Global Warming - Moved

Rod
Rod
Joined: 3 Jan 06
Posts: 4,396
Credit: 811,266
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Nice one! Poor

Message 93133 in response to message 93131

Quote:
Quote:

Nice one! Poor chap will probably be labelled a 'denier' now! No wonder people don't trust scientists any more - after the Cold War, Y2K, black holes at the LHC ....

Maybe it is the same people that
regard 'The Economist' as a scientific source ;)

lol

Everybody has a farking opinion.. That's what makes the world go round :-)

Remember they call economics the dismal science..:-)

There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,027
Credit: 104,427,199
RAC: 71,677

RE: Remember they call

Message 93134 in response to message 93133

Quote:
Remember they call economics the dismal science..:-)


I wonder if our Mr Rudd wants the Nobel for that, because he's going to make us all rich? :-) :-)

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Rod
Rod
Joined: 3 Jan 06
Posts: 4,396
Credit: 811,266
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Remember they

Message 93135 in response to message 93134

Quote:
Quote:
Remember they call economics the dismal science..:-)

I wonder if our Mr Rudd wants the Nobel for that, because he's going to make us all rich? :-) :-)

Cheers, Mike.

Probably not :-)

But this guy is on the short list..

Krugman

Probably the same thing is going to happen to climate science creditability as what happened to economics... ( its just as messy)

Edit :Oops.. We won it last year.. :-)

There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,027
Credit: 104,427,199
RAC: 71,677

RE: Probably not

Message 93136 in response to message 93135

Quote:
Probably not :-)


Yeah, dear Kev thinks you make people rich by giving back some of their own money. The Robin Hood School of Economics on steroids. :-)

Quote:

But this guy is on the short list..

Krugman

Probably the same thing is going to happen to climate science creditability as what happened to economics... ( its just as messy)

Edit :Oops.. We won it last year.. :-)


At least he makes some sense, but then sensible sounding answers aren't what's needed. Like Rocky Kolb ( cosmologist ) says - we don't need a consensus model, we need the correct one. Climate discussion seems to be riddled with all manner of models which no doubt reflect their design choices. Thus you wind up with claims that if winter temperatures go up it's global warming, but if winter temperatures go down that's global warming too. That gives the impression that 'temperature' is unrelated to 'warming', whatever either of those terms are deemed to mean. That generates a disconnect, or conceptual incongruity. So the discussion of an 'apple' now proceeds without a concrete example of one for participants to refer to when resolving questions. As 'apple' then takes on myriad personalised meanings, the entire conversation fragments into asychronous and unrelated expression. I think this has happened with the GW issue.

In the 70's, in particle physics now, there were two groups studying more or less the same category of interactions. One group found a new particle, and called it the 'J'. The other group also found a new particle, which they called the 'psi'. Two new particles, wow what progress! Discussion went back & forth until it was realised, whoops, they'd been talking about the same thing. Meaning that if one makes a list of the measurable properties of the J, and similiarly for the psi and then you compare the lists you have ( within experimental error and whatnot ) identical numbers. So to be fair, it goes down in history as the J/psi particle!

So the risk becomes an unknowing or inadvertent substitution of processes under the umbrella of 'science'. What one thought was originally 'investigation into reality', say, has actually morphed into 'what Bob and Carol think about what they reckon Ted and Alice are saying'. The true 'real world' problem is lost on account of the substitution, and what is far more worrying : the participants, spectators too, may not have sensed the change of process.

Sigh. So each generation has to re-learn the mistakes. I guess that is what makes history such a good, safe choice of profession - no requirement to predict anything for starters, and the patterns repeat. :-)

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) And if you ask the 'common man' : "How did economists get it so wrong?" he is likely to say "Who cares? Just give me my money back!"

( edit ) And DownUnda where it appears that politics, climate science and economics are shortly due to collide, there is precious little indication that any of the decisive players are concerned for those who will be burdened by whichever outcome results. It's been polarised to idiotic proportions. :-(

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Rod
Rod
Joined: 3 Jan 06
Posts: 4,396
Credit: 811,266
RAC: 0

RE: ( edit ) And DownUnda

Message 93137 in response to message 93136

Quote:

( edit ) And DownUnda where it appears that politics, climate science and economics are shortly due to collide, there is precious little indication that any of the decisive players are concerned for those who will be burdened by whichever outcome results. It's been polarised to idiotic proportions. :-(

Lets face it... the three are intertwined and thats what makes a solution so hard to find and come to a consensus... Just a little taste of the mixture of the three... just wants to make me hurl :-)

Edit: Each barker on any side ( and there is more than two sides) finds their pet scientist to promote their point of view..

Edit: Science has to get out of the politics and the media and let the peer review process work.. Aww Shucks... I am being too idealistic again:-)

There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold

Rod
Rod
Joined: 3 Jan 06
Posts: 4,396
Credit: 811,266
RAC: 0

RE: RE: ( edit ) And

Message 93138 in response to message 93137

Quote:
Quote:

( edit ) And DownUnda where it appears that politics, climate science and economics are shortly due to collide, there is precious little indication that any of the decisive players are concerned for those who will be burdened by whichever outcome results. It's been polarised to idiotic proportions. :-(

Lets face it... the three are intertwined and thats what makes a solution so hard to find and come to a consensus... Just a little taste of the mixture of the three... just wants to make me hurl :-)

Edit: Each barker on any side ( and there is more than two sides) finds their pet scientist to promote their point of view..

Edit: Science has to get out of the politics and the media and let the peer review process work.. Aww Shucks... I am being too idealistic again:-)

__________________________________
I just have add... I agree that the scientific community has become more consensus orientated rather than taking the time to come up with the correct result. I think they are pushed to come up with some result so they keep their funding going.. because funding is soooo political..

There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold

Rod
Rod
Joined: 3 Jan 06
Posts: 4,396
Credit: 811,266
RAC: 0

I have to agree with Brendon

I have to agree with Brendon Borrell that our obsession with climate change that we might have missed the forest because of the trees.

Blood for No Oil

There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,027
Credit: 104,427,199
RAC: 71,677

Could be even worse, they

Could be even worse, they might be right but for the wrong reasons. With proposed solutions ineffective due to failure to pay attention to the physical processes.

I saw an hypothesis mooted on a discussion board ( not an excellent source mind you! ) that soot particles from carbon fuels could be the cause of any ice/snowcap loss and not warming per se. That is the reflectivity ( albedo ) changes and increased melts due to 'dirty' snow may be a dominant influence and not CO2 concentration. So while reducing carbon fuel burning would help that, if it's not done in a way that specifically reduces soot production also ( say diesel engines ) then the main target has been missed.

Unfortunately the poor poster of this idea was rapidly pounced upon as "A Denier" with all the rabid groupthink that it entails. Simply because he was imaginative enough to think of alternative plausible mechanisms to test. This type of loss of scientific discussion, and reversion to mantra, bodes poorly. I have no idea whether the soot thing is valid - needs study - but demonstrates the 'mind closures' that have occurred in this area. A type of dangerous self pride that will brook no latitude.

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) It's a good, thoughtful article. As I recall Al Gore was pointing to mountain tops no longer snow covered, AGW being his thesis. But the de-forestation in the neighbourhood and subsequent alteration of local weather patterns was not presented.

So the skew is significant ( per the author ) :

"Even scientists have grown bored with question of habitat loss, tweaking their grant proposals to emphasize the climate angle no matter how tenuous the connection. Saving the Amazon is so 1980s."

( edit ) Actually I know personally some Antarctic tour operators who are really plugging the AGW line - "see it before it goes" - with the result of even more trudging over snow and glaciers by 'green tourists'. So the operators do well financially, and the punters feel cleansed and closer to nature. Meanwhile the poor penguins et al have their rookeries semi-trashed, feeding disturbed, not to mention s*** loads of debris, diesel residue etc left behind.

[ I mean how would you feel if say 200 penguins traipsed into your living room : noisy, farting, snapping off photos, upsetting the kids, crapping on the carpet, disturbing you sleep, bunging up your cortisol and adrenaline .... and they come three to four times a week! ]

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1,994
Credit: 31,670,167
RAC: 4,839

Some hard data on Greenland

Some hard data on Greenland ice losses from Science. This is all I can read:
Science
Tullio

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,515
Credit: 429,487,149
RAC: 112,576

RE: I have to agree with

Message 93142 in response to message 93139

Quote:

I have to agree with Brendon Borrell that our obsession with climate change that we might have missed the forest because of the trees.

Blood for No Oil

I don't know, this "triage" concept sounds a bit odd, even offensive, to me: isn't the author saying this basically:" Look, we can't afford to save both the rain-forest and reduce CO2 emissions at the same time. Let's make a "triage" choice: You guys down there stop messing with the rain forest because that's important for bio-diversity. And we here in the 1st world countries can continue to drive SUVs, you know, because it's not that important for bio-diversity at all". I'm not sure the folks near the rain forests would come to the same triage strategy. Maybe I got the author all wrong tho.

Cheers
Bikeman

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.