Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
15 crawler(s) on-line.
 116 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 kolla

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 kolla:  37 secs ago
 OlafS25:  32 mins ago
 edwardsjethro:  52 mins ago
 joeyunderwood:  53 mins ago
 Sikharubel:  56 mins ago
 Musashi5150:  1 hr 18 mins ago
 MagicSN:  1 hr 46 mins ago
 Gunnar:  1 hr 54 mins ago
 pixie:  2 hrs 5 mins ago
 retrofaza:  2 hrs 28 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  General Technology (No Console Threads)
      /  Global warming Volume 4
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 18-Aug-2009 2:18:16
#381 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@TMTisFree

Quote:
Why using only since 1850 when 2000 years are available with sufficient certainty?
Because the report was the 10th highest measured temperature. Temps prior to 1850 are not measured but projected from other data. As for the 'sufficient certainity' claim it's too bad your graph left out the error bars so we can't actually see what the certainity is.

Quote:
Sorry, I forgot you don't like Loehle.
Don't know Loehle perhaps he's a fine chap. However, his math leaves LOTS to be desired.

Quote:
At least models are confirming themselves
You told us these model's didn't use statellites. I've demonstrated that to be wrong. Moving the goal post to a different attack doesn't prove your point to be true.

Off the current point on a past point of yours.. Be sure to not drive or take a bus. Afterall the chaotic systems of gases in an engine is unpredictable, it therefore will never get you to work.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Aug-2009 at 02:21 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 18-Aug-2009 5:42:23
#382 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@TMTisFree

Excuse me, but how can you argue that shifting the average temperature up 10-15 degrees will not be noticable?

That it would not be possible I could have an argument over, but saying it would not feel different is just damn foolish.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 18-Aug-2009 12:47:14
#383 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:
@Dandy

Quote:


I think you confuse this with "vapour"



...that (a molecule of) water, no matter its phase (solid, liquid, gas), will always be (a molecule of) water.



In case you didn't notice it:
I was talking about water, not water molecules.
In the everyday usage of the language "water" is always liquid - else it would be called steam, vapour, ice, hail, snow, ...

Even the tiny water drops in a fog are not seen as "liquid water" in the everyday usage of the language, although thei physically are liquid water.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

... you have probably heard the word 'rain' (liquid water in atmosphere) before today, haven't you?



As you could have seen from my posting (if you had read it entirely), "rain" in my definition is condensed vapour and "on its way out of the atmosphere into the ocean".

Rain passes a part of the lower atmosphere, but cannot be seen as a (permanent) component of it because of the reason cited above.

And now don't pretend you see "water" as a permanent component of the atmosphere - after all you distinguish between "atmosphere" and "oceans".

There would be no need to distinguish between "atmosphere" and "oceans" if "water" was defined to be a permanent component of the atmosphere.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


Are you?



I perfectly read and understood your sentence. My reply was just anticipating your fear of a future 10-15 °C above average temperature when you currently are able to bear with a 10-15 °C or more day-to-day variation.



Given your answer I doubt you read and understood my sentence.
What I fear is an average temperature 10-15 °C above todays average temperature.

average temperatures in Cologne:


Quote:


Average temperatures range from around 1° Celsius (34° Fahrenheit) in January to 20° Celsius (68° Fahrenheit) in July and August.



Furthermore I was talking about a peak temperature of 40 °C here in the Cologne area - relating to todays average temperature in Cologne.

Average summer temperature = 20 °C; peak temperature (40 °C+) = 2 x average summer temperature.

If I project this peak based on todays average temperature on an peak temperature based on an average temperature 10-15 °C above todays level, then I get
20 °C plus 10-15°C = 30-35 °C average summer temperature, which would mean a possible peak temperature of 2 x 30-35°C = 60-70 °C.

In my first rough estimation I just assumed an increase of the average summer temperature by 10 °C, resulting in a possible peak of 60 °C.

From todays peak (40 °C) I could bear a variation of 15 °C - but just downwards - certainly not upwards.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Anyway even the more pessimistic unreliable projection by IPCC is under your numbers.



I'm not related to the IPCC in any way.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Anyway, air conditioners have been manufactured years ago, so why bother.



Yeah - reminds me of a nice sticker I once saw in the engineering office of "Interatom", where I designed and calculated the statics of the fast breeder reactor in Kalkar back in 1982:
"Why do we need nuclear power stations? We get our electricity from the power socket..."

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


In case you want to imply by this nuclear power is safe in France



Thanks for a reminder there is no perfect solution in this world, ...



Don't mention it...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


Mice milk?



Begin rearing now or shortage is assured.





Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


"...a deliberate deviation from Science"



is my personal opinion (as a former scientist) based on a extended reviewing and understanding of the scientific literature about the CO², climate and CGMs. Definitively not a political agenda.



Maybe it initially was - but meanwhile you're using it for the purpose of proselytising us and so it degenerated to a political agenda...

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 21-Aug-2009 11:47:31
#384 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Dandy

Quote:
Average summer temperature = 20 °C; peak temperature (40 °C+) = 2 x average summer temperature. . . . . .
. . . . . . From todays peak (40 °C) I could bear a variation of 15 °C - but just downwards - certainly not upwards.


You're not the only one! You might like to take a look at a just released report on Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change commissioned by their Government . They are even claiming it is the only report anywhere like it! It comes in a number of flavours:
A 33 page summary for policy makers
A 71 page technical synthesis
A 303 page full report to be published as a book
Various fact sheets relating to particular concerns
There is even a TV broadcast which I do not recommend.
http://climatechange.gov.au/impacts/biodiversity_vulnerability.html

The particular point of interest with respect to your remarks is on page 9, as seen by AmiPDF of the summary for policy makers. Its just a simple graph that makes the point. Just above it is this comment:
Quote:
Properties of ecological systems communities of interacting species and their abiotic environment are often non-linear, and can be difficult to understand and predict. A change in the average value of a variable, such as temperature, may not be as important ecologically as a change in the variability or extremes of that variable (Figure 3).


Note: The Aussie gov't put up an emissions scheme which got chucked out by the upper house. It will be presented again in 3 months time. If it gets chucked out again the Gov't will go to the polls, The Opposition is in such disarray that they could face extinction so the probability is they will come to the party at that time.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 21-Aug-2009 at 12:04 PM.
Last edited by NoelFuller on 21-Aug-2009 at 11:49 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 21-Aug-2009 12:02:56
#385 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

China views its emissions future:
http://en.ce.cn/National/Politics/200908/18/t20090818_19805900.shtml

I was rather taken with this statement:
Quote:
In early June, Premier Wen Jiabao affirmed that China would put in place carbon emissions reduction targets in national development programs.

China, thus, would assess its economic performance by how much less carbon it would emit per unit of GDP growth.


Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 21-Aug-2009 at 12:04 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 21-Aug-2009 21:30:25
#386 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@BrianK

Quote:
When hurricanes will hit land are given with a window of time for the event. IMO there's little doubt in the last decade, and for sure 2 decades, hurricane events predictability has greatly improved.


I suppose you have taken a look at the matter of dust storms from the Sahara which suppress hurricane formation over the Atlantic - some years there are no dust storms and these are marked by an increase in hurricane activity. Why there are no dust storms some years remains a mystery at present.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0801-dust_storms_and_hurricanes.htm

Noel

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 21-Aug-2009 22:08:22
#387 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@BrianK

Quote:
Be sure to not drive or take a bus. Afterall the chaotic systems of gases in an engine is unpredictable, it therefore will never get you to work.


ROFL

Of course the a priori belief in the denialsphere that the CO2 capacity to trap heat and thus drive global warming is a lie, means they cannot acknowledge its function as a driver (forcing) so must try to confuse climate with weather. This fantasy world inspires attempts to confuse climate issues with various forms of deception, such as this misapplication of chaos theory.

The saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get" nicely distinguishes the two. It is thus of interest to consider just what is predictable - a great deal it seems in spite of all the uncertainties as to timing, feedbacks, dependncies, adaptations whatever.

If one predicts that any proposal that may interfere with profits wil get powerful , concerted and ill informed reaction, one is on certain ground as to political climate.

Noel

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 24-Aug-2009 11:39:18
#388 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@NoelFuller

Quote:
Of course the a priori belief in the denialsphere that the CO2 capacity to trap heat and thus drive global warming is a lie, means they cannot acknowledge its function as a driver (forcing) so must try to confuse climate with weather. This fantasy world inspires attempts to confuse climate issues with various forms of deception, such as this misapplication of chaos theory.

The saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get" nicely distinguishes the two. It is thus of interest to consider just what is predictable - a great deal it seems in spite of all the uncertainties as to timing, feedbacks, dependncies, adaptations whatever.

I think you're on the way to some truth here with this assocation. CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas. First deniers try to claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. After they receive an F in science. They justify changing the F by claiming that the atmosphere (greenhouse) doesn't exist. Having being slapped in the face by the real science they buy into the chaos is undeterministic claim.

One definition of chaos is that any system with 3 variables is chaotic. (Simplified a bit) Even if we accept that as true the that doesn't mean the system is not deterministic.

In our lives we rely on chaos. Our engines, as my last example, are predicted to get us to work. This is a deterministic chaotic system. Certainly it's true for the vast majority of people. We cannot tell whose chaos machine will break down but it will happen to some. The predicatble majority go to work daily. Cooking is another. Chaos comes from steams, foams, heating and combing many chemicals. We combine many variables together (many chemicals, heat, pressure, time) and pull out a cake. We know if we increase 1 variable too much (say heat) the result will change (results in burnt carbon).

Climate is also deterministic. If the sun went away we'd be hosed. We don't have a chaotic 6 season year followed by a 1 season year. Each year there are 4 seasons. Deterministically determined by the globe's position in relation to the sun. In winter we predict cold. If the system was undeterministic we'd be unable to predict cold and instead would see an even distribution of the same cold temps throughout the year. We predict the impact of volcanos on local and world climate. We can determine their impact, we're right not half the time (a guess on an undeterministic system) but the vast majority, if not all. Why?As the composition of an atmosphere changes there will be a change of factors because chemicals have different properties.

I like your statement on climate and weather. It establishes the relationship and refutes the idea that these are exactly the same things.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 25-Aug-2009 18:26:06
#389 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
Because the report was the 10th highest measured temperature.
Circular logic: not an argument.

Quote:
Temps prior to 1850 are not measured but projected from other data.
Yes, and? You had no critic with the known wrong tree proxies used by Mann for his flawed temperature reconstructions...your usual double standard, in fact.

Quote:
As for the 'sufficient certainity' claim it's too bad your graph left out the error bars so we can't actually see what the certainity is.
I embedded the graph from the paper previously in some thread before and the paper is referenced on the plot if you are curious. Anyway the point was data are available over 2000 years, not 150.

Quote:
Don't know Loehle perhaps he's a fine chap. However, his math leaves LOTS to be desired.
You are late, his paper has undergone a corrigendum in 2008. The conclusion is similar though.

Quote:
You told us these model's didn't use statellites.
You are also confused: I wrote the GISS temperature data don't used surface satellite data although available (of course they are forced to use satellite data over oceans as no other data are available over water). I don't know (and care) what your claim about model has to do with satellites.

Quote:
Be sure to not drive or take a bus. Afterall the chaotic systems of gases in an engine is unpredictable, it therefore will never get you to work.
As your irrelevant analogy underlines well, it is evident you are missing the very point of the analysis because your understanding of what is deterministic chaos and its implications for climate is absent. Come back discussing when you satisfy at least basic comprehension on the subject.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 25-Aug-2009 at 10:09 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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 25-Aug-2009 18:48:51
#390 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@Dandy

Quote:
In the everyday usage of the language "water" is always liquid - else it would be called steam, vapour, ice, hail, snow, ...
Ah, I now understand. I was discussing Science when you were exposing here your layman language. I am not interested by discussing your "everyday usage of the language", I am interested by Science.

Quote:
Even the tiny water drops in a fog are not seen as "liquid water" in the everyday usage of the language, although thei physically are liquid water.
Thanks for confirming that your layman language has more weight that physical reality. I am not interested by teaching you what you should have been taught 35 years ago as well.

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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 25-Aug-2009 19:08:30
#391 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@olegil

Quote:
Excuse me, but how can you argue that shifting the average temperature up 10-15 degrees will not be noticable?
Excuse me, but how can you discuss that shifting the average temperature up 10-15 degrees has any realism?

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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 25-Aug-2009 22:05:04
#392 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
Climate is also deterministic.
Chaos is also deterministic: both obey laws of Physics. Does that mean that because something is deterministic it is also predictable? Of course no, Maths have progressed since Laplace:
1/ a quote to show how obsolete and confused your view about determinism and predictability is: Quote:
"We are all deeply conscious today that the enthusiasm of our forebears for the marvellous achievements of Newtonian mechanics led them to make generalizations in this area of predictability which, indeed, we may have generally tended to believe before 1960, but which we now recognize were false. We collectively wish to apologize for having misled the general educated public by spreading ideas about determinism of systems satisfying Newton’s laws of motion that, after 1960, were to be proved incorrect..."
- Sir James Lighthill, lecture to the Royal Society on the 300th anniversary of Newton’s Principia, 1986 (bold by me);
2/ a deterministic and potentially predictable system can be trivially unpredictable: put a clock in a box so that its initial state is unknown: the system (the clock) is unpredictable though deterministic. So while predictability requires determinism, the reverse is not true: deterministic does not imply predictable -- at least in the euclidian space-time;
3/ finally, confusing predictability and determinism is an example of the mind projection fallacy: Quote:
"We are all under an ego-driven temptation to project our private thoughts out onto the real world, by supposing that the creations of one’s own imagination are real properties of Nature, or that one’s own ignorance signifies some kind of indecision on the part of Nature."
- E. T. Jaynes, from Clearing up mysteries - the original goal, in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, 1989.
4/ and to avoid your ludicrous claims and irrelevant examples about climate, chaos and predictability, my previous advice stills stand: "Come back discussing when you satisfy at least basic comprehension on the subject.": the paper I linked to is a good start.

Quote:
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future.
- Niels Bohr

Edit: added the § 4/

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 25-Aug-2009 at 10:20 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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 25-Aug-2009 22:29:16
#393 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

There is a Latin proverb that states: Quote:
Asinus asinum fricat.

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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 26-Aug-2009 3:30:59
#394 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@TMTisFree

Quote:
Circular logic: not an argument.
This is bullocks. You asked me why I cited 1850? Well ti's because the article cited 1850. Why not use more? IMO it's a poor idea of yours to draw a conclusion from an article or paper that didn't reflect the other data. There is no circular logic here. Why is 1850 used? Because the article was one citing events of thermometer measured temps. You using data to build a conclusion from events not in the article yet claiming the article supports this is a misapplication and unsupported. The next couple of statements is you continuing with your misapplication.

Quote:
Come back discussing when you satisfy at least basic comprehension on the subject.": the paper I linked to is a good start.
Skipping over your strawman. We see it for the fallaciousness that it is. Strangely the paper you linked isn't a paper proving the depths of determinism and chaos so no it's actually a bad start. I think you need some learning on this too. The problem you cite with an unpredictable deterministic is due to a lack of knowledge of the inital conditions. As such we can only treat these in a probalistic manner. Not so strangely the predictions of the IPCC are 1.5-6 degrees with an associated probablity (% of accuracy) reflecting a less then perfectly known system.

Your conclusion of the science tells us we can never know the system it's just unpredictable. Thus, you never truly know if CO2 is imparting changes on the planet. As such a sort of Pascal's Wager is likely our best option. Wouldn't it be best to let it be naturally? As such we should not release any CO2 because we never know what this may impart to the planet. Inaction is the only thing guaranteeing we'd have no effects.

EDIT: reworded a couple sentences.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Aug-2009 at 11:20 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 26-Aug-2009 9:10:59
#395 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:
@Dandy

Quote:


In the everyday usage of the language "water" is always liquid - else it would be called steam, vapour, ice, hail, snow, ...



Ah, I now understand. I was discussing Science when you were exposing here your layman language.



I thought you'd noticed meanwhile that I'm no scientist (as most others, too) - after all I even posted it several times here...
In case you're after a more scientific language, you might want to read the threads on www.quanten.de (Physics discussion forum - German only)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

I am not interested by discussing your "everyday usage of the language",



Sorry - it's not MY everyday language!

But as you're obviously not interested in that everyday language most people are using here, I now fully understand why nobody understands you the way you'd like it...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

I am interested by Science.



So am I - interested in science - but not an scientist.
Leads to the question why you consistently refuse to use the same language most people here are using?
Do you WANT to be misunderstood?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


Even the tiny water drops in a fog are not seen as "liquid water" in the everyday usage of the language, although thei physically are liquid water.



Thanks for confirming that your layman language has more weight that physical reality.



Not sure where you derive that from...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

I am not interested by teaching you what you should have been taught 35 years ago as well.



Sorry, but I have to disappoint you, Mr. Brainiac.
So far you clearly demonstrated you have nothing worth to be taught to me.
I don't want your pseudo science and bawdinesses...

Last edited by Dandy on 26-Aug-2009 at 09:12 AM.

_________________
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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 26-Aug-2009 16:40:28
#396 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
This is bullocks.
We will see soon.

Quote:
You asked me why I cited 1850?
No. I asked "Why using only since 1850 when 2000 years are available with sufficient certainty?". Surely the question is not why you, a layman person, cut and pasted part of an article (with me providing the proper source), but why the GISS index maintainers, supposedly scientists, still not use complete and unbiased data as pre-1850 data and non-adjusted (satellite) surface data are available. BrianK bogus claim #1.

Quote:
Because the article was one citing events of thermometer measured temps.
It is a wrong statement: the GISS index is a composite reconstruct using both satellite and thermometer data. The source carefully says "instrumental measurements". Anyway as temperature projections by IPCC are output of tuned computer models (ie are obviously neither based on instruments nor on proxies), I don't see why these invented values would be scientifically more valid and would be given more weight than available real world data. So the relevance of my question "Why using only since 1850 when 2000 years are available with sufficient certainty?" is as follows: the GISS index is a cherry-picking construction of data supporting an alarmist position rather than a scientific measurement of climate. It then has no usefulness (apart for its alarmist supporters). Thus -- putting aside the fact that a global mean temperature is meaningless in Physics and is not a metric of anything --, when in perspective of available past data, 2008 temperature data are not unprecedented (I use alarmist vocabulary you should understand correctly) and are so common that in fact there is no interest at all discussing them (apart for the scary business of alarmist believers). BrianK bogus claim #2.

Quote:
There is no circle no matter how much you desire it.
The circle is that justifying the practice of data cherry-picking by the use of the data themselves or unjustifiable methodological restraints is so common in the alarmist sphere that believers have convinced themselves this malevolent and dishonest practice has something to do with a scientific analysis: they can not see the circle. BrianK bogus claim #3.

Now it is clearly visible where the bullocks came from.

Quote:
The next couple of statements is you continuing with your misapplication.
Certainly you have nothing constructive to reply: you are using straw men and fallacies like me typing on my keyboard.

Quote:
Strangely the paper you linked isn't a paper proving the depths of determinism and chaos so no it's actually a bad start.
Actually I was refering to it as "As your irrelevant analogy underlines well, it is evident you are missing the very point of the analysis because your understanding of what is deterministic chaos and its implications for climate is absent.". If one considers your claim has anything to do with the reasons why I proposed this paper, you should not care much about :
1/ the depth of determinism, whatever that means, because doubting determinism itself contradicts your belief in computer model output rightness. So determinism has to be a requirement in climate system for you. Anyway, at the scales climate is studied (macroscopic and over), there is no point discussing determinism: it is a philosophical position more related to epistemology than Physics (at least in the euclidian definition of the space-time) ;
2/ the depth of chaos: you probably mean the level of chaos. Because chaos was discovered and proposed by a meteorologist as an explanation of the climatic events he was studying and given the amount of corroborated results in this field, denying existence of chaotic dynamic in climate system is like denying existence of natural cycles in climate system (not so strangely, both are common properties to alarmist believers). It is nevertheless true that the weighting part (your "level") of chaos in the climatic system, while clearly positive, is unknown and this uncertainty renders the models' output values and implementations more suspect and unreliable: the difficulty to move between the scales in complex system has been nicely described by Anderson, 1972 (More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science, Science). Probably not one of climate modellers has ever read this seminal paper.
That said, the Rial's paper proposed (and many other discussing and studying chaos and complexity emerging from climate):
1/ clearly reviews many aspects of the climate system having both complex and/or chaotic dynamic ;
2/ demonstrates that such behaviours leads to rapid change in climatic events (see also Alley et al., 2003) for which even the direction of change is not predictable ;
3/ argues why the standard reductionist (causal) approach in climate science is destined to fail as an inappropriate conceptual framework to explore complex and/or chaotic systems ;
4/ thus is not an attempt to be a proof of "depths of determinism and chaos", whatever that means, because current climate science is beyond this meaningless, obsolete and pre-XXth century line of thought ;
5/ and correctly summarizes the above with the: Quote:
since the climate system is complex, occasionally chaotic, dominated by abrupt changes and driven by competing feedbacks with largely unknown thresholds, climate prediction is difficult, if not impracticable.
The paper is therefore a good start to understand relationship between complex/chaotic dynamics and climate system and its concomitant implication, the emergence of unpredictability from deterministic system.

Quote:
The problem you cite with an unpredictable deterministic is due to a lack of knowledge of the inital conditions.
Sure. Your 'finding' is stated clearly in the problem but it is not the point. The problem exemplifies simply how a true deterministic system can be unpredictable: in practice this ("lack of knowledge of the inital conditions") is always the case (no perfect measurement possible, no assessment of all variables in the system at the same time). While it could be unimportant in predictability of most linear systems, it is critical in non-linear systems exhibiting complex and/or chaotic behaviour (the question of determinism, as stated above, being is a philosophical one and as such not really related to the problematic, can be skipped). The question of predictability is of central importance. Alarmists obviously support the idea all ( deterministic) systems are always predictable: thinking so enables them to scare people with catastrophic predictions after fear mongering claims to the joy of the MSM news sellers and in line with the agenda of eco-fascists and propaganda of interested politicians. This wrong view is not supported by scientists studying complex and chaotic systems who have shown since long that starting with the same initial conditions, such systems evolved much differently over time (see for a typical example the recent paper from Laskar and Gastineau, 2009 in Nature), pointing to the fact that unpredictability is an intrinsic property of complex and chaotic system (and not only depends upon knowledge of initial conditions). As said before, the presence of per definition unpredictable stochastic fluctuations within the system by force limits its predictability. It is not difficult to understand for open and inquiring minds but it is a strong thought stopper for alarmist believers as formatted brain filled with obsolete schemes are built to resist to evidences. Alarmists also believe in high climate sensitivity which clearly contradicts the belief in a high degree of predictability: the higher sensible the system, the less predictable it is. Such contradictions are common in the alarmsphere...

Quote:
Not so strangely the predictions of the IPCC are 1.5-6 degrees with an associated probablity (% of accuracy) reflecting a less then perfectly known system.
How are these values reliable? A range and an accuracy both derived from computer models tuned by natural climate change deniers claiming that warming can only be produced by CGMs in which human-released CO² is included. What is this is an assumption due to a lack of data to demonstrate otherwise, not an inference from analysis of existing data -- in short a statement of faith: a belief. Thus not reliable.

Quote:
Inaction is the only thing guaranteeing we'd have no effects.
Skipping the childish and illogical conclusion enabled by the bogus reasoning right before...

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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 26-Aug-2009 17:10:41
#397 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@Dandy

Quote:
I thought you'd noticed meanwhile that I'm no scientist
I really don't care what you are or what you are not. That is not the point.

Quote:
In case you're after a more scientific language
I am interested in discussing Science with the requirements that that implies. Being a scientist is obviously not one.

Quote:
Sorry - it's not MY everyday language!
Sure but the quote "everyday usage of the language" is your writing.

Quote:
But as you're obviously not interested in that everyday language most people are using here
I hope most people have been taught long ago that water is water no matter its phase, that rain is water no matter where it comes from/goes to. So you can nitpick as deeply as you want but "Water is definitively a component of atmosphere.".

Quote:
So am I - interested in science
To be demonstrated.

Quote:
Leads to the question why you consistently refuse to use the same language most people here are using?
The number of posts by me in this thread and the previous ones does not support your claim.

Quote:
So far you clearly demonstrated you have nothing worth to be taught to me.
On this we agree. Demonstration failed miserably.

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".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 26-Aug-2009 18:54:06
#398 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:
@Dandy

Quote:


I thought you'd noticed meanwhile that I'm no scientist
...
In case you're after a more scientific language



I really don't care what you are or what you are not.
...
I am interested in discussing Science with the requirements that that implies. Being a scientist is obviously not one.



Then perhaps you care to explain why you expect laymen to speak the language of scientists?
Would you expect any butcher to be able to carry out an heart transplantation, e.g. YOUR heart ?

Perhaps it would be not the worst idea if you climbed down from your high horse and cared a bit more about what's called "everydays language" - just a little bit?

If you want to be taken serious here, your way of affronting other panellists certainly is counterproductive.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


But as you're obviously not interested in that everyday language most people are using here



I hope most people have been taught long ago that water is water ...



That water is water, vapour is vapour, ice is ice and snow is snow.
But you seem to have missed that lesson...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

that rain is water no matter where it comes from/goes to.



I never claimed rain to be anything else than water...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

So you can nitpick as deeply as you want but "Water is definitively a component of atmosphere.".



So suddenly you see my effort to express myself as precise as possible as "nitpicking"?
Isn't precise phrasing a requirement for science from your POV?

Wikipedia: water:
In typical usage, water refers only to its liquid form or state, but the substance also has a solid state, ice, and a gaseous state, water vapor or steam.

Oh - sorry, I forgot - you don't like Wikipedia.
Then how about this one:

the free dictionary: water:
1. A clear, colorless, odorless, and tasteless liquid, H2O, essential for most plant and animal life and the most widely used of all solvents. Freezing point 0°C (32°F); boiling point 100°C (212°F); specific gravity (4°C) 1.0000; weight per gallon (15°C) 8.338 pounds (3.782 kilograms).
...
(all the following points just refer to the liquid state)

Perhaps you shouldn't have skipped so much of your lessons on the everydays usage of the English language thirty years ago??

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


So am I - interested in science



To be demonstrated.



It's useles trying to demonstrate something to self-opinionated ignorants...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


Leads to the question why you consistently refuse to use the same language most people here are using?



The number of posts by me in this thread and the previous ones does not support your claim.




I see - just throw enough mud - some of it will certainly get stuck.
Or with other words:
You just revealed your understanding of "scientific discussion": Just make enough nonsensical postings - somewhen something meaningful will be amongst it...

That's of course real science...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote:

Quote:


So far you clearly demonstrated you have nothing worth to be taught to me.



...
Demonstration failed miserably.



Yes, fully agreed - e.g. the demonstration of your knowledge about water...


EDIT:
Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 26-Aug-2009 at 07:01 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 26-Aug-2009 at 06:55 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)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 26-Aug-2009 20:52:08
#399 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Dandy

The use of scientific gobbledegook to disguise the lack of substance in an argument is one of the instruments in the denialists rhetoric. We have seen several examples in these threads of using scientific jargon to bring about misdirection and reach irrelevant or unrelated conclusions. The French have even invented a word for a person who engages in this posturing.

Some examples from Ian Plimmer, and responses have just been posted here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/#more-930

I worked for many years in a laboratory, a place of fascinating discussions and interesting people, even the casual laborers, one of whom was a master of English literature (I am not refering to a degree). He could also bring the labs within hearing to a stop with his exceptionally talented whistling. I was particularly interested in the differences between technicians and scientists and in the differences among scientists. Only one was a scientist in all matters under discussion, most being scientists only within their speciality and just opinionated people in others. Some could express themselves clearly and make themselves understood to anyone while others were incapable in this sense. I formed the opinion that if a person could not express his ideas acurately and in principle to a layperson he probably did not understand what he was talking about. This is not only true of scientists, but of lawyers, poets and politicians. Perhaps the most misunderstood people are mathematicians.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 26-Aug-2009 at 09:54 PM.
Last edited by NoelFuller on 26-Aug-2009 at 08:54 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 27-Aug-2009 3:49:53
#400 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

Some major crop yields collapse with higher temperatures
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17680-climate-tipping-point-defined-for-us-crop-yields.html

Quote:
Overall, the results suggest that yields of maize, cotton and soybean drop by roughly 0.6 per cent for each "degree-day" spent above 29 °C.

A degree-day is a measure devised by the team to indicate by how much 29 °C is exceeded and the time spent above that threshold. At present, agricultural regions across the US spend an average of 57 degree-days above 29 °C during the growing season.

That's likely to rise as the world warms. Using a model of future climate change the researchers found that the number of degree-days above 29 °C in a growing season could rise to 413 by the end of the century if we do not cut greenhouse gas emissions. This would cause maize yields to fall by 82 per cent.


Noel

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle