Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1861  
Old 02.06.2015, 22:48
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 875
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 352 Times in 230 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And BeastOfBodmin posts a "rebuttal" accusing the article's author of "cherry picking" because his topic was polar ice — not (the apparently requisite) "global ice" (talk about trying to hijack a discussion!). Hint: It's not "cherry-picking" to focus on "polar ice" when "polar ice" happens to be your subject!!
Let's not forget "rebuttal" is your term.

Were you aware of it before you made your post? If so, why did you omit it?

I try to look at both sides. You're already 100% convinced, right? So no need for you to waste your time doing that?
Reply With Quote
  #1862  
Old 02.06.2015, 22:52
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 875
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 352 Times in 230 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Would be interesting to see the result using a binomial filter instead of a lineal regression; I suspect in recent years it would be turning upwards
It would be interesting to me to hear from statisticians on the significance of different analyses.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank BeastOfBodmin for this useful post:
  #1863  
Old 03.06.2015, 18:42
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 8,929
Groaned at 466 Times in 349 Posts
Thanked 11,858 Times in 6,168 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
And BeastOfBodmin posts a "rebuttal" accusing the article's author of "cherry picking" because his topic was polar ice — not (the apparently requisite) "global ice" (talk about trying to hijack a discussion!). Hint: It's not "cherry-picking" to focus on "polar ice" when "polar ice" happens to be your subject!!
Focusing on sea ice about would keep an honest author him from making predictions on the global climate.

Instead the article generalizes sea ice to polar ice, then generalizes that to the global climate. Cherrypicking is a very benign term.

The effect of that generalization is reflected very well in your post, you don't mention "sea" even once.
Reply With Quote
  #1864  
Old 03.06.2015, 19:30
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Would be interesting to see the result using a binomial filter instead of a lineal regression; I suspect in recent years it would be turning upwards
Quote:
View Post
It would be interesting to me to hear from statisticians on the significance of different analyses.
I agree about hearing from statisticians.

My point about the lineal regression is that if the sea ice was increasing in recent years (looks like it from the graph) then because the data is from over 40 years it will take many years before the line changes direction (due to recent changes) whereas a non-straight line analysis will show any recent trend changes in a more sensitive way?
Reply With Quote
  #1865  
Old 05.06.2015, 07:22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

There is no global warming hiatus - Science magazine

Quote:
Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
Reply With Quote
  #1866  
Old 05.06.2015, 08:59
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

LOL, I quote "When better corrections for various sources of bias are applied to the data...."

So long as you keep adjusting the source data then you can achieve any result.

So the explanation is that the numbers we all used for this century are wrong? So how much confidence should we show in the new numbers?

In the summary they write " Atmospheric temperature data collected over the past few decades suggested that global warming had slowed down beginning around 1998."

Of course this article is all based on data from surface based stations but does not explain why the satellite measurements of temperature show a different story, of course, it maybe that the satellite temperatures need more adjustments. .

Finally they write "including a record-warm 2014" which is not correct, only two of the many different Government organisations publishing global temperatures claimed this and even they admitted
Quote "The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average. Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest."

Last edited by marton; 05.06.2015 at 09:42.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1867  
Old 05.06.2015, 13:07
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
LOL, I quote "When better corrections for various sources of bias are applied to the data...."

So long as you keep adjusting the source data then you can achieve any result.

So the explanation is that the numbers we all used for this century are wrong? So how much confidence should we show in the new numbers?

In the summary they write " Atmospheric temperature data collected over the past few decades suggested that global warming had slowed down beginning around 1998."

Of course this article is all based on data from surface based stations but does not explain why the satellite measurements of temperature show a different story, of course, it maybe that the satellite temperatures need more adjustments. .

Finally they write "including a record-warm 2014" which is not correct, only two of the many different Government organisations publishing global temperatures claimed this and even they admitted
Quote "The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average. Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest."
An analysis of the Science article is here.

The biggest change is here;
Science article takes the buoy data and adds 0.12 oC to each observation.
They computed that number by looking at places where both buoy data and ship data were collected in the same places, and they found the ship data on average was warmer by 0.12 oC. So they added that to the buoy data. This is similar to the amount estimate found by another teams, though the bias is usually attributed to ships rather than buoys.
You could also decrease the ship data by 0.12 oC I suppose instead of increasing the buoy data?
Reply With Quote
  #1868  
Old 05.06.2015, 13:51
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

So if this article is correct then all those peer reviewed papers explaining the global warming hiatus was caused by the oceans absorbing more heat were absolute rubbish because there was no hiatus; so how do you feel about peer reviewed articles now?
Reply With Quote
  #1869  
Old 05.06.2015, 15:47
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So if this article is correct then all those peer reviewed papers explaining the global warming hiatus was caused by the oceans absorbing more heat were absolute rubbish because there was no hiatus; so how do you feel about peer reviewed articles now?
The findings in this Science article will be scrutinized, other scientists will try to duplicate the results, or disprove them. The result may hold up and grow in confidence, or become less likely. All these other articles will be peer reviewed as well. Currently no hiatus in warming is a theory in one paper. Over time, if corroborating evidence is found by other groups, it will become accepted scientific consensus, or be rejected by consensus.

Dont confuse the system with the results it produces, if you like/dislike one particular outcome.

If further peer review shows that there is / is no hiatus, the vast majority of scientists will have the integrity to accept the result. On threads such as these around the internet, it will just become another slanging match, with accusations of conspiracy, and pretend cleverness by people who don't have the desire / capability to understand the scientific process or to judge evidence scientifically.

If this theory of no hiatus holds up, then it will be a of course a conspiracy among scientists to massage data, etc etc.
If this theory is rejected after further study, it will be used to try and discredit future studies, as an example of scientists being alarmist all the time.

Meanwhile peer review is doing quite ok. Within scientific circles there are competing models of peer review each with its posited merits and demerits. So peer review is itself under peer review all the time.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Kosti for this useful post:
  #1870  
Old 05.06.2015, 18:41
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
The findings in this Science article will be scrutinized, other scientists will try to duplicate the results, or disprove them. The result may hold up and grow in confidence, or become less likely. All these other articles will be peer reviewed as well. Currently no hiatus in warming is a theory in one paper. Over time, if corroborating evidence is found by other groups, it will become accepted scientific consensus, or be rejected by consensus.

Dont confuse the system with the results it produces, if you like/dislike one particular outcome.

If further peer review shows that there is / is no hiatus, the vast majority of scientists will have the integrity to accept the result. On threads such as these around the internet, it will just become another slanging match, with accusations of conspiracy, and pretend cleverness by people who don't have the desire / capability to understand the scientific process or to judge evidence scientifically.

If this theory of no hiatus holds up, then it will be a of course a conspiracy among scientists to massage data, etc etc.
If this theory is rejected after further study, it will be used to try and discredit future studies, as an example of scientists being alarmist all the time.

Meanwhile peer review is doing quite ok. Within scientific circles there are competing models of peer review each with its posited merits and demerits. So peer review is itself under peer review all the time.
Thanks.

Science is all about, scrutiny, proof, fit of theories to the real world, revised theories, new theories. Look at all the theories over time about the structure of an atom and still not 100%.

The problem with Global warming is it has turned into a religion where people who cast doubts are called deniers and peer reviews are the holy book.

In this case many teams have looked at the relationship between ship sourced data and from buoys.
Who knows, this new view may well be correct. The basic issue is the parameters of the data from buoys is well defined whereas little is known about the individual characteristics of the data from ships. I mean was the water in a bucket or collected from the engine intakes; from what depth was it collected, how accurate was the measuring instrument used, if it was in a bucket then how long before the temp was measured, what were the margins of error &&&.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1871  
Old 18.06.2015, 19:26
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I agree about hearing from statisticians.

My point about the lineal regression is that if the sea ice was increasing in recent years (looks like it from the graph) then because the data is from over 40 years it will take many years before the line changes direction (due to recent changes) whereas a non-straight line analysis will show any recent trend changes in a more sensitive way?
I'm not a statistician, but ... I know that there is are a lot of reliable methods that test whether a 'broken stick" model is a "better fit" than a single straight line. Of course, a broken stick model is always going to be a better fit, because it has more parameters, so the subtle question is whether the improved fit justifies using the extra parameters. In difficult cases, you just have to try several credible tests, lay out the evidence and make the call. Show me the data and I might give it a shot, just for fun .
__________________
Whatever works
Reply With Quote
  #1872  
Old 18.06.2015, 21:21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It would be interesting to me to hear from statisticians on the significance of different analyses.
Without access to the whole underlying data set it wouldn't be possible to give any judgement based on the figures used for those graphs.
Reply With Quote
  #1873  
Old 11.07.2015, 16:31
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Just for amusement Solar scientists at the University of Northumbria are forecasting a min-ice age in 15 years due to cyclic changes creating a ‘Maunder minimum'".
Link here

At least we won't have to wait long to see if they are correct!
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1874  
Old 11.07.2015, 18:38
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
The findings in this Science article will be scrutinized, other scientists will try to duplicate the results, or disprove them. The result may hold up and grow in confidence, or become less likely. All these other articles will be peer reviewed as well. Currently no hiatus in warming is a theory in one paper. Over time, if corroborating evidence is found by other groups, it will become accepted scientific consensus, or be rejected by consensus.

Dont confuse the system with the results it produces, if you like/dislike one particular outcome.

If further peer review shows that there is / is no hiatus, the vast majority of scientists will have the integrity to accept the result. On threads such as these around the internet, it will just become another slanging match, with accusations of conspiracy, and pretend cleverness by people who don't have the desire / capability to understand the scientific process or to judge evidence scientifically.

If this theory of no hiatus holds up, then it will be a of course a conspiracy among scientists to massage data, etc etc.
If this theory is rejected after further study, it will be used to try and discredit future studies, as an example of scientists being alarmist all the time.

Meanwhile peer review is doing quite ok. Within scientific circles there are competing models of peer review each with its posited merits and demerits. So peer review is itself under peer review all the time.
About "Don't confuse the system with the results it produces, if you like/dislike one particular outcome."

It is not a question of like or dislike; I just believe a lot of people quote "peer review" like it is some sort of iron clad guarantee.
In reality, there are new ideas, new experiments, new theories and then things change.
In this case there are studies that produced conflicting results and all these studies were peer reviewed.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with the peer review process but it is a useful reminder that it is no kind of Holy Grail, it is like any other kind of review.
The reviewers do their best within the current framework of knowledge and the limitations of the provided experimental results to verify what was offered.
Reply With Quote
  #1875  
Old 03.08.2015, 20:40
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I don't understand - why would a discussion that about a topic that is probably being talked about all over the UK at least make you want to 'flame' as you put it?
Because all of the UK is not talking about the IR spectrum of organic matter and water is not organic matter. You have little idea what you are talking about and it is difficult to give respones to folk like you without getting irritated.

PS I have thesis in physical chemistry and I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. So I did not need to "hear things at a coffee table".
Reply With Quote
  #1876  
Old 01.09.2015, 17:41
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

You cannot rely on anything these days

Record low winds earlier this year in key US wind states have raised concerns about the effects of climate change on existing and future global wind powered developments.
The issue has been pushed up the news agenda because of the slowest wind speeds recorded in 47 years in California and Texas in the first quarter of 2015, according to Finnish weather monitoring firm Vaisala.

Always had reservations about wind energy; like nuclear energy it is hard to prove that the cost estimates for dismantling the systems on their retirement are based in reality.

The realistic solutions for alternative energy sources are either solar systems with greatly improved efficiency combined with new and cheap electrical storage or nuclear fusion. How long into the future we will have to wait is anybody's guess.

Currently you need around 40 sqm of solar panels to provide a typical families daily electrical requirement ( assuming there is some efficient means to store power for overnight). If you look at a typical Swiss apartment block then it is clear there is not enough South facing roof to provide for all the apartments, hence the need for efficiency improvements.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1877  
Old 19.09.2015, 19:23
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Here's an interesting article on how Exxon (of all people!) did groundbreaking research on climate change in the 70's and 80's, concluding that global warming, due to CO2 was a grave danger.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15...global-warming

Then after the oil price fell, they hacked off a large amount of research, including this part and started sponsoring any organisation that espoused climate change denial. The scientists who did the excellent original work have not changed their minds. They've just been shut down/shut up.

For a fuller account of this second stage, see the brilliant book "Merchants of doubt".
__________________
Whatever works
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank FrankZappa for this useful post:
  #1878  
Old 19.09.2015, 20:06
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

A handful of scientists are asking Obama to prosecute AGW deniers;
http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

I thought science was suppose to be rebutted with science, instead of use of force.

If they can apply the same such law to those who fabricate and manipulate data to support AGW claims, maybe?
Reply With Quote
  #1879  
Old 19.09.2015, 20:12
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 8,283
Groaned at 294 Times in 223 Posts
Thanked 18,967 Times in 6,612 Posts
k_and_e has a reputation beyond reputek_and_e has a reputation beyond reputek_and_e has a reputation beyond reputek_and_e has a reputation beyond reputek_and_e has a reputation beyond reputek_and_e has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
A handful of scientists are asking Obama to prosecute AGW deniers;
http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

I thought science was suppose to be rebutted with science, instead of use of force.

If they can apply the same such law to those who fabricate and manipulate data to support AGW claims, maybe?
Why didn't they do that for creationism?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank k_and_e for this useful post:
  #1880  
Old 19.09.2015, 20:34
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Why didn't they do that for creationism?
Because no-one thinks that a few folk denying evolution happens will damage the planet. Pretty obvious, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0