Yes. I am quite aware of that. Apparently your pal Ibis is not. Please explain it to him.Originally Posted by BaudrillardNeverExisted
Really? Did you learn this in Philosophy 101?The models depend on mathematics.
And you know enough to understand these models?Just because it's too complicated to summarise in one post doesn't mean it isn't true.
Regards...jmcc
Well, not, the analogy goes a good deal deeper. Climate change 'skeptics' rely on very much the same armoury of techniques as Creationists. Most particularly, they rely on the technique of picking very small holes in the consensus and trumpeting these as disproving the whole thing. For example, an adjustment recently made to the North America temperature dataset was promoted as disproving the whole idea that global mean temperature was rising because it reversed the relative positions of 2008 and 1938. However, the actual change was on the order of 1%, in a dataset that represents about 2-3% of the global climate.
Similarly, climate change 'skeptics' point to the few hundred scientists who are skeptical as disproving the whole notion of the consensus, as if consensus meant 100% agreement. Moved off that position, they resort to 'truth is not determined by votes'. Again, these are standard Creationist tactics.
Most obviously, the 'skeptic' will always return to an old position if possible. One can point out that it's ridiculous to claim, as several people have done on this thread, that global temperatures "have been falling for the last decade", when quite clearly they haven't:
Yet I know that even a skeptic who, faced with that data (and of course a 'skeptic' will demand the data, not the graph), has to admit that the temperatures have indeed been rising, will simply shift onto the argument that we don't "really" know what's causing the rise, it's early days yet etc. Yet I know that a couple of days later they will act as if they had never seen the graph at all, and once again will deny that temperatures are rising. So, every time I wind up in discussion with people like you or JCSkinner, it's all to do over again - first you argue that temperatures are not rising, then that we don't know why they're rising, and so on.
That tells me that you're not simply not accepting the theory, you're not accepting the evidence either, and that no matter how far you are forced to move from your initial position in any given argument, you snap right back to it as soon as the argument is over. To me, that's the elasticity of faith.
Well, see BaudrillardNeverExisted's rather more sensible analysis. Models are a way of showing the evolution of a system containing multiple interacting equations, if you like. It's not simply thought experimentation - indeed, it requires a good deal more reduction to mathematical representation than is done in some sciences.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
The fact of the matter is that a 90-year graph on climate change is only a snapshot of Earths approximately 4,540,000,000 year existence. Take the same percentage out of ANY trend at a particular point you will see the futility of citing such a "snapshot" as an example of an overall trend.
Such graphs along with inconclusive "evidence" of a global warming crisis does not warrant or justify €1 trillion of spending and taxation without any assurances that these measures can do anything to stop the trend.
Actually if you bothered to look at the graph you would see that the section after 2000 (approximately 2006 onwards )is actually falling and the trend is downward - both for the five year mean and the annual mean. The interesting question is whether this trend will be sustained.Most obviously, the 'skeptic' will always return to an old position if possible. One can point out that it's ridiculous to claim, as several people have done on this thread, that global temperatures "have been falling for the last decade", when quite clearly they haven't:
From the mathematical genius who took the same dataset as you used for a previous graph on another thread and claimed that it proved that your graph showed the same thing?Well, see BaudrillardNeverExisted's rather more sensible analysis.
And the models are heavily dependent on the data used. The problem with a lot of the claims for Global Warming seems to be that they want to extrapolate short term trends to cover long term arguments. That's why, as I pointed out on the other thread, longer term data such as that from Royal Navy logs, will improve climate models.Models are a way of showing the evolution of a system containing multiple interacting equations, if you like.
Regards...jmcc
Last edited by jmcc; 11th February 2009 at 02:51 PM.
Good thread guys, and good debate. Fair play.
I never get the argument that the science is skewed because governments accept it. I mean the climate science has evolved over more than thirty years and it is only in the last decade (to decade and a half) that government's have begun to take heed. Government jumped on the bandwagon, they didn't invent the bandawagon in order to promote their own agenda.
On the other hand, when you scratch the surface of the supposed 'science' aimed at discrediting AGW, you always get back to the same handful of sources that are always funded by vested interests in old, polluting industries.
I have no belief or trust in big business. I have little faith in our governments either but that is because I think they are too often beholden to big businesses. Whether with the financial sector or the energy-producing and using sectors, it seems completely wrong-headed to trust them when they are only motivated by maximising the short-term bottom line.
I am not a Global Warming denier or advicate.
I just think that in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. In a centary from now no one will even remember that this generation were worried about it.
I did not know that! Most of our industrial processes use varying quantities of water. The processes usually results in the water becoming warmer and evaporating into the air. Whether it is a power stations or jumbo jets a lot of man made clouds get made that in the past were not produced. Perhaps this is what accounts for the global warming phenomenon?
I am not opposed to becoming fuel independent and saving on the electricity bills. I am not opposed to fuel efficient cars or solar powered mobiles. As a matter of fact I am in favour of these things. What I am opposed to is stopping growth whether it be economic, industrial or agricultural growth.
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
It's remarkable what a degree in Science can do for you.
This one takes me back. I seem to recall someone claiming that Ibis's graph was a fabrication and wanted to "see the data". Ibis posted the link to the data. The poster claimed this was not data, again demanding to "see the data". I quoted Ibis's link and tried (clearly unsuccessfuly) to explain that the data on the link was represented by the graph Ibis posted. The poster ignored all of this and continued to insist that the nobody could provide any data. I could find the link for the thread on this but you'd probably insist that that doesn't exist either.From the mathematical genius who took the same dataset as you used for a previous graph on another thread and claimed that it proved that your graph showed the same thing?
EDIT: Checked the thread, the initial poster wanting to see the data wasn't you. You came in on the argument futher down the thread. Perhaps you should review the Bellamy thread from the point Ibis posted the graph.
Last edited by BaudrillardNeverExisted; 11th February 2009 at 08:18 PM. Reason: checked the thread
That "trend" - and I use that word of what you're describing with a good deal more than slight ridicule - is amongst the tiniest of the downward turns over the last 40 years, each of which has turned back up again.
I have to say - and no offence is intended - that that is one of the saddest pieces of prognostication since freedomlover predicted that there would be no recession because house prices had failed to fall as much as expected in one particular month.
Yes it might be a sustained trend - and so might the much bigger downturn in 1990 have been. But it wasn't, and basing our predictions on every downward zag of a upward zigzag would be outright lunacy. You are more sensible than that, surely.
He's not the one predicting a downward trend off a blip.
We have about 130 years of instrumental readings, and they're being used to make predictions of about 50 years. That's not too bad. However, the data you want to wait for - Navy logs - is often proxy data (verbal records rather than numeric), and we have about 12,000 years of that. On a broader scale, we have 400,000 years of climate data from the ice cores like Vostok - so we're really not working off just instrumental readings.
By the way, for those who believe that the Navy logs data shows rapid climate change is perfectly normal, that is discounted by Wheeler, the guy actually studying the logs. Still, who'd believe him, eh?
Of course, climate models (and, like BaudrillardNeverExisted, I am fortunate to have a science degree, so yes, I can follow the models) depend equally on their assumptions - which is why the IPCC uses an aggregate of (peer-reviewed) models to present most likely cases. It has been argued that this means that the IPCC predictions are both about 5 years behind current research and innately conservative.
Last edited by ibis; 12th February 2009 at 12:53 AM.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Global warming has been seized upon by the greens and other loony pinkos. Probably coincided with big oil becoming very clean and the frogs not nuclear testing in pacific. No science whatsoever behind it.
Just a few photos of ice melting and graphs showing temperature rising over a century. The planet has been here billions of years. Ludicrous and facile.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote