For Ian [modified]
-
Here's a PS - spot the conflict. :-D
fat_boy wrote:
OK, so in fact at extremes Newtons laws fail, but in other cases they still hold valid.
fat_boy wrote:
if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period.Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
If the predicitons of the GCMs were as close as Newtons laws (which after all carried man to the moon and back) I would be convinced! :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
fat_boy wrote:
"Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious?
Come on - even by your relatively low standards that is misleading. Or did you just read the first line of the abstract? Here's the full abstract - note the bit in bold. Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ∼50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I read the full abstract, but I have serious issues with it. 1) "Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050" together, in isolation, how much of each? This is a braod, sweeping, imprecise statement. And in cases inaccurate. For example, reducing moisture by 0.0000001% and increasing temperature by 2 degrees will increase crop yields in temperate zones. Reducing soil moisture by 99% and increasing temperatures by 50`C will pretty much sterilise the earth of any plant growth. Its an intentionally misleading statement, a half truth, typical of AGW and very obviously flawed. 2) "the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses" So, again, it is known and understood that increasing CO2 within reason increases crop yields. (Up to 1000PPM seems to be optimal) Do you know what free air enrichment is? Its where they stick some pipes in a field and pump some CO2 through. Tell me, given the wind, how accurate a test is it? I am not surprised they found free air experiments only produced 50% the increase found in greenhouses. Clearly then free air tests are not representetive of the state of the earth when the ENTIRE atmosphere has CO2 at 600 PPM. Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM. And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. In any case, I had a a lot of answering ot do, so only quoted the first few words of the summary.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
If the predicitons of the GCMs were as close as Newtons laws (which after all carried man to the moon and back) I would be convinced! :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
You miss the point. According to the Feynman quote, Newton's hypotheses are wrong. Period. BTW Your quote from Lindzen shows why you ought to take what he says with a pinch of salt. It's a wonderful example of the illogical soundbite. It manages to commit two obvious fallacies in one sentence.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
You miss the point. According to the Feynman quote, Newton's hypotheses are wrong. Period. BTW Your quote from Lindzen shows why you ought to take what he says with a pinch of salt. It's a wonderful example of the illogical soundbite. It manages to commit two obvious fallacies in one sentence.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
You miss the point
I thought I got it quite well since you responded with "approximately". (Which in actual fact is what? What is the closing velocity of two cars doing 40mph towards each other according to you?) Approximations are used all the time. But the GCMs are so full of them, and even ignore vast chunks of the climate system that theor product cant even be considered.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
I read the full abstract, but I have serious issues with it. 1) "Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050" together, in isolation, how much of each? This is a braod, sweeping, imprecise statement. And in cases inaccurate. For example, reducing moisture by 0.0000001% and increasing temperature by 2 degrees will increase crop yields in temperate zones. Reducing soil moisture by 99% and increasing temperatures by 50`C will pretty much sterilise the earth of any plant growth. Its an intentionally misleading statement, a half truth, typical of AGW and very obviously flawed. 2) "the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses" So, again, it is known and understood that increasing CO2 within reason increases crop yields. (Up to 1000PPM seems to be optimal) Do you know what free air enrichment is? Its where they stick some pipes in a field and pump some CO2 through. Tell me, given the wind, how accurate a test is it? I am not surprised they found free air experiments only produced 50% the increase found in greenhouses. Clearly then free air tests are not representetive of the state of the earth when the ENTIRE atmosphere has CO2 at 600 PPM. Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM. And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. In any case, I had a a lot of answering ot do, so only quoted the first few words of the summary.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
I'm not sure we are reading the same thing. The words might be the same but the interpretation is different. As far as I can see they are saying that models use the effects of CO2 on crop yield based on laboratory tests. They seem to be pointing out that down on the farm they don't see the same effect. You did not only quote the words of the abstract. You used them to dismiss the poster as someone who relied on 'models'. To quote: "Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious? Now you seem to be taking a different tack - you dismiss this piece of research which actually is critical of models that predict no effect on plant growth because of offsetting factors. Your splitting of the first sentence is an example of misquotation to support a point. You need to read the sentence as a whole. You cannot draw the conclusion that it is known that increasing CO2 will increase crop yields. It is an assumption of the models. It is talking about what the models suggest. Again to quote: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses.
fat_boy wrote:
Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM.
And the evidence for this assertion is? Unless of course you are relying on a model that predicts this will be the case. But that would be 'unscientific'. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
I'm not sure we are reading the same thing. The words might be the same but the interpretation is different. As far as I can see they are saying that models use the effects of CO2 on crop yield based on laboratory tests. They seem to be pointing out that down on the farm they don't see the same effect. You did not only quote the words of the abstract. You used them to dismiss the poster as someone who relied on 'models'. To quote: "Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious? Now you seem to be taking a different tack - you dismiss this piece of research which actually is critical of models that predict no effect on plant growth because of offsetting factors. Your splitting of the first sentence is an example of misquotation to support a point. You need to read the sentence as a whole. You cannot draw the conclusion that it is known that increasing CO2 will increase crop yields. It is an assumption of the models. It is talking about what the models suggest. Again to quote: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses.
fat_boy wrote:
Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM.
And the evidence for this assertion is? Unless of course you are relying on a model that predicts this will be the case. But that would be 'unscientific'. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I dont want to descend into semantics, so I will only say that if you dont think FACE experiements are inaccurate because thelevel of CO2 cant be maintained at a stable level then you need to think again.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
riced wrote:
You miss the point
I thought I got it quite well since you responded with "approximately". (Which in actual fact is what? What is the closing velocity of two cars doing 40mph towards each other according to you?) Approximations are used all the time. But the GCMs are so full of them, and even ignore vast chunks of the climate system that theor product cant even be considered.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
No you did not get the point. According to the Feynman quote Newton's hypotheses are wrong i.e. his theories have been refuted. According to you, theories that have been refuted should be dismissed. Logic requires that you dismiss Newton's theories. The fact that Newton's theories are extremely good approximations (in fact so good as to be virtually indistinguishable from Einstein's at the everyday scale) is irrelevant. They have been refuted - consign them to the flames. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
No you did not get the point. According to the Feynman quote Newton's hypotheses are wrong i.e. his theories have been refuted. According to you, theories that have been refuted should be dismissed. Logic requires that you dismiss Newton's theories. The fact that Newton's theories are extremely good approximations (in fact so good as to be virtually indistinguishable from Einstein's at the everyday scale) is irrelevant. They have been refuted - consign them to the flames. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
So, exactly as I thought, only at extremes do Newtons theories fail to describe events accurately. However, sicne GCMs have utterly failed to predict events in non extreme conditions their falacies are quite evident.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
I dont want to descend into semantics, so I will only say that if you dont think FACE experiements are inaccurate because thelevel of CO2 cant be maintained at a stable level then you need to think again.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
It's not semantics. You make an assertion, possibly a very plausible one, but you do not have evidence to support it. Can you provide evidence that the CO2 levels cannot be maintained at stable levels? I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken. You also attribute motives to the experimenters: And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. Now I don't know why they carried out the experiments and I certainly won't guess. I assume you have some evidence for your claim that you know why they did. (Well actually I don't because you never provide evidence when taken to task. :laugh: )
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
So, exactly as I thought, only at extremes do Newtons theories fail to describe events accurately. However, sicne GCMs have utterly failed to predict events in non extreme conditions their falacies are quite evident.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Still missing it - you must reject Newton's theories since they have been refuted and, according to you, any theory that has been refuted must be dismissed. PS I notice you still have the Lindzen quote even though it must offend your deeply held scientific sense. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
It's not semantics. You make an assertion, possibly a very plausible one, but you do not have evidence to support it. Can you provide evidence that the CO2 levels cannot be maintained at stable levels? I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken. You also attribute motives to the experimenters: And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. Now I don't know why they carried out the experiments and I certainly won't guess. I assume you have some evidence for your claim that you know why they did. (Well actually I don't because you never provide evidence when taken to task. :laugh: )
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken.
Like stick it all in a big glass enclosure? :) Come on, FACE experiemnts are flawed. For months, CO2 is pumped out of pipes in an open air field, aorund a collection of plants. I imagine some distance away is a controll group. Now, over those months, the wind blows as usual. Smetimes strongly carrying the OC2 away before it has any effect and over the controll group. Sometimes not, and you have perfect localised mixing giving exactly the 600PPM or whatever the target concentration is. Sometimes it doesnt blow and the CO2 is languidly flopping about on the ground, a long way from the leaves that need it. (You know CO2 is heavy yeah?). Science? This is so full of holes its a joke. No one would ever allow this through publiching in any other field of science because of its inherent unrepeatability and lack of control of conditions which affect the outcome to the point that the results are total junk. If you cant see this then I have serious doubts about your secientific credentials!
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
Still missing it - you must reject Newton's theories since they have been refuted and, according to you, any theory that has been refuted must be dismissed. PS I notice you still have the Lindzen quote even though it must offend your deeply held scientific sense. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
You call it refuted then say under non extreme conditions its results are indistinguishable from einsteins. As for Lindzens saying, I havet gota problem with it.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
You call it refuted then say under non extreme conditions its results are indistinguishable from einsteins. As for Lindzens saying, I havet gota problem with it.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Yup - Newton's theory has been refuted and it's everyday predictions are indistinguishable from Einstein's. No contradiction there. If you don't have a problem with the Lindzen quote I'd suggest a course in elementary logic (it does have two major blunders). :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Yup - Newton's theory has been refuted and it's everyday predictions are indistinguishable from Einstein's. No contradiction there. If you don't have a problem with the Lindzen quote I'd suggest a course in elementary logic (it does have two major blunders). :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
tell me about them
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
tell me about them
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
First it commits the inductive fallacy. Because something has not happened in a long period does not mean it cannot happen. Second there is a non sequitur in the implication. It does not follow that, even if the climate has not "tipped", then mankind cannot tip it. Unless of course he defines tipping to be something that is impossible. His claim that "tipping" has not happened presumably excludes ice ages. I do love the scare quotes - makes you wonder just what does he mean? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
First it commits the inductive fallacy. Because something has not happened in a long period does not mean it cannot happen. Second there is a non sequitur in the implication. It does not follow that, even if the climate has not "tipped", then mankind cannot tip it. Unless of course he defines tipping to be something that is impossible. His claim that "tipping" has not happened presumably excludes ice ages. I do love the scare quotes - makes you wonder just what does he mean? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
OK, but I think you can understand what he is saying even though he has couched it in simplistic terms (whcih americans love).
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
riced wrote:
I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken.
Like stick it all in a big glass enclosure? :) Come on, FACE experiemnts are flawed. For months, CO2 is pumped out of pipes in an open air field, aorund a collection of plants. I imagine some distance away is a controll group. Now, over those months, the wind blows as usual. Smetimes strongly carrying the OC2 away before it has any effect and over the controll group. Sometimes not, and you have perfect localised mixing giving exactly the 600PPM or whatever the target concentration is. Sometimes it doesnt blow and the CO2 is languidly flopping about on the ground, a long way from the leaves that need it. (You know CO2 is heavy yeah?). Science? This is so full of holes its a joke. No one would ever allow this through publiching in any other field of science because of its inherent unrepeatability and lack of control of conditions which affect the outcome to the point that the results are total junk. If you cant see this then I have serious doubts about your secientific credentials!
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
I can see you have a different notion of science to what I have. For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work. While at the same time knowing full well that our explanations are always provisional. For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions. As to the FACE experiments being flawed, exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones. The conditions in a greenhouse are not the same as in open fields so we should dismiss them as well. It just happens to be the nature of experiments. If flaws are found then the most appropriate response is to devise an experiment that fixes them and see what outcomes are. Not to just dismiss them as non-scientific. Of course you can restrict the sciences to those where experiments a rigidly controlled and exactly reproducible. But that would rule out whole areas that claim to be sciences. Mind that might not be such a bad thing if it got rid of IQ tests in psychology/psycho-metrics :laugh: .
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
OK, but I think you can understand what he is saying even though he has couched it in simplistic terms (whcih americans love).
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
It's a meaningless soundbite and I'm always suspicious about people who utter such stuff. It does raise the question What if climate has "tipped" in the last 4 billion years? Does that mean mankind can tip now? :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
I can see you have a different notion of science to what I have. For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work. While at the same time knowing full well that our explanations are always provisional. For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions. As to the FACE experiments being flawed, exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones. The conditions in a greenhouse are not the same as in open fields so we should dismiss them as well. It just happens to be the nature of experiments. If flaws are found then the most appropriate response is to devise an experiment that fixes them and see what outcomes are. Not to just dismiss them as non-scientific. Of course you can restrict the sciences to those where experiments a rigidly controlled and exactly reproducible. But that would rule out whole areas that claim to be sciences. Mind that might not be such a bad thing if it got rid of IQ tests in psychology/psycho-metrics :laugh: .
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work.
No, its actualy an attmept to show that increased CO2 outside of greenhouses doesnt produce the same increase in crop yields because it actually states a figure. 50% (aprox). And isnt that a suspicious figure in itself? If it was merly going to show the way things work then it would not even mention a crop yield, but just say "plants need CO2 to grow".
riced wrote:
For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions.
No its not, and dont try to defame me by accusing me of religious sentiment.
riced wrote:
exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones
What experiments? Have I mentioned any? All I have said is that governments recomend 1000PPM in greenhouses for crop production and that an entire industry has grown up providing CO2 enrichment machinery. I have a very clear understanding of science (as someone who received a very good education in it) and how experiments should be conducted. These FACE experiments ara a joke whose sole intent is to provide propaganda for the AGW movement.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
It's a meaningless soundbite and I'm always suspicious about people who utter such stuff. It does raise the question What if climate has "tipped" in the last 4 billion years? Does that mean mankind can tip now? :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I guess thats a yes, depending on what you call tipping.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman