxide is a bad thing. Getting rid a few trace chemicals in the burning process is relatively simple. Getting rid of carbon dioxide in a burning process means, basically, putting out the fire. Let me give you an example. You have a mask that filters out chemicals in the air. If you set it to remove particulate matter, that's cool, and you will breathe easier. Set it to filter out oxygen, and you won't be as happy with its performance, although it will be MUCH more amusing for the bystanders.

And "anti-science shills?" Are you that stupid? Really? See, here's where you show yourself to be a whiny little poser. I am more pro-science than any non-scientist I know. Literally, at several points in my life, I have known almost nobody BUT scientists. If anything, I am overly interested in the methodology that, given time and constant practice, brought us from the dark ages of epistemological authority into a place where only the reality counts. YOU ARE FARKING THIS UP, YOU TOAD.

What I am against is polluting science with politics, and buying scientists with research dollars. What I am against is the ANTI-SCIENCE of "you must obey the consensus." and "The science is done." If the first fifteen minutes of any competent science class had sunk into your osmium-dense cranium, you would IMMEDIATELY recognize that ANYONE using either of those phrases was bending science over the table and arse-raping her. Of course, you may be biased -- that's how little colon nuggets like yourself get knocked loose to roam around free.

You have no idea how stupid you sound, mouthing your goose-stepping consensus derp, attempting to perform character assassination on anyone skeptical of your credo, quoting the perps' blogs to support the perps. TFA is about how utter twaddle is now being passed off as "peer-reviewed" by what SHOULD be the highest scientific authority in climatology, but which is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator, and trying to bribe or frighten into silence any critics. That's SCIENCE? HA. I've got your "science" right here.
 
2011-06-17 01:21:21 PM

GeneralJim: See, here's where you show yourself to be a whiny little poser. I am more pro-science than any non-scientist I know. Literally, at several points in my life, I have known almost nobody BUT scientists. If anything, I am overly interested in the methodology that, given time and constant practice, brought us from the dark ages of epistemological authority into a place where only the reality counts. YOU ARE FARKING THIS UP, YOU TOAD.


I'm sorry. Can you explain this in terms of pasted-in text from "kowabunga.org"? That's where real science apparently comes from. And terrible movie reviews.
 
2011-06-17 04:17:13 PM

chimp_ninja: It get that a blogologist you don't have the background, but it's ridiculous to call that statistically significant based one one pair of crests. You could take any two fluctuating quantities, rescale them arbitrarily (i.e., without regard to energy/area units on the vertical axis), time-shift the 'solar cycle length' (by defining the 'beginning' at any arbitrary point), and declare any two peaks near one another to be causative.


Okay, without changing a thing, put it another way -- historical precedence exists in the last hundred years for an event of temperature being delayed ten years from the solar activity. There is no reason to believe ANOTHER event might be delayed as much.
 
2011-06-17 04:24:01 PM

GeneralJim: I see the many times I've explained this have gone for naught. Getting rid of a few impurities in a burning process is a good thing. Getting rid of carbon dioxide is a bad thing. Getting rid a few trace chemicals in the burning process is relatively simple. Getting rid of carbon dioxide in a burning process means, basically, putting out the fire. Let me give you an example. You have a mask that filters out chemicals in the air. If you set it to remove particulate matter, that's cool, and you will breathe easier. Set it to filter out oxygen, and you won't be as happy with its performance, although it will be MUCH more amusing for the bystanders.



First off, you do have a good point in that CO2 emissions are more inherent in combustion than, say, NOx or SOx. However, I caution you that the idea that reducing CO2 emissions is more complex or technically difficult does not mean that it isn't worth doing.

That being said, the latter parts of your reasoning aren't all that solid. Nobody is talking about eliminating CO2, just as efforts regarding acid rain were not meant to eliminate NOx and SOx. This is a bit of a straw-man on your part. In addition, you're making the bald assertion that CO2 emissions are a beneficial end to itself. Furthermore, combustion isn't the only way we can generate energy. Don't forget, combustion is not an end in itself - we're interested in energy, and in this regard, CO2 is not a completely inevitable byproduct, just like NOx or SOx.
 
2011-06-17 04:36:54 PM

chimp_ninja: Solar irradiance change has an 11-year periodicity, and if you do the Fourier analysis of the temperature response, the magnitude of the forcing created (regardless of the time lag assumed) is far too small to cause a significant fraction of the observed warming. And, as cited above from the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (I know, not a blog, and you only trust blogs), all sunspot forcings have pointed towards cooling for decades, yet the temperature continues to increase.


Try not to be such a tool. First, there are MANY solar cycles, not just the 11 year sunspot cycle. There is the 60-61 year cycle, too. Part of the friggin' POINT of looking at sunspot cycle length is to see how the 11-year cycle is being cancelled or reinforced by other cycles, and to get an overall reading of solar activity.

Second, you are ignoring the amplifier effects of solar output. So far, you have never seen a glimpse of this. Not surprising. You know, that whole cosmic ray/cloud thing? Look it up. It causes warming on its own when solar magnetic activity is up. When you think you have a "dead lock" on the factors important to a mathematically chaotic system, THAT is when you are screwing up the worst.


notrickszone.com
60-Year AMO + Temperature
 
2011-06-17 05:13:00 PM

chimp_ninja: Add to that that you (well, technically the blog that a shill like you is told to paste from) aren't even plotting the relevant variable-- the length of sunspot periodicity isn't what anyone cares about-- if it were to fluctuate rapidly around a high mean, it would still point towards adding those couple tenths of a W/m2 referenced above.


Thanks for, once again, pointing out your lack of knowledge.

But, what I love about this bit is utter bullshiat factor. A shill? You farking retard, the only shills in the game are paid by environmental activist groups. That's what another current thread is discussing: the fact that the IPCC is publishing one piece of crap from environmental activist publications, and calling it "peer-reviewed" science.

Look, I know you're mentally challenged, but the oil companies, who MAY have been buying research like the IPCC is, have managed to get the legislation under discussion altered so that they will make even more money if it passes. They are no longer against it, and in fact have funded the climate "getaways" of late.
 
2011-06-17 05:23:37 PM

chimp_ninja: Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


That *IS* remarkable. Rather, it's farking IMPOSSIBLE. Which, on its own, pretty much proves that Oreskes' study was bollocks. Any climatologist who read the literature back then had read some papers critical of the AGW hypothesis. For her to claim that NONE EXISTED was stupid. If she had claimed only a few, people might have bought it. I mean, people BESIDES tools like you.

Peer review in climatology is farked beyond recognition. What is it, something like four different "-gates" about environmental activist literature with GLARING errors in it being passed off as "peer-reviewed" literature? Utter crap. "Peer-review" means "doesn't disgree with AGW" and therefore the scientific process is compromised. It's as bad as you lickspittles supporting the process of having a secret program alter data, and then erasing the original data. The amount of extra work that will be required to fix climatology after the Piltdown Climatologists are removed will be staggering. And, if I know my politics, the poor REAL scientists left holding the bag will have to clean up with lots less funding than the jackasses.
 
2011-06-17 05:30:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Reason it out here, if you can. Again, this just looks like you're trying to change the subject, since I've got you nailed.


Do these fantasies of yours end in ejaculation, because I'm not comfortable if they do. Where do you get this shiat? I'm done wasting time; I wasn't changing the subject before, but I'm dropping it now. Even if you can't express yourself clearly, I am NOT getting involved in an infinite loop with you. Is that the plan? Keep honking the same objections until someone quits communicating, and then declare "victory?" That's declaring retardation, not victory.

And quit trying to get me to defend statements I didn't make. It's really DISHONEST of you.
 
2011-06-17 05:37:19 PM

GeneralJim: I am more pro-science than any non-scientist I know... What I am against is polluting science with politics


GeneralJim: I am overly interested in the methodology that, given time and constant practice, brought us from the dark ages of epistemological authority


Orly? I'll just leave this here...

GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.


GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash


Maybe you should post some more articles from Brietbart's Big Government website to show us how apolitical and concerned about the methodology you are.
 
2011-06-17 05:39:23 PM

GeneralJim: What I am against is polluting science with politics, and buying scientists with research dollars. What I am against is the ANTI-SCIENCE of "you must obey the consensus." and "The science is done." If the first fifteen minutes of any competent science class had sunk into your osmium-dense cranium, you would IMMEDIATELY recognize that ANYONE using either of those phrases was bending science over the table and arse-raping her. Of course, you may be biased -- that's how little colon nuggets like yourself get knocked loose to roam around free.



I think you have a very good point, but you're missing a more important underlying issue. When most people talk about the science being mostly settled, or at least settled on the basics, there is an element of argument from authority or deferring to expertise there. The thing is that is also true of any and all information outside of our direct experience, climate change related or not.

We do rely on things such as expert opinion as a useful heuristic for knowledge about the world around us. While you're right to point out that does not necessarily mean absolute truth in all cases and has its flaws, it's the best tool we have. If you use too much of an absolutist frame for looking at scientific information, while you would be correct in a purely formal way, you would be again limited, to personal experience and therefore be very limited in what you could infer about the world in general.

Another way of looking at this is to note the difference between certainty in the way we usually mean and operate with, and certainty in an absolute sense. Let's take, for instance, the idea that the moon landings actually occurred. We could take the absolutist framework you're putting forward and apply it here - it would suggest that we can't be certain we actually did so, together with the "bending science over the table and arse-raping her" rhetoric you've used. However, this view, again, severely limits what we can infer about the world around us. Operationally, we are certain that the moon landings occurred even though (a notably simplistic) never-ending recursive view of science would suggest otherwise.

tl;dr - you're right, but in such an absolute way that you're probably excluding most knowledge.
 
2011-06-17 05:44:32 PM

Smidge204: Unfortunately those other things, like soil nutrients, are easily and rapidly depleted while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, so the net result is a stagnation or possible reduction in plant growth, not increase.


What? Carbon dioxide promotes plant growth. Plant growth could deplete other elements, thus limiting plant growth. Therefore, carbon dioxide limits plant growth. Is this your argument? Really?
 
2011-06-17 05:46:20 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Reason it out here, if you can. Again, this just looks like you're trying to change the subject, since I've got you nailed.

Do these fantasies of yours end in ejaculation, because I'm not comfortable if they do. Where do you get this shiat? I'm done wasting time; I wasn't changing the subject before, but I'm dropping it now. Even if you can't express yourself clearly, I am NOT getting involved in an infinite loop with you. Is that the plan? Keep honking the same objections until someone quits communicating, and then declare "victory?" That's declaring retardation, not victory.

And quit trying to get me to defend statements I didn't make. It's really DISHONEST of you.



Apparently, you can't or won't even attempt to reason it out. Now it just looks like you're trying to drop the subject outright because I've got you nailed ;)

I'll point out that actually reasoning it out probably would have taken less energy than your current expenditure on indignation and avoidance.
 
2011-06-17 05:50:32 PM

Smidge204: GeneralJim: It appears you read the literature incorrectly. They are varying four quantities, including raising the temperature 2 degrees F. This is building their conclusions into the test.

No, I read the actual publication, not the article on Science Daily which actually references both the study and the program in general. Nowhere in the actual paper I cited does it give specific temperature increases.


Really? What's this, then?
"The JRGCE involved four global change factors at two levels: CO2 [ambient and 680 parts per million ( ppm)], temperature (ambient and ambient plus 80 W m2 of thermal radiation), precipitation (ambient and 50% above ambient plus 3-week growing season elongation), and N deposition (ambient and ambient plus 7 g of N m2 year1) in a complete factorial design."

Also, the infrared heaters in the pictures were a solid clue.
 
2011-06-17 05:53:40 PM

Smidge204: Note that this paper does not address the topic of climate change or atmospheric carbon, but how these things affect plant growth. Therefore there is no justification to say they are "building their conclusions into the test" because they make no attempt to draw any conclusions on those subjects.


Okay, would you have less of a problem with this if I said they were building the conclusions of AGW into their test?
 
2011-06-17 06:01:47 PM

GeneralJim: Smidge204: Unfortunately those other things, like soil nutrients, are easily and rapidly depleted while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, so the net result is a stagnation or possible reduction in plant growth, not increase.

What? Carbon dioxide promotes plant growth. Plant growth could deplete other elements, thus limiting plant growth. Therefore, carbon dioxide limits plant growth. Is this your argument? Really?



Let's see if I can explain this. First you need to understand that that soil nutrients are the limiting factor in most systems, not CO2. What this means is that a plant whose growth is already N- or P-limited might not respond to increases in CO2 concentration - its growth is already limited by soil nutrient availability. This sort of thing represents interactions between different factors - yet another reason why a study that focuses only on CO2 in isolation may have limited real-world applicability.

What this means in the context of what you're mentioning is that even if sufficient soil nutrients were available, they may be depleted in short order, resulting in "a stagnation or possible reduction in plant growth, not increase" over time. Increases in growth may be temporary, depending on soil nutrient availability.

Does that clear up the idea for you? I could probably drag up some diagrams if you need them - this is high-school-level science.
 
2011-06-17 06:04:02 PM

Damnhippyfreak: You're proving my point. You've moved the goalposts by later referring to a lag that isn't present in your original graph, and in addition, the bit in bold falls exactly in line with what I was claiming about your teleological/circular argument:


Stop being obtuse. I see a lag in the graph I put up. But, even if I didn't, it's not moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts is saying "There will be 6 K of warming by 2100" and then later saying "We may fall as much as 0.5K short of our prediction of 4 K warming by 2100." Whether or not a graph shows lag is irrelevant.
 
2011-06-17 06:12:22 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Smidge204: Unfortunately those other things, like soil nutrients, are easily and rapidly depleted while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, so the net result is a stagnation or possible reduction in plant growth, not increase.

What? Carbon dioxide promotes plant growth. Plant growth could deplete other elements, thus limiting plant growth. Therefore, carbon dioxide limits plant growth. Is this your argument? Really?


Let's see if I can explain this. First you need to understand that that soil nutrients are the limiting factor in most systems, not CO2. What this means is that a plant whose growth is already N- or P-limited might not respond to increases in CO2 concentration - its growth is already limited by soil nutrient availability. This sort of thing represents interactions between different factors - yet another reason why a study that focuses only on CO2 in isolation may have limited real-world applicability.

What this means in the context of what you're mentioning is that even if sufficient soil nutrients were available, they may be depleted in short order, resulting in "a stagnation or possible reduction in plant growth, not increase" over time. Increases in growth may be temporary, depending on soil nutrient availability.

Does that clear up the idea for you? I could probably drag up some diagrams if you need them - this is high-school-level science.


In other words, in a richly biodiverse community, an overabundance of one resource may favor particular members of that community such that they out compete and eventually exclude other members, lowering the overall health and diversity of the community. High school biology, freshman biology, ecology... probably not covered in the political blogosphere though.
 
2011-06-17 06:12:58 PM

GeneralJim: Smidge204: GeneralJim: It appears you read the literature incorrectly. They are varying four quantities, including raising the temperature 2 degrees F. This is building their conclusions into the test.

No, I read the actual publication, not the article on Science Daily which actually references both the study and the program in general. Nowhere in the actual paper I cited does it give specific temperature increases.

Really? What's this, then?
"The JRGCE involved four global change factors at two levels: CO2 [ambient and 680 parts per million ( ppm)], temperature (ambient and ambient plus 80 W m2 of thermal radiation), precipitation (ambient and 50% above ambient plus 3-week growing season elongation), and N deposition (ambient and ambient plus 7 g of N m2 year1) in a complete factorial design."

Also, the infrared heaters in the pictures were a solid clue.



Maybe you missed it the first time, but it looks like Smidge204, by saying that "nowhere in the actual paper I cited does it give specific temperature increases" is referring to your claim of "raising the temperature 2 degrees F". Said increase of "2 degrees F" isn't apparent from the bit of the paper you quoted.
 
2011-06-17 06:13:55 PM

Damnhippyfreak: How do you figure the bit in bold? Reason it out here instead of just making a bare assertion. As for the idea that this experiment "gives counter results to every other study I have seen", you yourself stated a reason why that could be in that "most studies only vary ONE variable". Again, for the reason I've outlined above, this is great for looking at one factor in isolation, but is somewhat unrealistic. As for you contention about "the real world", I'm going to call you out on that - what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study?


I am, indeed, wearying of your whiny biatch routine. You are, with your continual carping, close to being ingored... (manually... I don't put people on ignore.) Why should I bother with you at all? Every explanation leads to more nit-picking and re-carping.

The Australian plant studies (in reality) show a very large increase in primary plant growth from increased carbon dioxide, especially in drought conditions. As to the bit in bold... They farking STATE it. I quoted it above. They are ASSUMING that temps will increase 2 degrees F, and rain will increase, simply because carbon dioxide increases, and are basically doing a physical implementation of the models which have predicted so spectacularly badly.

That is a problem in research now... if you ASSUME that AGW is correct, and mention it, you have funding. This is warping research. The longer these political fark-sticks are allowed to pollute science, the bigger the bill of cleaning up the mess afterwards.
 
2011-06-17 06:17:36 PM

chimp_ninja: I'm sorry. Can you explain this in terms of pasted-in text from "kowabunga.org"? That's where real science apparently comes from. And terrible movie reviews.


Got nuthin', I see. Good.
 
2011-06-17 06:27:16 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: You're proving my point. You've moved the goalposts by later referring to a lag that isn't present in your original graph, and in addition, the bit in bold falls exactly in line with what I was claiming about your teleological/circular argument:

Stop being obtuse. I see a lag in the unsourced second graph I put up, and I will ignore the first one I posted. But, even if I didn't, it's not moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts is saying "There will be 6 K of warming by 2100" and then later saying "We may fall as much as 0.5K short of our prediction of 4 K warming by 2100." Whether or not a graph shows lag is irrelevant.



FTFY. Note that you are also ignoring the fact that the reason why solar cycle length was chosen in the first place is because of the lack of lag. What I am trying to get at is that you have moved the goalposts in terms of what is correlation - from originally without lag (which is again, the reason why the parameter you are using was chosen in the first place), to "ten to twenty years later". It just seems arbitrary and teleological, as chimp_ninja also points out.
 
2011-06-17 06:27:46 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.

GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash

Maybe you should post some more articles from Brietbart's Big Government website to show us how apolitical and concerned about the methodology you are.


I never know when people just CLAIMING not to get it, because they are dicks, or if they really don't get it.

In either case, the IMPORTANT part of the AGW debate *IS* the politics. And, damn them to Hell for making it so. The U.N. and U.S. leftist bungholes pushing this want to control essentially every human action. They have used just about every imaginable trick and underhanded ploy to get this that they can. Thank GOD the science is bouncing back, bringing questions to the Chicken Little scenario being used by the IPCC. Enough questions have been raised that it appears impossible that the horrific legislation will pass.

The science, if left to its own, will sort out soon enough.

And, for the second quote, yes, peer-review in climatology has no scientific meaning. Utter trash is passing peer-review, and great work is being denied, all on the basis of using support of AGW rather than quality of work, as the deciding factor.

So, an utterly consistent position.
 
2011-06-17 06:36:19 PM

Damnhippyfreak: We do rely on things such as expert opinion as a useful heuristic for knowledge about the world around us. While you're right to point out that does not necessarily mean absolute truth in all cases and has its flaws, it's the best tool we have. If you use too much of an absolutist frame for looking at scientific information, while you would be correct in a purely formal way, you would be again limited, to personal experience and therefore be very limited in what you could infer about the world in general.


Horsecrap. Simply horsecrap. When it is said "the science is settled" that can ONLY be said because any skepticism has been repressed. Peer review in climatology is utterly useless. It has as much meaning as a "New and Improved" sticker on a box of laundry soap -- and for many of the same reasons.

