Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. The problem here is "the" facts. Dyson certainly understands many facts about basic physics (and more). If a cursory glance at the models indicates that the modelers assign the status of "parameter" to values like the strength of physical (clouds) feedback or biological feedback (natural sequestration), he sensibly would not bother with "technical facts".
Click to expand...

He doesn't bother with any facts at all, obviously, since feedbacks are not parameters in the models, they emerge from the models, which model physical processes. If Dyson does claim to have even glanced at the models (which I very much doubt) he won't have said that they are. One way or another you seem to have misinterpreted (or perhaps extrapolated from) Dyson's actual words. That or you're just making stuff up (it's impossible to be absolutely sure on that. Even you may not be).
 
Halsu said:
Excellent, progress again. You're of course correct that human activity is not the only force that affects the temperature. I changed the wording accordingly.

The warming influence of human activity can indeed be obscured by many natural forces, such as variations in the solar flux, the heat circulation between the oceans and the atmosphere and so on.

- You agree that the atmosphere traps heat.
- You agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth.
- You agree that there's an energy balance that will always seek a new equilibrium, when variables change.
- You agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect.
- You agree that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming.
- You agree that human activity is the main cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
- You agree that human activity causes a global warming influence.

In fact, your comment brings us to the next baby step. We both seem to agree that both "natural" and "man made" forces affect the temperature.

Next baby step: Do you agree that the man made warming influence can be obscured by other forces, sometimes even causing the global temperature to decline temporarily?
Click to expand...

Malcolm, could you please take the time to reply to the above?
 
Acleron said:
Get a better book then. Your comments sounded straight out of a creationist misunderstanding of evolution.
Click to expand...
Hardly. It was straight out of a demonstration of evolutionary theory. Creationism predicts nothing about genetic differences between apes and humans. An all-powerful God could make insides of gorillas out of strawberry ice cream, after all. Evolutionary theory with common descent predicts that specific sequences on the ancestral ape chromosomes will occur in the same order in the descendant fused human chromosome (as they do). It also predicts an unexpressed "terminal" sequence in the middle of the fused human chromosome (which is observed).
Acleron said:
It's not our argument, it's yours. The science is well founded, the predictions are being fulfilled.
Click to expand...
Insist all you like. "The predictions are being fulfilled" by adjusted data and cherry picked data.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Hardly. It was straight out of a demonstration of evolutionary theory. Creationism predicts nothing about genetic differences between apes and humans. An all-powerful God could make insides of gorillas out of strawberry ice cream, after all. Evolutionary theory with common descent predicts that specific sequences on the ancestral ape chromosomes will occur in the same order in the descendant fused human chromosome (as they do). It also predicts an unexpressed "terminal" sequence in the middle of the fused human chromosome (which is observed).Insist all you like. "The predictions are being fulfilled" by adjusted data and cherry picked data.
Click to expand...


What an odd thing to say. It makes me wonder what it would take for you to accept anything climate scientists have to say.
 
Citations for predictions that were backed up by adjusted/herry picked data

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
"The predictions are being fulfilled" by adjusted data and cherry picked data.
Click to expand...
This assertion really needs evidence or at least a citation to where you got such a libelous claim, Malcolm Kirkpatrick.

For a start "adjusted data" sounds like someone displaying their ignorance of climate science, e.g. that it is stupid to use raw surface temperature data and that strictly speaking satellite temperature data does not exist (it is derived from radiation readings and then adjusted in various ways).

"Cherry picked data" sounds like one of the climate denier lies that is seen on the web.

P.S.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Malcolm Kirkpatrick: Species of Foraminifera could not adapt to CO2 changes that took millions of years to happen.
What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades?
Click to expand...
First asked 10 September 2012
11 days and counting!

can you understand that you need a hotter sun to warm the Earth?
18th September 2012
The Sun has been measured to slightly decline in TSI over the last 32 years, thus it is not the cause of the warming over those years. It is not even a dominate contributor to the warming over the last 100 years.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
This assertion really needs evidence or at least a citation to where you got such a libelous claim, Malcolm Kirkpatrick.
Click to expand...

[If by citation you meant an official summons]

Oh! But their evidence is they'll repeat it as many times as you ask them, didn't you know?
-He is a criminal!
-How do you know?
-Haven't you hear me? He is a criminal!
-Yeah, I heard you, but what evidence you have?
-For God's sake! He IS a criminal!!!
-But insisting in it doesn't make it true
-Has he brainwashed you? He is a c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l, CRIMINAL!!! It's self-evident in his own actions!
-I don't see that. Do you have something else on him?
-Stop defending him. I'm starting to suspect what your motivation is!
​
It's like graffiti but using qwerty flavoured keyboard syrup instead of paint. They can paint any fantastic world in top of what they dislike to see and call themselves artists. How did you dare to scratch their botches with your putty knife!? What right did you have by being the wall's owner? Besides, it is like a modern philosopher, Homer something, said "Life is senseless until you start hating Flanders" or something like that.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Hardly. It was straight out of a demonstration of evolutionary theory. Creationism predicts nothing about genetic differences between apes and humans. An all-powerful God could make insides of gorillas out of strawberry ice cream, after all. Evolutionary theory with common descent predicts that specific sequences on the ancestral ape chromosomes will occur in the same order in the descendant fused human chromosome (as they do). It also predicts an unexpressed "terminal" sequence in the middle of the fused human chromosome (which is observed).
Click to expand...

You have a book approved for teaching evolution that claims that there are unpaired chromosomes after the mating of a fusion event and a normal?
What is it, title and publisher please.

Insist all you like. "The predictions are being fulfilled" by adjusted data and cherry picked data.
Click to expand...

Have you any evidence for these slanderous claims?

Perhaps you are claiming that the satellite photographs and the direct observations of the arctic ice and the catastrophic summer reduction are 'adjusted'?

Or perhaps you are claiming that the arctic ice drop was only from this ice cap and somebody left out all the others?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
...

by adjusted data and cherry picked data.
Click to expand...

Malcolm, you really don't know what you are talking about here.

I have offered to tutor you, so you can really learn this material, so if you ever want to, I will set up a course of things for you to read and will answer questions about the material for you.

But, instrument calibration is not cheating, and selection of data from reliable sources is not cherry picking.

All instruments differ. All mensuration regimes differ. And you cannot make sense of any of them taken as a group unless you can mutually calibrate the data sets.

I really do believe you can learn this.
 
More denialist food

I continue my chase of denialist web sites and blogs outside the anglo-saxon-sphere, which is a difficult job because there aren't many.

Here is a piece of up to date negationism from a Spanish blog:

picture.php


which is the kind of material I used with my students to strengthen their criticism. This is the new trend in negationism: ice is good, only a little change in distributions. The coarse manipulation made in images like this one should be somewhat analysed in High School.

The same page in the blog links to some document in nsidc. The innumerate basis of negationism is always there, as the blog's author seem to have overlooked an opportunity to criticize "how science is made". Look at this snapshot searching for mistakes (two different kind of mistakes in a total of 8 occasions)

picture.php


Government agencies must be more careful about what they publish.
 
Krikkiter said:
What an odd thing to say. It makes me wonder what it would take for you to accept anything climate scientists have to say.
Click to expand...
Read McIntyre's site. Lately he's spent time on a rebuttal of the silly Lewandowsky survey, which is taking a howitzer to a mosquito. His larger issue is with protocols of data selection and analysis. He argues that it's improper to hunt for results in limited data sets without specifying in advance what limits determined the data set, since every possible shape inhabits a sufficiently large data set (go back to the sculptor who chips away everything that doesn't look like a horse, or whatever). Select the points you want from this space:...
___________________________________________________________



___________________________________________________________
.and you can produce any shape you desire. Hockey stick, saw-tooth, exponential, whatever.

This was the issue with McIntyre's pursuit of the Yamal dendrochronologies. There were more sample sites available than Mann, et. al. used. They resisted McIntyre's efforts to get the raw data. The expanded data set (all available chronologies in the region) did not produce the signal that Mann. et. al. found.

Also, arguments wihout ad hominem suggest confidence.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
Here is a piece of up to date negationism from a Spanish blog:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=907&pictureid=6637[/qimg]

The coarse manipulation made in images like this one should be somewhat analysed in High School.
Click to expand...

What does any of that mean? Is the information in the image not correct? It has been altered somehow?

aleCcowaN said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=907&pictureid=6638[/qimg]

Government agencies must be more careful about what they publish.
Click to expand...

Again, what does that even mean? Are you saying that information not right? It was altered? The Government published bad data? What? It makes no sense.
 
r-j said:
What does any of that mean? Is the information in the image not correct? It has been altered somehow?
Click to expand...

Prima facie I found no reason to suspect the information is incorrect. The issue is how the information is showed to force twisted conclusions. I'm sure you can find out why.

r-j said:
Again, what does that even mean? Are you saying that information not right? It was altered? The Government published bad data? What? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

You'll have to read the text in the image and draw conclusions by yourself.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Read McIntyre's site. Lately he's spent time on a rebuttal of the silly Lewandowsky survey, which is taking a howitzer to a mosquito. His larger issue is with protocols of data selection and analysis. He argues that it's improper to hunt for results in limited data sets without specifying in advance what limits determined the data set, since every possible shape inhabits a sufficiently large data set (go back to the sculptor who chips away everything that doesn't look like a horse, or whatever). Select the points you want from this space:...
___________________________________________________________



___________________________________________________________
.and you can produce any shape you desire. Hockey stick, saw-tooth, exponential, whatever.

This was the issue with McIntyre's pursuit of the Yamal dendrochronologies. There were more sample sites available than Mann, et. al. used. They resisted McIntyre's efforts to get the raw data. The expanded data set (all available chronologies in the region) did not produce the signal that Mann. et. al. found.

Also, arguments wihout ad hominem suggest confidence.
Click to expand...

You really have to think that research scientists are unaware of the pitfalls. Plus you have to think that research scientists as fraudulent.

However, you are wrong. All research scientists of any experience are either told, or they quickly find out for themselves the dangers of 'playing with the data' as McIntyre does.

You have mistakenly cited Dyson as an authority for your position so let us take an example from his speciality, particle physics. At CERN they generate multiple magnitudes more data per day than have ever been collected by climate scientists. They apply models to their data to look for anomalies. Is it sounding familiar? If not it should. They know all about the dangers of exhausting the parameter space.

The dangers of models are well known, they occur in physics, in environmental biology, in evolutionary biology, they even occur in chemistry when it strays into biology and also in climate science. In short, everyone knows the pitfalls.

McIntyre would have you believe he is the only person in the world who has spotted this danger and you have fallen for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom