@BrianK

When quoting to support your view, try at least to select more appropriately your quotes:
Quote:

According to the Met Office website

Met Office? The one which has predicted a warmy 2008-2009 winter? The one which is unable to forecast weather for tomorrow? What for an example! Rejected.

Quote:

the WMO "requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years," which was chosen "as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations.

30 years is a convention. No one is forced to use it. Rejected.

Quote:

Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years.

Does not compute: 20 years is less than your accepted 30 years convention. Rejected.

Quote:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.

Fall well within the natural climate variability (10-25°C):

Null hypothesis accepted. Inferred global warming and causative CO² hypothesis rejected.

Quote:

This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change.

The best 'I'm with stupid' climatotaulogy. Accepted.

Btw you also miss to quote the few remaining other usual suspects: J. 'predictions-failed' Hansen, G. 'flawed-model-based' Schmidt, M. 'statistically-imaginative' Mann, S. 'irreversibly-bogus' Salomon, to name a few crackpots.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate you !

Motivate? It was a long time ago when my prefrontal cortex took over my hypothalamus. Motivate to what, exactly?

Quote:

Alcohol is a byproduct of yeast, but another is CO2

A future Obamaholic taxicology perhaps?

Quote:

Perhaps the removal of your drink will motivate you!

I only drink naturally CO² gasified water, Pastis and Champagne. Oh wait, modern US Science says CO² is a pollutant because of life threatening. Will I drop water? What is my CO² fingerprint related to water and Pastis? There are probably some funds to get with the hypothesis of alcoholic and CO² Champagne induced GW (gloatal wenching), see here for example.



Edit: added the picture

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Apr-2009 at 07:06 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Rejected.

Okay you reject it. Interestingly enough the other 97% of climate scientists reject your opinion..

Quote:

The one which is unable to forecast weather for tomorrow?

Getting the weather wrong tomorrow has little relationship to the climate in 100 years. Climate is weather averaged over time. If you're using the way most climatologists do it, about 30 years. Or if you're looking at IPCC reports, they predict a range of net change based upon dependencies by the next century.

Certainly there are other models we use in our society similar in nature. Do you buy a stock today, say Microsoft, and sell tomorrow OR do you invest in the stock market for the next decade. Losing money on Microsoft tomorrow does not guarantee that you will lose money in the stock market for the next 30 years. Better not put any money into the stock market for retirement! Going to work is another example. We can predict a certain number of accidents will occur in France in the next 30 years. But, if we predict TMTiF gets in a car accident tomorrow will have little to no impact on our 30 year prediction. Certainly if TMTiF is alive tomorrow he will be alive in 100 years.

The arguement that the weather wrong tomorrow means the climate predictions will be wrong in 30 years is an ignorant arguement.

Quote:

30 years is a convention. No one is forced to use it.

Of course no one is really forced to use anything right? But, I find it interesting that scientists, climatologists, consider a 30 year trend as a better representation of the net change than a 10 year trend.

Quote:

Quote: Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit. Fall well within the natural climate variability

Are you having issues reading graphs again? The rvariability, rate of change,appears to me faster then most periods. (I didn't calculate all) For example, Pre-Cambrian is 4050 million years. Temperature changed 15 degrees. That's 4x10^-12/year. Another example, Teritary is a 63 million year region w/ change of ~8 degrees. 1.2x10^-10/year. But the last 100 years at 1.33 degrees or .013/year? We have a variability of .00000000012 vs .013 and you claim that .013 is proven natural by this graph? Put down the CO2 laced champagne..

Quote:

Btw you also miss to quote the few remaining other usual suspects

What's with the list of ad hominems? Seemingly you accuse others of rhetoric?

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Apr-2009 at 09:07 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Okay you reject it. Interestingly enough the other 97% of climate scientists reject your opinion..

Based on poll/survey. Not scientific. Rejected.

Quote:

Getting the weather wrong tomorrow has little relationship to the climate in 100 years.

This shows the (in)ability of the modellers to do reliable short term forecasts and then, by your definition (see below), to do predictions about the future. In this case badly wrong.

Quote:

Climate is weather averaged over time.

So GCMs are flawed because they are unable to forecast reliably day-to-day foreseeable weathers and thus unreliably average to produce wrong climatic predictions.

Quote:

Certainly there are other models we use in our society similar in nature. Do you buy a stock today, say Microsoft, and sell tomorrow OR do you invest in the stock market for the next decade. Losing money on Microsoft tomorrow does not guarantee that you will lose money on all stocks sold in the next 10 years.

Sure. Your very example demonstrates why prediction of climate is impossible: weather/climate depends on an extensive set of highly non linear coupled differential equations (Navier-Stockes) ie is chaotic. This means that any gridding, no matter how small, or how big is the computer, will get it wrong after a number of time-steps. This is because the logic of gridded models depends really on assuming linear approximations to highly non linear coupled differential equations. Anyone that has taken some mathematics analysis knows that functions can be expanded in series, and often the first few terms are good approximations. This is not true for solutions of coupled differential equations, because usually they are highly divergent, the first terms do not describe them. After a number of time steps reality will diverge with a vengeance from the assumed approximations. This happens for weather models in a few days, for climate in a few years.
Now look at the model used to forecast risks and depicted in Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street: Quote:

Wall Street solved many of these problems through a process called tranching, which divides a pool and allows for the creation of safe bonds with a risk-free triple-A credit rating. Investors in the first tranche, or slice, are first in line to be paid off. Those next in line might get only a double-A credit rating on their tranche of bonds but will be able to charge a higher interest rate for bearing the slightly higher chance of default. And so on.

The similarities are easy to track. For the same reason simplification by tranching failed in the economy market, gridding on climate models will always be wrong after some time. This is inherently and intrinsically embedded in a chaotic system driven by non linear coupled differential equations. The only possibility is to know with sufficient accuracy the initial conditions before running these equations. Evidently no one will ever be able to.
Btw stock exchanges are for kindengarden traders. I prefer trading with OTC, futures, derivatives or warrants.

Quote:

We can predict a certain number of accidents will occur in France in the next decade.

Only because this variable is not stochastic. NYSE is. That is why you can get an insurance's quotation in the first case (risk can be probabilized) and not in the second. So no comparison possible. Rejected.

Quote:

Of course no one is really forced to use anything right? But, I find it interesting that scientists, climatologists, consider a 30 year trend as a better representation of the net change than a 10 year trend.

Depends on with who you talk to. For a paleo-climatologist 10 or 30 years is nothing defined. Rejected.

Quote:

Are you having issues reading graphs again? The rvariability, rate of change,appears to me faster then most periods. (I didn't calculate all) For example, Pre-Cambrian is 4050 million years. Temperature changed 15 degrees. That's 4x10^-12/year. Another example, Teritary is a 63 million year region w/ change of ~8 degrees. 1.2x10^-10/year. But the last 100 years at 1.33 degrees or .013/year? We have a variability of .00000000012 vs .013 and you claim that .013 is proven natural by this graph?

The resolution of the plot can not allow such meaningless calculations. Rejected. The plot shows only that temperature variability is bounded between 10°C and 25°C. Current temperature is well within.

Quote:

What's with the list of ad hominems? Seemingly you accuse others of rhetoric?

Not really. Their respective Bad Science works are well defined between the two quotes ' inside their firstname/name pair (with the exception of Salomon, because I see no point to devote a neuron to debunk such an execrable piece of there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-there-is-no-noun-currently-existing-to-defined-such-an-execrable-piece-of-, etc, you get the point of this infinite series, don't you?).

Edit: corrected 2 typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Apr-2009 at 10:49 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

A new paper explaining MWP (called Medieval Climate Anomaly below):
Trouet V, Esper J, Graham NE, Baker A, Scourse JD, Frank DC (2009) Pervasive positive North Atlantic Oscillation mode dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science, Vol. 324. no. 5923, pp. 78 - 80, here: Quote:

The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was the most recent pre-industrial era warm interval of European climate, yet its driving mechanisms remain uncertain. We present here a 947-year-long multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. Supplementary reconstructions based on climate model results and proxy data indicate a clear shift to weaker NAO conditions into the Little Ice Age (LIA). Globally distributed proxy data suggest that this NAO shift is one aspect of a global MCA-LIA climate transition that probably was coupled to prevailing La Niña–like conditions amplified by an intensified Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the MCA.

Comment by M. Mann, debunking himself: Quote:

Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University says that based on the analyses and modelling that he has done, increased solar output and a reduction in volcanoes spouting cooling ash into the atmosphere could have not only kicked off the medieval warming, but might also have maintained it directly. Mann is also concerned that the dominance of medieval La Niña conditions now indicated by Trouet's work might make it more likely that the current man-made warming could also put the El Niño system back into a La Niña mode, although most climate models so far had predicted the opposite.

Priceless.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

pre-industrial era warm interval of European climate

Which part of the thread title did you not understand?

@umisef

Check the Medieval Warm Period Project (Java required) and then go back and enlighten me on what made you think I did not understand your bold world in the paper's title.

Have got some responses/explanations from Dr Nicol about your inability to understand his Physics (I call it Physics to show respect to Dr Nicol, because I don't want one to think that failing to understand 10^-17/1=10^-17 is anything else than brain enema)?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Based on poll/survey. Not scientific. Rejected.

When establishing the current scientific consensus is there any other way besides reviewing the published science and asking those scientists involved? If there is let us know. Especially if you come up with a creative way to scientifically establish a consensus.

Quote:

This shows the (in)ability of the modellers to do reliable short term forecasts and then, by your definition (see below), to do predictions about the future. In this case badly wrong.

Actually it doesn't because these are 2 different things. One is a pin point exactness for a point in time on the globe. The other is the average net change across the globe over a much larger timescale. The level of predictability between the two is different.

Quote:

Sure. Your very example demonstrates why prediction of climate is impossible: weather/climate depends on an extensive set of highly non linear coupled differential equations (Navier-Stockes) ie is chaotic.

I think you need to first prove to us that climate is a chaotic system. Instead the climate responds to deterministic forcings within the system. For example, seasons are regular and are due to tilt towards or away from the sun and the cooling in winter is a predictable effect. Claiming all of weather and all of climate is simply unpredictable, as you do here, is again an ignorant idea.

Quote:

So GCMs are flawed because they are unable to forecast reliably day-to-day foreseeable weathers and thus unreliably average to produce wrong climatic predictions.

I think I've already explained the ignorance in this association well enough.

Quote:

Depends on with who you talk to. For a paleo-climatologist 10 or 30 years is nothing defined. Rejected.

In order to establish this you need to first establish the paleo-climatologist is working and looking at the same question as the climatologist. Certainly if the paleo-climatologist is looking at say the effects of plate technonics on temperature then certainly 30 years would be too small to trend changes. The noise within the system would be too great. They'd want to use tens of thousands of years or longer.

30 years isn't as arbitrary as you want to make it seem. 30 years is a standard figure and was established by the climatological community as the period of time that is short enough to reflect climate changes while long enough to discount short term weather variability.

Quote:

The resolution of the plot can not allow such meaningless calculations. Rejected. The plot shows only that temperature variability is bounded between 10°C and 25°C. Current temperature is well within.

My calculations followed the same logic as your past arguements pick a point in time and their temps and show the net change. I used 10 and 25 within the bounds you claim. In fact if anything I claimed a lower temp and higher temp than perhaps what was established. This in turn would create a larger per year change effect. Using your method to show your data seems to be not acceptable when it suits you best.

No one claimed that the temperature today is outside of a previous bound. So while your arguement is valid it's nothing ever claimed by GW scientists. Again I'll extend to you are trying to be positive and not purposefully misrepresent GW science. As such this arguement is again one from ignorance.

Quote:

Not really. Their respective Bad Science works are well defined between the two quotes

Your arguement here can be summarized as it's not an 'ad hominem' it's a 'creative ad hominem'... They are the same. In short it's name calling.

EDIT:
Quote:

Comment by M. Mann, debunking himself

It seems to me Mann is learning and changing based upon new scientific evidence. You seem to be surprised that this is how science works.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Apr-2009 at 03:13 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

scientific consensus

There is no such oxymoron. Only the insane keep repeating thing thinking this will make it existing or right.

Quote:

Actually it doesn't because these are 2 different things. One is a pin point exactness for a point in time on the globe. The other is the average net change across the globe over a much larger timescale. The level of predictability between the two is different.

Depends on what you mean by level. Both weather models and climate models are based on the same set of Navier-Stokes equations (NSE). The physical underlying processes are identically modelled in both and thus the global level of predictability of both is identical relatively to their relative timescale and gridding: because of model differences in timescale and gridding, the temporal and spatial scale of prediction is different (not the level of predictability).

Quote:

I think you need to first prove to us that climate is a chaotic system.

Given that GCMs are based on NSE and the fact that NSE are inherently chaotic in nature, one can assume safely that NSE are used to mimic the chaotic nature of the underlying physics of climate.

Quote:

Instead the climate responds to deterministic forcings within the system. For example, seasons are regular and are due to tilt towards or away from the sun and the cooling in winter is a predictable effect.

Climate does not respond to anything, instead climate is the result of the accumulation of weather over time. Your example wrongly mix annual event with climate, per definition. Chaos (which is mathematically better named as deterministic chaos that you confuse with the trivial meaning of 'a state of utter confusion') and chaotic climate does not imply there are absence of steady states, quite the contrary in fact. It is because you will never know the initial conditions in weather forecasting or climate modelling that this uncertainty rapidly leads to inaccuracy that prevents any predictability (relatively to timescale and gridscale). Solution to this problem is so difficult that the Clay Mathematics Institute has set up a prize of $1M to help resolve it.

Quote:

Claiming all of weather and all of climate is simply unpredictable, as you do here, is again an ignorant idea.

Claiming the opposite is like claiming Mathematics is not a Science.

Quote:

30 years isn't as arbitrary as you want to make it seem. 30 years is a standard figure and was established by the climatological community as the period of time that is short enough to reflect climate changes while long enough to discount short term weather variability.

As with all convention, one is allowed to used it or not. Using this one does not imply it has any real world and physical significance.

Quote:

My calculations followed the same logic as your past arguements pick a point in time and their temps and show the net change.

Your calculation is, in addition of being unrelated to the initial problem, meaningless because it is based on a qualitative picture not on real data. My number is based on real data from which a plot and a trend line have been constructed. See the difference? Probably not.

Quote:

I used 10 and 25 within the bounds you claim. In fact if anything I claimed a lower temp and higher temp than perhaps what was established.

QED: no data, wrong result.

Quote:

This in turn would create a larger per year change effect. Using your method to show your data seems to be not acceptable when it suits you best.

Correction: surely not.

Quote:

No one claimed that the temperature today is outside of a previous bound.

Why writing it then?

Quote:

So while your arguement is valid it's nothing ever claimed by GW scientists. Again I'll extend to you are trying to be positive and not purposefully misrepresent GW science.

GW science? GW is not a science. GW is a faulty observational phenomenon tentatively tried to support a flawed hypothesis (AGW) in the framework of Science.

Quote:

Your arguement here can be summarized as it's not an 'ad hominem' it's a 'creative ad hominem'... They are the same. In short it's name calling.

It was my judgement about their work that I respectively and, I concede, creatively inserted within their name. So it was really ad laborem attacks. But I confess I also don't care an iota about these entities given the current misuses of Science they perpetuate to promote their political and societal agenda.

Quote:

It seems to me Mann is learning and changing based upon new scientific evidence. You seem to be surprised that this is how science works.

I am pleased that Mann is finally forced to admit the existence of the MWP and the fallacy of his "unprecedented warmer period". And yourself?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

The great contribution of deterministic chaos (or non linear dynamical system) in the current framework of Science is that uncertainty is now consistent with determinism. It seems a little counter-intuitive, as are problems dealing with complexity, and an evolution of thought is needed to capture the whole meaning of such paradigm.

About deterministic chaos, Navier-Stokes equations and climate, have a look at the animated GIF picture below (20 seconds between frames):


Built as a GIF picture by me from here (PPT file).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: scientific consensus There is no such oxymoron.

Trimmed to ignore more of your ad hominems... As for scientific consensus it's all around you. Theory of Gravity... Germ Theory... Plate Technonics...Evolution...etc. You even quoted Kuhn in the past that the consensus doesn't change until the old scientists die off.

Quote:

one can assume safely that NSE are used to mimic the chaotic nature of the underlying physics of climate.

For ease let's accept its a chaotic system. That doesn't mean it's not predictable. Watch the reality show survival. It's a great example of a chaotic system. Various uncontrolled factors acted on by people with free will. Yet we can predict they will work together, they will build fire, and they will feed themselves. Of course predicting the exact time and date when they build fire is very difficult.

Quote:

Climate does not respond to anything, instead climate is the result of the accumulation of weather over time.

Therefore by your definition climate doesnt exist at all.

Quote:

As with all convention, one is allowed to used it or not. Using this one does not imply it has any real world and physical significance.

Actually it turns out it does have physical significance. I've already explained it and linked to scientific site which in turn has links to other scientific sites so one can understand the significance.

Quote:

Your calculation is, in addition of being unrelated to the initial problem, meaningless because it is based on a qualitative picture not on real data. My number is based on real data from which a plot and a trend line have been constructed. See the difference? Probably not.

Sure let me recap. Your graph wasn't based on real data so we can't do it the way your normally do. But, if your graph is not based on real data then it is meaningless by definition. As you say QED.

Quote:

Why writing it then?

This is a good question for yourself. Why did you supply evidence on a 10-25C bounding when no one asked the question. Your own unstated major premise tripped yourself up.

Mann? We'll see where / how it goes. Always glad to watch science change as better data becomes available.

Quote:

Claiming the opposite is like claiming Mathematics is not a Science.

I think you miss the not so subtle difference between an area of study that isn't observable and is provable (mathematics) VS the area of study that is observable and isn't provable (science).

Quote:

current misuses of Science they perpetuate to promote their political and societal agenda

I think we understand your arguement. The scientific consensus established by scientists who back the leading cause of global warming is due to man occurrs because of political manipulation of scientists to keep their paycheck and ensure the founders of the Gaia Cult control the world and institute a one world government.

@BrianK

Quote:

Theory of Gravity... Germ Theory... Plate Technonics...Evolution

None of these theories are written in marble, all permanently adapted to current observational, experimental and theoretical advancements: all good counter-examples of the non-existence of scientific consensus. Even if one, in a moment of insanity, was to accept that devious locution, the AGW hypothesis is not one of it because:
1/ the A is not causatively proved,
2/ the G is temporally and spatially false,
3/ the W is measurements' biases.

Quote:

You even quoted Kuhn in the past that the consensus doesn't change until the old scientists die off.

He was himself quoting Max Plank: Quote:

a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Not a single 'consensus' word, instead 'scientific truth': the ontological difference is that Science's aim is truth, not consensus.

Quote:

For ease let's accept its a chaotic system. That doesn't mean it's not predictable. Watch the reality show survival. It's a great example of a chaotic system. Various uncontrolled factors acted on by people with free will. Yet we can predict they will work together, they will build fire, and they will feed themselves. Of course predicting the exact time and date when they build fire is very difficult.

And these exact variables are precisely what interest us. The initial discovery of deterministic chaos was done by meteorologist Edward Lorenz while studying weather forecasting. He was using simplified NSE with 3 degrees of freedom and kept getting divergent results after a few iterations, what he called initial conditions sensibility: the divergence is exponential with time (e^t/r). We can predict safely that seasons will still exist in 1 year ; what we care about is the temperature in a particular day of one of this season: this is unpredictable even if temperature is bounded. The same problematic exists in climate modelling. So claiming that weather/climate is chaotic AND predictable is just opposite with current daily observation and intuition and contradict the set of NSE: we don't know future weather/climate because it is unpredictable. This does not mean special cases do not exist with an acceptable solution (of NSE). This also does not means that statistic analysis can not be applied to approach result: it is just that the result will never be precise enough to be useful.
R. Sneyers, Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background, Environmetrics, 1997, vol. 8, no. 5, pp 517-532.
R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner,Shlomo Havlin,1 and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability. 2002, Phys Rev Letters, 89.

Or are you an adept of pop culture that understands the 'butterfly effect' backwards?

Quote:

Therefore by your definition climate doesnt exist at all.

Climate is a concept: one can not measure it with one variable: temperature alone does not define climate (or weather btw), pressure alone can not, precipitation alone can not, etc; climate as such has no quantitative physical definition because it is by definition a conceptual object forged to compare weather (another conceptual object) over long period of time: that why 30 years is a convention and has no real world physical significance and will never have. In addition, my definition is very different of yours. The main one being that mine qualitatively emphasizes the influence of past events on future, and as such defines the correct arrow of time (importance of time asymmetry). Yours, by averaging of another concept, does not, but implicitly suppose an undefined segment of time (you can conventionally assume to be 30 years if that pleases you).

Quote:

Actually it turns out it does have physical significance.

Not in the real world, see above. Climate can not be defined to be an average of a single physical variable, because weather itself can not be defined to be an average of a single physical variable.

Quote:

Your graph wasn't based on real data

Twisting facts as usual. The graph is based on real quantitative data you do not have access to, so what you have done is a meaningless and wrong calculation based upon data you don't have.

Quote:

Why did you supply evidence on a 10-25C bounding when no one asked the question.

You were the one claiming:Quote:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.

What has the beginning of the 20th century so special to take it as a starting point? No one ask you to throw an ill-referenced number that fits your wrong preconceived view that because CO² had badly correlated with biased temperature measurements at certain point in time, this also wrongly implies an incorrect causative relationship between these two variables. Why don't you use the recently well recognized and acknowledged MWP (by Mann and you at least) as a reference instead? This past temperature and the current one fall in the past temperature variability bounds (btw the world conventional measure system is the SI, ie you have to express temperature in K if you want to respect scientific convention).

Quote:

Mann? We'll see where / how it goes. Always glad to watch science change as better data becomes available.

A little hypocrisy can not hurt.

Quote:

I think you miss the not so subtle difference between an area of study that isn't observable and is provable (mathematics) VS the area of study that is observable and isn't provable (science).

Low level rhetoric that does not hide the evidence that any area of study is under the umbrella of Science and clearly demonstrates lack of knowledge in advanced Mathematics: Kurt Gödel (incompleteness theorems), Andrei Kolmogorov, Jeff Paris, Leo Harrongton, Freeman Dyson, Leonid Levin, Cristian Claude, etc have all showed that most of mathematical propositions are undecidable, that is to say are not demonstrable as is their negatives. So your old 18th century's view of Mathematics Science has to be deeply updated. Let the great mathematician Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss have the definitive word on this non problem:

"Mathematics is the queen of sciences and number theory is the queen of mathematics. She often condescends to render service to astronomy and other natural sciences, but in all relations she is entitled to the first rank." - Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss

Quote:

I think we understand your arguement.

We? Have you a napoleonian-like pathological portraying of yourself?

Quote:

The scientific consensus established by scientists who back the leading cause of global warming is due to man occurrs because of political manipulation of scientists to keep their paycheck and ensure the founders of the Gaia Cult control the world and institute a one world government.

The underlying nature of a caricature is it usually shares some truths with the reality it depicts.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

1/ the A is not causatively proved,

Nice use of proved.. No science is ever proved. I of course disagree.

Quote:

Not a single 'consensus' word, instead 'scientific truth': the ontological difference is that Science's aim is truth, not consensus

Certainly the word consensus isn't used. But if you actually read what Kuhn wrote you will see he is discussing scientific concensus. Please read what Kuhn said --- Quote:

a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Acceptance of the truth is done because of death of previous generation -- that's what Kuhn says. Acceptance is only done with consensus. As for truth if something is true then it is true no matter what generation does or does not accept it. The truth exists even if people don't. For example, the earth went around the sun millions of years before humans existed and even while humans believed the sun to orbit us. What Kuhn is discussing here is not truth but the acceptance of that truth, aka scientific consensus.

Quote:

We can predict safely that seasons will still exist in 1 year ; what we care about is the temperature in a particular day of one of this season: this is unpredictable even if temperature is bounded.

Yes in our current state the 1 day/time exact temperature is unpredictable. I think we agree on this point of weather. Though we can predict to a high level of certainity the temperature within a set of bounds.

Quote:

The same problematic exists in climate modelling

Not quite. We're obviously not predicting the May 4th temperature in 2100 in the climate model. Of course this isn't what climatologists are looking at. What they are looking at is the prediction of a warmer or cooler climate in the next century (IPCC for example). If a year or two is incorrect this doesn't directly mean the 100 year prediction will be off.

But, of course these models are based upon a set of conditions. This is one reason the IPCC has 18 models. They are built with different dependencies and depending upon which depency occurs in that 100 years will tell us which of the models is more realistic. This is why the prediction is a boundary with a level of associated accuracy. It may well be wrong. What's the rule there are lies then there are statistics. Stats tell you that 50% of the time you flip a coin you will get a head. Stats can't tell you that next time you're 100% certain to get a head. Hey a simple chaotic system with predictability.

Quote:

Climate is a concept: one can not measure it with one variable: temperature alone does not define climate

Certainly one cannot. But, the question if we're warming or cooling in climate certainly is related 1 one variable, temperature.

Quote:

In addition, my definition is very different of yours

I think you understated this. Your doings are very different than not only me but the vast majority of climatologists.

Quote:

past temperature and the current one fall in the past temperature variability bounds

No one ask you to throw an ill-referenced number that fits your wrong preconceived view nor is asked by climatologists when referring to the change at present.

Quote:

A little hypocrisy can not hurt.

You haven't shown that this new information backs Wegmann. Nor does it change, as you called it, Wegmann's opinion piece not being quality peer reviewed science.

Quote:

any area of study is under the umbrella of Science

By this definition the study of how celestial bodies determine the future course of your life is the Science of Astrology.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Apr-2009 at 02:45 PM.

@TMTisFree

Here is a good example anti-gw invoke God to explain things.

As you want to claim some new cult of Gaia. Here's some evidence that the anti-gw side also has it's religious roots.

@TMTisFree

Sorry for not replying the last two weeks - but I have been operated at the right hand (carpal tunnel syndrome) and had a thick bandage around the hand.

I had written a lengthy response to this posting 2 weeks ago. When I was typing the last words I must have hit some button with the bandage and everything was gone.


So I decided to wait with the reply until the bandage is gone (as I still have other hobbies aside from typing and deleting).

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Yes, of course - but I think you`ll agree that the "long term" glacier only can exist as long as enough "short term" weather events like snow storms occur to feed them. As long as the snow storms occur frequntly enought in the catchment area of an glacier, so that the amount of fresh snow exceeds the amount of melted ice, the glacier will grow. If the amount of fresh snow and the amount of melted ice is in balance, the glacier will stay as it is and if the amount of fresh snow falls below the balance value, the glacier will shrink and retract. If the snowstorms stop entirely the glacier will melt down completely, if the climate is warm enough. Correct but does not contradict the paper though.

But already the title of this paper ("Alps without glaciers") contradicts the reality. as the finding of Ötzi clearly prooved that this glacier in "the Alps"
did NOT melt enough to release Ötzi`s body.

So already the title is unscientific.

As a consequence I reject the claim of this article being a peer reviewed scientific paper.

It is a journalistc article at best.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I would call it a "journalistic exaggeration". And exactly things like this "journalistic exaggeration" in the title and all the other inaccuracies I already mentioned convinced me that this cannot be a serious scientific paper - it`s just a mere politically motivated pamphlet to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - nothing else. At best suited to be put in the toilet as replacement for toilet paper... ... That does not automatically imply their findings are incorrect.

I never claimed/implied that their findings are incorrect.
But their conclusion that the alps were without glaciers during the Roman period certainly is.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: See, annother inaccurate phrase that must not be in a serious scientific paper. Not precise enough because they tried to sort very localized evidences 2000 years ago. Again not necessarily incorrect.

Not necessarily incorrect - but inaccurate.
And such inaccuracies simply do not belong into a peer reviewed scientific paper.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: So what? This means that you can not infer of the size of the glacier at that time when you have only weather events (see below). ... Do you know the weather 2000 years ago? No. Do you know the rate of glacier receding/growing at that time? No. So why trying to guess?

Who is trying to guess?
Its a hard fact you can`t simply discuss away that the alps had glaciers at a height of 3210m during the Roman period - big enough to keep Ötzi`s body frozen.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: The quality of the one we`re just dicussing is so bad that I don`t want to waste my time just to see the other papers are not a single iota better - sorry. I agree the title is generalizing.

I`d say "exaggerating" is the better suited term...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: But did you go there and have you found evidences that contradict the findings of the paper? No.

Please stay on topic - I never claimed the findings are incorrect - I just claim the paper has too much inaccuracies to be counted as "peer reviewed scientific paper".

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Is there a paper with opposite evidences? Not I know of.

There is evidence that already the title is plainly wrong.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Furthermore I`m not the one who desperately tries to support AGW... I fear your (absence of) support does not really matter... ...

Same with your support.

But I KNOW from my own observations and experiences that the climate here has been warming during the 5+ decades of my lifespan so far.

It was just today the news had it that the Wilkins Ice Shelf (which has an area of 13,000 square kilometers) is breaking up faster and faster due to the warmer climate.

Last night there was an interesting documentation on German TV about periodic climate changes on our planet in the past.

It was shown that earth`s orbit changes between circular and elliptical and that this causes the natural climate changes.

IIRC, the reason for the orbit changes is intensity of the sunspot activity.
This would also explain the temperature changes on other planets of our solar system, which someone had mentioned here to support AGW.

If the orbit is more circular, the climate is warm - and if the orbit is more elliptical, the climate is cold.

Scientists have found out beyond doubt, that there is not just the 11 year cycle between minimum and maximum of sunspot activity, but also a cycle of several hundred years when there is no sunspot activity at all.

It was said that this caused the "little ice age" during mediaeval times and that we are just again approaching such an period of no sunspot activity.

The fact that the climate currently is nevertheless warming instead of cooling is credited to human activity by the vast majority of the climate scientists, they said.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: I just demonstrated that this "peer-reviewed scientific" paper you provided "is just anti-scientific", while I failed to see from the presented "evidence" why Global warming should just be propaganda. Sorry but you demonstrate nothing.

Those with eyes should look and those with ears should listen...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: First no one has said this particular article was peer-reviewed. The list of papers I gave afterwards are though. ...

And this list included the paper at hand - so - of course someone "has said this particular article was peer-reviewed":
YOU.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: And I equally fail to see the benefit of any AGW propaganda - what at all is it meant to be good for? Just to lull mercantile perverted minds that there`s still time enough to make some bucks to the disadvantage of this planet and the future of its inhabitants, without having to fear to get the bill presented or what? The editorial is not specifically referring to AGW BadScience (it was published in a medical journal). But it is so easy to do the link. ...

Eeeerrrrrrmmmmmmmmm - my question on the benefit of any AGW propaganda was not referring to any editorial - it was meant in general...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Quote: Just to lull mercantile perverted minds that there`s still time enough to make some bucks to the disadvantage of this planet and the future of its inhabitants, without having to fear to get the bill presented or what? The Gaians want not only your money but to turn you away from the true Christ. Certainly the never ending war for your soul is important to the devil!

Not sure what you`re trying to say with that...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Nice use of proved.. No science is ever proved. I of course disagree.

As you disagreed on MWP.

Quote:

Certainly the word consensus isn't used...

Twisting meanings as usual. The profound sense of Kuhn's claim is that it will never be what you call a 'scientific consensus' because of the very fact that any scientific truth (note that AGW is far from being either one of these words) will always have opponents who will question it: this is the way Science works and this a a good thing no matter you try to politicize/pollute it with hazy and devious concept.

Quote:

But, of course these models are based upon a set of conditions. This is one reason the IPCC has 18 models.

The very fact that IPCC needs 18 models to build its scenarii (not predictions) demonstrates by itself that none of the models is able to forecast anything. What is certain is that they are all parametrized to support AGW. Even with these politically correct parametrizations, they have consistently failed over and over:

1/ models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in GW (Douglas et al., 2007):
2/ no rise in temperatures since 1998, falling temperatures since late 2001 (Pielke Sr., R.A., 2009); temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008);
3/ nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS from 1940-1975;
4/ nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005);
5/ nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007; Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008, Loehle, 2009);
6/ nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations: NAO, ENSO (Lindzen, 2007);
7/ nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period (almost 680 papers + Trouet, 2009) or the Little Ice Age;
8/ nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007);
9/ nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
10/ nor the inactive subsequent seasons (Shepherd et al., 2007);
11/ nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
12/ nor the Solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
13/ nor the consequent surface GW on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
14/ nor the eerily-continuing 2006 Solar Minimum (Scafetta et al., 2009);
15/ nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8°C in surface temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has cancelled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

Clear repetitive failures of GCMs due to the also clear mathematical unpredictability of the NSE (Govindan et al. 2002) that mimic the chaotic nature of the underlying physics of the climate/weather.

Quote:

This is why the prediction is a boundary with a level of associated accuracy. It may well be wrong.

Wrong: the best adjective you can qualify them with. They are wrong in all counts: IPCC models are not even able to postdict/predict past/current surface temperatures:

nor to predict near future temperatures:

The sole possible conclusion:


Quote:

Your doings are very different than not only me but the vast majority of climatologists.

It does not prove it is wrong. Even is it is, it does not prove yours is right.

Quote:

No one ask you..

If only you could build meaningful sentence as you managed to cut and paste...

Quote:

You haven't shown that this new information backs Wegmann. Nor does it change, as you called it, Wegmann's opinion piece not being quality peer reviewed science.

His expertise did not need to be peer-reviewed as any expertises in any field. Not a problem though: Mann has now recognized the occurrence of MWP, he has merely debunked his past work based on wrong statistics, thus acknowledging with Pr Wegmann's report which was just, and now is more, right.

Quote:

By this definition the study of how celestial bodies determine the future course of your life is the Science of Astrology.

It is not a study in the scientific meaning of the word: surely you have not peer-reviewed this sentence (beer-reviewed perhaps?), Given that to you Mathematics is not a Science, there is little to no doubt you don't understand the difference.

Edit: added the hijacked cartoon

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Apr-2009 at 10:30 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Quote: Certainly you throw out things because they don't meet your criteria. What's with this heavy handed approach that our criteria can only match yours? Only when criteria is proper and honest Science. ...

Like the "Alps without glaciers"-paper?

Last edited by Dandy on 05-Apr-2009 at 08:02 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Sorry for not replying the last two weeks - but I have been operated at the right hand (carpal tunnel syndrome) and had a thick bandage around the hand.

No problem. I hope you are fine now.

Quote:

I had written a lengthy response to this posting 2 weeks ago. When I was typing the last words I must have hit some button with the bandage and everything was gone.

I do that all the time myself with two normal hands...

Quote:

But already the title of this paper ("Alps without glaciers") contradicts the reality. as the finding of Ötzi clearly prooved that this glacier in "the Alps" did NOT melt enough to release Ötzi`s body. So already the title is unscientific. As a consequence I reject the claim of this article being a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is a journalistc article at best.

Oh yes I agree, it is possible it is not a peer-reviewed article. I don't know if Die Alpen has a peer-reviewing policy (scientific journals are rarely printed in quadrichromy). But I gave you the peer-reviewed papers in which they previously exposed their work I think. I see no reason why the evidences exposed in the colorfull paper should not match the ones in the reviewed papers (apart from the title, on that we agree).

Quote:

But their conclusion that the alps were without glaciers during the Roman period certainly is.

Is it the conclusion of the German article or do you infer this conclusion from the title only?

Quote:

Not necessarily incorrect - but inaccurate. And such inaccuracies simply do not belong into a peer reviewed scientific paper.

Not a peer-reviewed paper (see above). Given that you have such high standards for peer-reviewed scientific papers, you should first reject all conclusions of the IPCC, all of them being based on peer-reviewed papers dealing with computer modellings which results are just not only unverifiable but also unprovable.

Quote:

Its a hard fact you can`t simply discuss away that the alps had glaciers at a height of 3210m during the Roman period - big enough to keep Ötzi`s body frozen.

Sure. It is also hard fact that the place where IceMan were found is not the same as the mountain described in the article.

Quote:

I`d say "exaggerating" is the better suited term...

Ok for me then. Suit well for a non peer-reviewed article in a scientifically-oriented journal.

Quote:

Same with your support.

Sure. I am not the one to fund eco-fascists (I do not want to imply you do).

Quote:

But I KNOW from my own observations and experiences that the climate here has been warming during the 5+ decades of my lifespan so far.

You are that old? Just kidding! Have you a record of the past temperatures? Because without...

Quote:

It was just today the news had it that the Wilkins Ice Shelf (which has an area of 13,000 square kilometers) is breaking up faster and faster due to the warmer climate.

And? What is the relationship with CO²? Because if you have none, that the climate changes or ice melts is like saying sun heats.

Quote:

Last night there was an interesting documentation on German TV about periodic climate changes on our planet in the past. It was shown that earth`s orbit changes between circular and elliptical and that this causes the natural climate changes. IIRC, the reason for the orbit changes is intensity of the sunspot activity. This would also explain the temperature changes on other planets of our solar system, which someone had mentioned here to support AGW.

Uh? Humans already have colonized other planets?

Quote:

If the orbit is more circular, the climate is warm - and if the orbit is more elliptical, the climate is cold. Scientists have found out beyond doubt, that there is not just the 11 year cycle between minimum and maximum of sunspot activity, but also a cycle of several hundred years when there is no sunspot activity at all. It was said that this caused the "little ice age" during mediaeval times and that we are just again approaching such an period of no sunspot activity.

Mostly correct.

Quote:

The fact that the climate currently is nevertheless warming instead of cooling is credited to human activity by the vast majority of the climate scientists, they said.

Ha-ha!, the passport's sentence to be able to diffuse the documentary as being acceptable (read politically correct).

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Apr-2009 at 07:22 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".