How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Diamond]

Capeldodger said-
In the meantime, of course, you have your people scope out the reality and position yourself accordingly. It's not (as Lucifage Rocifale assumes) a conspiracy, it's individuals acting in their own best interests as they see them. The same kind of individuals will see their own best interests in pretty much the same way. There's no co-ordination, and no need for it. The Bush Minor Administration is an emergent phaenomenon, not a crafted one.

You forgot the end note, the plug for the summer-sea-ice-a-thon.

Bit of bummer on that score, as it turns out that the Arctic ocean has a massive volcanic ridge running underneath it which has been erupting in the past few years.

But will AUP or CD ever address it? Nope. Trust the experts. Or at least the experts I agree with.

There are of course experts who think that the Earth is flat. Or that the Mann Hockey Stick isn't a worthless piece of trash.

What about the Antarctic?

Oh crap, its a million square kilometers above the long term average.

That's the problem with dogmatic positions like AGW, they're highly resistant to any facts.

 

[Diamond]

Oxymoron .
I just made a post on the Polar Bear thread touching on history (as a discipline). History is actually my main interest, and it gets just the same sort of treatment from ideologues (left and right) as science does. It has to be battered into the shape they need, to fit the boxes they live in. If the evidence says different, the evidence must be rigged, or it's irrelevant because of this other thing over here, the tropical tropo-whatsit thingy, what about that, eh? And where's the Soviet Union now? Ergo ... some crap or other.

Its a shame you don't learn anything from history.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes" (Mark Twain). That can't be quoted too often. (Mark Twain is my hero .) That's why I'm quite confident that no effective global action will be taken on AGW. For the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, 2009, see the Congress of Vienna, 2015 (the Congress to End All European Wars). As AGW bites there will be local, national, and regional responses, in that order.

And from history we learn that Apocalyptic views that "if things carry on the way they are" then its "the End of the World as we know it" and "politicians and leaders will never comprehend the terrible trouble we're in until its too late", have been both stymying innovation, retarding progress and boring the pants off the rest of us from time immemorial.

And "its always different this time"

Another thing that the likes of mhaze don't twig is that the impact will be fractal. Some continents will be hit harder than others, within each continent some countries will be hit harder, ultimately down to each society, and even within each social class. The folk with a dozen homes across four continents will fare much better than most, but even some of them will get screwed. Check out what happened to the Romanovs. Were I an Al Saud I would take serious note . "Don't go down to the cellar ..."

Reaching for mathematical concepts that you don't understand in order to try to bamboozle your opponent is yet another boring fashion. It's probably related to the underlying quantum reality.

mhaze and his ilk will not fare well but will probably go down blaming it all on Hansen, as their free-market heroes jet off to their high-ground gated communities. Remember how Bush Minor could feel the pain of Katrina because a friend of his lost one of his homes?

I blame the scapegoats. If its worked for thousands of years then why stop now?

Tobacco and health : where's the downside if you're selling it, not smoking it? Peak Oil : where's the downside if you're selling it, not buying it? AGW : where's the downside when you live in a controlled environment anyway? Have your people deny it; they know how to work dupes, such as mhaze and Steve McIntyre. It doesn't even cost much to set them off like Duracell bunnies.

All of this from a man who claimed that the way to stop volcanoes erupting was to pour a lot of water down them.

Ignorance is a nice soft warm fuizzy blanket that keeps out the nasty reality doesn't it?

In the meantime, of course, you have your people scope out the reality and position yourself accordingly. It's not (as Lucifage Rocifale assumes) a conspiracy, it's individuals acting in their own best interests as they see them. The same kind of individuals will see their own best interests in pretty much the same way. There's no co-ordination, and no need for it. The Bush Minor Administration is an emergent phaenomenon, not a crafted one.

Yes, but incomprehension on message boards isn't something for Christmas - with careful nurturing it can last years.

Here's how to do it:

Login: Capeldodger
Password: ********

Eject brain. Move keyboard.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Fortunately, they have provided quotes from Wunsch himself, and references, so you don't have to rely on Wikipedia at all.

I checked the quotes. None of them confirmed either of the statements that Capeldodger made; explicitly, that self-similar systems should exhibit the same variation at all scales (false, by definition), and that the behaviour of temperature during the current ice age cannot be explained by a stochastic model (false, by analysis of data). I don't know what Carl's opinion on these topics might be, your quotes don't help, although on the latter, it seems likely he still holds the view presented in the paper he wrote, which clearly contradicts Capeldodger's position from the data and analysis (as distinct from opinion).

So your piece falls into the category of "epic fail" at addressing the topics actually being discussed. As mhaze notes, well done on a successful misdirection though; Capeldodger has managed to continue on this thread completely ignoring the mistakes he made earlier. (Nothing wrong with making mistakes though; that's how we learn. Clinging to notions after having those mistakes pointed out to you isn't a good sign, though).

Furthermore, your link remains opinion, not science. Science requires data, analysis, evidence. Your link doesn't show or provide this (unlike my link, which does) What your link does show is the interpretation of one person's opinion by a group of other people. This has nothing to do with science, data or analysis, but about opinion and belief. You then later say:

Another person comparing the scientific method to religion.

Oh, the irony. It burns, it burns.

 

[a_unique_person]

Really? You should know of the two recent studies of paleoclimate that shows that carbon dioxide has been mich higher than the present for at least 300 millions and possible more than 500 million years.

There is nothing new about the climate and nothing new about climate change. Especially there is nothing new about the current levels of carbon dioxide.

But since you haven't shown any connection between your beliefs and any facts its kind of irrelevant isn't it?

It's also been much hotter before. That's the problem, change. Life adapts to it's conditions, change those conditions, and life has to change. Make that change too quick, and mass extinctions result.

 

[a_unique_person]

I checked the quotes. None of them confirmed either of the statements that Capeldodger made; explicitly, that self-similar systems should exhibit the same variation at all scales (false, by definition), and that the behaviour of temperature during the current ice age cannot be explained by a stochastic model (false, by analysis of data). I don't know what Carl's opinion on these topics might be, your quotes don't help, although on the latter, it seems likely he still holds the view presented in the paper he wrote, which clearly contradicts Capeldodger's position from the data and analysis (as distinct from opinion).

You are relying on Wunsch as an authority, as an authority he states quite clearly, AGW is real and is a problem.

Oh, the irony. It burns, it burns.

I am know my limits, and when to rely on a legitimate source of authority, such as science.

 

[Megalodon]

I checked the quotes. None of them confirmed either of the statements that Capeldodger made; explicitly, that self-similar systems should exhibit the same variation at all scales (false, by definition),

No, you are wrong. By definition, a self-similar system is one that shows approximately the same variation at any scale. See fractals.

 

[a_unique_person]

Bit of bummer on that score, as it turns out that the Arctic ocean has a massive volcanic ridge running underneath it which has been erupting in the past few years.

But will AUP or CD ever address it? Nope. Trust the experts. Or at least the experts I agree with.

There are of course experts who think that the Earth is flat. Or that the Mann Hockey Stick isn't a worthless piece of trash.

What about the Antarctic?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22ANTARCTIC.jpg

Oh crap, its a million square kilometers above the long term average.

That's the problem with dogmatic positions like AGW, they're highly resistant to any facts.

Like I said, just like creationism. "Well how do you explain this then?"

The antarctic is not the arctic, for a start, it's local climate is very different to that of the the arctic. It's a landmass, but it's surrounded by ocean, and other factors such as ozone and a "polar vortex". Studies of the mass of ice indicate counter intuitive results comapared to just using area.

 

[CoolSceptic]

You are relying on Wunsch as an authority

No, I'm not. I'm relying on DATA and ANALYSIS that happen to be provided by Wunsch. Important difference that most AGWers don't seem to understand.

The data and analysis are open to question - because the logical chain of thought from assumptions, through data gathering, through statistical analysis, are there for all to see and check. This is not the case when you just rely on someone's opinion.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, I'm not. I'm relying on DATA and ANALYSIS that happen to be provided by Wunsch. Important difference that most AGWers don't seem to understand.

The data and analysis are open to question - because the logical chain of thought from assumptions, through data gathering, through statistical analysis, are there for all to see and check. This is not the case when you just rely on someone's opinion.

Maybe you should go out and read the data and analysis he uses to come to his other opinions on climate change. While you are at it, you could read this. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html A book on the science of climate change, it's free, by one of the leading researchers.

 

[CoolSceptic]

No, you are wrong. By definition, a self-similar system is one that shows approximately the same variation at any scale. See fractals.

Oh FFS read the thread.

In a self-similar system, the two axes scale together at some fixed rate. This does not mean the amplitudes are the same at all scales, but that they vary consistently. Capeldodger argued it was a necessary condition of self-similarity that one axis would be fixed as the other scaled, i.e. that you would see the same amplitude of variation day-to-day as you would millenium-to-millenium. This is fundamentally wrong.

One classic example is the coastline, where the "crinkliness" of the line is consistent at all scales - a form of self-similarity. If we consider moving along a coastline, and project a local tangent from a point of that coastline, and then measure the deviation from the local tangent. The important issue is the scale at which we estimate the tangent (i.e. the local smoothing) and the scale of the deviation. If we measure the tangent at the millimetre scale (using mm scale smoothing), and measure the deviation from the tangent 10 millimetres away from the original measurement point, we'll get an estimate of the deviation - perhaps a couple of millimetres. If we then take the tangent at the kilometre scale (using kilometre scale smoothing), and then measure the deviation over 10 km, we will not get something of the same amplitude - we might get a 2 km deviation, much larger. But the scaling behaviour is consistent - not the exact same amplitude or variation, but a consistent scaling response.

So a self-similar system shows the same scaling behaviour, not the same amplitude. In a self-similar system, we see larger magnitude swings over a period of 100 millenia than we do over (say) 100 days, exactly as expected.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Maybe you should go out and read the data and analysis he uses to come to his other opinions on climate change.

You still don't get it, do you? Unless an opinion is backed up by references, it might not be based on data and analysis at all. It might be based on gut feel. That's why I don't care much for opinions, unless they're backed up by numbers. I don't see any references or numbers in that wiki article.

While you are at it, you could read this. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html A book on the science of climate change, it's free, by one of the leading researchers.

I've read a lot of books on climate change, but sure, I'll put this one on the list to read as it's free. I look forward to their extensive chapter on the hydrological cycle and power-law scaling in natural phenomena.

 

[varwoche]

There are of course experts who think that the Earth is flat.

I hear ya -- nuts abound! There are even people who think that AGW is a communist conspiracy!

 

[Megalodon]

Oh FFS read the thread.

I did. You're wrong....

In a self-similar system, the two axes scale together at some fixed rate. This does not mean the amplitudes are the same at all scales, but that they vary consistently. Capeldodger argued it was a necessary condition of self-similarity that one axis would be fixed as the other scaled, i.e. that you would see the same amplitude of variation day-to-day as you would millenium-to-millenium. This is fundamentally wrong.

It would be wrong if it would be what he said... It wasn't. Actually, It's so mind-bogglingly stupid that you could feed a herd with all that straw.

One classic example is the coastline...

Why are you explaining this when it's obvious that I know it?

So a self-similar system shows the same scaling behaviour, not the same amplitude. In a self-similar system, we see larger magnitude swings over a period of 100 millenia than we do over (say) 100 days, exactly as expected.

Holly strawman, Batman. Now provide a quote that shows someone saying the contrary, ok?

I can provide a quote that shows that you either didn't know what self-similarity entails, or have a huge problem with explaining yourself:

I checked the quotes. None of them confirmed either of the statements that Capeldodger made; explicitly, that self-similar systems should exhibit the same variation at all scales (false, by definition),

By definition, you are wrong.

 

[Megalodon]

I hear ya -- nuts abound! There are even people who think that AGW is a communist conspiracy!

Those were the days... Nutters making outlandish claims, supporting them with crap and keeping the discussion for long enough to present the same claims all over again...

Unfortunately, things haven't changed a jot...

 

[mhaze]

i've Read A Lot Of Books On Climate Change, But Sure, I'll Put This One On The List To Read As It's Free. I Look Forward To Their Extensive Chapter On The Hydrological Cycle And Power-law Scaling In Natural Phenomena.

Capitalizing Each Word Does Make the Point.

Bwhahahaha!!!

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh FFS read the thread.

In a self-similar system, the two axes scale together at some fixed rate. This does not mean the amplitudes are the same at all scales, but that they vary consistently. Capeldodger argued it was a necessary condition of self-similarity that one axis would be fixed as the other scaled, i.e. that you would see the same amplitude of variation day-to-day as you would millenium-to-millenium. This is fundamentally wrong.

And I didn't say it. What I said was that the shape of the graph remains the same at any scale, in a self-similar system. This is clearly not the case for the hydrological cycle (which includes ice).

Another feature is that any part of the system looks like any other part, which again is not the case. A millennium during a glaciation looks different from a millenium during an inter-glacial, and both look different from a millennium during a transition. Even the transitions to an inter-glacial and from an inter-glacial look very different - the former is rapid and pretty wild, the latter is gradual and reserved. That's because it's easier for the system to lose ice suddenly than to accumulate it suddenly.​

Your "stochastic" model does not sit well with the observed regularity of ice-ages. You've previously claimed that these can't be explained by Milankovich cycles and feedback models without them becoming wildly erratic, but that is simply not so. The feedbacks involved - albedo and greenhouse gases - are physically limited. You can't go less than no ice-cover, and there's only so much CO2 in the system, so the models cannot run out of control.​

The albedo feedback in itself is not sufficient, although it was a fine insight. Add in the CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere (and the water-vapour feedback in the atmosphere) and Milankovich is justified. So much for ice-ages - the major field of climate science until very recently​

What's new on the short time-scale is that lots of new CO2 is being stuffed into the system. (By "short" I mean at least this ice-epoch, four million years or so.) Far from there being an exchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere there's a continuing injection of CO2 into both. A whole new situation, and statistical comparisons with other situations ain't worth squat.​

Working out the ice-ages was a triumph in itself, but the possible implications for this new situation weren't missed. Arrhenius had mused that AGW was plausible centuries down the line (that was before the automobile age), Angstrom's lab had pissed on that bonfire in the 20's, their mistake was discovered in the 40's, and the ice-age problem was solved. Which did bring Arrhenius's thought back into focus - what would be the impact of a substantial artificial introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere?​

What started as a niggling question fifty years ago has turned into a reality. Try as you might to believe that this is all normal.​

 

[CapelDodger]

I hear ya -- nuts abound! There are even people who think that AGW is a communist conspiracy!

Diamond's already taking refuge in the Antarctic, and it's not even full Arctic summer yet. Maginot Line Syndrome .

It's about twenty years since the Montreal Protocol, so its impact on the Antarctic is likely to kick in soon. That's one very short-term refuge, along the lines of "run for the hills".

 

[CapelDodger]

Those were the days... Nutters making outlandish claims, supporting them with crap and keeping the discussion for long enough to present the same claims all over again...

Unfortunately, things haven't changed a jot...

It was ever thus. The advent of printing only changed speed and scale; the same applies to the internet. It doesn't of itself make people more rational or discerning. We're still waiting on a solution to that problem.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, you are wrong. By definition, a self-similar system is one that shows approximately the same variation at any scale. See fractals.

Been there, done that, long ago, and that's the way I see it. I've pretty much grown up alongside chaos and fractals, and it's great stuff. Mentally invigorating.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe you should go out and read the data and analysis he uses to come to his other opinions on climate change. While you are at it, you could read this. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html A book on the science of climate change, it's free, by one of the leading researchers.

It could be all of that and still not "statistically significant" in CoolSpeak.