Well, to add some grist to the mill here I looked at two temperature graphs today covering the last 1000 years. The anti- climate science graph showed that the MWP (medieval warming period) was warmer the the current warming period (CWP). The climate science fraternity showed the same data but guess what? Their graph showed the CWP as warmer.
The other chestnut is the one that shows temperature between 1975 and 1998 as declining in some graphs, and as flat in others. And depending on whose using what to bolster their argument, so the shape of the graph goes.
The other chestnut is the one that shows temperature between 1975 and 1998 as declining in some graphs, and as flat in others. And depending on whose using what to bolster their argument, so the shape of the graph goes.
Quote From Garth Paltridge
"First let it be said that even ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculations (much more believable in many ways than large computer models) suggest that there will indeed be some degree of global warming because of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So there is not much argument from scientists about the actual existence of the phenomenon. On the other hand there is very great scepticism - this despite contentions to the contrary by the IPCC and the institutions related to it - that the amount of the warming will be enough to worry about, or indeed enough to notice, bearing in mind the natural variability of both climate itself and the ecosystems on which it bears.
What worries most scientists who know a little about the subject is that virtually the entire experimental support for the theory of global warming is based on the rough co-incidence of the slight rise in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years with the rise in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the same period. The coincidence needs to be viewed in light of the fact that the world’s temperature has always in the past gone up and down like a yo-yo on all sorts of time scales. Presumably it will continue to do so into the future."
Garth W. Paltridge was Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, and CEO of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, from 1990 until his retirement in 2002. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Tasmania. He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
This article was published in the October 2004 issue of Quadrant.
Nice quote, sounds sensible. It's sort of a double-edged sword, isn't it. The fact that we can only 'see' clearly at such a short time scale also means that we don't see the effects (probably) until we have a larger time scale. By then it may be to late to do anything. Between a rock and a hard place.
Jan
Jan
Interesting read in the comments section of this article Why do professors Garth Paltridge and Peter Ridd say it can be dangerous to their careers as climate scientists to voice arguments counter to AGW? - Quora
Arthur
Arthur
Quote: ""First let it be said that even ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculations (much more believable in many ways than large computer models) suggest that there will indeed be some degree of global warming because of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So there is not much argument from scientists about the actual existence of the phenomenon. On the other hand there is very great scepticism..."
Computer models are far more accurate compare to what can be calculated on a piece of paper. Do it, and you will see for yourself.
Computer models are used in other fields of research including the military. Are you suggesting the military do not understand the limitations of such models? Why would anyone simulate the detonation of extremely powerful bombs to get results that can easily be denied?
I remember back when I was still a youth, I wanted to calculate the time taken for the Earth to arrive at the Sun if its velocity of travel around the sun is suddenly reduced to zero. The analytic/algebraic calculation was extremely tedious requiring two integration steps, but the simulation was straight forward and accurate. I am posting the C code for a small program which calculates the time taken using a repetitive algorithm. This is similar to what simulators do: they calculate the various variables in small successive steps.
Computer models are far more accurate compare to what can be calculated on a piece of paper. Do it, and you will see for yourself.
Computer models are used in other fields of research including the military. Are you suggesting the military do not understand the limitations of such models? Why would anyone simulate the detonation of extremely powerful bombs to get results that can easily be denied?
I remember back when I was still a youth, I wanted to calculate the time taken for the Earth to arrive at the Sun if its velocity of travel around the sun is suddenly reduced to zero. The analytic/algebraic calculation was extremely tedious requiring two integration steps, but the simulation was straight forward and accurate. I am posting the C code for a small program which calculates the time taken using a repetitive algorithm. This is similar to what simulators do: they calculate the various variables in small successive steps.
Code:
#include <stdio.h>
#define sqr(a) a*a
const double
G = 6.672E-11,
sun_mass = 2E30,
initial_sun_distance = 1.496E11,
time_increment = 0.1;
double
sun_earth_distance,
time_taken,
velocity,
accel;
int main() {
// use f = GmM/r^2 (Newton's Law of gravitation)
// acceleration a = GM/r^2
time_taken = 0.0;
velocity = 0.0;
sun_earth_distance = initial_sun_distance;
accel = G*sun_mass/(sqr(sun_earth_distance));
while (sun_earth_distance > 0.0) {
// using s = ut + at^/2 from high school/secondary Physics
time_taken += time_increment;
sun_earth_distance -= velocity*time_increment + accel*sqr(time_increment);
accel = G*sun_mass/(sqr(sun_earth_distance));
velocity += accel*time_increment;
}
printf("time taken is %g days\n", time_taken/(3600*24));
return 0;
}This is not nonsense and anyone with a background in Science and Measurement will know you can not splice proxy and measured data, use one or the other.
In 1800 world population was ≈ 1billion now in 2019 it's ≈ 7.7billion so we can draw the conclusion that the anomaly temperature increase is caused by population growth.
Here is another thing to consider. The planet is incapable of providing food for the current 7.7 billion inhabitants, CO2 we know promotes growth of plant life. (CO2 injected green houses are used to increase yield of vegetables) What will be the effect of reducing atmospheric CO2 on the worlds ability to feed the growing population.
What we (humanity) should be doing is reducing the huge amount of pollution, both airborne and landfill.
It is not a new phenomenon and we have mentioned Thomas Kuhn's essay "The Structure of scientific Revolutions" in another context quite regularly in the past. Seems that it could be always dangerous for scientific careers to argue against the then established paradigms.
Shouldn't be that way, but we have to accept the reality (otherwise there is little chance for changes).
There is virtually no longer dispute about the observed/measured data and therefore that global warming exists and in our understanding the results in climate change worldwide.
Dispute exists wrt to the cause of global warming and the conclusions that should be drawn and at that point usually scientists know that the models are most likely not accurate and might even be wrong in a certain way due to wrong assumptions about the basic cause and effect relations.
As said in the last post therefore scepsis is warranted if somebody asserts that we are able to restrict global warming to X degree by reducing or even stopping the emission of certain greenhouse gases.
This scepsis should not prevent us from doing so, as it usually is a good idea anyway, but honestly nobody can ensure that it will do what it is supposed to do.
Could be that it would be better to work in addition at the same time on a plan B.
@ Evenharmonic,
is there any real evidence for the said change?
The more important question would be, does it matter?
Global warming and the sucessively associated climate change are obviously real, regardless of whether one prefers to call it GW or CC.
Shouldn't be that way, but we have to accept the reality (otherwise there is little chance for changes).
There is virtually no longer dispute about the observed/measured data and therefore that global warming exists and in our understanding the results in climate change worldwide.
Dispute exists wrt to the cause of global warming and the conclusions that should be drawn and at that point usually scientists know that the models are most likely not accurate and might even be wrong in a certain way due to wrong assumptions about the basic cause and effect relations.
As said in the last post therefore scepsis is warranted if somebody asserts that we are able to restrict global warming to X degree by reducing or even stopping the emission of certain greenhouse gases.
This scepsis should not prevent us from doing so, as it usually is a good idea anyway, but honestly nobody can ensure that it will do what it is supposed to do.
Could be that it would be better to work in addition at the same time on a plan B.
@ Evenharmonic,
is there any real evidence for the said change?
The more important question would be, does it matter?
Global warming and the sucessively associated climate change are obviously real, regardless of whether one prefers to call it GW or CC.
“This is not nonsense and anyone with a background in Science and Measurement will know you can not splice proxy and measured data, use one or the other.”
You shifted the goal posts here. I personally would be reluctant to do that as well but might if struggling to pull together a dataset provided I made that clear to the reader. The beef was with using a baseline measurement and absolute measurements.
What I do know is that base line measurements are used all the time in biology, medicine etc to figure things out and they are often done in conjunction with absolute measurements.
You have not explained in mathematical or methodological terms why I can’t take a baseline measurement of say the average temperature between 1980 and 2000 and then reference forward going temperatures to that base line reference. And I don’t understand why I can’t take an absolute measurement of CO2 and overlay that over the temperature. Let’s leave drawing conclusions out of it for now.
You may not like people who believe in AGW, but there are some very smart people out there with published papers (and not just IPCC who anti-AGW people hate) in respected journals like Nature. I would have expected if they made an error as blatant as the one you claim they are making, they would have been pilloried by the scientific community.
Indirectly yes. But remember the ‘7 Why’s’ and the next question would be why did population increase global warming and pretty soon you’d arrive at the root cause which would be because our per capita energy consumption rocketed after 1870, and then really took off after 1960. You cannot generate energy in any form without byproducts either during operation or during the manufacture of the energy generating equipment.
I believe that the issue of global warming has been mixed with the disaster in the Amazon. The latter happened after this thread began. Perhaps a new thread would be good to comment specifically on who are responsible for this misfortune for the entire world.
The order of events is as follows, and it is a practice that has been running for quite some time, although now it deepened exponentially, when Bolsonaro, president of Brazil, supported these practices that of course are not disinterested because I believe that many of us know that returns (money, a lot of money) for the services provided is something very common.
That is why the ex-military man shouts that his country will not heed any warning from third countries because "they are not a colony" .....
1) The dry season is used, (no drought) This is a natural phenomenon of the Amazon ecosystem, just as there is a rainy season.
2) Timber entrepreneurs take advantage of this and begin to clear the forest, even in areas (the so-called Nature Reserves) that are protected by the UN, and that are considered World Heritage, not only of Brazil.
3) This clearing is taken advantage of by the other actors in the drama, the unscrupulous individuals who want to become farmers, here these characters are mixed with the companies, which of course do not oppose them to act civilly, because they are also part of the business. ...
4) But you cannot circulate agricultural machines (tractors, motor graders, etc.) where the felled roots of the trees were left, which are not small, by the way.
Then fire is lit to consume that partially buried wood that cannot be harnessed. Then the land is smoothed and everything is ready to introduce cattle or sow.
5) The latter explains the amount of individual foci and away from each other that exploded everywhere. Bolsonaro gave free rein to the worst predator in the world, man himself, who, as in prehistory, emerged from his caverns upon discovering the power of fire, which gave him heat and the possibility of feeding on cooked meat.
P.S:
I now think about the fate of so many jungle animals caught by the fire and without escape, which is another one of the dramas that is not mentioned, the death of the fauna, not only of the flora.
The order of events is as follows, and it is a practice that has been running for quite some time, although now it deepened exponentially, when Bolsonaro, president of Brazil, supported these practices that of course are not disinterested because I believe that many of us know that returns (money, a lot of money) for the services provided is something very common.
That is why the ex-military man shouts that his country will not heed any warning from third countries because "they are not a colony" .....
1) The dry season is used, (no drought) This is a natural phenomenon of the Amazon ecosystem, just as there is a rainy season.
2) Timber entrepreneurs take advantage of this and begin to clear the forest, even in areas (the so-called Nature Reserves) that are protected by the UN, and that are considered World Heritage, not only of Brazil.
3) This clearing is taken advantage of by the other actors in the drama, the unscrupulous individuals who want to become farmers, here these characters are mixed with the companies, which of course do not oppose them to act civilly, because they are also part of the business. ...
4) But you cannot circulate agricultural machines (tractors, motor graders, etc.) where the felled roots of the trees were left, which are not small, by the way.
Then fire is lit to consume that partially buried wood that cannot be harnessed. Then the land is smoothed and everything is ready to introduce cattle or sow.
5) The latter explains the amount of individual foci and away from each other that exploded everywhere. Bolsonaro gave free rein to the worst predator in the world, man himself, who, as in prehistory, emerged from his caverns upon discovering the power of fire, which gave him heat and the possibility of feeding on cooked meat.
P.S:
I now think about the fate of so many jungle animals caught by the fire and without escape, which is another one of the dramas that is not mentioned, the death of the fauna, not only of the flora.
Last edited:
That is certainly the only way I would attempt it but since my fingers start to blister about the halfway point, I guess it's a bit moot.
Do you know what's even bigger threat? The earthbound asteroids. We (humans) are not spending enough money on search and preventive measures. We are doing some things about it but not enough and when we realize one of those heading towards us, it may be too late to do anything. Global warming my wipe out the human species but an asteroid impact can wipe out almost all species. Where is your priority?
When Al Gore introduced his movie, he was on talk shows with picture of disappearing glacier of an area he picked, predicting that this is more of what's coming due to global warming. You may have missed it due to your location but the news stations, magazines, "experts", some politicians...etc. were sounding alarm all over the place (in USA) about the coming global warming.
An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia Take a closer look at the cover page just below the word "inconvenient".
"An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 American concert film/documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate people about global warming. The film features a comprehensive slide show that, by Gore's own estimate, he has presented over a thousand times to audiences worldwide."
Now those news stations, magazines, "experts", some politicians...etc. are sounding alarm all over the place (in USA) about the coming climate change.
Of course it matters. It's all about the public's perception. You would know this from your own experience with running audio business.
Some online maps re fires, pollution, sea surface temperatures and electric storms often convey info, MSM does not:
Pollution: earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions
Fires: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:3;c:-13.8,3.3;t:adv-points;d:2018-12-11..2018-12-12;l:firms_viirs,firms_modis_a,firms_modis_t
Electric storms: Lightning & Thunderstorms - South America
Global sea surface temperatures (GSST and anomalies): Hurricane & Tropical Cyclones | Weather Underground
On the GSST map, the location of storms no longer is displayed. Pic of the past:
Pollution: earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions
Fires: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:3;c:-13.8,3.3;t:adv-points;d:2018-12-11..2018-12-12;l:firms_viirs,firms_modis_a,firms_modis_t
Electric storms: Lightning & Thunderstorms - South America
Global sea surface temperatures (GSST and anomalies): Hurricane & Tropical Cyclones | Weather Underground
On the GSST map, the location of storms no longer is displayed. Pic of the past:
Attachments
Hah! I even have a blog here on diyaudio that discusses An Inconvenient Truth: Don't be such a scientist! - diyAudio - oddly appropriate.
But on the astroids/meteors. I was under the impression that that is closely watched. Once in a while we get reports that one has been detected and razes us at no more than 1 million miles or so, a near miss in astro terms. Not that we could prevent it, but at least we would have enough time to pray and thus take it off our minds ;-)
Jan
Last edited:
I was wondering myself on why all the extinction event asteroid articles seem to be appearing now. Possibly more subtle the articles about solid gold or platinum asteroids just sitting out there waiting to be mined. IMO it's all fake news, the later planted nonsense articles by the crypto-currency crowd to create fear that precious metals could suddenly have no value/scarcity.
We had such a near miss just one or two weeks ago, when an asteroid came suddenly 'out of the blue' and the forecast lead time was only days.
IIRC the size was 'only' in the 50 -100 m range so not at the extinction level but scary enough.
@ Evenharmonic,
as said before, global warming is the cause (in the model) and climate change is the associated effect, so I don't understand what your concern is/was.
In the broader sense I got the impression that you were relating the alleged change to 'pseudoscience', am I mistaken?
If you think so, where is the pseudoscience in this case?
In my simple 'simulator' program I used the 'double' precision floating point numerical type. There is yet another floating type which contains more digits. This is the 'double double' type. These are standard floating point number types that are available to any C program. Simulators can use higher precision by using custom floating point precision types.
This is to remove all doubts simulators are very inaccurate and therefore unreliable.
This is to remove all doubts simulators are very inaccurate and therefore unreliable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.