How do you reconcile the science being "settled" with the fact that the models, with all their "settled" assumptions built in, suck balls at predicting the future? Or, simpler still, how do you reconcile the FACT that nothing skeptical was published a couple years ago, that ALL papers agreed with AGW, with the FACT that, in the same year, literally DOZENS of papers were published questioning the foundations of gravity and evolution? And, finally, how do you reconcile the CLAIM that the "science is settled" with the FACT that climate and weather are mathematically chaotic systems, and are, therefore, functionally impossible to understand to any degree of detail?
 
2011-06-17 06:37:57 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: How do you figure the bit in bold? Reason it out here instead of just making a bare assertion. As for the idea that this experiment "gives counter results to every other study I have seen", you yourself stated a reason why that could be in that "most studies only vary ONE variable". Again, for the reason I've outlined above, this is great for looking at one factor in isolation, but is somewhat unrealistic. As for you contention about "the real world", I'm going to call you out on that - what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study?

I am, indeed, wearying of your whiny biatch routine. You are, with your continual carping, close to being ingored... (manually... I don't put people on ignore.) Why should I bother with you at all? Every explanation leads to more nit-picking and re-carping.

The Australian plant studies (in reality) show a very large increase in primary plant growth from increased carbon dioxide, especially in drought conditions. As to the bit in bold... They farking STATE it. I quoted it above. They are ASSUMING that temps will increase 2 degrees F, and rain will increase, simply because carbon dioxide increases, and are basically doing a physical implementation of the models which have predicted so spectacularly badly.

That is a problem in research now... if you ASSUME that AGW is correct, and mention it, you have funding. This is warping research. The longer these political fark-sticks are allowed to pollute science, the bigger the bill of cleaning up the mess afterwards.



Thanks for reasoning it out. It was unclear whether you meant the conclusions of the study itself or some prior conclusions regarding the existence of climate change. I later made an addition to what I said. I'll repost it here for you:

Damnhippyfreak: Damnhippyfreak: How do you figure the bit in bold? Reason it out here instead of just making a bare assertion.

On second though, I can see where you're coming from here. You apparently believe that no temperature increase would ensue from an increase in CO2 concentration. However, I would caution that this really isn't "building conclusions into the "experiment:" in that the experiment isn't meant to address the question of the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Note that assuming that just increasing CO2 in isolation is a meaningful analogue to the real world would therefore also be "building conclusions into the "experiment:" according to your own reasoning.



In addition, you seem to have missed the part where I ask what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study. I ask for that information again.
 
2011-06-17 06:51:13 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Another way of looking at this is to note the difference between certainty in the way we usually mean and operate with, and certainty in an absolute sense. Let's take, for instance, the idea that the moon landings actually occurred. We could take the absolutist framework you're putting forward and apply it here - it would suggest that we can't be certain we actually did so, together with the "bending science over the table and arse-raping her" rhetoric you've used. However, this view, again, severely limits what we can infer about the world around us. Operationally, we are certain that the moon landings occurred even though (a notably simplistic) never-ending recursive view of science would suggest otherwise


I have NEVER been an advocate of the "hard line" bullshiat you are suggesting here, either in my personal life, or in scientific endeavor. It is stultifying in any area used. On the other hand, I don't believe something just because some bonehead somewhere can't think of any other possibilities.

But, when the plan of action costs TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and probably our civilization, "meh, it kind of makes sense" isn't good enough - not by a LONG shot. If nothing else, the fact that there have been so many errors, frauds, losses of data, differing sets of data, wildly different interpretations of data, and pure crap being published as "peer-reviewed" science suggests, ON ITS OWN, that we pause and re-do much of the science to check our conclusions.

As for the moon landings, there are several elegant proofs one can arrange. First, get a 10-watt LASER... should be big enough. The astronauts left a reflect-to-source box 'o' mirrors on the surface. Hit the site with the LASER, which should be a rather large spot after a quarter million miles, and pick up the reflected signal at the site of the LASER. BONUS: see if the moon is closing, or drawing away.

Second, radio broadcasts from the moon were picked up by people all over, by aiming antennae at the moon. The Soviets would have loved NOTHING more than to prove that we were faking it. And, if we were, THEY would have known, and would have pointed out just where the signals originated, humiliating us. That they DIDN'T proves that they COULDN'T.
 
2011-06-17 06:54:28 PM
Damnhippyfreak:

[ condescension deleted ]
 
2011-06-17 06:58:19 PM

Damnhippyfreak: In addition, you seem to have missed the part where I ask what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study. I ask for that information again.


Read my post again.
 
2011-06-17 07:11:36 PM

GeneralJim: So, an utterly consistent position.


Provided that you believe in conspiracy theories.

Politics and religion have wended there way into scientific pursuit ever since science first challenged the status quo. There's little difference in this respect from the 16th century. Instead of heresy against the Church, today it's heresy against the energy industry. Blasphemy against God bringing doom to civilization has been replaced with redistribution of wealth bringing doom to civilization. A wealthy religious institution casting doubt on empirical process has been replaced by a wealthy financial institution casting doubt on empirical process. Friars preaching obedience to community congregations have been replaced by bloggers coordinating denialist talking points. Same song, different verse, a couple centuries later.
 
2011-06-17 07:12:00 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: We do rely on things such as expert opinion as a useful heuristic for knowledge about the world around us. While you're right to point out that does not necessarily mean absolute truth in all cases and has its flaws, it's the best tool we have. If you use too much of an absolutist frame for looking at scientific information, while you would be correct in a purely formal way, you would be again limited, to personal experience and therefore be very limited in what you could infer about the world in general.

Horsecrap. Simply horsecrap. When it is said "the science is settled" that can ONLY be said because any skepticism has been repressed. Peer review in climatology is utterly useless. It has as much meaning as a "New and Improved" sticker on a box of laundry soap -- and for many of the same reasons.

How do you reconcile the science being "settled" with the fact that the models, with all their "settled" assumptions built in, suck balls at predicting the future? Or, simpler still, how do you reconcile the FACT that nothing skeptical was published a couple years ago, that ALL papers agreed with AGW, with the FACT that, in the same year, literally DOZENS of papers were published questioning the foundations of gravity and evolution? And, finally, how do you reconcile the CLAIM that the "science is settled" with the FACT that climate and weather are mathematically chaotic systems, and are, therefore, functionally impossible to understand to any degree of detail?



What I've said before is unfortunate, but true. You yourself even have problems with even citing graphs and the information you post, never mind actually understanding the underlying science (that you notably have very limited access to). You, more than others here, are relying on information from experts - and in a way that's more blind and opaque than most.

Let's quickly take a look at the bit in bold. The other alternative, and the most likely one, is that there is broad agreement about the basics. We can tease apart some of the other contentions you're making:


GeneralJim: How do you reconcile the science being "settled" with the fact that the models, with all their "settled" assumptions built in, suck balls at predicting the future?


You may be conflating the idea that the basics are well-agreed upon with a straw-man of a complete lack of error. What you should be asking is whether such models (with inherent errors) are useful enough to make useful inferences about the future.


GeneralJim: Or, simpler still, how do you reconcile the FACT that nothing skeptical was published a couple years ago, that ALL papers agreed with AGW, with the FACT that, in the same year, literally DOZENS of papers were published questioning the foundations of gravity and evolution?


You have to make a distinction between the basics and more contentious details. There is certainly lots of active research on the details in all of the theories you're mentioned. Questioning the basics, however, is much more rare.

In addition, you have to qualify a statement like "nothing skeptical was published a couple years ago" with where they're being published and exactly what is being contended. Details matter.


GeneralJim: And, finally, how do you reconcile the CLAIM that the "science is settled" with the FACT that climate and weather are mathematically chaotic systems, and are, therefore, functionally impossible to understand to any degree of detail?


This is related to a previous point. Every model contains errors or a certain amount of uncertainty (they're models, not the real thing). The question is whether the model is good enough to be useful. Looking at this from such an absolutist view is profoundly unrealistic. After all, every system is chaotic depending on the scale - this does not mean that useful inferences cannot be made.
 
2011-06-17 07:18:12 PM

GeneralJim: PsiChick: Me: Oh, this is just some hyped-up article--

*sees chart*

OH SHIAT.

/May not cause a mini-Ice Age, but damn, this'll fark SOMETHING up REAL fast.
//Astronomy freak

Hey, you noticed that. Clever girl. I'm thinking that in just a couple of years, any plan advanced to save us from global warming will be laughed out of committee. And, it's about time. There is no need for this hoax to go on as long as the Piltdown Man hoax did.


...Um, why do you think it's a hoax? I'm not trolling, I just don't get it. The hard data is...well, it's like saying 'the sky isn't blue' when the sky is actually blue. Is there some proof I'm not getting? From what I know, the coral reefs are shrinking, migration patterns are changing, and weather is starting to get more extreme, which dovetails perfectly with what any other planet with too much CO2 in its atmosphere would have. That, and there's a measurable upswing in temp...

/No, seriously, can you link or something? I don't get it.
 
2011-06-17 07:25:24 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Another way of looking at this is to note the difference between certainty in the way we usually mean and operate with, and certainty in an absolute sense. Let's take, for instance, the idea that the moon landings actually occurred. We could take the absolutist framework you're putting forward and apply it here - it would suggest that we can't be certain we actually did so, together with the "bending science over the table and arse-raping her" rhetoric you've used. However, this view, again, severely limits what we can infer about the world around us. Operationally, we are certain that the moon landings occurred even though (a notably simplistic) never-ending recursive view of science would suggest otherwise

I have NEVER been an advocate of the "hard line" bullshiat you are suggesting here, either in my personal life, or in scientific endeavor . It is stultifying in any area used. On the other hand, I don't believe something just because some bonehead somewhere can't think of any other possibilities.

But, when the plan of action costs TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and probably our civilization, "meh, it kind of makes sense" isn't good enough - not by a LONG shot. If nothing else, the fact that there have been so many errors, frauds, losses of data, differing sets of data, wildly different interpretations of data, and pure crap being published as "peer-reviewed" science suggests, ON ITS OWN, that we pause and re-do much of the science to check our conclusions.

As for the moon landings, there are several elegant proofs one can arrange. First, get a 10-watt LASER... should be big enough. The astronauts left a reflect-to-source box 'o' mirrors on the surface. Hit the site with the LASER, which should be a rather large spot after a quarter million miles, and pick up the reflected signal at the site of the LASER. BONUS: see if the moon is closing, or drawing away.

Second, radio broadcasts from the moon were picked up by people all over, by aiming antennae at the moon. The Soviets would have loved NOTHING more than to prove that we were faking it. And, if we were, THEY would have known, and would have pointed out just where the signals originated, humiliating us. That they DIDN'T proves that they COULDN'T.



And have you ever done such experiments yourself? Have you seen those mirrors, did you listen to those broadcasts? At some point, you're still relying on the useful heuristic of information from experts, which is my point.

As for the bit in bold, it appears this "hard line" is exactly what you're advocating for in this bit:

GeneralJim: What I am against is polluting science with politics, and buying scientists with research dollars. What I am against is the ANTI-SCIENCE of "you must obey the consensus." and "The science is done." If the first fifteen minutes of any competent science class had sunk into your osmium-dense cranium, you would IMMEDIATELY recognize that ANYONE using either of those phrases was bending science over the table and arse-raping her. Of course, you may be biased -- that's how little colon nuggets like yourself get knocked loose to roam around free.


Can we say that "the science is done" or "you must obey the consensus" that we landed on the moon? The "hard line" you've stated here would characterize that "ANYONE using either of those phrases was bending science over the table and arse-raping her". Again, even in the context of the existence of the moon landings. I'll state again, that you would be right in a narrow, absolute sense, but this also discounts anything but personal experience. Which again, is unsuitable for even proving the existence of the moon landings.
 
2011-06-17 07:29:46 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:

[ condescension deleted ]


Hehe. It's difficult not to be a bit condescending when you're arguing like a child, complete with insults, calling names, pouting when your mistakes are pointed out to you and tantrums when you've been caught not telling the truth ;)

The point I made there stands, even though you seem to be unable to respond to it like a rational adult. I'm sorry, but I can't candy-coat it for you if you're getting high-school-level science wrong.
 
2011-06-17 07:36:59 PM

PsiChick: ...Um, why do you think it's a hoax? I'm not trolling, I just don't get it. The hard data is...well, it's like saying 'the sky isn't blue' when the sky is actually blue. Is there some proof I'm not getting? From what I know, the coral reefs are shrinking, migration patterns are changing, and weather is starting to get more extreme, which dovetails perfectly with what any other planet with too much CO2 in its atmosphere would have. That, and there's a measurable upswing in temp...

/No, seriously, can you link or something? I don't get it.


Jim is a conspiracy theorist who pops up almost exclusively in climate change threads, links to an array of political and conspiracy blogs, and generally tries to persuade people that climate science is a cover for a major covert operation to redistribute the wealth of the world to malevolent antagonists. A small sampling of his material:

GeneralJim: TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations... Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars.


GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.


GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator


GeneralJim: Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.


GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash


GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.

 
2011-06-17 07:37:42 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: In addition, you seem to have missed the part where I ask what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study. I ask for that information again.

Read my post again.



Let's take a look. Here's your original contention:

GeneralJim: Second: This "experiment" gives counter results to every other study I have seen, and to the real world. It appears SOMETHING about the experiment was botched.


Here's my response (with the relevant bit bolded) and yours in turn:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: How do you figure the bit in bold? Reason it out here instead of just making a bare assertion. As for the idea that this experiment "gives counter results to every other study I have seen", you yourself stated a reason why that could be in that "most studies only vary ONE variable". Again, for the reason I've outlined above, this is great for looking at one factor in isolation, but is somewhat unrealistic. As for you contention about "the real world", I'm going to call you out on that - what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study?

I am, indeed, wearying of your whiny biatch routine. You are, with your continual carping, close to being ingored... (manually... I don't put people on ignore.) Why should I bother with you at all? Every explanation leads to more nit-picking and re-carping.

The Australian plant studies (in reality) show a very large increase in primary plant growth from increased carbon dioxide, especially in drought conditions. As to the bit in bold... They farking STATE it. I quoted it above. They are ASSUMING that temps will increase 2 degrees F, and rain will increase, simply because carbon dioxide increases, and are basically doing a physical implementation of the models which have predicted so spectacularly badly.

That is a problem in research now... if you ASSUME that AGW is correct, and mention it, you have funding. This is warping research. The longer these political fark-sticks are allowed to pollute science, the bigger the bill of cleaning up the mess afterwards.



Nope, no "real world" observations are mentioned here that would somehow invalidate the "counter results" of that study. Maybe you could at least outline what these "real world" observations of yours are?
 
2011-06-17 07:43:43 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: PsiChick: ...Um, why do you think it's a hoax? I'm not trolling, I just don't get it. The hard data is...well, it's like saying 'the sky isn't blue' when the sky is actually blue. Is there some proof I'm not getting? From what I know, the coral reefs are shrinking, migration patterns are changing, and weather is starting to get more extreme, which dovetails perfectly with what any other planet with too much CO2 in its atmosphere would have. That, and there's a measurable upswing in temp...

/No, seriously, can you link or something? I don't get it.

Jim is a conspiracy theorist who pops up almost exclusively in climate change threads, links to an array of political and conspiracy blogs, and generally tries to persuade people that climate science is a cover for a major covert operation to redistribute the wealth of the world to malevolent antagonists. A small sampling of his material:

GeneralJim: TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations... Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars.

GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.

GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator

GeneralJim: Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.

GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash

GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.



Keep those. I'm sorry to say it but GeneralJim seems to approaching a point where his post-hoc rationalizations are starting to become internally inconsistent. You can only bullshiat so much before it starts to contradict itself.
 
2011-06-17 08:11:41 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Keep those. I'm sorry to say it but GeneralJim seems to approaching a point where his post-hoc rationalizations are starting to become internally inconsistent. You can only bullshiat so much before it starts to contradict itself.


I plan on it. I started collecting them after it became plain that discussing the science of things wasn't of interest to him beyond his prepared statements. He makes a grand show of arguing modeling and nuance based off of prepackaged arguments from politically based blogs that he has hashed out in his own words, but any discussion that veers from those prepared focal points quickly turns to name calling and conspiracy theory. Anyone with an expressed interest in ecology (of which I biasedly consider climate science a part... a least a cousin!) that will argue climate models but does not understand basics of biodiversity as in the example above with communities and resources and others, sends off red flags when they claim an academic background to try to influence others.
 
2011-06-17 09:02:43 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: There's little difference in this respect from the 16th century. Instead of heresy against the Church, today it's heresy against the energy industry.


Normally, I find SOMETHING of interest in your posts, if nothing more than a spark that indicates a functional brain. But THIS parroting of leftist propaganda doesn't have that spark.

Look, for a second, at the situation: The IPCC has been repeatedly caught putting propaganda from extremist environmental literature into IPCC reports, and calling it "peer-reviewed." In this case, they have activists, WITH COMMERCIAL INTERESTS in the results writing it, and reviewing it.

Can you show me where the oil money is in this? Do you think THEY are paying to get environmentalist literature published by the IPCC?

Your conspiracy theory about the oil companies is simple mental illness. The oil companies used their considerable influence to make sure that the proposed legislation won't hurt them, and now they are just peachy with the legislation. As a matter of fact, the oil company money has gone to sponsor the Cancun dog-and-pony, for one. And, the oil companies are MUCH smarter than the enviro-lobbyists. They know they don't need to spend, well, ANYTHING, really, since others are doing their work for them.

On the other hand, I say the point of this legislation is as a way to send billions, if not trillions, of dollars from the first world to the third world. Why do I hold this bizarre belief? Because the people in charge say so!

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. - IPCC Working Committee Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide. -former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom, 2000

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.-Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister, 2002

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources. - Emma Brindal, Friends of the Earth, 2007

Blindly accepting Western science's prognosis could have social and economic costs for India. Climate science today is not just a scientific enterprise, but also a political enterprise. - Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, The Hindu, 17 November 2010
 
2011-06-17 09:19:23 PM

Damnhippyfreak: What I've said before is unfortunate, but true. You yourself even have problems with even citing graphs and the information you post, never mind actually understanding the underlying science (that you notably have very limited access to). You, more than others here, are relying on information from experts - and in a way that's more blind and opaque than most.


Among your other cognitive problems, you show a strong tendency to conflate disagreement with your position with error.

I do understand the vast majority of what I post, and the exceptions come within referencing a large paper I have not totally read. In addition, I have what I have always assumed was a common ability - I can think. Since starting to post on Fark, I have begun to question whether or not this ability is as widespread as I have assumed. I had expected the general idea that trailing factors are not the controlling factors to be easily accepted. And, when some questions came up, I assumed that others with knowledge of feedback systems would point out the LACK of the delays and dampings that would occur if the trailing factor were even a second or third-tier factor. But, no, what *I* get from that is a group of poo-flinging lower primates howling "feedback and forcing" that they clipped off of their "When denier says" blog.

I expected, when I pointed out that "runaway greenhouse effect" wasn't possible, because we have had many situations on Earth that have put more carbon dioxide in the air than we have without noticeable effect, such as supervolcano eruptions, and bolide strikes. What happens? Some assclown puts up a study on volcanoes erupting in 1980-something. As I have heard, there haven't been any supervolcano eruptions in thousands of years.

Apparently, unable to understand the argument I am making, the assclown, I think it was chimp_ninja, but could be wrong... there are so MANY assclowns... was arguing against the argument "volcanoes put out more carbon dioxide than mankind" that he found on his "When denier says" list... rather than on the one I was making. And, nobody has managed a derp-free response yet.
 
2011-06-17 09:29:45 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: PsiChick: ...Um, why do you think it's a hoax? I'm not trolling, I just don't get it. The hard data is...well, it's like saying 'the sky isn't blue' when the sky is actually blue. Is there some proof I'm not getting? From what I know, the coral reefs are shrinking, migration patterns are changing, and weather is starting to get more extreme, which dovetails perfectly with what any other planet with too much CO2 in its atmosphere would have. That, and there's a measurable upswing in temp...

/No, seriously, can you link or something? I don't get it.

Jim is a conspiracy theorist who pops up almost exclusively in climate change threads, links to an array of political and conspiracy blogs, and generally tries to persuade people that climate science is a cover for a major covert operation to redistribute the wealth of the world to malevolent antagonists. A small sampling of his material:

GeneralJim: TRILLIONS of dollars, and immense control over industry, world-wide, are at stake. The current record holder for the largest scam in human history is the United Nations... Never ones to rest on their laurels, the U.N. is, as we speak, working out details on a plan to get the first world, especially the United States, to pay the third world TRILLIONS of dollars.

GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.

GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator

GeneralJim: Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.

GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash

GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.


Oh. I thought he was serious. My bad.

/In my defense, my grandparents do the same thing without the trolling. It's scary.
 
2011-06-17 09:47:32 PM

GeneralJim: Normally, I find SOMETHING of interest in your posts, if nothing more than a spark that indicates a functional brain


insults.

GeneralJim: But THIS parroting of leftist propaganda


politics.

GeneralJim: Your conspiracy theory about the oil companies is simple mental illness. The oil companies used their considerable influence to make sure that the proposed legislation won't hurt them, and now they are just peachy with the legislation. As a matter of fact, the oil company money has gone to sponsor the Cancun dog-and-pony, for one. And, the oil companies are MUCH smarter than the enviro-lobbyists. They know they don't need to spend, well, ANYTHING, really, since others are doing their work for them.

On the other hand, I say the point of this legislation is as a way to send billions, if not trillions, of dollars from the first world to the third world. Why do I hold this bizarre belief? Because the people in charge say so!


conspiracy theory.

GeneralJim: But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. - IPCC Working Committee Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide. -former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom, 2000

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.-Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister, 2002

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources. - Emma Brindal, Friends of the Earth, 2007

Blindly accepting Western science's prognosis could have social and economic costs for India. Climate science today is not just a scientific enterprise, but also a political enterprise. - Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, The Hindu, 17 November 2010


And a wad of paraphrased, out of context quotes with no links to original content, at least one of which (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) has to be selectively translated as well as taken completely out of context to mean what you want it to mean.

In other words, a par for the course GeneralJim post with no appreciable content and avoidance of addressing the content responded to; if what you took home out of my post that you quoted in this response was a conspiracy theory about the oil industry, that should tell you a lot about the errors in your own thought processes regarding the subject with a minimal amount of critical reflection.
 
2011-06-17 09:57:51 PM

PsiChick: Oh. I thought he was serious. My bad.

/In my defense, my grandparents do the same thing without the trolling. It's scary.


I thought he was serious at first too. Several lengthy conversations with him disabused me of that impression fairly quickly.

On a completely unrelated note, you should link your fanfiction in your bio; lots of geeks like myself around here to read it.
 
2011-06-17 10:00:23 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: How do you reconcile the science being "settled" with the fact that the models, with all their "settled" assumptions built in, suck balls at predicting the future?

You may be conflating the idea that the basics are well-agreed upon with a straw-man of a complete lack of error. What you should be asking is whether such models (with inherent errors) are useful enough to make useful inferences about the future.


"Complete lack of error" my ass. Nice attempt to move the goalposts, as you do all the fricking time with me. Cut that shiat out, or you'll have to eat your lunch by yourself.

In science, a useful comparison tool is the "null hypothesis." In climatology, this is essentially "The climate does not change over time." Yeah, yeah, it's false. On the other hand, if you calculate the error on the null hypothesis, it MORE CORRECTLY PREDICTS climate, so far, than does Hansen's prediction from 1989. Hansen's model has 2-3 TIMES as much error as the null hypothesis. As a matter of fact, the null hypothesis does a VERY good job 2000-2010.

Hansen's prediction's error is over FIVE TIMES the error bar amount. When models perform this badly, the underlying hypotheses are almost certain seriously flawed.

The model performance has been examined, and mathematical errors have been discovered. Fixing these errors in math causes the models to perform within reasonable error bounds, INCLUDING leveling off the temperature for the last almost fifteen years.

Well, then, why are the models being used to provide predictions for our governments, so they may plan future courses of action, being used WITHOUT these simple corrections? The answer is simple. When fixed, the models show essentially no cause for concern. And "no cause for concern" is NOT a good way to get an intrusive tax and wealth re-distribution package into law... PANIC is necessary. And the fixed models don't show that, so the errors were kept. This is NOT the way science is supposed to work.
 
2011-06-17 10:18:38 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Or, simpler still, how do you reconcile the FACT that nothing skeptical was published a couple years ago, that ALL papers agreed with AGW, with the FACT that, in the same year, literally DOZENS of papers were published questioning the foundations of gravity and evolution?

You have to make a distinction between the basics and more contentious details. There is certainly lots of active research on the details in all of the theories you're mentioned. Questioning the basics, however, is much more rare.

Well, sure. And there were THOUSANDS of papers published, from every perspective that someone could imagine. The point is, every so often, people take a whack at the basics of something, evolution or gravity, now called a "law" due to thoroughgoing observation. EXCEPT in climate science, a new science, and a mathematically chaotic system. NOBODY questions THAT. Oh, Please; only if one's income or job itself is threatened by being skeptical.

In addition, you have to qualify a statement like "nothing skeptical was published a couple years ago" with where they're being published and exactly what is being contended. Details matter.


I was never injured. "And where were you at the time?" You are seriously asking where stuff that wasn't published was published?

fc02.deviantart.net

And, refer to chimp_ninja -- HE was the one suggesting that "not a whiff of skepticism" proved AGW correct.
 
2011-06-17 10:22:06 PM

Damnhippyfreak: This is related to a previous point. Every model contains errors or a certain amount of uncertainty (they're models, not the real thing). The question is whether the model is good enough to be useful. Looking at this from such an absolutist view is profoundly unrealistic. After all, every system is chaotic depending on the scale - this does not mean that useful inferences cannot be made.


In a situation in which the models produce more error than the null hypothesis, or in situations in which the error is several times larger than the signal being observed, I'd say the model is NOT good enough to be useful. Of course, they COULD easily fix them to make them roughly an order of magnitude better.
 
2011-06-17 11:15:24 PM

PsiChick: /No, seriously, can you link or something? I don't get it.


Well, since you've asked... Read various of these:


Errors in Scientific Data, Programs, and Methodology

Computer source code shows data manipulation. Article HERE. (new window)

Peer-reviewed article exposing math error in current models is available HERE. (new window)
Note that when the suggested correction to the math error is included in the models, they at least sort of accurately predict the present from historical data. Without the corrections, they do not. Awkward.
Descriptions of and discussion about the above article:

0. Modeling Global Warming (Miskolczi Part 1)
4. Models of Greenhouse Effect
5. Greenhouse Effect Physics
6. Greenhouse Heat Engine

Climate Science Needs Light -- Climatology Peer Review Process Irreparably Broken. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer Review Process Failure: "Impossible" Conclusions in alarmist paper pass peer-review; AAAS withdraws paper. Article HERE. (new window)

And, here is a list of some of the gross errors in scientific method and practice which have become part of the IPCC credo. List HERE. (new window)

IPCC science includes the idea that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere more than 100 years, contradicting ALL of the available peer-reviewed research. Chart HERE. (new window)
Discussion HERE. (new window)

Attempts to Deny the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

History of climate gets 'erased' online. Article HERE. (new window)

First, the metric arse-load of data showing the MWP is HERE. (new window)
M.I.T. Technology Review: Hockey Stick is Bogus. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones admits MWP was real. Article HERE. (new window)

U.N., IPCC, CRUnies, and Dr. Pachauri Specific Corruption

IPCC Official: "Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth." Article HERE. (new window)

The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income. Article HERE. (new window)

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief. Article HERE. (new window)

Michael Mann Accused of More False Reporting. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Literature is not peer-reviewed or error-checked. Report HERE. (new window)

Data Manipulation Fraud

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data Again. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption At GISS. Article HERE. (new window)

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Disgraced. Article HERE. (new window)

Pre-Climategate: "Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU. Article HERE. (new window)

Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii. Article HERE. (new window)

Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA's James Hansen's Lies, Miscues, Incorrect Forecasts, and Fraud

James Hansen Apologizes for Using Next Year's Climate Data in October Report. Article HERE. (new window)

James Hansen Caught Altering Data to Eliminate Cooling. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption at NASA's GISS - Article HERE. (new window)

Some of his lies, follies, and idiocies are documented HERE. (new window)

Examination and analysis of James Hansen's bullshiat forcing claims is HERE. (new window)

Climate Models that Don't

IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data. Article HERE. (new window)

Climate Models Ignore Effect of Albedo, which is larger than GHE. Article HERE. (new window)

"The Cloud Mystery" Videos

1/5 HERE. (new window)
2/5 HERE. (new window)
3/5 HERE. (new window)
4/5 HERE. (new window)
5/5 HERE. (new window)

The Consensus itself is a Fraud

Solar activity affects cosmic rays, cloud formation is suppressed, and the planet warms. A good article, including a link to the original paper, is found HERE. (new window)

Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities - Professors Speaking Up. Article HERE. (new window)

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

No Proof Man Causes Global Warming. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)

Personal, Financial, Professional Attacks on Skeptics and the public.

Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide. Article HERE. (new window)

Scientists propose using "climate crisis" as excuse to set up scientific dictatorship. Review of their book HERE. (new window)

PNAS publishes a paper based on a skeptic blacklist. Article HERE. (new window)


 
2011-06-17 11:42:37 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Can we say that "the science is done" or "you must obey the consensus" that we landed on the moon? The "hard line" you've stated here would characterize that "ANYONE using either of those phrases was bending science over the table and arse-raping her". Again, even in the context of the existence of the moon landings. I'll state again, that you would be right in a narrow, absolute sense, but this also discounts anything but personal experience. Which again, is unsuitable for even proving the existence of the moon landings.


Okay. This last gives me enough information to form a working hypothesis. You are bright enough to get this, and are just being a dick.

You aren't comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing constellations and spider monkeys. That we landed on the moon is a historical FACT, a datum. In addition, it has a binary truth table. "Did" and "Didn't" would do well to define all the possibilities. "Climate Science" is a mathematically chaotic SYSTEM involving more variables than we know about, certainly, a well-nigh infinite number of observable data, and multiple hypotheses and explanations for any combination of one or more of these data. The two concepts cannot be discussed in a common meta-frame that makes any sense, beyond set membership.
 
2011-06-17 11:46:16 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: conspiracy theory.


Nice going, dumbass... apparently you can't tell the difference between a conspiracy theory and a business plan. Nice.
 
2011-06-17 11:51:38 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: In addition, you seem to have missed the part where I ask what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study. I ask for that information again.

Read my post again.


Let's take a look. Here's your original contention:

GeneralJim: Second: This "experiment" gives counter results to every other study I have seen, and to the real world. It appears SOMETHING about the experiment was botched.

Here's my response (with the relevant bit bolded) and yours in turn:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: How do you figure the bit in bold? Reason it out here instead of just making a bare assertion. As for the idea that this experiment "gives counter results to every other study I have seen", you yourself stated a reason why that could be in that "most studies only vary ONE variable". Again, for the reason I've outlined above, this is great for looking at one factor in isolation, but is somewhat unrealistic. As for you contention about "the real world", I'm going to call you out on that - what "real world" observation of yours do you think trumps this study?

I am, indeed, wearying of your whiny biatch routine. You are, with your continual carping, close to being ingored... (manually... I don't put people on ignore.) Why should I bother with you at all? Every explanation leads to more nit-picking and re-carping.

The Australian plant studies (in reality) show a very large increase in primary plant growth from increased carbon dioxide, especially in drought conditions. As to the bit in bold... They farking STATE it. I quoted it above. They are ASSUMING that temps will increase 2 degrees F, and rain will increase, simply because carbon dioxide increases, and are basically doing a physical implementation of the models which have predicted so spectacularly badly.

That is a problem in research now... if you ASSUME that AGW is correct, and mention it, you have funding. This is warping research. The longer these political fark-sticks are allowed to pollute science, the bigger the bill of cleaning up the mess afterwards.


Nope, no "real world" observations are mentioned here that would somehow invalidate the "counter results" of that study. Maybe you could at least outline what these "real world" observations of yours are?


Better lay off the bug juice. Okay, look up in this post. I doubt even someone or your limited abilities can miss something both bold AND underlined... but, I could be wrong. You have underwhelmed me before.
 
2011-06-18 12:00:31 AM
GeneralJim Quote 2011-06-17 11:15:24 PM
Lies, derp and astroturfing


Seriously, how long should this poster be allowed to keep sh*tting up threads with disinformation? Bonus: not even entertaining.

When does the grace period end, Drew?
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report