This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climategate

Jump to new
Knobby22 said:
As I said, follow the money and the politics. The money for the naysayers doesn't come from innocent sources. And if you watch Fox you know the politics. Goebbals would be proud if he ran it.
Click to expand...

Money is useful but power will trump it every time. At the moment what they are fighting over in Copenhagen is power. Any agreement that comes out of of these talks (backed by the iffy science) will result in more control over the lives of you and me.

It won't have any effect on the temperature of the earth.
 
While I agree that energy from the Sun is the main driving force in the main climate cycles on the Earth. It is due to Earth's orientation and orbital character wrt to the Sun, not the variability of the Sun's energy output.

What you have written here Agentm is mumbo jumbo.

Agentm said:
i was talking to my friend in houston texas, 3 inches of snow a week back there.. and that has not happened in 15 years there he says
Click to expand...
why do people keep doing this?

The poles of the sun and the equator rotate at different speeds, thus winding up the Sun's magnetic field but the Sun as a whole does not speed up and slow down. What mechanism do you propose for this and where does the energy for it come from??

By tidal you mean gravity? The effect of the inner planets on the Sun is absolutely minuscule. Gravity drops off at rate of the inverse of the distance squared.

Jupiter does have stabilising effect on the orbit of the planets but it is not a massive effect due the the inverse distance squared law.

Where are you getting this stuff?

This makes no sense to me. Are you saying the speeding up and slowing down of the Sun is effecting the planets? What is a stellar planet?

The temperature in the Earth's core is largely a result of radioactive decay with some residual heat from the planetismal collision phase during it's formation. The tidal effect within the Earth's centre is minuscule as far as heat generation goes. It also takes tens of thousands to millions of years for the heat generated in the core to eventually convect and conduct it's way to the surface.

What are these inter-relationships? As far as I can see you have the Sun supplying us with energy and gravity. To put gravity in perspective the Moon's gravity is about one tenmillionth (1/10,000,000) of the Earth's gravity at the Earth's surface, the Suns gravitational effect is just under 50% of that of the Moon's (about 1/20,000,000th). As for the rest of the planets I don't really see how they fit into this argument.

If the model you have proposed is thinking things through then you may want to think a bit more.

It will be interesting to see how long this minimum lasts.. 2008 had 266 sunspot free days and 2009 is currently at 259 sunspot free days (http://spaceweather.com/). The highest number of sunspot free days since the space age began, though during the 19th century and early 20th century these numbers were common for solar minimums. 1912 and 1913 were comparable if not quieter. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/blankyear/100years.gif)
To assume another minimum of the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum is upon us is a bit premature.
 

Climate is changing but I don't see how you can say we know why?

Climate Change is a symptom. It's cause and consequences are well and truly open for debate.

There may have been thousands of studies confirming climate change and their reason why but it will only take ONE study to prove them all wrong and that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon of the earth.

The earth has had much higher CO2 levels - 800,000 years ago. The temperature has also fluctuated since the formation of the earth so why is it a concern over the last 30 years?

There's also concerns about the data that the climate change lobbyists use. If it doesn't fit their model, they say the data contains errors.

That's not how science works. The data must fit the hypothesis and the hypothesis must fit the phenomena. Not the other way around which appears to be the M.O of some scientists.

It's comparable to creationists who have faith in the bible and claim that the creation of the earth fits to their story... The evidence proves otherwise.

Meteorologists can't predict the weather 3 days ahead. How can they claim to be able to predict the change in weather in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years? Even if they say their computer model fits the past - that's easy to achieve, anyone can use hindsight.
 
Dunger said:
Meteorologists can't predict the weather 3 days ahead. How can they claim to be able to predict the change in weather in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years? Even if they say their computer model fits the past - that's easy to achieve, anyone can use hindsight.
Click to expand...

But it's not quite the same. They are not trying to predict whether it will rain in Cairns on January 6th 2020. They are trying to predict global climate influences based on the best models they have at their disposal, even though those models are far from perfect.

Should they ignore what the science is indicating, just because the models aren't perfect?

No one can predict with guaranteed accuracy what the ASX 200 will close at next Thursday. If they could, they would become very rich in a short time. But computer models show a long term uptrend in stock prices when viewed over many years and at a rate better than interest on cash. That's why most people invest in the share market. They know there are no guarantees, but to reject the models because they are not perfect would indeed be foolish.

Why should it be any different for climate modelling? Who best to do the modelling than the experts in that area. There may be some scientists that may not have acted ethically (though that has yet to be proven). But we don't reject economic modelling because a small percentage of all economic data may have been found to be suspect, so why reject climate models because of some questionable figures in one set of data?
 
bellenuit said:
Why should it be any different for climate modelling?
Click to expand...

Years in the market is meaningful. Decades of the Earth's history is not. I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea of a statistically significant sample when it comes to the Earth's climate, but I find it very hard to believe a few decades could be anything more than the most miniscule of noise. Humans have a long history of being results-oriented and not considering appropriate timeframe and variance.

Please tell me what 30 year means for the following graph.

 

Significant? are you serious? Tasmania has the most reliable non tropical rainfall in this Continent...or should i say "had" the most reliable rainfall...did u even look at the chart? if you did you will see inflows trending with great reliability for the first 60 years (this is the first significant bit because it shows predictability and consistency, a baseline) then clearly trending down for the next 30 with a slight acceleration over the last decade.

Its damming evidence (excuse the pun) of climate change that is not open to interpretation...yes its significant.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant
 
bellenuit said:
Should they ignore what the science is indicating, just because the models aren't perfect?
Click to expand...
There is considerable dispute about 'what the science is indicating'. That is why so many are opposed to irrevocable and far reaching decisions being made which could substantially disadvantage the Australian and for that matter the world economy.

As long as scientists who dissent from the popular voice are being excluded from peer reviewed journals, and are not being acknowledged by most of the media, there is no genuine and balanced discussion from which ultimately a genuine consensus could come.

I completely disagree. For one thing to compare the climate modelling with the stock market hardly seems relevant. And for the other, accepting imperfect modelling as the basis for a massive global tax which is unlikely to have any effect on climate seems to me to be the ultimate madness.

Why should it be any different for climate modelling? Who best to do the modelling than the experts in that area. There may be some scientists that may not have acted ethically (though that has yet to be proven).
Click to expand...
Not sure how much proof you need.
But we don't reject economic modelling because a small percentage of all economic data may have been found to be suspect, so why reject climate models because of some questionable figures in one set of data?
Click to expand...
I disagree again. If you go back to all the forecasts by economists and other so called experts in the financial field at the start of the GFC (think the beginning of the sub prime), how many of them came even remotely close to calling what actually happened? Bugger all!

Sorry, bellenuit, but I think you've just defeated your own argument with this post.



wayneL said:
Because they don't work.
Click to expand...
Quite so.
 

It's pretty simple Julia. The government want to aggregate green house emissions amongst the entire population and distribute the payment to all taxpayers. This is the Combet plan. Pro-worker/paye taxpayer my ass! :horse:

Well all I can say as a taxpayer is this "stick it where the sun don't shine."

I'm an individual and don't see why I should have to pay more taxes than the big guys.

 
Julia said:
There is considerable dispute about 'what the science is indicating'. That is why so many are opposed to irrevocable and far reaching decisions being made which could substantially disadvantage the Australian and for that matter the world economy.
Click to expand...

Julia. You seem to be assuming that my post was in favour of an ETS. It had nothing whatsoever to do with what policies to adopt. I was responding to the notion that as we cannot accurately predict the weather 3 days ahead, that we shouldn't bother to try and predict global weather patterns and their causes, even though they may effect our very existence as a species. As I indicated, the purpose of the modelling is not to show whether Christmas day will be a nice day in Cairns in 2020, but whether the trends in climate could lead to situations that could be catastrophic to us as a species and if so, is there any action that we can take to prevent such changes.


I agree. And don't those scientists also use their own models to come to their conclusions? Or perhaps use the same models as the mainstream scientists, but come to different conclusions.

And I wouldn't make the assumptions that all the scientists that think differently to the mainstream are excluded from peer review. From what I have read, many have been peer reviewed and found wanting.

I completely disagree. For one thing to compare the climate modelling with the stock market hardly seems relevant.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think it is not relevant? I was simply indicating that economic modelling is trying to predict long term trends in the economy and based on those trends we make decisions on whether we should invest in shares or property or whatever. It is not trying to predict the price of BHP in 2020. Equally climate modelling, as stated above, is trying to predict long terms trends in climate change, not whether it is going to be a nice day in Cairns on Christmas Day, 2020. It was an an analogy to illustrate the purpose of climate modelling, not to suggest that the climate and the economy exhibit the same trends. It was a throwback to the "not being able to predict the weather in 3 days time" idea means we shouldn't bother modelling at all. We equally cannot predict accurately the value of indices or particular stocks in 3 days time, but that doesn't mean we should not try to model economic trends.

And for the other, accepting imperfect modelling as the basis for a massive global tax which is unlikely to have any effect on climate seems to me to be the ultimate madness.
Click to expand...

I have no argument there.

Not sure how much proof you need
Click to expand...

Certainly a lot more than the rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network. Somebody posted a video clip, either on this or the other "climate" threads a day or two ago, that seemed to give a fairly good counter-explanation of the "smoking gun" emails to that promoted by the mainstream media. We are being told what interpretation to give on the use of certain words in those emails and if we accept those interpretations then they appear suspect. But even if those few emails are truly indicating fraudulent activity, that doesn't make the whole of the science suspect. And as I said, the counter-explanations are plausible alternative interpretations IMO. I find the very same issues when dealing with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They present facts but then try to tell you how you are to interpret those facts. There are often alternative interpretations that are far more plausible than what the CTs suggest. If you can find that video, it is worth taking a look. All is not what it seems.


Were those that didn't do any economic modelling more accurate? The models didn't forecast the GFC. Pity. You and I and a lot of others would not have lost a lot of money (at least on paper) if they had. But though the models didn't forecast sudden aberrations in the long term trend of a gradually increasing stock market, many of us who stayed invested are slowly recuperating our losses and if past experiences are anything to go by, in 10 years or so it may seem as if it never happened.

Sorry, bellenuit, but I think you've just defeated your own argument with this post.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't concede that at all, Julie. You have either construed me to have said something I didn't say, or if you actually do disagree with what I said, you are of the opinion that climate science is all bogus. I cannot understand how you would hold the latter opinion, as you do hold some climate scientists in high esteem.

For the record......

I believe climate modelling is not a waste of time and if it makes predictions that suggest that we, as a species, could be in danger, then we should not ignore those predictions, even if we know the model to be far from perfect. That is all that my original post stated. It was a statement in support of science as opposed to not bothering with studying anything because we can't even predict the weather in 3 days time.

I did not state what action we should take. I just stated that we should not ignore the predictions. The actions may be to invest more in researching climate change to improve the model, or to cut down on those actions that the model might be indicating is the cause of the potential problem as a precaution until we know more or even to go all out and assume the model is right and ban outright any activity that the model suggest is a potential cause, even if it means destroying our economies (a better to be poor than dead scenario).

Personally I believe in a combination of the first two of these. One should always strive to improve the science, but I also believe if there is a belief that CO2 could lead to catastrophic global warming, then we should take actions to cut down on the emissions of CO2. Such as encouraging nations like Brazil and Indonesia not to destroy their rain forests. Such as using renewable energy in place of fossil fuels. These actions will come at some cost, but if they give us some extra breathing space until we get the science right, then it will be money worth spent.

Finally. I do not support the ETS in any way and never have. It has merits, but only if it is universally implemented and compliance is guaranteed. It cannot be implemented by just a few countries, without destroying the economies of those countries due to the disadvantage they would be placed under compared to their competitors.
 

Thank you, I know what significant means. No I didn't look at the chart. I still fail to see how a sample of 90 seasons is significant for a climate that moves in much, much, much, much larger cycles. Scientists are currently arguing about the trend within a trend within a trend within a trend etc. You don't see many traders care about what happens on a 1 second chart. I'm not stating that the sample is insignificant, I'm just questioning its significance.

I think the question of how well we really understand the climate is an even more important question. Models don't seem to have been shown as useful, and I think that suggests a lack of understanding of the global climate. I imagine it's an extraordinarly complex system, and that we're probably extremely arrogant for thinking we can understand it at this point in time.
 
wayneL said:
FYI Via Wattsupwiththat.

Also a good read on weather stations shenanigans:

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Oh Dear, the wheel are falling off the bandwagon. They will have to resurrect Goebbels himself to get out of this one.
Click to expand...

ClimateGate emails are only the start, I submit that the data such as in the above URL has been 'fiddled' for years - who cares what the models predict or don't predict.

Alaska's data also adjusted upwards
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/more_man_made_warming_this_time_in_alaska/

Many are starting to review the data submissions - Want a prediction? Here it is - My model predicts that nearly all of the data sets will show warming based on "adjusted" data - upwards for the most recent, downwards for the earliest - definitely man-made so there shouldn't be any debate on that one from the warmists alarmists.
 
bellenuit said:
And I wouldn't make the assumptions that all the scientists that think differently to the mainstream are excluded from peer review. From what I have read, many have been peer reviewed and found wanting.
Click to expand...
The following is an extract from an article in The Australian 9 December. It is written by Mark Dodgson, Director of Technology and Innovation Management Centre at Uni of Qld Business School. He is discussing the process of peer review.
There is much more.

Certainly a lot more than the rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network.
Click to expand...
I'd have given you more credit, bellenuit, than to suggest the opposition science is limited to Fox and the rest of the lunatic fringe.

I'd respectfully suggest you read "Heaven and Earth" by Professor Ian Climer.
Your local library will have it.
. All is not what it seems.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree there.

Were those that didn't do any economic modelling more accurate?
Click to expand...
You didn't have to do any 'economic modelling' to see that markets were falling all over the world and that the ramifications of the American subprime were going to be immense.
I don't actually know what you mean when you refer to 'economic modelling'.
Perhaps you could outline what this means?

The models didn't forecast the GFC. Pity. You and I and a lot of others would not have lost a lot of money (at least on paper) if they had.
Click to expand...
At the risk of diverting from the original topic, I'd just point that I didn't lose money. Why? Because I ignored the assurances of the wise economists that it wouldn't come to much and it would all be just okey dokey, and I exited the market. No economic modelling required. Just simple observation.

Well, that's fine if you're happy to take ten years to recover your previous market value. I don't find that acceptable.

Good to hear that you don't find the proposed ETS entirely functional

Perhaps the issue is as simple as the amount of trust one has in various 'experts' and governments. Sadly, mine is minimal.
 
Julia,

I not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying all climate science is bogus and should be disregarded? That we should stick our heads in the sand and not try and model as best we can global climate trends.

You have approached both my notes as if I am promoting the current consensus scientific view, whereas all I am suggesting is that we continue to invest in climate science even though it has shortcomings. I have not argued in favour of any of the opinions offered by climate scientists, whether mainstream or not.

My comment on peer review was to say that it is not true that all ALL scientists that have an opposing view to the mainstream cannot get peer reviews. Some have been peer reviewed and found wanting.

There is not just one opposing view to the current consensus opinion. There are many and some are based on quack science just like in any other scientific field. However, there are many dissenting scientists whose opinions I respect.

I'd have given you more credit, bellenuit, than to suggest the opposition science is limited to Fox and the rest of the lunatic fringe.
Click to expand...

That part of my note had nothing to do with the opposition science. It specifically related to the the two e-mails that seemed to suggest there may have been tampering with data and a refusal to share data. Limbaugh, Fox and the Saudi Government have been using those e-mails to say ignore all climate science it is obviously bogus, and have been telling people how to interpret those notes, even though there are other explanations available. I think most scientists, of whatever persuasion, see those leaked e-mails as irrelevant to the vast body of climate science. In any case, most are waiting for the internal investigation to be completed and see what explanation is given.

With regards to Prof Ian Climer, I have read extracts of articles written by him and his contribution is just as valid as any other scientist, perhaps even more than some. That also goes for James Hensen of NASA, another scientist who is not mainstream.

Perhaps the issue is as simple as the amount of trust one has in various 'experts' and governments. Sadly, mine is minimal.
Click to expand...

I have little trust in governments and a lot of trust in scientists. I have no choice but to form my opinion from what the scientists say, because when it comes to global climate trends, I am not in any position to make my own science.

Climate science is probably more contentious than other scientific areas and that requires one to be open minded about all views.

All I have done is express opinions that are pro science. That the fact that we cannot predict the weather in 3 days time is no excuse for not trying to determine global climatic patterns. That if climatic trend predictions indicate we, as a species, are at risk, then they shouldn't be ignored. I didn't limit that to the determinations of just one side of the debate. Any creditable scientist whose findings predict serious detrimental effects to the earth or its inhabitants should have his/her findings investigated. I did not at any time promote bad science or try to defend bad science and some of the practices pointed to in this thread are clearly bad science.

I still fail to see why what I have said should be so contentious. It is almost as if "science" is a dirty word among many on this thread, just like it is among creationists. That somehow or other every corrupt scientist has decided to make climatology their area of expertise.
 
bellenuit;517853I said:
have... a lot of trust in scientists.
Click to expand...

This is a mistake. They should earn trust just like in any field.

They are human, which means the default position is that should not immediately be trusted.
 
Bellenuit, we are going round in circles. You've now said the same thing several times. Let's leave it alone. No point in rehashing. I'm fast becoming too sick of it all to care.
If a political decision is made to introduce a massive tax on the basis of inconclusive science, then there's nothing I can do about it.

If you have some sort of intuitive and absolute respect for scientists, then that's your choice. I'm with Wayne in expecting them to earn it. So far I cannot see that they have done this.

You haven't addressed my other question of what you consider to be the 'economic modelling' you earlier referred to as being valid with respect to the share market. If you regard this as being as useful as you regard the modelling by popular science, then I'd like to try to understand why.
 
Julia said:
You haven't addressed my other question of what you consider to be the 'economic modelling' you earlier referred to as being valid with respect to the share market.
Click to expand...

Julia, I'm just referring to the economic models produced by government departments to forecast employment, GDP growth etc. Since these models predict that the economy will continue to grow and as there is usually a strong correlation between growth in the economy and growth in the share market, we can be fairly certain that over the long term the share market will continue to offer good investment returns as it has in the past. I wasn't trying to make comparisons between climate science and economic science, but was using it as an analogy to show how modelling can be a useful tool to show long term underlying trends, even though it cannot accurately predict specific items in the immediate future, such as the weather in 3 days time in Cairns or the closing price of BHP next Thursday.
 
bellenuit said:
....I'm just referring to the economic models produced by government departments to forecast employment, GDP growth etc. Since these models predict that the economy will continue to grow....
Click to expand...

LOL. Models??? It's politics bellenuit.

I'm guessing your referring to these 'models' that had the Gov back in 2007 predicting Australia's economy was so strong nothing would affect it - because of china and 'good management'. Just before the ~50% decline.

Still trying hard not to laugh out loud
 

Of course you are right, OzWaveGuy. Modelling is just a waste of time.

Why bother trying to predict trends in the economy and what demands those trends will make in terms of resources, infrastructure, education, hospitals etc. The guys down in the pub have it all worked out.

Companies shouldn't bother modelling their business based on assumptions on future sales, material requirements, costs etc. into the future. It will be all right when the time comes. There will be enough cash to buy the raw materials. So what if sales are double what we anticipated. Our component suppliers will just make everything we need available to us on time. I'm sure their typical 6 months lead time can be cut to 1 week just for us.

Modelling is trying to predict future trends. Of course there are going to be errors in the models. They don't know the complete interrelationship of all the variables. There are external influences that they cannot model because they have no access to the data, such as the amount of toxic debt held by the banking system (this was a direct contributor to the GFC which the models didn't predict).

How politicians decide to respond to the forecasts made by the models is a different story. That is politics and there is nothing the modellers can do about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...