Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: This option was always available to climate modellers, but they chose not to take it.
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that it isn't an appropriate test. Models are tested against a specific climatology, and only then they are let loose on a projection or hindcast. The inputs for testing are, say, current climate, and the tests are that the model is stable for a hundred years or so (with constant atmospheric composition), shows reasonable weather patterns and realistic variability that is statistically similar to reality. Many of the same models are used 12 times a day to run weather forecasts. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: quote: This option was always available to climate modellers, but they chose not to take it.
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that it isn't an appropriate test.
And I keep saying it is perfectly appropriate. Having built the model on the data from 1900-1950 (say), they could have run it, together with the actual CO2 data from 1951-2000. What is inappropriate about that? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
The only thing that doesn't have "have 20 years to wait" is NOT the world - but the daft AGW theory itself! That's why there's such an 'urgency' - to terrify as many people into 'believing' NOW... before the thing has a chance of being exposed as the enormous fraud it is. The terminally-discontented failed to get their own way by convincing people with sane political theory, now they're back having another try by manipulating people with mad science.
When this one bites the dust, they'll be back to religion again, I suppose.
Roger only yesterday you said: "If you reply, PLEASE try to steer clear of relying on name-calling, guilt-tripping, and tear-jurking." What happened?
You'll have to be more specific Seskinreay as I'm not able to guess what you mean. My comment is simply making an evaluation. This is the Channel 4 forum and the purpose of the threads here are to discuss their broadcast documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and its claim that the AGW theory is bogus and politically motivated. My insights are just a development of that argument, placing it into an historical context and drawing comparisons with similar models of human nature in recent history. |
| |
|
|
quote: This is the Channel 4 forum and the purpose of the threads here are to discuss their broadcast documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and its claim that the AGW theory is bogus and politically motivated.
Well, actually, these threads in are in the Science forum, and this one is on the June Floods (in case you hadn't read the title).
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
The only thing that doesn't have "have 20 years to wait" is NOT the world - but the daft AGW theory itself! That's why there's such an 'urgency' - to terrify as many people into 'believing' NOW... before the thing has a chance of being exposed as the enormous fraud it is. The terminally-discontented failed to get their own way by convincing people with sane political theory, now they're back having another try by manipulating people with mad science.
When this one bites the dust, they'll be back to religion again, I suppose.
Roger only yesterday you said: "If you reply, PLEASE try to steer clear of relying on name-calling, guilt-tripping, and tear-jurking." What happened?
You'll have to be more specific Seskinreay as I'm not able to guess what you mean. My comment is simply making an evaluation. This is the Channel 4 forum and the purpose of the threads here are to discuss their broadcast documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and its claim that the AGW theory is bogus and politically motivated. My insights are just a development of that argument, placing it into an historical context and drawing comparisons with similar models of human nature in recent history.
Rog, the clue is in extract of your prior post. But enough said I think now. Its been fun "talking" to you. Au Revoir !! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
Having built the model on the data from 1900-1950 (say), they could have run it, together with the actual CO2 data from 1951-2000. What is inappropriate about that?
Just to expand on this a bit - reading it the next day it always looks a bit different! I know climate modelling is much much more complex than this, but I will take a very very simple model. Let's take an "instant reaction" model: Temperature = a * CO2 + b For this to produce any output, we need to find the numbers for a and b. So we take the first 50 years data, and find the values of a and b which best match the data. Then we can check whether the model is a good one by entering the CO2 measurements of the next 50 years into the equations to produce predicted temperatures for these 50 years. A comparison of the predicted temperatures with the real ones will give us goodness-of-fit statistics for the model. I cannot see what is so "inappropriate" about this. Could Steve_M perhaps explain further. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB): quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
Having built the model on the data from 1900-1950 (say), they could have run it, together with the actual CO2 data from 1951-2000. What is inappropriate about that?
Just to expand on this a bit - reading it the next day it always looks a bit different! I know climate modelling is much much more complex than this, but I will take a very very simple model. Let's take an "instant reaction" model: Temperature = a * CO2 + b For this to produce any output, we need to find the numbers for a and b. So we take the first 50 years data, and find the values of a and b which best match the data. Then we can check whether the model is a good one by entering the CO2 measurements of the next 50 years into the equations to produce predicted temperatures for these 50 years. A comparison of the predicted temperatures with the real ones will give us goodness-of-fit statistics for the model. I cannot see what is so "inappropriate" about this. Could Steve_M perhaps explain further.
What is inappropriate is its simplicity I'd guess but no doubt the experts will expand. I can tell you very simply how to build a mainframe operating system but I doubt you'll come away with a clue about what Ive been talking about. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
What is inappropriate is its simplicity I'd guess but no doubt the experts will expand. I can tell you very simply how to build a mainframe operating system but I doubt you'll come away with a clue about what Ive been talking about.
I know that it's much, much more complex than that - indeed, I've said as much. What I want to know is why the method of using one half of the data to set the model up, and the other half to provide a test is inappropriate. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB): quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
What is inappropriate is its simplicity I'd guess but no doubt the experts will expand. I can tell you very simply how to build a mainframe operating system but I doubt you'll come away with a clue about what Ive been talking about.
I know that it's much, much more complex than that - indeed, I've said as much. What I want to know is why the method of using one half of the data to set the model up, and the other half to provide a test is inappropriate.
Good with that then. I share some of your frustration! I'd like to expand the debate to consider all the problems mankind faces (the common denominator or which is population pressure in my view) but perhaps this is not the place to do it. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB): quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
What is inappropriate is its simplicity I'd guess but no doubt the experts will expand. I can tell you very simply how to build a mainframe operating system but I doubt you'll come away with a clue about what Ive been talking about.
I know that it's much, much more complex than that - indeed, I've said as much. What I want to know is why the method of using one half of the data to set the model up, and the other half to provide a test is inappropriate.
Good luckwith that then. I share some of your frustration! I'd like to expand the debate to consider all the problems mankind faces (the common denominator or which is population pressure in my view) but perhaps this is not the place to do it.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee: quote: This is the Channel 4 forum and the purpose of the threads here are to discuss their broadcast documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and its claim that the AGW theory is bogus and politically motivated.
Well, actually, these threads in are in the Science forum, and this one is on the June Floods (in case you hadn't read the title).
I've read the title of the website - it has a large Channel 4 logo on it and the line "This is the place to talk about science and technology. Let us know what you think about the content of the science site and discuss science and technology programmes." As all the other Channel 4 forums appear to be exclusively focused on discussion of their programmes, I take it to mean this one is also intended for that purpose. The primary theme of Channel 4's programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was NOT global warming but SWINDLES - and specifically BIG swindles (as in the 'Great' part of the title), meaning a swindle that sucks in a lot of people. So the 'science' part of the programme was an exploration of the 'SCIENCE OF SWINDLING' and a current swindle was examined in detail in order gain understanding of this aspect of human nature. The programme could just of easily have chosen from a number of recent large swindles to use for its examination - such as islamic fundamentalism, national socialism, pyramid selling, anti-aging creams, AGW etc. Or the station could have produced a series of science programmes "Great Swindles of Modern Man" in which AGW would have formed a part in the process of exploring: (1) how swindles arise (the discontentment of a few individuals with the process of democratic negotiation in a diverse world). (2) how people become caught up in them (using 'hope' and/or 'fear' to brainwash people into abandoning their usual capacity for rationally experiencing the world). (3) the 'hurricane' effect of a swindle in an otherwise 'calm' social climate (how the swindle gains momentum and power by sucking more and more people into its vortex) (4) the difficulty of 'denial' (how exiting the vortex of a swindle involves people having to face up to their own human weaknesses, abandoning a 'hope' and returning to the 'calm' social climate in which (and of which) the initial discontentment arose. This is the science of swindling the Channel 4 programme explored in its programme. By applying these recognisable patterns found in a number of historical swindles, a MODEL can be built, developed and fine-tuned. This model can then be used to predict the arrival and likely course of future great swindles, and action can be taken to avert these and thus ensure a stable and sustainable social climate (rich in human diversity) well into the future. |
| |
|
|
I have to disagree with you there, Roger58. I know this thread discusses GW with respect to the June Floods, but that doesn't mean that it is automatically about your favourite programme (the aforementioned GGWS). Channel 4 does occasionally set up forums for specific programmes, like Big Brother, and Scrapheap Challenge, but this is a general Science forum (unless there is a programme called Science, which I have missed, which always discusses the collected works of Durkin every week). So, back to the topic of THIS thread - June Floods. I do feel swindled - out of a summer! 
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee: I have to disagree with you there, Roger58. I know this thread discusses GW with respect to the June Floods, but that doesn't mean that it is automatically about your favourite programme (the aforementioned GGWS). Channel 4 does occasionally set up forums for specific programmes, like Big Brother, and Scrapheap Challenge, but this is a general Science forum (unless there is a programme called Science, which I have missed, which always discusses the collected works of Durkin every week). So, back to the topic of THIS thread - June Floods. I do feel swindled - out of a summer!
Thanks Lucibee. If we agree that this C4 thread discusses GW with respect to the June Floods, then it follows that it also discusses Swindles with respect to GW. As it was you who introduced the idea that "we may not have 20 years to wait" into a thread about some localised heavy summer rainfall, it can hardly be unexpected that a rationally-thinking person would respond by drawing attention to the peculiarity of this remark, and wonder about the mind-set of the person who felt prompted to write it. My subsequent reflections on the well-known effects of Swindles and how they frequently lead people to believe such things as "we will all end up in Hell", "we can stay young-looking forever", "we can become rich instantly" or "we may not have 20 years to wait" are simply an effort to place a noticeably out-of-context remark back into a context which is far more appropriate to it. |
| |
|
|
Am I not entitled to feel swindled by the likes of you and Durkin trying to lull me into a false sense of security, that "it will all be OK", "we can carry on as normal", "all this AGW stuff is bunkum", if it turns out that you were incorrect?
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
Am I not entitled to feel swindled by the likes of you and Durkin trying to lull me into a false sense of security, that "it will all be OK", "we can carry on as normal", "all this AGW stuff is bunkum", if it turns out that you were incorrect?
The key to a good Swindle, of course, is how convincing the Swindlers can be in pulling it off. In other words, how much we allow them to undermine a person's 'sense of security' (falsify its otherwise 'true' sense). Anyone who can be made to believe they are in a 'true sense of insecurity' will act on their environment - in ways prescribed by the Swindlers - to restore security (that is, to get rid of their sense of insecurity). When all this is happening, it's worth asking WHICH climate is 'changing' by becoming disturbed, chaotic, destabilised and outraged - and (as a consequence) increasingly less able to sustain a ongoing settled and secure state? The meteorological climate... or the social one? Finding what's 'true' in 'security' may simply boil-down to getting your climates right. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
Am I not entitled to feel swindled by the likes of you and Durkin trying to lull me into a false sense of security, that "it will all be OK", "we can carry on as normal", "all this AGW stuff is bunkum", if it turns out that you were incorrect?
Lucibee, have you read Bjorn Lomberg, The Skeptikal Environmentalist? Its hard going (to me) but fascinating ! He blows apart some of the wilder claims of various environmental groups (such as the WWF, WRI and Greenpeace) with statistical analyses of the key environmental indicators. However, he states early on that "things are getting better but not necessarily good". I take this to mean we are not now heading for the precipice quite as rapidly as we were and this is at least encouraging. There are plenty of Lomborg detractors out there and I'm not entirely sure of his motivation (a self publicist I've heard it said) but why not give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of trying to put everything into perspective. If he were contributing to this forum I'm sure he would not say we can just continue BAU. |
| |
|
|
Trawling thru old post from the beginning of the GGWS I found this quote from Steve_M
"I am pretty sure that global warming will cause the emigration of 20 million Bangladeshi's in the next 200 years or possibly sooner, and much sooner than that will require the British tax payer to cough up a fortune in tax to pay for a vast new Thames barrier to cope with sea-level rise, an upgrading of all road surfaces, railway lines, electricity cables etc. to cope with hotter summers, and probably a bigger security service to keep out all the climate change refugees."
Re Road and Rail much sooner indeed. £25m in Gloucestershire alone for road repairs.
Also, my screen is currently full of images of collosal flooding in the sub continent and New York's transport system was paralysed the other day by the effects of torential rain.
|
| |
|
|
Hi every one  ) Hey it was warm today wasn't it
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: Hi every one ) Hey it was warm today wasn't it
Even atypically hotter in Southern Europe (113 degs - the sort of temperatures you find in a Sauna !!). The worst floods in Bangladesh for 50 years !! The cost of road repairs in Gloucestershire has risen to £50,000,000. Four Mountain Gorilla's shot dead in the DR of Congo. 1% of the world population - does this matter? Keep it up MUFCDIVER - its all grist to the mill !! |
| |
|
|
For those who missed the weather forecasts over the weekend we are expecting another inch or two tomorrow over most of the Uk or as one forecaster put it - one months worth (presumably August) in one day.
So thats an extreme rain event in June, July and August - hat trick!! (Nice one eh MUFCdiver?)
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
A gentle prod to Mubbers, would you like to come back to John_M's last post or can your silence on this be interpreted as agreement?
LOL! Shortly after tyour post I popped down to the Southen part of Algeria where I am currently working to extract yet more hyrdrocarbons for the benefit of mankind! I have not seen rain in 3 weeks and in all the time here the temperature has never been below 30 ish, max 46C. On the eve of rotating back to UK I can't wait for some cold moist air. However: Nothing really changed from my previous response: quote: So it was not my intention to compare the climatic conditions of West Coast USA with that of the UK but to show how civil engineering projects can be used to effectively control nature.
And in light of the even more recent floods in the South engineering seems to be the flavour of the month. I guess what John_M is saying though is - be careful! Always be aware of the rule of unintended consequences. |
| |
|
|
Guys I really can't get over how short sighted this whole Climate change thing is!
5 years ago nobody gave a rats ass about climate change. Last year we had a drought and this year some floods. Very dramatic and a true indication that yes - weather changes!
GOSH hardly breakng news that, but when you add some dramtic music and then ham it up with a truely crap and inaccurate climate disaster movie ("Flood")we're clearly on the verge of a global disaster.
Nonsense. We'll have run out of oil & gas inside of 100 years and then we'll probably worried about global cooling.
BORING.
|
| |
| |
