• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Global Warming: A debate that I will win.

praktik

TRIBE Member
haha!

was just thinking when I saw a post here that we;d see someone pulling a Michelle Malkin and claiming "the final nail in the coffin for AGW alarmists" happened - about 10 years ago in an internal email apparently..;)

the logic of that claim is pretty much insane.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail

Real Climate: The CRU Hack

RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context

this one is particularly hilarious:

Carbon Fixated Blog Archive Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’

"If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.


When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."​
 
Last edited:

basilisk

TRIBE Member
Honestly a lot of the climate science blogs have produced weak responses to this incident. Best thing I've seen so far is the official CRU response:
Climatic Research Unit update - November 24, 3.30pm - University of East Anglia (UEA)

So much for "Mike's Nature trick"!

The problem with this incident is that the general public still don't have a fucken clue about the basics of climate science and how it is done. As a result, this looks way worse than it probably is. (I readily admit I need to spend more time investigating this to say for sure!)
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

wakipaki

TRIBE Member
Found an interesting article published in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics (June 2006) on the measurement of global temperature. I copied and pasted the conclusion if you want to skip over all of the fancy-ass science stuff.

Does a Global Temperature Exist?

Conclusion

There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state
governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting
statistics for physics.

Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms
of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning.
Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other
extensive thermodynamic properties.

Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which
would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics
because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some
free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations
yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted.
Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select among them.

The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called
global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of
the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions
and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures
will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human
experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement
of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible.

It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some
special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dynamical
equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
encountered.
this is an extremely interesting paper, thanks for the heads up, i've forwarded to a PHD in mathematics for his thoughts (lol i know we've already been over that a PHD means nothing, but still ....)
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
this is an extremely interesting paper, thanks for the heads up, i've forwarded to a PHD in mathematics for his thoughts (lol i know we've already been over that a PHD means nothing, but still ....)
This isn't really a math thing, although a math PhD might help. Thermo is physics and engineering for the most part. Some chem people also have fingers in the underlying climate theory.

Have yet to read this but looking at it from a thermo perspective is exactly what I was doing and what I've not seen enough of.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
I finnally got back to doing some reading up on the issue of 'climategate' :)rolleyes:), only a little bit about it.

The article I read was in McLeans, Canada's lovely little conservative rag. The fellow it talked about was a guy named MacIntyre (curriously an alum of Noranda, like myself) who simply asked to see the data of the temperatures that had been recorded which were used to create the 'hockey stick' graph. This graph is the one used by Al Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth'. It turns out that the real inconvenient truth (I had to) was that the data was not only held back but that the establishment was outright hostile to his questioning.

What I really don't like about the media treatment of this story is that it is perpetuating the exact same rotten reporting that is the subject of the story. This was especially evident in the McLeans article as the right wing bias which would like to pretend there is nothing wrong, ever, simply did not address MacIntyre's concerns. The story blabbed away about the events and was spun to make it seem like concerns about global warming are unfounded.

They are not.

No one in the scientific comunity, and particularily not MacIntyre, has come forward to say that concerns are without merit. It is only the media and the retarded who think that being concerened about the possibility of human created environmental degradation is something inconsequential. The concerns are well founded, the question that is being raised by the recent relevation is 'should we be concerned about global warming'.

Data integrity is not something I'm familiar with so even if I was given the raw data I have very little to contribute to talk about the validity of the data.

IF the data is found to be correct then I maintain my stance that global warming is a serious concern which threatens to drastically change the course of the evolution of life on this planet.

If the data is found to be manufactured then I don't feel the issue is as important as other problems that face the human world. This would not make it unimportant, it just means there isn't a pressing need to curb emissions.

Regardless of how the debate is resolved the work I've done maintains validity and poses an intersting question about just how much heat human life creates and exactly what happens to it as it dissipates into the environment.

The problem that this whole debate unearths is a larger, broader problem of integrity in academics based on the self interested researchers who are also gate keepers of feilds they dominate. This is nothing new and is part of the reason that science continues to spawn crazy drama. What is new is the massive scope of the issue along with the relevation that not one person questioned the sources of the data (myself included). It is definately disturbing that academics don't seem to have been acting with any sense of responsibility in the same way that it is disturbing that so many people are outsourcing thier thinking.

The whole thing makes me wonder how many different feilds have become burdened with lazy leadership and how many mistaken assumptions have never been questioned.

I am certain that this is a major source of the economic problems that have been exploding like a metal pot in a microwave.

It all gets back to what I've consistently found in many different feilds, dogmatic repitition is everywhere and most people just shrug off any responsibility by saying 'oh, someone must have looked into that, it seems soooooo straight forward'.

My experiences continue to suggest that this is not the case and that instincts are frequently correct.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

atbell

TRIBE Member
Just picked up

Sounds interesting, post a summary if you have time.

I can understand the position of 'there is no global temperature', there isn't. But the myriade of different temperatures, divided by zones of what every you feel like, seem to be getting warmer across the board.

Some of the most excelent work I came across was done by ocean researchers. I think they probably have the most valid resarch about climate change right now. The reason being that water has such a high specific (or is it latent?) heat capacity. The amount of energy, heat, that water can absorb per weight or area or what ever is orders of magnitude higher than that of the atmospher.

This means that the majority of heat storage and transport is done by water, and most of that is done in the ocean through currents. Moisture in the air has some minimal effect; ground water has a slight effect on heat absorption and distribution that is very limited by the trend of water to run down to oceans.

The only thing I really took out of reading some of the academic papers by ocean guys and girls was that heat seems to enter around the equator only to be taken to the north / south by ocean currents. This makes me think that the albedo effects of the ice caps might be minimal compared to the angular effects of the atmosphere on the refraction of solar energy. The best analogy I can come up with is that of a pool ball and a marble.

In this thinking the marble represents solar energy and the pool ball represents earths atmosphere. A direct hit by the marble might transfer its kinetic energy to the pool ball, resulting in the marble slowing almost to a stop and the pool ball moving ever so slightly. This would be the case of solar energy that arives at the earth around the equitorial regions.

The other case would be if the marble hit the pool ball way off to the side, a near miss as it were. In this case the angle of impact is so pronounced that there is almost no energy transfer. The pool ball will remain essentially immobile while the marble will continue on with an almost unchanged velocity at a different angle.

A lot of this is based on some reading I did in 07 or 06 so it's not fresh in my mind but I know the book I read and can look it up if anyone is interested. As a warning, it was a pretty technical book about particle physics.
 

basilisk

TRIBE Member
The oceans are a big issue. They cover most of the Earth's surface and consequently absorb a lot of heat. Indeed, a lot of that heat travels poleward via oceanic currents such as the gulf stream (which warms Europe an additional 5 to 8 K).

One feedback to consider: warmer temperatures in the arctic = more river outflow = decreasing salinity of arctic ocean waters. The salinity gradient is one of the physical processes that powers global current systems so... well, you can see where this is leading. This is behind a payment wall but there are lots of articles like it:
Increasing River Discharge to the Arctic Ocean -- Peterson et al. 298 (5601): 2171 -- Science

A bit of background info on oceanic heat with some nice graphs and such:
What causes short term changes in ocean heat?
The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ya I remember when I heard about the salinity thing for the first time.

Living in a northern country it was disconcerting to hear (to say the least).
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

basilisk

TRIBE Member
Skeptical Science soundly debunks most of the common myths about global warming:
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism

As I have learned so much more about this topic in the intervening years the reality of anthropogenic climate change seems completely undeniable to me. It really boils down to people who understand the science, people who don't, and crackpot ideologues so blinded by their pre-existing beliefs that they are completely impervious to reason. The problem is that the vast majority of people are in that second category--people who don't understand the science. They are easily misled by people in that third category.

Now, there is a valid debate here, but what is it about? If you understand the science the debate is all about the uncertainties: climate sensitivity, the strength of certain feedbacks (particularly clouds), likely impact scenarios. If you don't understand the science the parameters of the debate could be about pretty much anything: whether or not global warming is real, whether it is anthropogenic, or whether it is a vast conspiracy to impose more taxes and increase the size of government. That last bit is total nonsense of course... and the others are 100% settled. A lot of time is wasted on these debates that are long over. And, looking back on this thread, it seems like this was one of those time wasters.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Skeptical Science soundly debunks most of the common myths about global warming:
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism

As I have learned so much more about this topic in the intervening years the reality of anthropogenic climate change seems completely undeniable to me. It really boils down to people who understand the science, people who don't, and crackpot ideologues so blinded by their pre-existing beliefs that they are completely impervious to reason. The problem is that the vast majority of people are in that second category--people who don't understand the science. They are easily misled by people in that third category.

Now, there is a valid debate here, but what is it about? If you understand the science the debate is all about the uncertainties: climate sensitivity, the strength of certain feedbacks (particularly clouds), likely impact scenarios. If you don't understand the science the parameters of the debate could be about pretty much anything: whether or not global warming is real, whether it is anthropogenic, or whether it is a vast conspiracy to impose more taxes and increase the size of government. That last bit is total nonsense of course... and the others are 100% settled. A lot of time is wasted on these debates that are long over. And, looking back on this thread, it seems like this was one of those time wasters.

agreed,

like many other areas you tend to have extreme's take centre stage and misdirect the debate. this is how you end with some sort of "climate-denier" label slapped on a nutter who thinks its all about lizards alongside an actual climatologist who has spent decades researching the issue.

these sorts of comparisons exist in the same destructive way with vaccines where pro-vaccine articles typically defended their position only against the most egregious of "vaccines cause autism" nonsense and daftly avoided the more objective criticisms coming from respected sources like the Cochrane collaboration.

im wary of anyone who defends their position on the basis of the ridiculousness of the most extreme opponents ie:

"im not one of these climate deniers who thinks its a psy-op government conspiracy"

i dont know enough about either side of the debate to really step in and say conclusively whats what, though it appears either do so many specialists in the area who constantly claim that terms like "global temperature", "weather" and climate are much more complex and difficult to measure objectives, making data collection and any interpretation of said data a tricky maneuver.

reading through wattsupwiththat which is a "skeptic" site but in my estimation a fairly objective and analytical one, i came across a host of well crafted arguments against how various weather data is collected and misinterpreted, or at least open to said views that are then cycled through media reports.

i dont believe a newspaper or journalist will ever really write the definitive piece on this and it will be decades before theres a more clear conclusion, old ideas die hard. how many decades did it take before cigarettes were recognized as carcinogenic despite the science being clear on the matter for some time? the scientific community is just that: a community, one fraught with the same politics and petty rivalries chasing after limited funds. its not at all surprising that the climategate event simply reinforced either side's position:

if you were a global warming believer, these emails only displayed some personal and minor corruption, didnt invalidate the core "truths" and were more worrying because you thought it would give fodder for deniers to show just how nuts they were.

if you were a skeptic, it was proof positive that there was a gap in the knowledge and a degree of corruption. but you didnt want to know to what extend the fibs or curve fitting really invalidated the science, and if the level of corruption was simply limited to a few players and not endemic to the entire field.

we see this when a political candidate is scandalized, their political opponents tend to portray the issue as one endemic to the entire party while the other side will try to keep it focused on a single person's individual error.
 

basilisk

TRIBE Member
these sorts of comparisons exist in the same destructive way with vaccines where pro-vaccine articles typically defended their position only against the most egregious of "vaccines cause autism" nonsense and daftly avoided the more objective criticisms coming from respected sources like the Cochrane collaboration.
Indeed, we aren't able to have a lucid discussion of vaccines when the crackpots frame the debate.

reading through wattsupwiththat which is a "skeptic" site but in my estimation a fairly objective and analytical one, i came across a host of well crafted arguments against how various weather data is collected and misinterpreted, or at least open to said views that are then cycled through media reports.
It seems that way but there is a strong undercurrent of spin and disinformation emanating from Anthony Watts. Actually, you will find a lot of his major stories are soundly debunked by blogs like Climate Progress, DeSmogBlog, and Open Mind.

The most salient example is the WattsUpWithThat treatment of arctic sea ice. Here's an example:
Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?

It looks pro but you're pitting pixel counters against real scientists (i.e. PIOMAS). More on this:
On Thin Ice Open Mind
Fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends” Climate Progress

if you were a global warming believer, these emails only displayed some personal and minor corruption, didnt invalidate the core "truths" and were more worrying because you thought it would give fodder for deniers to show just how nuts they were.

if you were a skeptic, it was proof positive that there was a gap in the knowledge and a degree of corruption. but you didnt want to know to what extend the fibs or curve fitting really invalidated the science, and if the level of corruption was simply limited to a few players and not endemic to the entire field.

we see this when a political candidate is scandalized, their political opponents tend to portray the issue as one endemic to the entire party while the other side will try to keep it focused on a single person's individual error.
Sure, but there's a category error at work here. People are treating science like politics--as something within the domain of belief and personal preference. Bloggers like those at WattsUpWithThat are doing exactly what political pundits do: cherry pick the stuff that appears most damaging to their opponents or their opponents' position. That kind of dialogue is much more effective at swaying public opinion than scientist-speak, couched as it is in measures of confidence and possible alternatives.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Happy Valley Goose Bay in Labrador has been 30+ degrees three times this week.

They gon get raped by mosquitos soon.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top