|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
where he is a specialist he makes it very clear he thinks AGW is not only wrong and unscientific, but dangerous
This is his specialty:
quote:
I am interested in the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei, and in the application of these spin-polarized systems in other areas......I have been working on ways to use polarized 3He and 129Xe for magnetic resonance imaging of lungs and perhaps other organs.
Titles of recent papers:
*Modification of glass cell walls by rubidium vapor
*Simple method of light-shift suppression in optical pumping systems
*Nonlinear pressure shifts of alkali-metal atoms in inert gases
*Magnetic resonance reversals in optically pumped alkali-metal vapor
*etc
So when you talk about him an anything other than a physicist in these areas, he is not a specialist. To clarify again, he is not a specialist in AGW. He has *never* published a paper on it, he has never refereed or done peer review on a paper, and he does not do research on it. He has even been invited by Oppenheimer (of the IPCC) to publish a scientific report outlining his objections to AGW theory, but he has not even done that.
It doesn't matter if you think Alan misrepresented you. You *cannot* talk about this guy as an expert. You cannot say he is a climate researcher who dissents with the status quo. You cannot ask that we read him as an expert since he is not one.
quote:
Myrrh wrote:
As it stands, from his speciality he says that doubling the amount of CO2 from fossil fuel is at most going to add one degree and then it cannot do more, and that anyway, it's complete nonsense to, etc. etc. etc., because CO2 is good for us, for our plant life etc. etc. etc. Try reading it again. As a summary it's very good reading, covering as it does the main points necessary to understand what's going on here for those without the time to wade through the arguments.
This has *nothing* to do with his specialty. He is essentially talking out his ass. And as such, we can ignore him. And as such, you should ignore him too.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
My point here is this, re OP, and my actual reason for agreeing with Happer -
We're getting irritated by the Con and the Cover Up
Deal with the fact that there has never yet been produced any evidence that CO2 drives global warming, deal with the criminal and unethical promotion of this Con by creating data to fit an agenda and excluding even to violence all the scientists who argued against it, deal with things that matter.
As such, Happer's summary is succinct and good summary of the Con and on the adverse affect this is having on our and our children's sanity.
Avoiding dealing with the gross reality of this is understandable, however, to continue to spout as does the OP in its cover up of the IPCC that there is nothing wrong with the science is what is wrong with the "science", its a CON.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Myrrh:
My point here is this, re OP, and my actual reason for agreeing with Happer[quote]
You agree with Happer because he has the same viewpoint as you. One that is not grounded in intimate familiarity with the science, statistics, or models for the behaviour, and one that he has not even apparently attempted to justify with science.
We're getting irritated by the Con and the Cover Up
Oh, joy. Another useless anti-AGW site that misrepresents the science, the data, the statistics and those stupid emails.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
That the "science" has been proved to concocted by false data, example after example, documented, actually proved, and you still persist in claiming it hasn't, why?
Have you read the emails?
I recall, with great sadness, the times I pointed out these practices and was shouted down because I was 'claiming I knew more than than the Great Scientific Consensus Thoroughly Peer Reviewed and What They Said was True and Anyone Scientist or Other Wise Arguing AGainst Them Was Not Peer Reviewed'.
Then they wrote how they manipulated editors and were fiddling the numbers, and this was after the Hockey Schtick and other data gathering from tree innard predictions were shown to be created out of their Peer Reviewed imaginations, and so on..
Really, do yourself a favour, read the objections.
This is bigger than the Piltdown Man...
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Then they wrote how they manipulated editors and were fiddling the numbers
None of which were in the emails. And the rest of your paragraph has been very thoroughly debunked the last go 'round here as well.
"Read for comprehension" seems to be one of your favorite requests of people lately. I find myself throwing it back at you a lot myself.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Prove they weren't.
Read them.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Prove they weren't.
Read them.
No, you prove them. I've read them, as have the various groups called to investigate them. Every single one has exonerated everybody involved.
Find a single instance where they said they tampered with the data. It. Is. Not. There.
Find a single instance where peer review process was tampered with. It. Is. Not. There - as I said earlier, the papers that they were so very against were all published anyways, against Mann, etc's objections.
Do the emails make them look like shit? Yeah. Do they show the least little bit of professional misconduct? No. Hell - the Attorney General of Virginia(?) took Mann to court and lost. Rapidly. There is *NO* case to be made.
Not that I expect any of this to sink in. Don't know why I bother.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where have I disagreed with him on his specialist subject? You've managed to turn this about completely. It's those points you mention I disagree with where he is not a specialist.
OK, from his speciality as I understood it from his own description it's probably only point C that's really close to his expertise ... that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will warm the earth surface. Though, measurement of stuff (including accounting for external influences and uncertainties) is bread and butter for any half-decent physicist then point A shouldn't really be dismissed as beyond his expertise. Though, as pjkirk has had a look at his publications (which I didn't get time to do yesterday), even the properties of CO2 isn't really his specialist subject - although, as I've said there's nothing contraversial there as the relevant properties have been known for a century or more, and can be measured with an experiment you can set up yourself if you wish.
Most of the rest of the contents of his contribution are even further from his subject. The actual temperature rise a given increase in CO2 concentration rise will induce needs to take into account assorted feedback mechanisms - cloud formation, differential equatorial and polar heating leading to changes in wind and ocean current patterns, the response of ecosystems to changing temperature and humidity, etc ... That's well and truly atmospheric/ocean physics, climateology etc. And, a claim that "increasing CO2 is good", if that's 'good' because it promotes plant growth, is biology. It isn't even true that increased CO2 increases plant growth - thought it certainly increases growth for some plants, it doesn't increase the growth of all plants.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Find a single instance where peer review process was tampered with. It. Is. Not. There - as I said earlier, the papers that they were so very against were all published anyways, against Mann, etc's objections.
Do the emails make them look like shit? Yeah. Do they show the least little bit of professional misconduct? No. Hell - the Attorney General of Virginia(?) took Mann to court and lost. Rapidly. There is *NO* case to be made.
Not that I expect any of this to sink in. Don't know why I bother.
Well said. And let me encourage you to continue bothering. It's worth it for the sake of all Shipmates.
[ 08. September 2010, 07:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I read quite a few of the Climategate e-mails. The entire case rested on reading the word 'trick' as having a particular meaning and ignoring all the other non-conspiratorial meanings that the same word also has.
Actual examination of primary sources again. It's my theme for the day.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
You've never produced it because it doesn't exist, like the Emperor's new clothes, you keep saying it's there, but all you're doing is bolstering your belief in the delusion.
But, now the struggle to pay for heating will be over for us, all we need is a machine to pump out CO2 and we'll be toasty warm, oh, wait, that's us! Marvellous, no more worries about pensioners surviving the cold of winters, we'll just tell them to exhale faster..
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that. Because, I admit, without that foundation of the physical properties of CO2, repeatedly observed in experiment after experiment for over a century, the rest of the argument that provides conclusive evidence that the current global warming is substantially driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (plus, things like deforestation that remove natural CO2 sinks) and other greenhouse gases is meaningless.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
So when you talk about him an anything other than a physicist in these areas, he is not a specialist. To clarify again, he is not a specialist in AGW. He has *never* published a paper on it, he has never refereed or done peer review on a paper, and he does not do research on it. He has even been invited by Oppenheimer (of the IPCC) to publish a scientific report outlining his objections to AGW theory, but he has not even done that.
(Breaking my non-posting vow for some comic relief.) Your thorough debunking of Happer's climatologist status reminds me of a certain
Monty Python sketch.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
Here's some random snippets of climate change news and random stuff I've been watching:
Clear Climate Code has now been set up as an independent foundation. Their original aim was to reimplement the NASA GISSTEMP code as open source python so that anyone can reproduce the instrumental temperature record from the raw weather station data and carry out their own analyses. In doing so they've uncovered 3 bugs in the NASA code (one was a rounding error which gave a difference of ~0.01C, the others had no effect on the results of normal runs). They've now gone on to do lots of analyses not possible with the original software - different land masks, different urban/rural filters, results from small subsets of weather stations, and so on. You can see their results on their blog, and download and run the software.
I've been watching the reporting of arctic ice cover. The Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Times all reported the recovery of ice cover to near-20th-century levels at the end of March. The Daily Mail did not point out that a lot of the ice was very thin, and as a result much of it disappeared in record melt in May, leading to new record minima for the time of year for every day in June. (There has been a slowing since, but ice cover has already beaten the 3rd lowest level summer minimum, and may hit 2nd.)
What I cannot find is any record of these papers reporting the record May melt or any subsequent data. As a result, anyone who bases their opinions on these papers will hold an inaccurate view of what is going on.
This year a Norwegian ship will make the first non-Russian commercial passage to China via the north of Russia. Yahoo.
I know picking on the Daily Mail is unfair, but I thought this article was a nice demonstration of how they often work: Ice caps melting half speed predicted. In this case, the article is fairly accurate. However, the trick is in the headline: if the word 'predicted' is changed to 'estimated' then it is rather more accurate ('than previously estimated by the same newly developed method' would be better still). Often the Mail includes a paragraph or two of editorialising before the actual story, with the two being in contradiction. You can often see from the comments that it is the editorial version rather than the actual story that sticks though. In this case they've done it with just the title.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
No, you prove them. I've read them, as have the various groups called to investigate them. Every single one has exonerated everybody involved...
Do the emails make them look like shit? Yeah. Do they show the least little bit of professional misconduct?
The leaked emails do not in any way debunk the science but they are rather more serious than you seem to think. Firstly, there was a prima facie case against CRU for breaches of the Freedom of Information Request (this could not be put to the test because the time had elapsed). And while Oxburgh for example exonerated the scientists involved of any deliberate wrongdoing, their statistical methodology, organisation of the data etc has been rubbished in extremely strong terms.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Mr. Tambourine Man - thanks for that. Nice way to wake up.
Petaflop - Thanks for that CCC link...will try to spend some more time there tonight.
Spawn - Data access issues are a large problem for the area of science I am trying to get into, and for many others. This is something that needs to be resolved on at least a national level though, in my opinion (though with the constant attempts by congress to remove open publishing requirements for NIH funded projects, I am not hopeful for the outcome). The problems with it are too big and too systemic for anything else.
That said do I respect the way they went about this? No. Do I disrespect them more than the myriad of scientists that do this? No.
Statistics/etc - We are well into the age of Big Science. This started, it seems to me, with Big Physics where the equipment is ungodly expensive but the data sets aren't hugely complex. They also seem to be less statistically intensive, due to "good" data sources.
Now we've moved into the age of Big Biology/Genomics and Big Climatology. Both of these use very dirty data sets which are absolutely useless without signficant fiddling, so you can actually see the signal you're looking for. They are also just as computationally intensive as anything else out there. That combination leads to very murky waters when it comes peer review time (on top of all the other typical peer review problems). As such, I think that we should look at handling peer review differently for such projects.
One example - I am trying to get into grad schools that are working specifically with the Human Microbiome Project (which just jumped pilot funding by another $47 million yesterday). I know that many of the papers stemming from this project will end up presented not in genetics journals, not in microbiology journals, but in more clinically oriented journals. Where they will be getting reviewed by a group of doctors old enough to need their own gerontologists, who have an understanding of microbiology that hasn't changed much since the 1960s. These doctors will be useless as reviewers. I think one requirement for review should be that they go specifically to a couple statisticians which have access perhaps to a thousand-core cluster owned by the NIH specifically for re-running data sets by statisticians/bioinformaticians. When it takes a month to run each data set with grant-funded computing time, a reviewer simply can't do full justice to their review, imo.
Big Science simply is stressing the model greatly.
So, to sum, would I call this professional misconduct? No. The best conduct - I've made no secret here that I think these guys have certainly harmed science as a whole. Are their findings worthless as a result of all this though (still the core of the issue)? Hell no. As we progress, the models will be corrected and tweaked. New models will supersede theirs. Data sets will be looked at again when they conflict with others. Science will work in the self-correcting manner is already does.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that.
Again, where have I denied that?
You have created a straw man from the beginning of your analysis of his statement, and from that have reversed and continue to reverse everything that's in the statement and so from that attached and continue to attach my objections to your straw man.
Let's go back to what you first said about his statement.
You are wrong, the first two paragraphs are not about his own work. In the first he introduces himself and states his particular qualifications to authority and so intelligent appreciation as authority in a particular and key area which is part of the AGW theory, which is the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases, and in the second paragraph begins with his clearly written attestation about an area in which he is not directly expert and makes no claim that this comes from any expertise from his own discipline,
"Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses."
How much clearer does he have to be?
I am not disagreeing with his expertise, I am disagreeing with some of that which he is only willing to state clearly as areas where he probably agrees with other witnesses.
The whole second paragraph is not from his expertise and its within this that I have disagreements with him. So let's be clear here. I am not disagreeing with his expertise.
Perhaps you should read his statement again, I am finding it getting impossible to reply to you while you continue to read what I reply through this misreading of his statement.
quote:
Because, I admit, without that foundation of the physical properties of CO2, repeatedly observed in experiment after experiment for over a century, the rest of the argument that provides conclusive evidence that the current global warming is substantially driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (plus, things like deforestation that remove natural CO2 sinks) and other greenhouse gases is meaningless.
Well, not to worry - is his message from his repeated observations of CO2 in his own field and his intelligent objective appreciation of the theory in general.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
So when you talk about him an anything other than a physicist in these areas, he is not a specialist. To clarify again, he is not a specialist in AGW. He has *never* published a paper on it, he has never refereed or done peer review on a paper, and he does not do research on it. He has even been invited by Oppenheimer (of the IPCC) to publish a scientific report outlining his objections to AGW theory, but he has not even done that.
(Breaking my non-posting vow for some comic relief.) Your thorough debunking of Happer's climatologist status reminds me of a certain
Monty Python sketch.
Well as we are with the Monty Python theme, I would suggest we go to the ''argument clinic''. This is perhaps pretty relevant to us lot in Purgatory (well actually very relevant ).
OK maybe I ought to go to ''Heaven'' with this one.
Saul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=related
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Myrrh.
True. False.
Not necessarily in that order.
A lot.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
]Well, not to worry - is his message from his repeated observations of CO2 in his own field and his intelligent objective appreciation of the theory in general.
He has never published a paper relating to CO2 or any spectroscopy which could be useful for a climatology study that I can find (his entire list of publications can be found at http://happerlab.princeton.edu/publications ). His work now is all with certain radioactive isotopes and seeing their utility for MRI scans - a loonng ways from climatology.
So, he has no (publishable) repeated observations in his own field. And an "intelligent objective appreciation of the theory" which he has refused to back up with any scientific arguments. Now, he may be very well researched and even correct. But, without a laid out argument (he has only used assertion thus far) he isn't *that* much more credible than the woman who delivers my mail.
If you are going to take what an authority says carte blanche, you should put some more effort into choosing a good authority.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
You've never produced it because it doesn't exist, like the Emperor's new clothes, you keep saying it's there, but all you're doing is bolstering your belief in the delusion.
But, now the struggle to pay for heating will be over for us, all we need is a machine to pump out CO2 and we'll be toasty warm, oh, wait, that's us! Marvellous, no more worries about pensioners surviving the cold of winters, we'll just tell them to exhale faster..
Myrrh
I take it, Myrrh, that the concept of 'risk management' has entirely passed you by...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that.
Again, where have I denied that?
So, you've changed your opinion since the last tthread on the subject? Fine, that's OK - people are entirely free to change their views, it would just be useful for the sake of clarity if it was said.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Find a single instance where peer review process was tampered with.
Got one.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that.
Again, where have I denied that?
So, you've changed your opinion since the last tthread on the subject? Fine, that's OK - people are entirely free to change their views, it would just be useful for the sake of clarity if it was said.
? Where have I ever denied CO2 absorbs IR?
My argument was that it was insignificant, both in terms of spectrum absorbed, a very narrow band, and in terms of length of time it was "stored" with its co-efficient of less than 1, less than even a molecule of oxygen, it didn't hold on to whatever IR did come its way so was nonsense as "blanket", even if it could found in the atmosphere.., and in terms of saturation level re even this minute ability to "raise" temperature, it was a pretty useless "blanket" in any way you'd care to describe "blanket".
That's why, plus other stuff about CO2 against its actual properties, the "computer models" were and are, and have proved to be because they have never matched even historical data let alone ever accurately predicted temperature, garbage in garbage out.
That's why "science" here has gone ape. That's why reality no longer matters in this so-called "science". That's why temperature data has to continually "cherry picked" and "adjusted" to try and make it continue to tell the "con". That's why there's been a constant refusal to supply "data" for checking to the point real scientists had to resort to the freedom of information act. That's why every "graph" produced is designed to confuse: shown the wrong way round as the Vostok, shown with so many previously faked "historical" measurements muddled in with "estimates" and proved deliberately deceit "hockey stick" and mix of "temperature bases" that show its intention is to further the deceit. That's why with its "coterie of deceivers" creating the "illusion" that this is puckha "peer reviewed" by thousands of scientists when it actually means only their small in-crowd playing the long con, which successfully excluded by bullying and ad hominem, long enough to fool most of the people some of the time to begin cashing in big time for their masters, with the "carbon credits" and "green taxes", etc., etc., etc.
It's a con built on junk claims about CO2 including misrepresentation of IR. And I'm not going into the bloody minutae of arguing those points again even though it now appears, from your comment above, that you didn't grasp anything of what I was saying since you believe I have "changed my mind"...
The only interesting thing about this for me now, and even then I don't have the time to collate it, is the history of this con. There will be history books written no doubt, about the day that science died.., the day that the religion Science created its own reality.., the day that Science went so far up its own backside it lost all credibility as rational and objective explorer of our existence, let alone for the betterment of mankind. Beginning with the nutty professor who so wanted to prove his dedication to his new love "Environmentalism" the Truth that he put his measuring stick on top of the world's largest active volcano in world's largest active hot spot with its massive supply of CO2 from which he could continue to cherry pick his figures to show the "trend" he wanted to show as he had done to establish his "base" and so on, to the growth of the "green movement fundamentalists" and their being taken over by self-interested "governments" and "big business", the unholy alliance the trinity of wankers pulling the teats ever faster to milk the cache cow for all it could give them while encouraging those it continued to squash further into slavery, by assaults on all fronts to their freedoms of life style and restricting the money they have to spend, to raise their voices in indignant support of the goodness and morality and scientific integrity of their oppressors and indigant support by ad hominens against any who would point out the shackles they were really in..
Fascinating.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
? Where have I ever denied CO2 absorbs IR?
My argument was that it was insignificant, both in terms of spectrum absorbed, a very narrow band, and in terms of length of time it was "stored"
First, CO2 absorbs IR in two relatively broad bands (about 2.5-3.0um and 4.0-4.5um) plus several narrower bands (though less strongly). CO2 strongly absorbs IR over a significant proportion of the IR spectrum. IR is absorbed by single molecules (of CO2 or other greenhouse gases). The absorbing molecule does lose that energy quite quickly - mostly through collisions with other molecules in air or by re-irradiating the energy at the same wavelength as it was absorbed. Energy lost in collisions effectively heats the air, and most of that is then re-irradiated as broad spectrumed black-body IR in all directions. Energy lost by de-excitation of the molecular vibration has a wavelength that corresponds to the strong absorption lines in CO2 (it loses the same energy as was gained) and as thus highly likely to be rapidly absorbed by another CO2 molecule. The net effect of absorption and re-irradiation (whether black-body from the bulk air mass or de-excitation of individual molecules) is to reflect some energy that would otherwise escape into space back towards the surface of the earth. The only thing that can do is result in the surface of the earth being warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases. It's a very simple mechanism, one that's been understood for a long time (at least since the work of Fourier in the 1820s).
quote:
the nutty professor who so wanted to prove his dedication to his new love "Environmentalism" the Truth that he put his measuring stick on top of the world's largest active volcano in world's largest active hot spot with its massive supply of CO2
I still don't quite understand your problem with Muana Loa. Even if the volcanoes in the vicinity do result in a locally elevated CO2 concentration* you still wouldn't see the pattern in the data observed unless the CO2 concentration in the whole atmosphere was increasing. All the volcanic activity will do is shift the starting concentration to a higher value - you'd still have an increase of approxiamtely 100ppm in the CO2 concentration over the last 50 years, just (say) 250 to 350ppm rather than 280 to 380. You still need to explain where all that extra CO2 has come from.
----------
* As I said in an earlier post, sometimes they do if the volcanoes are active (most of the time they're not producing much in the way of gas) and the wind is in the right (or, wrong) direction. But, those times are easy to spot because other volcanic gases would be present and hence can be removed from the data to prevent a bias from the volcanic nature of the area.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Bye, bye, Alan.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Myrrh, do you ever even read the well researched replies or do you just shrug and dismiss them all because you don't agree? I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I'm quite taken aback with your casual dismissal of well researched and presented posts.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bye, bye, Alan.
Myrrh
FFS Myrrh. Alan knows whereof he speaks.
You cannot beat him in this area of science: with all due respect, your education in this area just isn't good enough for you to engage Alan with any skill.
You are just making yourself look petulant and reactionary.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
Here's a site with CO2 data from all over the world:
WDCGG
Pull down the 'Parameter' menu and select 'CO2' (not 13CO2 or 14CO2), and click 'Start Search'. Pick a monitoring station, a dataset (one with monthly data), and scroll down. Graphs are the .png links on the right.
Here's a few: Finland, Japan, Argentina, Ireland, Australia.
First observation: Argentina and Australia show much less seasonal cycle than the others.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
And here's the reason (quoting wikipedia):
"The annual fluctuation in carbon dioxide is caused by seasonal variations in carbon dioxide uptake by land plants. Since many more forests are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, more carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere during Northern Hemisphere summer than Southern Hemisphere summer."
Thus the seasonal variation is also weaker in the southern hemisphere. That also tells us something about the diffusion rates of CO2 between NH and SH.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bye, bye, Alan.
Myrrh
FFS Myrrh. Alan knows whereof he speaks.
You cannot beat him in this area of science: with all due respect, your education in this area just isn't good enough for you to engage Alan with any skill.
You are just making yourself look petulant and reactionary.
What will it take for me to get through to y'all that it's there is no science in manipulated data?
You all supporting this have no way of guaranteeing your information is actual, all the temperature records have been doctored. What the hell kind of 'scientific' analysis do you think you can build on that?
Have been doctored. Think about that. They survive the longest who take themselves out of this doctoring by leeches bleeding us dry.
And wake up to what graphs and our climate history is really saying, we're coming out of our warm interglacial and going back into the ice age from which we came. That is our reality. You can carry on fiddling the figures, but your children or their children are set to freeze when our 100,000 cycle of ice age returns. Due any time soon.
We should be building greenhouses, or if you really believe CO2 drives global warming, pumping tons more of it into the atmosphere..
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What will it take for me to get through to y'all
We've been asking the reciprocal question for a long time, I'm afraid. From your POV it is probably best to treat our arguments as demonstrating some insane level of delusion and a total incapacity to appreciate your laudable efforts to put us right.
And that cuts both ways.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I wonder, Myrrh, if Agion Phos contributes to global warming ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From your POV it is probably best to treat our arguments as demonstrating some insane level of delusion and a total incapacity to appreciate your laudable efforts to put us right.
I'm thinking this might be one of the key morals of life, to be thoroughly absorbed by every human.
Today again I was reminded a bit of what we don't know and what we do know is so miniscule in comparison IMO the only decent response is open handed wonder rooted in humility (whatever that is ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ).
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Barnabas, from the very beginning of my involvement in discussions on AGW, it was obvious within a few weeks that data was being manipulated, that all was not as it seemed.
Whenever I tried to point out all the 'irregularities' I was finding I was battered by the constant propaganda that this was "Scientific Consensus" and things got so bad that anyone daring to even mention that there was a nasty smell about it all was accused of being worse than, and so on. I have taken a hell of a lot of crap, from you too. And now there so much bloody proof that this is a con I'm still getting crap from y'all.
Right from the beginning when I first came across the Vostok graph I pointed out that we were going back into our ice age, either no one here no matter how great their scientific credentials can read a graph, or you just don't want to see it. I don't know.
But that is our reality. Tony Robinson's latest offering on TV covered this too last evening. Now, I can't recall his exact description of the "regularity" of the ice age returning and covering most of Britain and Ireland, so put in monotonous as clockwork, but every 100,000 years we go back into it. And as he said, it is due, now.
So, what we really have here is no longer an excuse to harangue other people for not believing y'all's faith doctrines, by blaming them for this imaginary AGW, but a real crisis which will affect us all globally in some way or other. So how are y'all going to handle it?
This isn't coming back into the likes of the Little Ice Age, which the Hockey Schtick levelled out, but the end of our 10,000 year interglacial. It's what happens. The Northern Hemisphere freezes over.
And, the change can be dramatic as with global warming at the beginning of our interglacial, within decades, even within a decade.
It will not be possible to grow food over much of the northern hemisphere, animal and plant life does not survive under mile deep ice.
Y'all want to continue wasting your time promoting the AGW con, up to you, but anyone can pull up the Vostok graph and see for themselves. Find your own links this time..
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I wonder, Myrrh, if Agion Phos contributes to global warming ?
Sadly Martin, the biggest contributions come from the hot air generated by fundy AGW's.
How good's your flint work?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Right from the beginning when I first came across the Vostok graph I pointed out that we were going back into our ice age, either no one here no matter how great their scientific credentials can read a graph, or you just don't want to see it. I don't know.
And, right from the beginning that was known. I've said it before. I'll say it again. Climate science really started when scientists realised that the climate isn't static, This was obvious once it was realised that glaciation caused many landscape features in northern Europe. The cyclic nature of the glaciations was known before the Vostok data was collected, Vostok (and similar ice cores) simply confirmed and refined our knowledge. It was on that basis that scientists in the 1970s were saying things like "we're reaching the end of the current interglacial, and over the next centuries we'll start to observe a cooling towards another glaciation, assuming anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't counter the natural cycles". It was when scientists started to investigate whether human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 gases, and experiment with what impact that would have, that it became clear that actually our activity has been more than enough to offset the relatively small changes that drive the natural glacial-interglacial cycle of the ice age.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Surely the rate at which which changes happen is also extremely important. How long would it take, all other things being equal, for the temperature to drop 1C due to coming out of an interglacial period? A thousand years, perhaps? Yet CO2 emissions are causing the temperature to rise by this amount in a matter of decades. The latter completely masks the former and is much more urgent.
If your car is rolling at increasing speed down a hill, you don't worry about the brakes sticking a bit, you try and stop the thing crashing!
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
If your car is rolling at increasing speed down a hill, you don't worry about the brakes sticking a bit, you try and stop the thing crashing!
But if your doctor tells you that that eating saturated fats is heading you for a heart attack you might respond with "My grandma ate the same things and she lived until she was 95". Smokers have similar "ostrich" rationales.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
some apposite, well researched, and supported stuff
Myrrh, just respond to Alan, carefully, and with supporting data, for each of his points. If you do so, and the data you present is convincing, then you may find that people listen to your points.
He's shown respect to you by responding to your specific points, and you owe him likewise. That's how discussions work.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Myrrh, just respond to Alan, carefully, and with supporting data, for each of his points. If you do so, and the data you present is convincing, then you may find that people listen to your points.
He's shown respect to you by responding to your specific points, and you owe him likewise. That's how discussions work.
There is a kind of track record here, IBP. If you have the time, and haven't looked too much recently at this evidence ...
Read and weep (vol 1).
Read and weep (vol 2).
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Problem is, bashing the head off a brick wall is precisely what Myrrh thinks she is doing.
[ 10. September 2010, 11:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I tell you what Myrrh, you prove Agion Phos is a miracle and I'll become a high school physics denier.
[ 10. September 2010, 13:34: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Er, we'd have to leave the one we're in first Luigi.
Get her to prove the fraud of Agion Phos is a miracle, that's got to be a LOT easier than proving high school thermodynamics is fraudulent.
[ 12. September 2010, 12:23: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
Luigi - pull one up so we're looking at the same page.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I tell you what Myrrh, you prove Agion Phos is a miracle and I'll become a high school physics denier.
Martin, I'm not threatening you by accusing you of destroying the world because you don't believe it.
If you can't sort out categories, what makes you think you have a handle on physics?
I have given, over the course of these discussions, more than ample number of examples of the deceit perpetrated by those claiming they are "the scientific consensus", you want to keep believing that their version of physics is correct after their data has been shown to be completely made up, then you're welcome to your high school physics. It certainly doesn't fit in with anything I was taught to understand as science and scientific method.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
Luigi - pull one up so we're looking at the same page.
Myrrh
Myrrh - you implied that you have found some graphs that make it obvious how wrong all the scientists you disagree with are. I have looked and can't find one. Certainly not one that gives me the level of precision you imply. I don't want to play 'find the graph Myrrh is talking about', it could take me months.
Wouldn't it be easier if you just put your cards on the table and pointed me to the graph you are talking about?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you can't sort out categories, what makes you think you have a handle on physics?
Ah, the irony! If you can't sort out the categorical difference between the credibility of some of the arguers and the nature of the argument, what makes you think you have a handle on the argument?
That's just lawyers' talk.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
Are the references contained here relevent?
Key questions: In the 80's it was thought that we were in a period of cooling which started 6,000 years ago (i.e. in the neolithic - new stone age) and will continue for another 23,000 years. Cooling that has already been going on for the entire history of human civilisation is presumably not going to pull out any surprises in our lifetimes?
However more recent work suggests the current warm spell will last another 50,000 years.
Should we believe Imbrie over Berger, the older work over the more recent work? And if we do so, is there any reson not to accept Imbrie's timescale, indicating that cooling towards the next glacial would take place over a duration of tens of thousands of years rather than mere decades?
The list of papers citing Berger may also be of interest. Here.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There's is only one version of physics Myrrh.
It covers AGW and I don't give a monkey's hoot who lies about what, I KNOW that AGW is occurring thanks to the increase in CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa regardless of vulcanism which is CHILDISHLY simple to eliminate, as Alan did, not that dumb kid who is your 'authority'.
Just as I know that Agion Phos is a fraud. A lie.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
