global warming does mean is more intense weather systems. Do not go jumping onto local cooling/warming like Europes/US east coast and claim it is getting colder. You need to look at the whole globe. Not just the areas man is in.
We just had the worst hurricane season for 30 years. When I say worst, I mean best. There were fewer hurricanes. Don't let an ugly fact ruin your hypothesis, will you.
The only drastic change I've witnessed recently is the rapid onset of colder winters and our "Global Warming" obsessed government's complete lack of preparedness for them. The reason for the absence of preparedness is the advice given by the Global Warming cultists at the Met Office: that winters are going to be warmer and wetter and that snow will be a very rare event indeed. Hah!
It's not about science, it's... hell I don't know. Why are you so determined to ignore the science? Why do you trust scientists in other areas, but act like a medieval villager when it comes to climate research?
To answer your first question, it's because it isn't really science; it's more like Astrology. The second question is easier to answer: wherever there are leftist activists - i.e. `post-normal' scientists who simultaneously decide which temperature stations to delete from their analysis and also go and get themselves arrested blockading power stations,then one can withdraw trust fairly easily. It's no different from, say, deciding not to trust medical researchers working for Glaxo. Physicists are a little different (and easier to trust) of course, because there's not really a political ideology that has as its central core theme the belief that a proton is made up of 3 quarks.
I disagree there. I've got a wheel (and pedals) and I'm much better with keyboard controls than I am using it. I'm not suggesting we should put them into cars!
Simulations/models can be useful as an aid to understanding, but in reality what happens is model outputs are given the term "prediction" in press-releases. When economists do it, we all raise an eyebrow. When scientists do it, for some reason people think it's come from the Oracle at Delphi.
In my view this story is a good example of the arrogance and stupidity embedded in our scientific establishment. Moreover, I have no doubt that the control climate models have given activist scientists over the political process, despite the fact they're unquestionable wrong, makes me wonder whether this project is being constructed for the same Machiavellian reasons. Once complete, expect to see shocking predictions that demand immediate real-world action to avert disaster.
btw: your concern about simulations of living creatures are unfounded, given that qualities like pleasure or pain are more than likely non-computable. That is to say, to instantiate the given phenomenological property, it is not sufficient to instantiate the given functional property ("I have a variable called Pain, therefore my virtual creature feels pain"). Qualia require conscious experience, whereas a cognitive model describes only the functional correlates of consciousness, not the conscious experience itself.
Indeed this is quite right. I'm reminded of something I read recently: "according to the laws of physics, a feather and a cannon ball should fall with the same velocity. In reality, my feather was blown into a tree",
A certain section of scientists seem to lack the necessary insight into what they're actually doing when they develop a model on a computer. It's a conceptual representation, not a realistic simulation and it can only model those concepts that are well understood.
If economic models fail (demonstrably) and weather forecasting models fail (again, demonstrably on the short, medium and long-term), then why do these people think that combining them isn't going to be a fail an order of magnitude greater? Joseph Wiezenbaum wrote a great book in the 1970's called Computer Power and Human Reason. I think the people behind this should read it.
Same with laptops. They are pretty awful keyboard-wise. If you're going to code or debug on one, it's almost always better to plug in a proper desktop keyboard.
I have to maintain Perl scripts for our website (I'm otherwise a C++/.NET developer) and I have to tell you that I'm not surprised you can't find an engineer who actually wants to do it for a living. It's the kind of language only someone with Asperger's Syndrome could love.
I was reading just yesterday that the bee population was being affected by a combination of a virus and a fungus and that this is the main reason for the decline.
I did and no, it doesn't. Those studies cited are not independent. If you look closely they're mostly from Briffa, Jones and Mann - and use pretty much the same proxies and, presumably, similar methods to reach their conclusions. Strangely, none of them look like Mann's hockey stick (of the 3 graphs) and from what I can see, none of them show anomalous 20th century warming. Indeed they do show anomalous cooling around 1600, from which there has been a steady recovery. All of them have spliced the instrumental record, which may or may not contain artefacts such as UHI .
What other mountains of evidence? I'm not disputing there was a warming in the 20th century and probably for a lot longer post little ice age. It probably isn't difficult to find and publish data to show this to be the case! The evidence allowing one to attribute it to man is what I'm disagreeing with here.
If you're referring to Steig 2009 [nature.com], perhaps you can point us to evidence that discredits this?
An article to be published in the Journal of Climate refutes it, even after one particular reviewer (a "team" member) submitted 88 pages of criticism. All criticisms were answered. Here
My opinion on this is that I'm right, AGW and OA is unmitigated bollocks and anyone who disagrees with me can fuck off.
Thanks very much,
Prof. Burnhard.
In Climate Science, "peer review" is more a guarantee that spelling errors have been corrected and that the gate-keepers are keeping the journal "on message" than it is a guarantee of correct methodology and/or conclusions. Two examples spring to mind: Mann's hockey stick and Steig's Antarctic warming paper. Both of these have had front-page placement in Nature and both of them were unmitigated bollocks. So no, on this issue particularly, peer review is more about censorship than it is about truth.
Obviously OA is the next big Green scare. I can't believe you're such an idiot as to not see this for what it really is: political activism.
So let me get this straight: the vast majority of respected scientists on the planet thought 15K plausible 5 years ago (I took part in that particular modelling exercise). Now they think 1.6K is plausible, Tell me again how my analysis above is in any way affected by the changing opinions of this vast majority of (government grant seeking) respected scientists?
Yes. The precautionary principle v the law of unintended consequences. Both apply to either side of the debate, believe it or not, so it's not really the kind of argument you can come to a conclusion about.
The "deniers" (the most eminent of them being Richard Lindzen) think that sensitivity is around 1K, possibly less. If you take the trend of predictions emanating from the alarmists over time and plot a graph, you will see a non-linear reduction in the temperature they give from ~15K, now down to ~1.6K. Accordingly if the trend continues at its present rate, the alarmists will eventually have conceded the argument!
Slashdot Mirror
If the Australian record is anything like the train wreck of New Zealand records, I would very much doubt that your figures are at all accurate.
We just had the worst hurricane season for 30 years. When I say worst, I mean best. There were fewer hurricanes. Don't let an ugly fact ruin your hypothesis, will you.
Exactly.
I have no doubt, based on past experience, that this thesis will turn out to be a huge pile of unmitigated bollocks.
The only drastic change I've witnessed recently is the rapid onset of colder winters and our "Global Warming" obsessed government's complete lack of preparedness for them. The reason for the absence of preparedness is the advice given by the Global Warming cultists at the Met Office: that winters are going to be warmer and wetter and that snow will be a very rare event indeed. Hah!
To answer your first question, it's because it isn't really science; it's more like Astrology. The second question is easier to answer: wherever there are leftist activists - i.e. `post-normal' scientists who simultaneously decide which temperature stations to delete from their analysis and also go and get themselves arrested blockading power stations,then one can withdraw trust fairly easily. It's no different from, say, deciding not to trust medical researchers working for Glaxo. Physicists are a little different (and easier to trust) of course, because there's not really a political ideology that has as its central core theme the belief that a proton is made up of 3 quarks.
I did that already (last year). It's ok in a front wheel drive as long as you go really slowly and the snow isn't too deep :p.
Sure, I do drive in real life. I've only been doing it for 2 years though.
I disagree there. I've got a wheel (and pedals) and I'm much better with keyboard controls than I am using it. I'm not suggesting we should put them into cars!
Simulations/models can be useful as an aid to understanding, but in reality what happens is model outputs are given the term "prediction" in press-releases. When economists do it, we all raise an eyebrow. When scientists do it, for some reason people think it's come from the Oracle at Delphi.
In my view this story is a good example of the arrogance and stupidity embedded in our scientific establishment. Moreover, I have no doubt that the control climate models have given activist scientists over the political process, despite the fact they're unquestionable wrong, makes me wonder whether this project is being constructed for the same Machiavellian reasons. Once complete, expect to see shocking predictions that demand immediate real-world action to avert disaster.
btw: your concern about simulations of living creatures are unfounded, given that qualities like pleasure or pain are more than likely non-computable. That is to say, to instantiate the given phenomenological property, it is not sufficient to instantiate the given functional property ("I have a variable called Pain, therefore my virtual creature feels pain"). Qualia require conscious experience, whereas a cognitive model describes only the functional correlates of consciousness, not the conscious experience itself.
Indeed this is quite right. I'm reminded of something I read recently: "according to the laws of physics, a feather and a cannon ball should fall with the same velocity. In reality, my feather was blown into a tree",
A certain section of scientists seem to lack the necessary insight into what they're actually doing when they develop a model on a computer. It's a conceptual representation, not a realistic simulation and it can only model those concepts that are well understood.
If economic models fail (demonstrably) and weather forecasting models fail (again, demonstrably on the short, medium and long-term), then why do these people think that combining them isn't going to be a fail an order of magnitude greater? Joseph Wiezenbaum wrote a great book in the 1970's called Computer Power and Human Reason. I think the people behind this should read it.
Same with laptops. They are pretty awful keyboard-wise. If you're going to code or debug on one, it's almost always better to plug in a proper desktop keyboard.
I have to maintain Perl scripts for our website (I'm otherwise a C++/.NET developer) and I have to tell you that I'm not surprised you can't find an engineer who actually wants to do it for a living. It's the kind of language only someone with Asperger's Syndrome could love.
Is it me or is this one of the dumbest ideas ever to come out of Intel?
Now you're on the subject of units, why isn't the decay time measure in whatmeworrys?
Interesting. Thanks for that. Now I don't believe either of them!
I was reading just yesterday that the bee population was being affected by a combination of a virus and a fungus and that this is the main reason for the decline.
I did and no, it doesn't. Those studies cited are not independent. If you look closely they're mostly from Briffa, Jones and Mann - and use pretty much the same proxies and, presumably, similar methods to reach their conclusions. Strangely, none of them look like Mann's hockey stick (of the 3 graphs) and from what I can see, none of them show anomalous 20th century warming. Indeed they do show anomalous cooling around 1600, from which there has been a steady recovery. All of them have spliced the instrumental record, which may or may not contain artefacts such as UHI .
What other mountains of evidence? I'm not disputing there was a warming in the 20th century and probably for a lot longer post little ice age. It probably isn't difficult to find and publish data to show this to be the case! The evidence allowing one to attribute it to man is what I'm disagreeing with here.
An article to be published in the Journal of Climate refutes it, even after one particular reviewer (a "team" member) submitted 88 pages of criticism. All criticisms were answered. Here
My opinion on this is that I'm right, AGW and OA is unmitigated bollocks and anyone who disagrees with me can fuck off. Thanks very much, Prof. Burnhard.
In Climate Science, "peer review" is more a guarantee that spelling errors have been corrected and that the gate-keepers are keeping the journal "on message" than it is a guarantee of correct methodology and/or conclusions. Two examples spring to mind: Mann's hockey stick and Steig's Antarctic warming paper. Both of these have had front-page placement in Nature and both of them were unmitigated bollocks. So no, on this issue particularly, peer review is more about censorship than it is about truth.
Obviously OA is the next big Green scare. I can't believe you're such an idiot as to not see this for what it really is: political activism.
So let me get this straight: the vast majority of respected scientists on the planet thought 15K plausible 5 years ago (I took part in that particular modelling exercise). Now they think 1.6K is plausible, Tell me again how my analysis above is in any way affected by the changing opinions of this vast majority of (government grant seeking) respected scientists?
Yes. The precautionary principle v the law of unintended consequences. Both apply to either side of the debate, believe it or not, so it's not really the kind of argument you can come to a conclusion about.
The "deniers" (the most eminent of them being Richard Lindzen) think that sensitivity is around 1K, possibly less. If you take the trend of predictions emanating from the alarmists over time and plot a graph, you will see a non-linear reduction in the temperature they give from ~15K, now down to ~1.6K. Accordingly if the trend continues at its present rate, the alarmists will eventually have conceded the argument!