Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[SPman]

I wasn't discussing the paper at that point in my post, just providing background leading up to it. What I wonder about Quasi and my brother-in-law actually is how they can be so sure and so wrong.

because they are not

Just like the financial "wizards" who looted the worlds economies and brought about the latest recessions - paid for, as usual, by the general populations. They are still saying they are right and everyone else is deluded!
But - their bank accounts are very fine, thank you very much!

[Badjelly]

Except in this case, one side should be able to prove their claims. Pity those who would look at the problem objectively, are vastly outweighed by those obscuring results for their own ends.

Outshouted, certainly.

[Cheshire Cat]

Unfortunately, the "climate change" "debate" seems to have become like the evolution/creation "debate" - entrenched sides and points of view and "facts" becoming a tradeable,debateable or bashable commodity.......
- so ..ocean warming, ocean acidification and glacial melt isn't happening, either? Global warming is contextual - it refers to a human point of reference where human habitation has taken a particular generally comfortable climatic regime as a "standard" reference point, and the climate is now starting to stray, upwards, out of that "comfort zone". Quoting different climates at different epochs is meaningless in that there was then,as far as we know, no human society around. What is relevant is what the climate is doing now, and how it is going to affect human society - and to deny there is a shift going on and that nothing untoward is happening, in particular with respect to it's effects on human habitation of this planet is foolhardy and extremely short sighted!
I thinl you're ignorant if you think it isn't!

here we go. another dictionary quoter. jog on.


bite me

[Badjelly]

here we go. another dictionary quoter. jog on. bite me

The cogency of your argument impresses me, sir!

[Winston001]

modern scientists are afraid to disagree with the accepted current theory, engineers take pleasure in pointing out the errors in another engineer's idea

Can't let this pass. Rubbish.

Scientists are hypercritical of each other and continually question everything. Its in their nature and is a core requirement of research.

The only reason a debate on Anthropomorphic Global Warming exists is because a few scientists question the evidence. If all scientists agreed, there would be no argument.

[Cheshire Cat]

The cogency of your argument impresses me, sir!

your dictionary reading skills impresses me

[avgas]

Can't let this pass. Rubbish.

Scientists are hypercritical of each other and continually question everything. Its in their nature and is a core requirement of research.

The only reason a debate on Anthropomorphic Global Warming exists is because a few scientists question the evidence. If all scientists agreed, there would be no argument.

While I agree with most of what you have said.........there are a few elements in this I am not 100% with.
At the CORE of most scientists work is actually to prove an already existing theory. Not challenge it. Fact of the matter many of the scientists whom challenged the norm were shunned by the scientific community. It still shocks me that to this day not a single science class in the world teaches the findings of Lorenz or Mandelbrot.......truth be told many science graduates still don't know who these 2 are - yet most of the computer equipment we use is based off their work. There are probably countless others out there that have suffered the same fate due to their not being consensus within the ranks of the science community.

Thank goodness some decided to speak up in regards to Global warming. Or else it would have been proved or disproved years ago. Either way we would have lost something.

[Winston001]

While I agree with most of what you have said.........there are a few elements in this I am not 100% with.
At the CORE of most scientists work is actually to prove an already existing theory. Not challenge it.

Fact of the matter many of the scientists whom challenged the norm were shunned by the scientific community.

Fair enough, we just have to disagree. The scientists I know burrow deeper into cells and molecules to gain knowledge from which theories can be deduced. Genetics, oceanography, pharmaceuticals. I don't know anyone whose work is purely to prove existing theories: test theories yes but thats quite different.

It still shocks me that to this day not a single science class in the world teaches the findings of Lorenz or Mandelbrot.......truth be told many science graduates still don't know who these 2 are - yet most of the computer equipment we use is based off their work.

Chaos Theory? Thats pretty high level stuff which I'd have thought applied say to the origins of genetic codes. Higher mathematics. Computing as you say. Fairly rarified for the average science student. But hey - I could be completely wrong.

[avgas]

Chaos Theory? Thats pretty high level stuff which I'd have thought applied say to the origins of genetic codes. Higher mathematics. Computing as you say. Fairly rarified for the average science student. But hey - I could be completely wrong.

Their theories have been used from every thing from genetics to human behavior. The computing is the easy one.

I think it was Mandelbrot who actually found out that if you zoom from a map to standing on the coast of an island that the pattern repeats.

A snowflake is a good example of a natural Mandelbrot fractal. But if you look around you will find a few million of them around you.

Lorenz stuff is similar - basically he found that all those lovely things scientists call "errors" are actually important data. If you plot these bits of information out you soon see there is a pattern with the errors. Which means you can then start to predict, unpredictable unstable systems. Kinda vital to the whole Global warming argument considering before this stuff was figured out we were crap at predicting even the weather......let alone if the planet was warming.

How the average science student can work without this level of mathematics is kinda scary. But its not in any syllabus. And their seniors are the same people who shunned these 2 gentlemen out of public view.

They are the same people whom say the planet is warming/cooling. They do this with limited knowledge, their own theory and bend the stats to prove it.
They refuse to acknowledge the simple truth........they don't know.
That is the scariest part of the whole argument - how much do we hedge bets that they are right? If they don't know???

[Badjelly]

I think it was Mandelbrot who actually found out that if you zoom from a map to standing on the coast of an island that the pattern repeats.

Lorenz stuff is similar - basically he found that all those lovely things scientists call "errors" are actually important data.

How the average science student can work without this level of mathematics is kinda scary. But its not in any syllabus. And their seniors are the same people who shunned these 2 gentlemen out of public view.

They are the same people whom say the planet is warming/cooling. They do this with limited knowledge, their own theory and bend the stats to prove it.

Bollocks. Mandelbrot and Lorenz are very well known to any atmospheric scientist. They haven't been shunned. There were lots of popular articles about Mandelbrot a while back, coffee table books of the Mandelbrot set even, and you would be hard pressed to find a climate modeller who wouldn't know what a fractal or a Lyapunov exponent was. It's been known for decades that chaos imposes a limit on the period over which you can forecast the weather; weather prediction models are routinely run in ensemble mode (running the model several times with small perturbations to see how the members of the ensemble deviate from each other) to estimate the size of this effect.

[Badjelly]

The cogency of your argument impresses me, sir!

your dictionary reading skills impresses me

Though my irony may have escaped you

[avgas]

Bollocks. Mandelbrot and Lorenz are very well known to any atmospheric scientist. They haven't been shunned. There were lots of popular articles about Mandelbrot a while back, coffee table books of the Mandelbrot set even, and you would be hard pressed to find a climate modeller who wouldn't know what a fractal or a Lyapunov exponent was. It's been known for decades that chaos imposes a limit on the period over which you can forecast the weather; weather prediction models are routinely run in ensemble mode (running the model several times with small perturbations to see how the members of the ensemble deviate from each other) to estimate the size of this effect.

Then why for every single time they look at global temperature readings do they say "Oh those spikes or dips don't count. They aren't a pattern they are erroneous data". "See its the over all trend that we are showing you"
(Sounds awfully like a sales pitch doesn't it.)

[Cheshire Cat]

Though my irony may have escaped you

I don't iron so thats ok

[jonbuoy]

Just like the financial "wizards" who looted the worlds economies and brought about the latest recessions - paid for, as usual, by the general populations. They are still saying they are right and everyone else is deluded!
But - their bank accounts are very fine, thank you very much!

Not all their fault - no one forced the General population to take out the mortgages, unsecured personal car loans and then "consolidated the debts into one easy payment" and ran up more debt spending their next few years wages before they earned them.

[Badjelly]

Then why for every single time they look at global temperature readings do they say "Oh those spikes or dips don't count. They aren't a pattern they are erroneous data". "See its the over all trend that we are showing you." (Sounds awfully like a sales pitch doesn't it.)

The term is usually not "erroneous data", but "noise". And calling it "noise" isn't the same as claiming it doesn't matter. It just depends what you're looking for. It's precisely because of people like Mandelbrot and Lorenz that we understand that the climate system generates largely unpredictable short-term fluctuations. You can see them in time series of global temperature and you can see them in time series of the same quantity simulated by 3D global climate models. Further if you run a global climate model several times with identical forcing but slightly different initial conditions, then each run generates similar-looking fluctuations, but at different times.

People like Steve Goddard don't really understand the concepts here very well (and to be fair they are potentially confusing) so they make claims like

GISS shows no warming over the last decade

but we know that, even if you have a strong underlying trend, you won't be able to measure it accurately from a short period of data, because of the unpredictable fluctuations. And here a guy who calls himself Tamino explains what's wrong with Goddard's claim

Trend and noise

Being a statistician, he calls the fluctuations noise, but what he really means is basically unpredictable fluctuations with an interesting internal structure.