Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

cityboy 04-27-2014 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216666)
That all these people, both within and without the process, are able to openly state their opinions is further assurance that the process works. Show me two people who don't disagree about anything and I'll applaud you. Show me hundreds, even thousands, of people from diverse cultures and with diverse interests who do not disagree about anything and I'll keel over dead. If the shock doesn't kill me I'll do it voluntarily. I swear I will.

So once again, friction, disagreement, differences of opinion. These are all a part of EVERY process. They do not mean the process is broken. They mean the process is working. When a bunch of people get together and all we hear about is that everything was great and everyone agrees, then we have trouble.

I think this quote shows how the IPCC Summary process really works. Its true the main AR-5 report was untouched but that's because the public and press don't really read it.

Dr. Robert Stavins:

"Several of the CLAs present with me in Berlin commented that given the nature and outcome of the week, the resulting document should probably be called the Summary BY Policymakers, rather than the Summary FOR Policymakers."

randomscooter 04-27-2014 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 216669)
In his book, Uncertain Science, Uncertain World Henry Pollack writes about the manner in which uncertainty permeates and motivates science. System deviation from predicted pathways leads to realignment/course correction, which could be called adaptive management.

When science is "wrong" a new puzzle presents itself.

So, here's my take away from what you've said -

Scientists form hypotheses and put them to the test. Some of these hypotheses turn out to be incorrect, or in need of refinement. Even the ones that seem to be correct are further examined and refined. Scientists do not bury their mistakes, they document them so that the path they traveled will be recorded for future evaluation.

That future evaluation may find that the original hypothesis was in fact incorrect and should be discarded. Or it may find, as the science and understanding develops, that the original hypothesis was on the right track.

The failures do not diminish the credibility of the successes. The failures do not tarnish the entire body of knowledge. So good science documents all it's successes and failures, without bias.

In the context of the current discussion, a 1500+ page documentation of the current state of climate science is not tarnished because the scientists have acknowledged within that a small percentage of their hypotheses are not panning out. Indeed, the body of knowledge is enhanced by this acknowledgement because it demonstrates the absence of bias.

randomscooter 04-27-2014 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216670)
I think this quote shows how the IPCC Summary process really works. Its true the main AR-5 report was untouched but that's because the public and press don't really read it.

Dr. Robert Stavins:

"Several of the CLAs present with me in Berlin commented that given the nature and outcome of the week, the resulting document should probably be called the Summary BY Policymakers, rather than the Summary FOR Policymakers."

Precisely. This is consistent with my earlier statement about the IPCC and politicians needing to stay on their own side of the boundaries. My feeling is that there should be two documents -
  1. Summary for Policymakers - provided by the IPCC to the policy makers. This would summarize all the relevant science needed by the policy makers.
  2. Summary by Policymakers - the above document edited by the policy makers to give proper consideration to political concerns that are not within the scope of the IPCC charter.
In effect that is precisely what happened. Both documents exist, and both are available.

cityboy 04-27-2014 08:30 AM

Ok, the following brief article shows that exactly half of the "human induced" warming period (1979-2013) as measured by satellites is flat. Shall we go for best two out of 3?

http://www.thegwpf.org/milestone-rea...ellite-record/

randomscooter 04-27-2014 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216670)
I think this quote shows how the IPCC Summary process really works. Its true the main AR-5 report was untouched but that's because the public and press don't really read it.

Not entirely true. You have read it and quoted it. Also, I have just finished downloading it (a daunting task in itself) and have begun reading it.

I initially thought it a ludicrous notion to read it. But then I realized I have three 1000 page books on my nightstand, the first of which I'm well into. Heck, if I'm not scared off by that then why would a 1500 page scientific document scare me off? Heck, it might even be interesting and informative!

randomscooter 04-27-2014 08:48 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216675)
Ok, the following brief article shows that exactly half of the "human induced" warming period (1979-2013) as measured by satellites is flat. Shall we go for best two out of 3?

http://www.thegwpf.org/milestone-rea...ellite-record/

I've taken the liberty of reproducing the graph from the linked article and adding lines to make reading the data values easier.

Does the article explain the sudden (i.e., "instant") 0.2+ degree temperature increase in 1997?

cityboy 04-27-2014 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216678)
Does the article explain the sudden 0.25 degree temperature increase in 1997?

No, but it was due to El Nino. We are due for another one soon so wait for Climatologists to shout "We told you". Even though they told the Skeptics that you can't start in 1998 because of El Nino. I'm sure they'll quickly "forget" that rule.

To be fair we need to look at the next 17 years for the validation process. As I said its best 2 out of 3, winner take all.:)

randomscooter 04-27-2014 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216679)
No, but it was due to El Nino. We are due for another one soon so wait for Climatologists to shout "We told you". Even though they told the Skeptics that you can't start in 1998 because of El Nino. I'm sure they'll quickly "forget" that rule.

To be fair we need to look at the next 17 years for the validation process. As I said its best 2 out of 3, winner take all.:)

El Nino? Okay, let me explain.

First, it is not physically possible to have a 0.2 degree instantaneous step change in temperature. Any methodology (if you can call it that) that allows for step changes in continuously variable functions (such as temperature change) is invalid. The methodology used to "fit" these curves to the data is scientifically/mathematically unsound.

Even if the authors of this graph had avoided the above obvious criticism by putting a very steep (but non-vertical) line between the other two lines, the phenomenon could not be explained by El Nino. Even if an El Nino effect could raise the temperature by 0.2 degrees over a short period of time, it's effects would be temporary. The temperature would settle back down to where it was before the El Nino (From looking at the graph I would guess that the spike in the 97-98 timeframe was caused by an El Nino). If that were not the case then each successive El Nino would ratchet up the temperature by some value (such as 0.2 degrees), then the temperature would hold, then the next El Nino would ratchet the temperature up again, etc, etc. THAT my friend would be a very serious problem. Fortunately the real world doesn't work that way. How many El Ninos were there from 1997 to 2010? Why didn't they ratchet up the temperature like the one in 1997 supposedly did? Ain't gonna happen.

Please read this for a better understanding of El Ninos.

One fact pulled from the above:
Quote:

Typically, this anomaly happens at irregular intervals of two to seven years, and lasts nine months to two years.[5] The average period length is five years.
Cityboy, please, please take a minute to digest the above. Then ask yourself why your source would publish invalid information.

Hobbitling 04-27-2014 09:44 AM

Maybe we should stop feeding the troll

randomscooter 04-27-2014 09:45 AM

Let's go a bit further with the El Nino explanation.

The counterpart to an El Nino is La Nina, which will drive a decrease in temperatures and thereby counteract the El Nino increases in temperatures.

So, let's assume that the graph you provided is correct. If so, then that would imply that the La Ninas that have occurred subsequent to the late 1990's timeframe were ineffective in driving the temperature back down. That would imply that something else was happening to prevent the normal La Nina outcome. The best explanation I can come up with for that "something else" would be run-away global warming.

Now I'm not saying I believe the above paragraph, because I started with an assumption that is incorrect. But IF that assumption was correct (which is what your "El Nino did it" explanation implies) then the global warming problem would be even worse than I thought.

randomscooter 04-27-2014 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbitling (Post 216683)
Maybe we should stop feeding the troll

Even if he's a troll and not just a duped follower of the loony fringe deniers, he's a useful troll. At least I do hope that the time I've spent explaining some stuff will be useful to those who actually are trying to understand this rather large problem. And his unsupportable statements do a good job of crushing the credibility (not that there is any) of the deniers.

And frankly, I disagree with the position that someone who disagrees enthusiastically is a troll. He may be, but from where I stand I'm not seeing it.

cityboy 04-27-2014 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216685)
Even if he's a troll and not just a duped follower of the loony fringe deniers, he's a useful troll. At least I do hope that the time I've spent explaining some stuff will be useful to those who actually are trying to understand this rather large problem. And his unsupportable statements do a good job of crushing the credibility (not that there is any) of the deniers.

And frankly, I disagree with the position that someone who disagrees enthusiastically is a troll. He may be, but from where I stand I'm not seeing it.

I'm neither so knock off the attitude. According to what I read most ALARMISTS have conveniently tried to debunk the flat trend from 1998. They consistently explained that 1998 was an El Nino year. Get it, that's not skeptics but Alarmists that said that. That I assume is the reason why most comparisons of the pause choose either a start point of 1997 or 1996.

Now let's take the gloves off and you give me your best shot as to why there was a big jump in 1998. Enlighten me.

When you're done, follow this link and tell me 1) how is 1998 any different from the previous big ups and downs since the late 1800's and 2) what would cause them?
It wouldn't happen to be natural variation would it?

http://climate4you.com/

Click on "the big picture" and scroll down to the 1850 graph.

randomscooter 04-27-2014 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216695)
...knock off the attitude
...Now let's take the gloves off and you give me your best shot

:rolleyes:
You've lost my attention. Adios.

cityboy 04-27-2014 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216681)
El Nino? Okay, let me explain.

First, it is not physically possible to have a 0.2 degree instantaneous step change in temperature. Any methodology (if you can call it that) that allows for step changes in continuously variable functions (such as temperature change) is invalid. The methodology used to "fit" these curves to the data is scientifically/mathematically unsound.

Even if the authors of this graph had avoided the above obvious criticism by putting a very steep (but non-vertical) line between the other two lines, the phenomenon could not be explained by El Nino. Even if an El Nino effect could raise the temperature by 0.2 degrees over a short period of time, it's effects would be temporary. The temperature would settle back down to where it was before the El Nino (From looking at the graph I would guess that the spike in the 97-98 timeframe was caused by an El Nino). If that were not the case then each successive El Nino would ratchet up the temperature by some value (such as 0.2 degrees), then the temperature would hold, then the next El Nino would ratchet the temperature up again, etc, etc. THAT my friend would be a very serious problem. Fortunately the real world doesn't work that way. How many El Ninos were there from 1997 to 2010? Why didn't they ratchet up the temperature like the one in 1997 supposedly did? Ain't gonna happen.

Please read this for a better understanding of El Ninos.

One fact pulled from the above:


Cityboy, please, please take a minute to digest the above. Then ask yourself why your source would publish invalid information.

randomscooter I suggest you look and try to understand the graph first before accusing them of publishing invalid data. Here is a hint. The entire timespan was segmented into two parts and OFFCENTERED for illustration purposes. You'll notice that a regression line was fit to each segment. You can easily see what they did by clicking on the link at the bottom. Its a neat little program.

And since you distrust them why don't you use their program to double check them or better yet use another dataset for example Hadcrut 3 or 4.

Why do you and vtflyfish deny that there is a pause since 1997. Its common knowledge and even the IPCC acknowledges it.

cityboy 04-27-2014 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216707)
:rolleyes:
You've lost my attention. Adios.

I figured as much. You and vtflyfish are good at sniping but unwilling to post anything substantial.

Don't let the door ...

Neil 04-27-2014 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216711)
Don't let the door ...

And on that note.....


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.