Excessive Weather

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Simon was just lucky, if they had chosen any other 10 year period the result would have been different but you are right about Ehrlich.

I'm not really a fan of McKay as I prefer Gustave Le Bon and his work The Crowd, A study of the popular mind…..(the dictators favourite)

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

A lot of name dropping going on here…. You line up your experts and I'll line up mine – but they won't agree! So still lots of ignorant, confused chickens.

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hi Colin

Name dropping is like throwing hand grenades………..pull the pin and chuck it in the right direction and hope like hell it doesn't blow up in your face.

If the chickens weren't confused then these experts wouldn't have a job to brag about.

DG

I'm getting a handle on your outlook. What are your views on religion?

Perhaps I should qualify my request by saying that when some people from a certain religious sect come knocking on my door they often leave speechless and disillusioned. I don't take pride in this but I didn't ask them to try and convert me.

Edited By Paul T on 05/01/2016 18:04:11

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Colin – I don't do name-dropping. I provide references, so that people may check that what I am saying is true, and the background to it.

I wish more people did that – many people seem to be oddly proud of not being able to cite reasons for their positions. It would help me a lot more if people could provide precise reasons for any disagreement they may have with me citing data or other commentary, so that I could address real issues instead of talking around a problem.

When I cite a book, I hope that people are aware of it, and know something about the general critiques both for and against the ideas it contains. This saves time – otherwise we need to laboriously struggle through the whole history of Western thought….

 

@Paul T What are your views on religion?

I refer you to Fraser's 'Golden Bough'. I hope I don't need to provide a reference for that…

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 05/01/2016 18:18:03

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

DG, references are very helpful but I'm not sure that asking people to go away and read a book is necessarily the answer. I do agree it is a difficult one though. I have a relative who is really into 'New Age' stuff and he is prone to bombarding me with references which I either don't agree with or can't understand. He is totally convinced that they prove his points – I'm not!

I also have a clever Brother who writes physics and maths textbooks which I find largely unfathomable, however I have archaeological tomes that would probably be just as impenetrable to him. You cannot assume that because you understand a reference that somebody else, even of the same general level of education, will find it equally illuminating.

'Well, its obvious isn't it?' Well actually it may not be.

No religion or politics on here please Gents!

Colin

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

DG, references are very helpful but I'm not sure that asking people to go away and read a book is necessarily the answer. I do agree it is a difficult one though. I have a relative who is really into 'New Age' stuff and he is prone to bombarding me with references which I either don't agree with or can't understand. He is totally convinced that they prove his points – I'm not!

Brilliant! If you're not convinced, look them up and explain your disagreement or lack of understanding. Both of these are good reasons for rejecting his arguments. You can then zero in on the specific point of disagreement.

As I said earlier, if someone really understands their topic, they should be able to explain it sufficiently simply for the vast majority of people to understand it. If you find that he can't explain it sufficiently well for you to form an opinion, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's a general rule – exactly the same thing applies to boat design…

I just don't think that people should be frightened of technicalities – mathematical, philosophical, artistic, whatever. They should try to understand – ask if they get lost, and gain that understanding at an appropriate level. In the case of New Age stuff you will find that 'vibrations' and 'being attuned to something' covers an awful lot of the ground – ask your relative what these vibrations are in and whether they can be physically detected. If you get an answer citing Kirlian photography, ask them to explain this paper: **LINK**

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

I try to answer a question in the most straightforward way I can. I find that approach to be the most appreciated and therefore the most successful. If someone requires a reference before he trusts my answer then he's quite at liberty to go and ask that question elsewhere.

I keep a list of such folk in case they ask me something else later…

DM

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

My New Age relative is a lost cause, vibrations isn't the half of it. He thinks Graham Hancock is the Gospel. Unfortunately he knows he is right and is not amenable to what I would regard as reasoned discussion – he just gets upset and flings more references at me!

I quite agree that if someone really understands their topic then they should be able to explain it cogently and convincingly which gives them credibility. This of course fits Dave M to a T. Obfuscation is the common resort of those who are unsure of their ground. However, even if you do disagree with an 'expert' you can still come off worse as it is a bit like a gunboat going up against a battleship, you might have right on your side but the other party has more ammunition to draw upon and beat you down. I think the problem with all these things is that matters are rarely black and white, the truth may be out there but it is very hard to grasp sometimes. Even Graham Hancock can initially raise some interesting conundrums which modern science has chosen to ignore because there is no obvious explanation, But then he ruins it all by building a huge inverted pyramid of unsupported hypothesis on top which usually boils down to something aligning with the Belt of Orion.

There are many things which have no clear explanation as yet but that doesn't stop people insisting that they have the answer nonetheless. Propshaft lubrication for example, who knows why it works for some and not for others?

Colin

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Colin Bishop, Website Editor on 05/01/2016 21:16:43:

…. it is a bit like a gunboat going up against a battleship, you might have right on your side but the other party has more ammunition to draw upon and beat you down…

If you stick to your guns, and you're right, the battleship can't beat you down – that's meant to be the whole point of science. As Feynman said in an earlier clip I referenced – 'It doesn't matter how elegant your theory is, it doesn't matter how important you are – if the predictions disagree with real-life observations, your theory is wrong.'

A lot of other human interactions work differently – in both politics and religion, for instance, what the leader says is right, because he's the biggest battleship. And if you disagree, the rest of the party/faith gets upset, and they might go out and burn you. They will certainly call you names. That's when you know that you aren't dealing with science. Which brings us back to global warming (which is very difficult to discuss without references..)…

Incidentally, I have never found that I needed propshaft lubrication. I religiously put a bit of oil on the end bearings, but it disappears quite rapidly. I like to have a thin teflon washer on the prop end if I have brass on brass, but even this is not really needed. What does 'propshaft lubrication not working' mean?

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 05/01/2016 22:15:43

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Well, in my case, propshaft lubrication not working has occurred when I stuffed the tube with grease and doubled the motor current draw. I'm wiser now!

Re science, what if two (or more) sets of observations taken to prove or disprove a particular theory contradict each other? For example the date of the Santorini eruption and its effect upon the Minoan civilisation. There is a lot of peripheral evidence almost certainly associated with the event but a lot of it does not correlate which suggests that there is a missing unknown factor which is needed to tie it all together but there is still no firm agreement on this in scientific circles. More and more evidence has gradually come to light but we are not there yet.

For many years the existence of a Trojan War has been discounted by mainstream archaeologists because even when Troy was identified, the site was considered to have been far too small to match the Homeric account. But recent discoveries have shown that that there as a large outer city that had previously been unknown and that the original topography of the locality was in fact very much in accordance with Homer although it is quite different today.

The previous assumptions were correct on the basis of what was then known but the unknown now discovered has shed a completely new light on things.

I can't wait for them to stick a fibre optic camera through the back wall of Tutankhamen's tomb to see if Queen Nefertiti is buried there!

Colin

Edited By Colin Bishop, Website Editor on 05/01/2016 22:35:32

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Colin Bishop, Website Editor on 05/01/2016 22:19:50:

Well, in my case, propshaft lubrication not working has occurred when I stuffed the tube with grease and doubled the motor current draw. I'm wiser now!

Re science, what if two (or more) sets of observations taken to prove or disprove a particular theory contradict each other? For example the date of the Santorini eruption and its effect upon the Minoan civilisation. There is a lot of peripheral evidence almost certainly associated with the event but a lot of it does not correlate which suggests that there is a missing unknown factor which is needed to tie it all together but there is still no firm agreement on this in scientific circles. More and more evidence has gradually come to light but we are not there yet. …

Seems to be no point lubricating the shaft – surely the bearing needs the lube?

Feynman (a physicist) covered the points you are referring to. For him, (and Popper) science was about successful prediction. unlike Kuhn, who believed in your big battleship gun approach to deciding!). Feynman talked about the difference between General and Specific predictions. A prediction has to be specific enough to be falsified. If it's not, then you are moving away from the scientific method, and into another field – perhaps Art or Sociology? Something like the interrelationship between Egyptian and Minoan civilisations, or the presumed Minoan diaspora would almost certainly involve Social Anthropology – not science as he saw it.

Working in physics with the pure scientific method, there can be no such thing as observations contradicting each other. If the observations refer to real data, then ALL of that data must align with whatever is physically happening. However, the dating issues here are going to involve dendrochronology and C14? And that means statistical interpretation – of wiggle matching and C14 calibration.

Statistics are the bane of modern science. Medical papers are nowadays frequently metadata studies, with all the opportunities for selection bias that entails, and the widespread availability of sophisticated statistical computation packages, coupled with the lack of really rigorous statistical training for graduates, makes the attainment of 'significant' results laughably easy for PhD work. There's even a spoof website pointing this out – http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

So real observations cannot contradict each other. A successful theory must explain ALL observation results. Where observations apparently disagree, you will find interpretation going on – usually statistical – and this is where the problem lies. The Global Warming issue is entirely model-driven and statistical in presentation – and awful things are done under the statistical covers – look at Michael Mann's fraudulent use of Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 06/01/2016 00:58:47

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Reading all of this erudite stuff reminds me of the story of Vic (later Lord) Feather, General Secretary of the TUC. He was in the High Court, defending the compensation claim of a member who had metaphorically shot himself in the foot. Vic was asked by the Judge if the member was not familiar with the principle of "Volenti non fit injuria?" Vic thought for a moment and then replied "In Bradford we speak of little else, m'lud".

If you guys want a good argument then try Brassed Off Britannia. I guarantee those old b*ggers don't fight fair! **LINK**

Wasn't Michael Mann the director of those Miami Vice shows in the 80's?

Dave M

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Ah, Dave – I predicted that a Global Warming thread would rapidly get technical and of limited interest to those who do not follow the science closely – I even offered to take it out to PMs, but Colin seemed happy to let us go on…

I think I have made my views that most of the claimed scientific/technical underpinning of the Global Warming scare is very bad science bordering on fraud fairly clear, and remain willing to provide precise details and references should anyone wish them.

In the meantime, if people want to return to the original thread about UK flooding and its causes, this might be an interesting site to examine: **LINK**

 

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 06/01/2016 10:58:24

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

D-G
No problem. You are a scholar and a gentleman and there is no offense intended on my part, but I was never one to sit in front of a balloon, holding a pin and wondering what to do next……. The adjective used second-most-frequently on my school reports was "iconoclastic". I had to look it up.

DM

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Dave

Didn't Michael Mann front the Earth Band and 'iconoclastic' means an elastic personality.

DG

All witty quips aside; on the subject of global warming I have spent some time re-reading the academic papers and talking to the climate experts at my old university. I can see no good reason why I should change my opinion on global warming.

Have a read of Andersons papers **LINK** and have a look at the Tyndall Centre **LINK**

One of the main problems with climate studies is the media and political portrayal of climate scientists as being some kind of green tree hugging activists and that their research is biased by their lentil eating lifestyle.

Another problem is the political and economic interference in watering down the scientific results of genuine research

One of my favourite Anderson comments is:

In plain language, the complete set of 400 IPCC scenarios for a 50% or better chance of 2°C assume either an ability to travel back in time or the successful and large-scale uptake of speculative negative emission technologies. A significant proportion of the scenarios are dependent on both ‘time travel and geo-engineering’.

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Paul T on 06/01/2016 12:18:21:

 

All witty quips aside; on the subject of global warming I have spent some time re-reading the academic papers and talking to the climate experts at my old university. I can see no good reason why I should change my opinion on global warming.

Have a read of Andersons papers **LINK** and have a look at the Tyndall Centre **LINK**

 

Well, you've heard that the GCMs, which are drafted to provide a comprehensive model of the proposed AGW hypothesis, don't match reality. That seems conclusive to me, in the absence of obvious reasons to the contrary. We have watched a plethora of excuses being presented for this fundamental failure, including the 'heat hiding in the oceans' and novel statistical techniques used to massage the observations to try to make them match the models.

Anderson has a lot of papers – his most recent is a plea for scientists to tell politicians openly that they are calling for damaging economic policies to be followed – a plea which is surely outside the remit of science, but well within to role of an activist. He works for the Tyndall Centre, whose objectives are "to influence the long-term strategic objectives of national and international climate policy." – an aim which I consider completely at odds with the independent mind which a true scientist needs to cultivate. Science done in the service of political aims is hopelessly compromised before it starts.

Perhaps you could point me to a paper where Anderson addresses the critical issue for AGW – is it happening, or is the 1990s temperature rise simply natural variation?

 

The classic early examination of this question is Steve Mcintyre's work on Mann's Hockey Stick – MBH(98). Here is a link:

http://climateaudit.org/category/mbh98/page/2/

 

 

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 06/01/2016 13:37:17

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 06/01/2016 13:37:39

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Paul

Look it up like I did, eh? When you have, send me a PM and I'll tell you my English master's interpretation of the word. It's much funnier (and filthier) than the OED's.

Manfred Mann was the bearded geezer on the keyboards, not the front man.

Of the two Michael Men in question, the film director's middle name is Kenneth while the (alleged) climatologist's is simply 'E'. "Endeavour", perhaps?

DM

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hi DG

Have a look at the following unbiased sources

• 1Natural Resources Defense Council. "Global Warming Basics." Web Accessed April 18, 2015.
• ²

  Parry, Martin L. "Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Cambridge University Press, 2007.

• ³

  Parry, Martin L. "Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Cambridge University Press, 2007.

• ⁴

  Kunzig, Robert. "Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm." National Geographic Society, 2013. Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

• ⁵

  Natural Resources Defense Council. "Global Warming Basics." Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

• ⁶

  Natural Resources Defense Council. "Cleaner and Cheaper: Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants." Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

• ⁷

  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation." Cambridge University Press. Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

• ⁸

  NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "The current and future consequences of global change." Web Accesssed April 18, 2015.

• ⁹

  U.S. Global Change Research Program. "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

• ¹⁰

  U.S. Global Change Research Program. "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

• ¹¹

  Coral Reef Alliance. "Reef Threats: Global." Web Accessed April 18, 2015.

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Dave Milbourn on 06/01/2016 13:54:56:

Of the two Michael Men in question, the film director's middle name is Kenneth while the (alleged) climatologist's is simply 'E'. "Endeavour", perhaps?

DM

Dave, you ARE naughty! You can't refer to Professor Mann like that! Don't you know he has a Nobel prize?

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

his most recent is a plea for scientists to tell politicians openly that they are calling for damaging economic policies to be followed – a plea which is surely outside the remit of science, but well within to role of an activist. He works for the Tyndall Centre, whose objectives are "to influence the long-term strategic objectives of national and international climate policy." – an aim which I consider completely at odds with the independent mind which a true scientist needs to cultivate. Science done in the service of political aims is hopelessly compromised before it starts.

Your assumptions, as shown, are completely wrong. Anderson isn't an activist he is a very well respected scientist of the highest integrity, he has published many papers citing the causes of global warming and in the light of these papers being ignored by the 'decision makers' has no option other than asking other scientists to be honest.

The Tyndall Centre was set up to influence the long-term strategic objectives of national and international climate policy. True scientists and independent minds are not politicians or decision makers and therefore they can only advise by providing the best and most accurate information to the politicians and decision makers.

On behalf of the people at Tyndall I object to the comment Science done in the service of political aims is hopelessly compromised before it starts. In this sweeping statement you have tried and condemned a great many honest and deeply dedicated people and in their defence I would point out that true science is not done in the service of political aims as the research remains pure until the politicians get hold of it.

I think that you need to rethink your discussion strategy, simply calling people activists and their research politically compromised is not a considered or reasoned argument.

Paul

Edited By Paul T on 06/01/2016 15:20:34

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Paul T on 06/01/2016 14:28:18:

Hi DG

Have a look at the following unbiased sources…

Paul,

What are you trying to do here? These are NOT 'unbiased' sources. In most cases they are simply repeating activist memes.

I looked at the first reference. It is not an unbiased paper – it is a list of reasons to believe in Global Warming, with an interesting reference at the bottom "How to convince a climate skeptic"! This is not science – it's a salesman's manual.

I looked down their list of 'reasons to believe'. There is NO indication that 'humans are causing the Earth to get dangerously hot'. The nearest I could get was this:

Q: Is the earth really getting hotter?

A:Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history.

That statement says nothing about whether this warming is natural or not. None of the reasons do. They simply present a frightening scenario and encourage you to buy into it – in a word, a salesman's manual. You should be asking yourself why, if the science is so clear and settled, this sort of thing is felt to be necessary. Feynman warned against this kind of thing, and the history of science is full of such traps for the unwary.

The statement is almost certainly wrong, as well. Here is the relevant Woodfortrees graph…

**LINK**

If recent warming is so scary and caused by CO2 because of the rate, why wasn't the warming running up to 1950 the same?

There is no point in me doing this same exercise to all of your references, which are derivative and do not prove the things they are meant to prove. Provide me with a single reference to a paper which shows that the warming that happened between 1980 and 2000 (which has now stopped) was:

a – not natural variability

b – caused by excess CO2

These are the critical points. It is not good enough to say that there was a correlation 20 years ago, and though there no longer is we should act as if it is continuing. It is not good enough to say that CO2 must be the cause because we can't think of any other cause, while ruthlessly suppressing anyone who suggests other causes. Spending trillions of dollars and wrecking the Western economy for a claimed environmental problem demands nothing less than complete provable clarity – and that simply does not exist.

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Paul T on 06/01/2016 15:09:54:

Anderson isn't an activist he is a very well respected scientist of the highest integrity, he has published many papers citing the causes of global warming …

True scientists and independent minds are not politicians or decision makers and therefore they can only advise by providing the best and most accurate information to the politicians and decision makers.The Tyndall Centre was set up to influence the long-term strategic objectives of national and international climate policy. …..

Paul

I – I don't want papers 'citing' the causes of Global Warming – I want papers PROVING the causes of Global Warming. None exist. I would be interested to see ONE paper from Anderson which provides this proof.

2 – I can't understand your second point. I agree that scientists can inform and advise politicians. I think that 'influencing' them steps over the line into activism. Yet you think that working for a 'policy influencing' body runs no danger of activism? There seems to be a contradiction here.

3 – It is not enough to be honest and deeply dedicated in science. You need to be right.The world is full of honest and deeply dedicated people who have been fundamentally wrong. And the reasons are often the tunnel vision that comes with activism and political compromise.

My argument remains technical and does not depend on smearing someone as an activist. There is a justifiable place for activism in politics. I simply pointed out that Anderson's last paper (you gave me no specific reference) was a political one, and thus not a convincing one to me.

Surely, if you believe that recent warming is outside the realms of natural variability and is caused by 'excess' CO2, you should be able to cite a single paper which unequivocally proves that point? Particularly if the 'science is settled', as is often claimed? Whenever I look for such a paper, I am often presented with a succession of pre-packed references such as you have given me above, clipped from an activist site (in your case 'DoSomething.Org. Whatever possessed you?) and an exhortation to believe. I need more than that…

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Don't you know he has a Nobel prize?

Nope, but I bet he doesn't know about my 2 'O' levels either.

Been pondering on "speculative negative emission technologies". Would that be, like, buying shares in a company that's designed a machine to stuff the methane back into cows? Where do I apply for some?

(Back to create more havoc in the workshop……)

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Let us start at the top(so to speak)

In a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, climate scientists confirmed that the upper troposphere is exhibiting strong warming, using accurate methods of analysis the author Steve Sherwood proved the accuracy of computer models where upper atmospheric warming is a key indicator for global warming.

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I dunno! I just slope off for a nice lunch down at the sunny South Coast (well it was a bit, before they turned off today's Global Warming at around 1:30) and I come back to all this dense technological stand off that is just sailing right over the head of this chicken anyway.

I think that now is maybe the time for DG and PT to continue the discussion by PM and maybe one or both could come back to us if and when they reach a consensus. I fear that it might be quite some while.though.

Colin

[Author]

Posts