|
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3772
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 2 As and a B wrote: | | JavaScriptDonkey wrote: | | Fascinating paper hosted over at Watts that'll give you a whole new set of things to worry about. |
How was this research funded? Has the paper been published in a recognised journal? Has it been peer-reviewed? |
That's always the fallback when you don't like what you see..... 
Now that is one bit of interesting research by two scientists with PHDs and working for the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA. I see this was presented at the Open Science Conference of the World Climate Research Program, 24 October 2011, Denver CO, USA
Having just read what is quite a mathematical oriented paper, it makes much more sense to me that the (rather weak) AGW Theory. At last for some real Physics!
Good find JSD! It will be interesting to see what our fellow PSers make of it. 
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Edited - Kenneal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: |
Good find JSD! It will be interesting to see what our fellow PSers make of it. |
My initial reaction is that you didn't bother to dig very deeply, you just agreed with it because the conclusion supports your pre-decided climate change skepticism.*
*denial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | | 2 As and a B wrote: | | JavaScriptDonkey wrote: | | Fascinating paper hosted over at Watts that'll give you a whole new set of things to worry about. |
How was this research funded? Has the paper been published in a recognised journal? Has it been peer-reviewed? |
That's always the fallback when you don't like what you see.....
|
Nope, it is an entirely justified reaction from anyone who has spent the last twenty years watching the putrid stream of propaganda being produced by climate change skeptics.*
*denialists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2 As and a B wrote: | | JavaScriptDonkey wrote: | | Fascinating paper hosted over at Watts that'll give you a whole new set of things to worry about. |
How was this research funded? Has the paper been published in a recognised journal? Has it been peer-reviewed? |
Well, let's have a quick look at the website it is on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Hmmm....looks like an encyclopedia containing vast quantities of mutually-unrelated climate-change denialist propaganda.
What have we got?
Climate change caused by changes in tectonic drift.
Declining cloud height causes climate change negative feedback (cooling) (so we don't need to worry  )
Complaints that climate change deniers are being treated like holocaust deniers (heaven forbid )
I can't be bothered to read anymore. The page has been put together by somebody who has point blank refused to believe in climate change and is desperately looking for any sort of evidence or argument to support his pre-determined conclusion. It's exactly like creationists trying to debunk evolution. The only difference is that the anti-scientific motive is political rather than religious.
ETA: And yes, rather like holocaust denial, climate change denialism must be STAMPED OUT.
I have given up hope of getting through to JSD (about anything) but I don't understand the attitude of Snow Hope, who seems rather sensible about anything else? Why on earth do you side with these denialist idiots? Climate change is real. You're wrong. What is driving your "skepticism"? I can understand it from right-wingers who can't accept their world is going to end, but that's not you, is it?
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3772
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You must be having a very rough day UCE..... 
Firstly I am not a denialist, I am a sceptic.
Secondly, I read the whole study and I make my comments based upon the matters discussed and arguments put forth in the research. I do not (as some people seem to do) go off and dig to see if it is a site that I feel backs or doesn't back my thoughts, or if I think it might be backed by the fossil fuel industry or any such stuff.
Thirdly, you must have a very fixed opinion, by saying this, "it is an entirely justified reaction from anyone who has spent the last twenty years watching the putrid stream of propaganda being produced by climate change skeptics.*"
Fourthly, I am not siding with denialists! I base my scepticism on the strength of the physics and chemistry put forth.
Why don't you comment on the the research UCE - the science? Instead of saying things like, "And yes, rather like holocaust denial, climate change denialism must be STAMPED OUT." This kind of statement makes me realise that you are not open-minded but have completely closed your mind on the subject. You have no right to tell me I am wrong - you are not God or somebody who knows the truth. Do you not realise the position you put yourself in when saying that?
You may be right, or I may be right. You don't know which it is. End of story.
You seem to be an intelligent guy UCE. So why not give us a more intelligent reply?
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | You must be having a very rough day UCE.....
|
I'm having quite a good day today. I have spent a very long time debunking climate change denialism (20 years.)
| Quote: |
Firstly I am not a denialist, I am a sceptic.
|
Sceptical of what exactly?
| Quote: |
Thirdly, you must have a very fixed opinion, by saying this, "it is an entirely justified reaction from anyone who has spent the last twenty years watching the putrid stream of propaganda being produced by climate change skeptics.*"
|
I have a "fixed opinion" about this for the same reason I have a fixed opinion about all well-established science.
| Quote: |
You seem to be an intelligent guy UCE. So why not give us a more intelligent reply? |
OK, I have a spare 30 minutes. I'll do some digging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3772
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
To answer your question, I am sceptical of the AGW Theory, ie I remain unconvinced of this Theory.
I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to 390 parts per million nowadays, is all caused by mankind and that this is the cause of most of the global warming to date. And that this will cause the global temperature to rise by between 3-6c as the IPCC have indicated is most likely.
I hope that is clear?
I look forward to hearing your views on the science in that study that JSD posted.
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Results of digging:
Author - Ned Nikolov. "Air Resource Scientist". Works for the US government.
| Quote: |
Recent studies revealed that Global Climate Models (GCMs) have significantly overestimated the Planet’s warming since 1979 failing to predict the observed halt of global temperature rise over the past 13 years.
|
Bullshit. If global warming has "halted" for the past 13 years, why are the ice-caps melting at a record rate? Nothing like starting the [paper] [EDIT: blog entry, not a paper, not peer-reviewed] with a lie, is there?
| Quote: |
No consensus currently exists as to why the warming trend ceased in 1998 despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
|
Maybe because it didn't cease?
The next part of the paper contains degree-level mathematics, which I can't cope with, and I doubt many other people posting here can either.
All I can see is a US government employee who has been paid to produce a paper which convinces people like you there is evidence to support climate change denialism, regardless of the fact that you don't understand the maths any better than I do. It is assumed that most people reading it will not understand it.
Debunked here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
And here:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/unified-climate-theory-iii.html
| Quote: |
More telling than the hiding of that clear physical effect by the "Unified Climate Theory", however, and indeed more outrageous, is the shape of their NTE function. They tried to give that function some physical support by comparing its shape to that of the Poisson formula for temperature as a function of pressure, but it should be noted (using their own Figure 5) that their NTE function WOULD APPEAR TO BE USELESS for calculating the surface temperature of 5 of the 8 planetary bodies they considered, as all of those 5 bodies (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, and Triton) have practically zero surface pressure, while their surface temperatures vary greatly (in other words, the NTE function is a vertical straight line, at a surface pressure of zero, in their Figure 5). Yet they claim, in their Table 1, perfect prediction of the surface temperatures of 2 of those 5 bodies (Mars and Europa), and near perfect prediction of another (Triton). It is my understanding, in the case of Mars, that its surface temperature varies widely, one would presume precisely because its pressure is so low, thus unstable. Even if their data and calculations are correct in this, this unphysical result explains the extreme form of their NTE function; and the extreme accuracy of their predicted temperatures cannot possibly be true. And sure enough, if one checks their values for the OBSERVED surface temperatures, one finds they claim to know every one of those temperatures to within 0.1K! I do not hesitate to call this delusionary.
|
It is politically-motivated bullshit, SH. The author has been offered lots of money to produce anti-scientific propaganda in order to allow people like you to continue to believe nonsense about climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UndercoverElephant
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 5839
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | To answer your question, I am sceptical of the AGW Theory, ie I remain unconvinced of this Theory.
I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to 390 parts per million nowadays, is all caused by mankind and that this is the cause of most of the global warming to date.
|
Why do you think either of those things?
How can you possibly doubt the bolded part? Which figure do you doubt? The 280 or the 390?
| Quote: |
And that this will cause the global temperature to rise by between 3-6c as the IPCC have indicated is most likely.
I hope that is clear?
|
Crystal clear. You reject ALL climate science, apparently. And you accept all the propaganda.
| Quote: |
I look forward to hearing your views on the science in that study that JSD posted. |
The primary evidence is meaningless. It involves knowing the average surface temperature of numerous solar system bodies to an accuracy of 0.1K, which is impossible, and about half of those bodies also have extremely low and very variable surface pressures. No valid conclusions can be drawn from such unreliable data.
Conclusion: the theory is not proper science. It is politically-motivated propaganda, dressed up as science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13910
Location: Lincolnshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JavaScriptDonkey
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1473
Location: SE England
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UndercoverElephant wrote: | | Edited - Kenneal. |
Edited - Kenneal
If you bothered to read it you can judge for yourself by the weight of their arguments.
Or you can carry on with your own opinions.
Your call.
Hang on though - you said you weren't going to read any of my posts...does that make you a liar as well as an idiot?
Last edited by JavaScriptDonkey on Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JavaScriptDonkey
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1473
Location: SE England
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.
Doh. |
Any reason that it shouldn't?
It isn't 'my' graph and the paper certainly doesn't argue against climate change or CO2 levels. All it seeks to do is re-examine what we think we know of the atmosphere from what we do know about the behaviour of gases.
I do not ask for it to be accepted on faith (leave that for the Gaia Theorists). Question it. Argue with it. Provide counter points.
I would have thought the idea that we had lost 53% of out atmosphere and that the process is continuing would be enough horror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2 As and a B
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2594
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | | 2 As and a B wrote: | | JavaScriptDonkey wrote: | | Fascinating paper hosted over at Watts that'll give you a whole new set of things to worry about. |
How was this research funded? Has the paper been published in a recognised journal? Has it been peer-reviewed? |
That's always the fallback when you don't like what you see.....
Now that is one bit of interesting research by two scientists with PHDs and working for the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA. I see this was presented at the Open Science Conference of the World Climate Research Program, 24 October 2011, Denver CO, USA
Having just read what is quite a mathematical oriented paper, it makes much more sense to me that the (rather weak) AGW Theory. At last for some real Physics!
Good find JSD! It will be interesting to see what our fellow PSers make of it. |
No, they are natural curiosities when one sees what might be unchallenged arguments (I saw that the website where the paper was had an AGW-sceptic stance - did you?)
I am certainly not qualified to judge the veracity of the data and conclusions so I didn't even try to understand it - far too complicated. You read it; are you qualified to pass judgement on it? Is JSD? I would be interested in JSD's summary of the paper in his own words rather than lifted extracts. You know how science progresses knowledge, don't you? It's certainly not by means of open access internet forums!
_________________
I'm hippest, no really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
