This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2013, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2013 11:23 AM by Chas.)
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  I bring your attention to the line in the sand drawn by those scientists and their supporters, and Chas himself.. I was labelled a denier..

No, I didn't. What I said was "You have been misled by the overblown rhetoric of the deniers."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  I bring your attention to the line in the sand drawn by those scientists and their supporters, and Chas himself.. I was labelled a denier.. may as well have called me a heretic or infidel.. just because someone questions a model or theory does not mean that they deny the entire premise of the impact.

Yes, but you see, nobody actually called you those things.

Although it would have been quite in keeping with your "anyone who disagrees with me is a follower of a false religion" attitude - which is, I again remind you, possibly the single most religious sentiment you could have expressed yourself.

(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  I have not had time to watch the video...

But don't let that stop you from commenting on it, right?

(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  ...but lets face it the argument still rolls on in the minds of the believers and the people who still think mankind do not have impact on the planet. And bias is laden into most articles and media available on the subject.

Thank you and good night.

That's impressive knowledge of something you haven't seen.

(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  There are a third set of emails that have not been released due to the swing in attitude from the scientists involved, do you not see how the model is no longer being used in debate over the matter? It has resorted to the correct use of solid facts and tangible evidence. Even if the climatologists wanted to achieve the same goals, the emails clearly showed the unethical behavior of the lead scientists in the generation, review and publication of the model.

Uh... huh. The model. The climatologists. No such thing, man.

Also, clearly showed? No such thing, man.

Your investigation into the matter apparently stopped at hearing what someone else said the emails contained. There are only about three or four which even the shrillest conspiracy-mongers attempt to use, and they don't hold up under even the slightest consideration. You have obviously not done such consideration. But that's okay. Ignorance is curable! If you want to know, you can actually bother to see for yourself.

(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  The investigations into it (by police etc) couldn't use the hacked emails (which lets face it were PRIVATE emails that WERE NOT published) as evidence and although the attitude and focus changed, no action was taken or is ever likely to be taken, (or even worth taking imo)

Yeah. Guy. The emails weren't published because most people don't make a habit of publicly disclosing all their personal correspondence.

The content of the emails - between scientific authors, let's remember - discussed, y'know, the content of their scientific articles. There is nothing referred to in the emails which is not contained in the actual scientific articles.

So, it was a real good job of hiding things, no?

(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  But from the mouths of the IPCC
http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2013/...ate-report
(of course posted by someone else)

The global warming effect is so much less than the initial global warming model would have predicted. THIS is why we are looking more closely at MMCC (as there are significant other factors). I have never said global warming is not happening, I have said the global warming model is false. And even the IPCC recognize this.

THIS is the point I have made, THIS is the point supported by the IPCC, THIS is what climatologists are working on, not the remnants of a fallacy that the global warming model constructed.. Why is believing these facts delivered in a clear, ethical, peer reviewed manner make me a denier?

Yes. Indeed.

You literally said "global warming is a scam/conspiracy/religion", which sounds just a little like denial. So there's that.

You maligned the integrity and honesty of anyone who so much as uttered the words "global warming". So there's that.

You've not presented anything peer-reviewed. So there's that.

(13-11-2013 03:25 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  And WHY if those in charge can see the facts, can you gentlemen and ladies, not?

Um. Please let me know where anyone here other than you has denied any part of the latest IPCC reports. I'll wait.

(13-11-2013 03:31 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  The lots of money I talk about is the extra cost needed to have clean industries.. the scrubbing of flue gasses, the burning of fossil fuels, the carbon footprint.

Yes. Of course, I didn't say "there is no money", I said the money is not connected to the scientists. Let us consider the activities you present. There is one notable thing in common amongst them:
the scientists aren't the ones getting paid for it. So there's that.

(13-11-2013 03:31 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  Investment in renewables, higher car and petrol taxes, higher energy bills, higher transport costs, carbon offsetting, incineration rather than land filling..

Given the increasing cost of fossil fuels those things are economically advantageous regardless.

(13-11-2013 03:31 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  All these things are not cheap and impact every single one of us (a mixture of causes and effects) when a multnational company that processes millions of tonnes of oil a day need to cover their backsides to the extent they have to, do you think they will not fight against legislation that will spike their operating costs?

So, uh, the big conventional energy interests would be motivated to act against any new cost or regulation on them? Such as would be suggested by, er, their activities being a prime contributor to climate change? Such as would mean that it is then in their interest to deny the premises and conclusions of most climate research?

Sure. But you may recognize this as, er, the exact opposite of what you were just arguing. So there's that.

(13-11-2013 03:31 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  Apart from the rest of your post being tosh and simple minded...

Why do I suspect that that means,
"I'm not going to address any of the points you made"?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
13-11-2013, 11:07 AM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
I would like to point out that I was challenged for not believing something (through which of course my omission of the word model has left me feeling a little vulnerable to deserved abuse) and my response was weighted justly.

I care not for media or personal representation of facts, I found the source by myself.. Its a good practice to do once or twice, keeps bias at bay for a short period.

'the climatologists' those individuals involved in the generation and publication of false information

'the model' the global warming model built around the hockey stick graph.. that has been debunked by continuing research, which is progress, yet this was distributed as fact and anyone disagreeing with it were labelled a denier.

Fair enough, 'clearly showed' is pretty subjective, I read the emails myself, (took blooming ages) and it was evident to me that they were trying to exert pressure on people to sign off on the theory, ignore certain things (rightly or wrongly), hide things (I do not accept their explanation for removing data that does not correlate) and discuss the threatening and distractions of other parties (the threats may or may not have realised).. That is my understanding of the emails, many of which WERE found in context as part of a larger email trail. It was enough for the universtiy to warrant a change to its policies.

(at this point i think you started waffling as you made blatant claims that are inherently untrue and contradictory)
"The content of the emails - between scientific authors, let's remember - discussed, y'know, the content of their scientific articles. There is nothing referred to in the emails which is not contained in the actual scientific articles." - the emails that contained irrelevent stuff were not included.. such as discussion about pressure on colleagues to sign off.

Timescales may have something to do with it? IPCC have adjusted theirs, the global warming model expected more warming in the next 5 years than the IPCC expect in the next 100..

You did not include the scientists in money and neither did I ..

Accepted, I didnt say anything was wrong with it at all.. I said there is money and expenses connected to it. Nothing about the benefits (mainly the drawback I was focussed on due to this is why the argument has to be clear and waterproof to force the multinationals to sit up and listen) and yes it IS in their interest to deny these things.. They deny poisons and pollution across the board until solid proof is given.

Nah it was because I selected you valid discussion points.. rhetoric is not my strong point. (tbh writing anything coherent is a challenge Tongue)

I would like to keep my rubber and glue position though, If I could have been taken in by denier rhetoric, could YOU have been taken in by believer rhetoric?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
I'll toss my thoughts out on this topic even though I'll probably be flamed for it.

1- Its freakin hard to predict the weather accurately tomorrow let alone general trends in such a complex and not very well understood system.
2- Lets make sure we are talking about the same thing as some terms get used and people jump to conclusions. If you deny climate change I think you need your head examined. I would expect our climate to change. It has in the past and it will continue to do so in the future. The data i've seen does indicate a global warming trend recently.
3- I believe that man needs to reduce his impact on the environment and needs to do so in more than baby steps. I was appalled at the amount of trash my family generated just yesterday in materials that do not break down easily. So much plastic!
4- I don't like it when people point out storm "A" as proof of drastic change but don't point out how the Atlantic hurricane season the last couple years have been very light. I don't think we can look at any one singular event as proof (sorry OP).
5- Could man be causing the change in our environment in a non-immaterial manner? I do believe we could be BUT I am not fully on board with us being a major factor at all. ***I just put on the flame resistant clothing, flame away *** I guess you could label me as MMCC agnostic. The reason for my agnosticism is primarily based on the following criteria that I haven't seen (and I honestly think it is a reasonable request): show me where our emissions are a LEADING indicator to temperature increases with high correlation.
6- Before you tar and feather me, as stated in #3 I think we need to do a whole bunch more to reduce our unsustainable practices, especially here in the US. I try to instill in my kids the mantra of reuse/repurpose/recycle. It just makes sense.

So if someone has a link to a study that shows our emissions as a leading and correlated indicator to temperature change, I really want to see it but I've looked for it in the past and haven't found it. I haven't looked recently so I could be missing something quite large. I'm also no scientist so my access to such information is probably limited to clumsy google searches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes devilsadvoc8's post
13-11-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  1- Its freakin hard to predict the weather accurately tomorrow let alone general trends in such a complex and not very well understood system.

General trends are, as it happens, much easier to predict. This is how statistics work!

(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  2- Lets make sure we are talking about the same thing as some terms get used and people jump to conclusions. If you deny climate change I think you need your head examined. I would expect our climate to change. It has in the past and it will continue to do so in the future. The data i've seen does indicate a global warming trend recently.

Yes, there are several buried questions.
What change, if any, is occuring in the Earth's climate?
How much, if any, of this change is caused by human activity?

(the answers are "it's getting warmer" and "most of it")

(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  3- I believe that man needs to reduce his impact on the environment and needs to do so in more than baby steps. I was appalled at the amount of trash my family generated just yesterday in materials that do not break down easily. So much plastic!

Yes.

(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  4- I don't like it when people point out storm "A" as proof of drastic change but don't point out how the Atlantic hurricane season the last couple years have been very light. I don't think we can look at any one singular event as proof (sorry OP).

OP didn't do that.

OP said that given increasing volatility of the oceans (a natural consequence of warming surface temperatures) then increasing volatility of storms will result. This is pretty much universally accepted.

(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  5- Could man be causing the change in our environment in a non-immaterial manner? I do believe we could be BUT I am not fully on board with us being a major factor at all. ***I just put on the flame resistant clothing, flame away *** I guess you could label me as MMCC agnostic. The reason for my agnosticism is primarily based on the following criteria that I haven't seen (and I honestly think it is a reasonable request): show me where our emissions are a LEADING indicator to temperature increases with high correlation.

I'll get back to this.

(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  6- Before you tar and feather me, as stated in #3 I think we need to do a whole bunch more to reduce our unsustainable practices, especially here in the US. I try to instill in my kids the mantra of reuse/repurpose/recycle. It just makes sense.

And that is admirable!

(13-11-2013 12:19 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  So if someone has a link to a study that shows our emissions as a leading and correlated indicator to temperature change, I really want to see it but I've looked for it in the past and haven't found it. I haven't looked recently so I could be missing something quite large. I'm also no scientist so my access to such information is probably limited to clumsy google searches.

So yeah. Here's your #5 again. But, uh, I guess you didn't look very hard.

And, although it's a shame when I'm reduced to quoting myself:
(13-09-2013 10:55 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I find Ars Technica's coverage good for basics.

Start here; then consult the archives.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-11-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
(13-11-2013 11:07 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  'the climatologists' those individuals involved in the generation and publication of false information
Name names, be specific, make specific claims, or you are an idiot. I'll generally ignore your non-specific claims in this post and only address the specific claims you make.
(13-11-2013 11:07 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  'the model' the global warming model built around the hockey stick graph.. that has been debunked by continuing research, which is progress, yet this was distributed as fact and anyone disagreeing with it were labelled a denier.
You are showing a lack of interest and serious attention to this topic. The basic climate change model is that putting carbon dioxide another greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium temperature of the earth by allowing the earth to absorb high frequency solar radiation but reflecting lower frequency radiation back to the earth - acting as a blanket. This fundamental model is entirely uncontroversial and bulletproof.

Various more complex and comprehensive models of how the earth's climate system responds to this higher equilibrium point exist, but bear no connection to the hockey stick at all. The hockey stick you are referring to is a temperature reconstruction for the past 1000 years based on a combination of recent instrumental records with multiple less precise indirect methods for earlier dates prepared in 1998. Although some of the statistical techniques used in this early paper were disputable, the results have been repeated through numerous other studies that show generally consistent results[1]. But the key point here is that the hockey stick is not in any way a climate model. It is a temperature reconstruction for the past 1000 years, and an apparently accurate one to boot.
(13-11-2013 11:07 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  Timescales may have something to do with it? IPCC have adjusted theirs, the global warming model expected more warming in the next 5 years than the IPCC expect in the next 100..
So let's spell this out - the hockey stick temperature reconstruction for the past 1000 years predicts... uhh.. warming... uhh.. in the next 5 years? What are you even talking about? A temperature reconstruction does not make precitions for one, but even we talk about actual climate models the temperature of the earth is a very noisy signal. You won't see any predictions of any certainty over a period of less than twenty years, 10 at the most. What specific document makes 5 year predictions?

So let's imagine these imaginary predictions of yours actually exist, how do they pan out? Well, why don't you have a quick look to find the list of the hottest years on record? I'll make it easy, here's the wikipedia link. By the way, 2013 is due to come in at number 7 on this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumenta...mest_years

Oh, and where did the arctic ice cap go?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/...e-anomaly/

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
14-11-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
Hafnof, the link you provided in your response to me is simply a link to the IPCC. While I agree it may be a place to start, given the enormity of the information on that site, by any chance could you refer to the report/chapter relevant to my request? You might as well have pointed me at Wiki. As I stated, I am no scientist but I do have some stats knowledge and could piece it together if pointed to the appropriate sections.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:08 AM
RE: This could possibly be the biggest storm in the history of modern earth
(14-11-2013 07:58 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Name names, be specific, make specific claims, or you are an idiot. I'll generally ignore your non-specific claims in this post and only address the specific claims you make.
Just go check out the emails, the names are all there. Heres a snifter to show what you may uncover
Quote:cc: "Hulme Mike (E-mail)" <???@uea.ac.uk>, "Mearns, Linda (E-mail)" <???@ucar.edu>, "Wratt, David (E-mail)" <???@niwa.cri.nz>, "Whetton, Peter" <???@dar.csiro.au>, "Jones, Roger" <???@dar.csiro.au>, "Hennessy, Kevin" <???@dar.csiro.au>
date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:25:00 +100 ???
from: "Pittock,Barrie" <???@dar.csiro.au>
subject: RE: Chapter 3.
to: 'Timothy Carter' <???@vyh.fi>

Dear Tim,

Sorry to not be pulling my weight on Chapter 3 - I will try to look at it
again after getting a prelim. draft of 12 out to local reviewers later this
week.

Meanwhile, the question of the change in Precip. maps in the "Interim
Characterizations..." document: The point is NOT whether the other authors
howl in protest at having their regions blanked out, but which
representation of the results is appropriate to giving the best advice on
what changes to expect. As the object is NOT to prove that change will
occur, but rather to provide the best estimate of it, plus uncertainty, I
think the obviously best solution is to show all results, with the scatter
plots to show relation to natural variability. But I have accepted Mike's
compromise for the stuff he is supplying to the WWF, which is to show
results at one s.d. If Mike can that for WWF, then he must be set up to do
it for IPCC, or I would have thought so. If he/you do not do so, I would
have thought you were misleading authors into thinking the changes in the
blanked out regions are not of practical importance, and this is clearly
wrong - they matter a lot in terms of implicit changes in the frequency of
extremes, and e.g., in the frequency of successive droughts which might
threaten a given water-dependent enterprise.

The great danger of doing things the way we are, in our rush to prepare
these IPCC reports, is that we are not submitting this stuff to peer review
before using it. This makes it even more important that we bend over
backwards to get it right. I know it is a bother, but that is life. I am
genuinely sorry to be such a stickler about it, but there we are.

Best regards,

Barrie.

Dr A. Barrie Pittock
Post-Retirement Fellow*, Climate Impact Group
CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia
Tel: +61 ???, Fax: +61 ???, email:
<???@dar.csiro.au>
WWW: http://www.dar.csiro.au/res/cm/impact.htm

Which quite clearly states that some of the information given was not peer reviewed and things were left out to show what they want to show. (Okay this is normal practise 9/10 wihtout information regarding what was left out how do we know it is not important especially when things like data from the 1960's tree rings were left out as they did not agree with the other recordings elsewhere)

Quote:You are showing a lack of interest and serious attention to this topic. The basic climate change model is that putting carbon dioxide another greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium temperature of the earth by allowing the earth to absorb high frequency solar radiation but reflecting lower frequency radiation back to the earth - acting as a blanket. This fundamental model is entirely uncontroversial and bulletproof.
A major greenhouse gas is water, the significance of carbon dioxide has been overestimated, which is why there have been so many revisions.. There was no inclusion of the factors of plants and other functions of withdrawing CO2 (another email showed the significance of this and how they WERE researching it, but the model was released before the full facts were known)

Quote:Various more complex and comprehensive models of how the earth's climate system responds to this higher equilibrium point exist, but bear no connection to the hockey stick at all. The hockey stick you are referring to is a temperature reconstruction for the past 1000 years based on a combination of recent instrumental records with multiple less precise indirect methods for earlier dates prepared in 1998. Although some of the statistical techniques used in this early paper were disputable, the results have been repeated through numerous other studies that show generally consistent results[1]. But the key point here is that the hockey stick is not in any way a climate model. It is a temperature reconstruction for the past 1000 years, and an apparently accurate one to boot.

the hockey stick was used to make predicitons, it was also found to miss out significant past events and some versions even had data such as volcano activity removed to dramatise the effect. In fact most current models are significantly different to the hockey stick. Even the IPCC's models do not approximate the hockey stick. They are models, but as you say quite pertinatnly they do not predict what is going to happen, which is what they have been used for. (maybe not by the climatologists, but those that wielded them as fact)

Quote:So let's spell this out - the hockey stick temperature reconstruction for the past 1000 years predicts... uhh.. warming... uhh.. in the next 5 years? What are you even talking about? A temperature reconstruction does not make precitions for one, but even we talk about actual climate models the temperature of the earth is a very noisy signal. You won't see any predictions of any certainty over a period of less than twenty years, 10 at the most. What specific document makes 5 year predictions?
so lets ignore that this model was around since the 1999 publication. and that it had a predicted point on it for 2004.. and that it gave a prediction based on the trend of the graph for the next 50 years or so.

Quote:So let's imagine these imaginary predictions of yours actually exist, how do they pan out? Well, why don't you have a quick look to find the list of the hottest years on record? I'll make it easy, here's the wikipedia link. By the way, 2013 is due to come in at number 7 on this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumenta...mest_years

Oh, and where did the arctic ice cap go?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/...e-anomaly/
I have not refuted change, I have refuted a model that has been disproven and revised to a more scientific methodology.

Like i have been saying, I have been attacked as a 'denier' as someone without the proper facts, as someone who ignores this and that.. from those who have the same agreement as myself. 'We are fucking the planet and we need to do something'

The aims of many religions are the same yet they fight bloodily over it.. can a comparison be drawn?

Not until the labelling of opponents becomes someone less than themselves.. 'Denier' and 'alarmist' turned the debate into quasi religious behavior.

Scientists were persecuted when they questioned how true the bible was as a model of the universe.. now people are getting persecuted for questioning other scientific models.. Its a sad state of affairs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: