PDA

View Full Version : Climate change



DimPrawn
2nd March 2011, 16:38
Question for the experts (sasguru on statistics and pjclarke on science).

It's called climate change, so this means the climate must be changing.

So simple question, for the UK for example, what is the climate changing from (the past pre CO2 output) and what is it heading to?

Is it heading for freezing winters on the whole with heavy snowfall being not uncommon or is it heading for almost snow free winters (bar the once in XXX year freak events)?

Are summers going to be record breaking heatwaves and lots of dead bodies or are the recent damp squib summers the future climate?

Put your money where your mouth is and use science to make predictions that can be measured, without changing it all when you look like plonkers down the line

PS. you can't keep changing the science and just say "it's science, it evolves". That's just called lieing, guessing or being plain wrong all time.

sasguru
2nd March 2011, 16:52
PS. you can't keep changing the science and just say "it's science, it evolves". That's just called lieing, guessing or being plain wrong all time.

This statement shows you don't understand what science is. I suggest Kuhn ("The structure of scientific revolutions") and Popper as suitable background reading.
That will avoid making mistakes such as EO asking for proof of a scientific theory:laugh
Otherwise you are just :winker:ing and I refer you to my post:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/64244-letters-heretic-7.html#post1290365

HTH, BIKIW

DimPrawn
2nd March 2011, 17:07
This statement shows you don't understand what science is. I suggest Kuhn ("The structure of scientific revolutions") and Popper as suitable background reading.
That will avoid making mistakes such as EO asking for proof of a scientific theory:laugh
Otherwise you are just :winker:ing and I refer you to my post:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/64244-letters-heretic-7.html#post1290365

HTH, BIKIW

Chocolate teapot response as usual.

I think it you that doesn't understand science and thinks it can say whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without basis, proof or accountability.

This all goes to show there is proper science, which has made progress for mankind and there is AGW science which is akin to looking at the runes.

Old Greg
2nd March 2011, 19:05
Question for the experts (sasguru on statistics and pjclarke on science).

It's called climate change, so this means the climate must be changing.

So simple question, for the UK for example, what is the climate changing from (the past pre CO2 output) and what is it heading to?

Is it heading for freezing winters on the whole with heavy snowfall being not uncommon or is it heading for almost snow free winters (bar the once in XXX year freak events)?

Are summers going to be record breaking heatwaves and lots of dead bodies or are the recent damp squib summers the future climate?

Put your money where your mouth is and use science to make predictions that can be measured, without changing it all when you look like plonkers down the line

PS. you can't keep changing the science and just say "it's science, it evolves". That's just called lieing, guessing or being plain wrong all time.

It's going to change from being globally cooler to globally warmer. On average. Clue is in the name 'global warming'.

amcdonald
2nd March 2011, 19:10
It's going to change from being globally cooler to globally warmer. On average. Clue is in the name 'global warming'.

So global cooling is evidence of global warming, and carbon taxes aren't just a con to fleece people out of more money for no reason

TimberWolf
2nd March 2011, 19:12
I think it you that doesn't understand science

Correct.

Old Greg
2nd March 2011, 19:16
So global cooling is evidence of global warming, and carbon taxes aren't just a con to fleece people out of more money for no reason

Just answering the question. BTW I have no faith in carbon taxes.

NickFitz
2nd March 2011, 19:53
PS. you can't keep changing the science and just say "it's science, it evolves". That's just called lieing, guessing or being plain wrong all time.

Sir Isaac Newton called - he wants his Clockwork Universe back :eyes

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 20:07
Sir Isaac Newton called - he wants his Clockwork Universe back :eyes

oh that old fraud.

I always wondered what would have happened if it had been a mango that fell on his ead


Bruce Newton's First Law of Motion:
I. G'Day. Every object in a state of Queensland tends to remain in that state unless an external force is applied to it.


Bruce Newton's Second Law of Motion:
II. Two bodies will attract each other with a force proportional to the size of the budgie smuggler and the peanut smuggler, and inversely proportional to their distance from the bar

Bruce Newton's Third Law of Motion:
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Grolsh.sorry about the carpet mate.






:rolleyes:

pjclarke
2nd March 2011, 20:46
Sorry to disappoint but the model resolution is not yet good enough to give useful short term predictions at the sub-continental scale. (The clue is in the name: global warming). For Europe see here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/regional-climate-projections/). At the regional level apparently paradoxical things can happen:- the rapid warming of the Arctic can increase winter precipitation in Europe and North America giving the apparently ironic result of more snow. The planet is like that, complex.

Now let me explain something: scientists conduct research and publish it in journals, after extensive review and with caveats and statements of uncertainty. No scientist will ever state that a theory is 100% correct or that science is settled . For example the IPCC estimate that there is around a 10% chance that the recent GW is not anthropogenic. Sometimes other scientists publish commentary contradicting, refining or improving the results and so the endeavour progresses.

Journalists write articles about the studies. Generally appalling, often misquoting the scientists, frequently brushing away the caveats and uncertainties (this certainly happened with the 'hockey stick'). Finally a sub-editor adds a headline to the piece which may or may not be a useful summary..

Showing that a headline from a decade ago is apparently contradicted a more recent one is a bizarre use of time. Assuming you'd like to be taken seriously, if you could find an actual primary study predicting more snow contradicting another study predicting less, after the error bars are taken into account, then I for one would be all ears. Otherwise it's all just MediaWank.

Anyhoo, Northern Europe is predicted to warm most rapidly in winter, and before you jump in with the obvious knee-jerk response, I would point out that seven out of the last 10 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/) European winters (and 10/10 summers btw) have been warmer than the long term average. Climate is like that. Long term.

BTW At a global level, the IPCC projected (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/552.htm) an increase in surface temperatures from 1990-2010 of +0.32C. The actual observed trend was ....

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1990/to:2010/plot/uah/from:1990/to:2010/trend

0.32C.

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 20:58
1975 Newsweek articleAn April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled [25] "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."[25]

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."'





:rolleyes:

pjclarke
2nd March 2011, 21:14
Is there a worse global warming denier argument than the '70s global cooling' myth? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626100711AA5hg2N)


There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.


Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Sep 2008 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Even the main Popular Science book of the time 'The Cooling (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html)' promoting the idea wasn't entirely certain. Here's the preface:-


The Cooling will be controversial, because among scientists, most of the matters it deals with are hotly debated. There is no agreement on whether the earth is cooling. There is not unanimous agreement on whether is has cooled, or one hemisphere has cooled and the other warmed. One would think that there might be consensus about what data there is - but there is not. There is no agreement on the causes of climatic change, or even why it should not change amongst those who so maintain. There is certainly no agreement about what the climate will do in the next century, though there is a majority opinion that it will change, more or less, one way or the other. .



Perhaps you, with your single Newsweek article, were hoping for a comparison with the situation today, with 97% of climate scientists and near enough 100% of the literature in support of the reality of GW?

Sorry.

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 21:22
see, what you are failing to understand, is that some of us looked at that stuff at the time. It was the latest news to us.

we did not have hindsight , google, computers, or ready access to the literature. we didnt even have digital watches.

This was the latest truth. except it wasnt true.

So for people like me, who have lived through several cycles of your bullsh1t, you are going to have to persuade me, you are going to have to try a lot harder. we will not be bullied or browbeaten any more



:rolleyes:

pjclarke
2nd March 2011, 22:33
Whatever. You left off a link to the wiki article, here t'is. Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)



Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[11]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.


An article in Time, another in Newsweek, couple of books. Perhaps the moral is 'Don't believe all you read in the press'?

sasguru
2nd March 2011, 22:37
Sir Isaac Newton called - he wants his Clockwork Universe back :eyes

Quite.
Not that your post was really understood by these complete morons.

DimPrawn
3rd March 2011, 10:33
Anyhoo, Northern Europe is predicted to warm most rapidly in winter, and before you jump in with the obvious knee-jerk response, I would point out that seven out of the last 10 European winters (and 10/10 summers btw) have been warmer than the long term average. Climate is like that. Long term.


Right so if I win the lottery and there's a Scottish Ski resort for sale, I should laugh and give it a wide berth, but if there's 200 acres of land for sale with the right soil, I should buy it, and plant grape vines and olive trees on it and cash in on selling fine scottish wines and olive oil.

:rolleyes:

At last, the science is useful!

DimPrawn
3rd March 2011, 10:42
Tom Bruce-Gardyne on making wine in Scotland - Herald Scotland | Life & Style | Food & Drink (http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/food-drink/tom-bruce-gardyne-on-making-wine-in-scotland-1.1066764)

sasguru
3rd March 2011, 10:52
we will not be bullied or browbeaten any more



:rolleyes:

Yes you will be. You're too insignificant to start a rebellion.
The AGW conspiracy will oppress and tax you to the hilt.
You are the AGW conspiracy's Biatch.
Now bend over and take what's coming to you like the gimp you are.:laugh:laugh

HTH

d000hg
3rd March 2011, 12:01
http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/62140-minor-things-really-piss-you-off-24.html#post1291319

sasguru
3rd March 2011, 12:03
http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/62140-minor-things-really-piss-you-off-24.html#post1291319

WGAS. Fook orf, you silly little God-botherer!

DimPrawn
3rd March 2011, 12:18
WGAS. Fook orf, you silly little God-botherer!

Exactly! Man controls the climate now, not some impotent god!

:laugh

landl
3rd March 2011, 13:50
Quite.
Not that your post was really understood by these complete morons.

Again Sasguru resorts to calling every person sceptical about the current state of the science in this field a moron. Intelligent discussion at its best. Very impressive. Your awe inspiring intellect leaves me aghast.

sasguru
3rd March 2011, 13:55
Again Sasguru resorts to calling every person sceptical about the current state of the science in this field a moron. Intelligent discussion at its best. Very impressive. Your awe inspiring intellect leaves me aghast.

Incorrect. I'm only calling the usual CUK suspects morons, since they don't understand science and hence have no basis for debating AGW.
And since you can't make the distinction between "every person" and "CUK village idiots", your logical skills are lacking too. Are you another CUK moron?

HTH, BIDI.

EternalOptimist
3rd March 2011, 14:00
Again Sasguru resorts to calling every person sceptical about the current state of the science in this field a moron. Intelligent discussion at its best. Very impressive. Your awe inspiring intellect leaves me aghast.

SaSGoru is a well known CUK Pea-Brain. He is so far out of his depth, that there are fish swimming around him with funny little lights on their heads

sasguru
3rd March 2011, 14:01
SaSGoru is a well known CUK Pea-Brain. He is so far out of his depth, that there are fish swimming around him with funny little lights on their heads

Did you do your homework? Read Kuhn and Popper yet?

DimPrawn
3rd March 2011, 14:01
Incorrect. I'm only calling the usual CUK suspects morons, since they don't understand science and hence have no basis for debating AGW.
And since you can't make the distinction between "every person" and "CUK village idiots", your logical skills are lacking too. Are you another CUK moron?

HTH, BIDI.

Join us!

CUK Morons - Contractor UK Bulletin Board (http://forums.contractoruk.com/groups/cuk-morons.html)

landl
3rd March 2011, 18:32
Incorrect. I'm only calling the usual CUK suspects morons, since they don't understand science and hence have no basis for debating AGW.
And since you can't make the distinction between "every person" and "CUK village idiots", your logical skills are lacking too. Are you another CUK moron?

HTH, BIDI.

My dog is a joyous and pleasant creature, but occasionally, through no fault of his own, the poor beggar will pick up a flea or two. I wonder if the thoughts of those irrepressible little bugs, and you have to admire their tenacity in what must be difficult circumstances, ever turn to the idea that they're controlling the direction and speed of travel of the forest of hair which they inhabit.

Much in the same way that some people may believe they are the driving intellect in a debate.