If sea level rise is real, it might be a problem.
Do you design electronics? Tell us about it.
Cooking the books:
Agonizing and arguing over something you can't affect (ie, AGW and
I'm aware of the general figures. A very interesting paper recently
Or this:
He's gotta be maxed out over his heart. That's no fun. Maybe we
Bill mentioned "the glaciers aren't going to be coming back any time
Precipitation hasn't dramatically increased since 1948 up there. So if
Oooo,
I like summers more. While I don't get cold easily and wear T-shirts in
I've read just a view. But what was said made my toe nails curl.
Yep, I guess it does. However, if this sort of stuff were leaked from
I'd have to find them back, might be deleted, I don't keep everything.
So do I.
Don't remember the link but a quick search turned up some of them in an
Yes, and I have to forgive them if they do something bad since the bible
What I mean is making data accessible, even to critics. Has nothing toHere's some quotes from last week's report:
"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?
"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the
human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature
changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of
~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term
variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been and will
always be present in the climate system. Most of these short-term
variations are due to internal oscillations like El Nińo Southern
Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe
cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause
a cooling lasting a few years).
See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They
assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not.
This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most
recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution,
itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has
already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you
want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of
different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no
one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that
can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant
observation.
If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also
_know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source
somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one
else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like
you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory
in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple
into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how
to abate the problem, based upon those theories.
To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise
stuff than many climate guys on the climate
ducking
Well, between you and me, I bet you do. Climate is _very_ difficult
to master. Science breaks down into two main approaches --
reductionism and large number statistics. Reduction works great on
problems where ignoring small influences leaves a "good enough"
understanding. Statistics work great in large numbers of events. But
for systems with large numbers of highly correlated, but complex
interactions then neither reduction nor statistics work all that well.
Disease flows through populations fit this latter case. There are
well known processes by which disease passes from person to person,
but the processes by which people interact are... difficult to fully
master. Statistics doesn't work nearly as well as you might imagine
because these processes don't fall into nice Poisson events that
integrate into nice gaussian bell shaped distributions. And there are
so many important factors that reductionism is tough going, as well.
For a time, climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. Data was
scarce, theories were available but nowhere near enough of them, etc.
But as time went by, those large-scale important interactions were
gradually teased apart. Today, it's still very difficult work but at
least more tractable than before. I don't want to minimize the
difficulties. But I also don't want to suggest that they haven't been
addressed with hard and largely successful work.
Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if
that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have
to consider that, as well.
Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention
with IPCC.
Well, you can make the point. But you really have no idea because you
haven't put in the work required. So how should I take this 'point'?
It really isn't made until it is made from an informed position.
Otherwise it's just a random shot in the dark.
But body politicus might sock it to us and impose a carbon tax anyhow.If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder,
let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory
about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and
'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood
theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case,
we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be
convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are
all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is
willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So
we are just stuck, looking on.
Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like
developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants
electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the
foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed
towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and
whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about
the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and
find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our
energy sources will be in the future.
Well, I'm not going to argue much here. Nuclear power can be safe --
the problems are mostly with people, not technical ones. A totally
safe reactor (you could use dynamite to blow the control rods out of
it) was demonstrated back in the 1950's. It's old news. But the
politics and profit motives are another thing. I completely agree on
the electric car point you make. On the carbon credit/tax/whatever
issue, I think we are sadly stuck with the politics of power and
capital and I don't know what to do there. We should have a carbon
tax and ALL of the money received from it should go straight back to
the public and NOT into the pockets of politicians and capital. But
the problem is, while we may be able to pass laws here, money and
power will make damned sure their pockets are lined and that everyone
else loses out. And the public will NOT support graft like that. So
until they can find a way to get that back into _our_ pockets and not
relining the pockets of those already lined with gold... I don't think
the public can get behind the idea. Yet everything else will fail to
achieve the needed results. Oh, well. Life (or the lack of it) in
the real world.
The only thing left is to do what you suggest... roll up our sleeves
and work at real issues facing us. I think those nearer the top of
the food chain will keep fighting each other and the rest of us so as
to see who is left in the game of "musical chairs" they are involved
in right now. It's up to us, or not.
In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who
isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with
his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see,
then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory
and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very
certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving
it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business
managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you
show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't,
unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.
Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached
the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an
alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains
observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually
explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is
extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory
environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough
to work for their own opinion.)
We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't
ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again
instead of imposing some <expletive swallowed> carbon tax that just
feeds yet another fat bureaucracy.
Hmm. I hadn't read this, earlier.
anticipated yours, too. As I said, the public won't get behind a
carbon tax that will merely line the pockets of power or capital. So
we agree there.
First we need to solve safety issues. Some have already been, as you
Oh, my lack of movie-going now shows. Haven't even heard of the movie ...
True. But the ads never worked with me. Haven't been there in a decade.
There is one excellent countermeasure for those scientists: Keep your
That's ok. But so many? And with such damning behavior outlined in there?
I'd rather see some honest debate among scientists. Instead, I see
Ok.
Then, please, tell me the emails in the link I posted above are bogus.
Then I might use your own words: You need to bone up on this stuff.I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email
revelations.
I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that
offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way
affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going
to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a
distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that
takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.
As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them
Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.
Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]
In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a
comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as
far as my taking your opinion on any of this.
My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one
masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point
you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write,
but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are
willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it --
and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out
where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny
corner of things....
All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as
mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few
thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists
and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven.
I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be
comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. ...
I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful.
If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.
I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion
about it.
[...]
Ok.
And I enjoy yours.
Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience.
I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood
Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot
I really hate that link -- bastard ads. I need to disable the things,
Okay. Before I commment, let's be a little more precise about it,
I'll admit this to you. The comment I quoted from your web site is
You can curve-fit random noise pretty well, too. The higher the order,
We don't know. When the Argo buoys have collected some more data, we
It isn't a theory, but a collection of facts. Nobody is alleging aThis is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters
Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon
extraction industries has been depressingly effective.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and
organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had
used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the
dangers of tobacco smoke.
Yeah, your old conspiracy theory.
No. FOIA is FOIA. If a data source falls under that law the holder of
Hope I did above
Unless you or someone else proves that these emails were faked or pulled
Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed.
But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not
That's what I always do. In requests as in replies.
I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data
Looks like it's going back down:
No, you said "fudged data". Now where did they?This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters
Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon
extraction industries has been depressingly effective.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and
organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had
used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the
dangers of tobacco smoke.
Yeah, your old conspiracy theory.
It isn't a theory, but a collection of facts. Nobody is alleging a
conspiracy. Exxon-Mobil went out and sub-contracted for some anti-
anthropogenic global warming propaganda from the usual sources, and
the sub-contractors go to work. Exxon-Mobil recorded the payments to
these sub-contractors in their published accounts, and these accounts
form part of the record. The sub-contractors don't make any boomes
about what thye are doing, though some of them are a but coy about the
people who are supporting them.
This is like calling a historian's description of Obama's election
campaign a "conspiracy theory".
<snipped the usual pleasantries>
The solenoid was entirely your idea. A clamp-on meter - which is what