So the Arctic was going to be ice free in 5 years, that was back in 2007. Now its obvious thats not the case, its now 2016.
-
riced wrote:
Unless you apply some analytic technique and use that as a basis for forecasts you are just guessing. And you would not want to do that. Would you? :-D
Like chartists apply analyutic techniques to financial data, totaly ignoring the fundamentals? No, I wouldnt, not in this case, because its the funsamentals that drive the graph, not the fact that with half the world working on chartism, its a self satisfying mathod.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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
-
Nah, just busy.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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:
Unless you apply some analytic technique and use that as a basis for forecasts you are just guessing. And you would not want to do that. Would you? :-D
Like chartists apply analyutic techniques to financial data, totaly ignoring the fundamentals? No, I wouldnt, not in this case, because its the funsamentals that drive the graph, not the fact that with half the world working on chartism, its a self satisfying mathod.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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:
its the funsamentals that drive the graph
And we know these fundamentals how? What does any graph of e.g. temperature against time tell us about underlying factors? The appeal to 'fundamentals' also shows reliance on an underlying model - it asserts that there are some factors that are critical and implies other factors can be ignored. Of course that leads to the question of what are the fundamentals that decide the 'fundamentals'? The reference to chartists in the financial sector is a distraction - i.e. is irrelevant since if they use eye balling, navel gazing or some other non-analytic technique they are just guessing. And that would be the case even if they fully appreciated the fundamentals (whatever they are). Incidentally I associate chartism more with the People's Charter of 1838. Glad to see the rest of the world seems to be catching up. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
its the funsamentals that drive the graph
And we know these fundamentals how? What does any graph of e.g. temperature against time tell us about underlying factors? The appeal to 'fundamentals' also shows reliance on an underlying model - it asserts that there are some factors that are critical and implies other factors can be ignored. Of course that leads to the question of what are the fundamentals that decide the 'fundamentals'? The reference to chartists in the financial sector is a distraction - i.e. is irrelevant since if they use eye balling, navel gazing or some other non-analytic technique they are just guessing. And that would be the case even if they fully appreciated the fundamentals (whatever they are). Incidentally I associate chartism more with the People's Charter of 1838. Glad to see the rest of the world seems to be catching up. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
In fact chartists use all kinds fo funky clever stuff, to call it navel gazing is a little unfair. As for the fundamentals of climate, there are lots of unknowns, but I prefer to go with the scientists who dont get their friends to resign from the boards of scientific journals if they dont publish their papers. (I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil [Jones]) The ones who dont try to eradicate many years of existing science to fit a politcial ideal using bad scientific technique and dishonesty. (Hockey Stick hide the decline, Yamal etc) Those who dont try to avoid FoI requests in order to hide such shamery. Need I go on?
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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
modified on Monday, April 11, 2011 6:31 AM
-
In fact chartists use all kinds fo funky clever stuff, to call it navel gazing is a little unfair. As for the fundamentals of climate, there are lots of unknowns, but I prefer to go with the scientists who dont get their friends to resign from the boards of scientific journals if they dont publish their papers. (I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil [Jones]) The ones who dont try to eradicate many years of existing science to fit a politcial ideal using bad scientific technique and dishonesty. (Hockey Stick hide the decline, Yamal etc) Those who dont try to avoid FoI requests in order to hide such shamery. Need I go on?
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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
modified on Monday, April 11, 2011 6:31 AM
I did not accuse chartists of navel gazing - I said if they use eye balling, navel gazing or some other non-analytic technique they are just guessing.
fat_boy wrote:
As for the fundamentals of climate
And these fundamentals are? And what are the fundamentals that make these fundamental?
fat_boy wrote:
but I prefer to go with the scientists who dont get their friends to resign from the boards of scientific journals if they dont publish their papers.
You can't be going with many. The history of science is replete with incidents where personal animosity/gain/prejudice has coloured scientific debates. Just go back to Newton's debate with Leibniz about calculus.
fat_boy wrote:
eradicate many years of existing science
That's how science progresses e.g. the overthrow of the phlogiston theory, the overthrow of Newtonian mechanics, the overthrow of Aritotle's scientific ideas etc. :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
I did not accuse chartists of navel gazing - I said if they use eye balling, navel gazing or some other non-analytic technique they are just guessing.
fat_boy wrote:
As for the fundamentals of climate
And these fundamentals are? And what are the fundamentals that make these fundamental?
fat_boy wrote:
but I prefer to go with the scientists who dont get their friends to resign from the boards of scientific journals if they dont publish their papers.
You can't be going with many. The history of science is replete with incidents where personal animosity/gain/prejudice has coloured scientific debates. Just go back to Newton's debate with Leibniz about calculus.
fat_boy wrote:
eradicate many years of existing science
That's how science progresses e.g. the overthrow of the phlogiston theory, the overthrow of Newtonian mechanics, the overthrow of Aritotle's scientific ideas etc. :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
AGW has collapsed in the scientific world, at least the serious one. The total lack of warming for 16 years has done that, as well as climate gate. Some scientists, and somce politicans are still making a lot of noise, they are now looking increasingly foolish. Meanwhile, especially in Europe, the lefts bastions, carbon rerstrictions are being totally ignored. And in the US carbon trading has been scrapped due to lack of interest. Its over, its finished, it just remains for the rest of the public to catch on. Hopefully you have, if not then a few more years should do the trick. --edit-- Oh, and finally, while the west is in a financial state as perilious as it is right now dont expect any real action by any government. They just cant afford it. And by the time, perhaps 10 years into the future, we are out of it, there will have been a lot more data and research done and AGW will be a foot note in history.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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
modified on Monday, April 11, 2011 6:59 AM
-
AGW has collapsed in the scientific world, at least the serious one. The total lack of warming for 16 years has done that, as well as climate gate. Some scientists, and somce politicans are still making a lot of noise, they are now looking increasingly foolish. Meanwhile, especially in Europe, the lefts bastions, carbon rerstrictions are being totally ignored. And in the US carbon trading has been scrapped due to lack of interest. Its over, its finished, it just remains for the rest of the public to catch on. Hopefully you have, if not then a few more years should do the trick. --edit-- Oh, and finally, while the west is in a financial state as perilious as it is right now dont expect any real action by any government. They just cant afford it. And by the time, perhaps 10 years into the future, we are out of it, there will have been a lot more data and research done and AGW will be a foot note in history.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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
modified on Monday, April 11, 2011 6:59 AM
fat_boy wrote:
AGW has collapsed in the scientific world, at least the serious one
In the same way that the early 20th century theory of continental drift collapsed? Well for approximately 40 years when it was revived as plate tectonics. :laugh: And what has carbon trading to do with climatology? It is a political response nothing to do with the scientific debate.
fat_boy wrote:
and AGW will be a foot note in history.
My crystal ball is not that clear. :-D Again the history of science is replete with incidents where theories have been deemed to be foolish and dismissed only to be reconsidered and shown to be valid. I still don't know what the fundamentals are nor how they come to be the fundamentals. That could be because you don't address the issues raised but throw in a few distractions e.g. chartists, carbon trading and mix them with the assertions blended with a few prejudices. You dismiss papers on the basis of the author's character. Again look at the second part of your sig. It does not matter how obnoxious, dishonest or self-serving someone is if they are right. If you think otherwise, then you think Newton's work should be dismissed out of hand.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
AGW has collapsed in the scientific world, at least the serious one
In the same way that the early 20th century theory of continental drift collapsed? Well for approximately 40 years when it was revived as plate tectonics. :laugh: And what has carbon trading to do with climatology? It is a political response nothing to do with the scientific debate.
fat_boy wrote:
and AGW will be a foot note in history.
My crystal ball is not that clear. :-D Again the history of science is replete with incidents where theories have been deemed to be foolish and dismissed only to be reconsidered and shown to be valid. I still don't know what the fundamentals are nor how they come to be the fundamentals. That could be because you don't address the issues raised but throw in a few distractions e.g. chartists, carbon trading and mix them with the assertions blended with a few prejudices. You dismiss papers on the basis of the author's character. Again look at the second part of your sig. It does not matter how obnoxious, dishonest or self-serving someone is if they are right. If you think otherwise, then you think Newton's work should be dismissed out of hand.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
OK, have it your way. The world is going down the pan due to CO2. Now tell me what YOU personally are doing about it if those are your beliefs.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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
-
OK, have it your way. The world is going down the pan due to CO2. Now tell me what YOU personally are doing about it if those are your beliefs.
"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, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here 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:
OK, have it your way. The world is going down the pan due to CO2.
Where did I say that? All I have tried to do is point out that judging by your posts: 1 You have prejudge issues instead of recognizing that climatology is a relatively new discipline and as such will be subject to debates that at times will be acrimonious. That's typical of science. 2 You seem to have some notion that there are scientific 'truths' that are never subject to revision. 3 You resort to personal abuse in an attempt to refute others' points of view (which is ironic given your sig). 4 When substantive points are made that undermine yours you throw in distractions that are not relevant. 5 You make extravagant claims that lack grounds and are often patently wrong. 6 You impute beliefs and conclusions to others that cannot be derived from what they say. 7 You attempt to show weakness as strength such as when you claimed that you were 'blunt' (presumably meant to be positive) when I pointed out these things in a previous thread. As I've said before, that's how you come across. Unfortunately that means that people ignore what you say because they see these defects. You might argue that people should pay attention to what you say rather than how yo say it (cf the Feynman quote). While I have a great deal of sympathy with Feynman's view, I also recognise that that is not in fact how the world operates. Reputation does count, at least in the short term. Many perfectly sound theories have been dismissed, only to be shown to be valid at a later time, just because some leading authority in the field has rubbished them. Conversely, many a dead theory has been kept alive artificially because some leading authority espoused them. Science makes progress by, eventually, recognising when this has happened by adopting or rejecting the theory as appropriate. And that progress comes as a result of debate, which is often acrimonious and protracted.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, have it your way. The world is going down the pan due to CO2.
Where did I say that? All I have tried to do is point out that judging by your posts: 1 You have prejudge issues instead of recognizing that climatology is a relatively new discipline and as such will be subject to debates that at times will be acrimonious. That's typical of science. 2 You seem to have some notion that there are scientific 'truths' that are never subject to revision. 3 You resort to personal abuse in an attempt to refute others' points of view (which is ironic given your sig). 4 When substantive points are made that undermine yours you throw in distractions that are not relevant. 5 You make extravagant claims that lack grounds and are often patently wrong. 6 You impute beliefs and conclusions to others that cannot be derived from what they say. 7 You attempt to show weakness as strength such as when you claimed that you were 'blunt' (presumably meant to be positive) when I pointed out these things in a previous thread. As I've said before, that's how you come across. Unfortunately that means that people ignore what you say because they see these defects. You might argue that people should pay attention to what you say rather than how yo say it (cf the Feynman quote). While I have a great deal of sympathy with Feynman's view, I also recognise that that is not in fact how the world operates. Reputation does count, at least in the short term. Many perfectly sound theories have been dismissed, only to be shown to be valid at a later time, just because some leading authority in the field has rubbished them. Conversely, many a dead theory has been kept alive artificially because some leading authority espoused them. Science makes progress by, eventually, recognising when this has happened by adopting or rejecting the theory as appropriate. And that progress comes as a result of debate, which is often acrimonious and protracted.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
:) What a crappy medium writing is eh?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost