Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Climate change


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#61 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:33 PM

I am not saying they have got it all wrong. What I am saying is that they can't use the data to prove a theory. It is scientifically insignificant and limited in it's influencing factors. 

 

I am also pointing out the lack of reasoned outcomes. 

To us.

 

Which is odd.  We are not the ones working in the field.  I imagine this is why there are such things are confidence intervals and alternative models.  Perhaps put this to them.  Have you tried?


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#62 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

The data is insignificant. Full Stop.


Is the data correct or not? If it is correct it is anything but insignificant.
 

Did the data take into account the distance of the earth from the sun which is not a constant? Or the angle? Or the change in rotational speed affecting wind patterns? The distance of the moon from the earth constantly changing, affecting tidal movement? Neither is the effect of volcanic action taken into consideration, tectonic energy transmission or sun burst energy which is currently at a peak. Neither is the rate of heat loss from the earth into space.
 
For example, the amount of thermal energy released in the Mount St Helens eruption of 1980 was 24 megatons, 1,600 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This energy is dissipated into the atmosphere and takes many years to equilibrate and be absorbed. There are on average 60 volcanic eruptions a year, many beneath the surface of the sea. By my own basic calculations this is not a huge contributor to the earth's surface temperatures, but I can't believe any data to supporting global warming through man's intervention would ignore all the factors.


stop squirming! The article I've posted shows that your statement
 

Last 17 years the world has not increased temperature.


is a lie. You can dress it up any way you want, and try to introduce strawman arguments as much as you want (mount St Helen for example erupted far longer than 17 years ago and has no bearing on the last 17 years). So please show me where is the article I linked to wrong. Show me that there has been no warming in the last 17 years. I've presented evidence... now its your turn to do the same... not just offer some conjecture.

If you accept that the warming has happened... THEN we can discuss the science and the cause!

Edited by RidingPie, 02 October 2013 - 02:52 PM.


#63 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:47 AM

Is the data correct or not? If it is correct it is anything but insignificant.
 

stop squirming! The article I've posted shows that your statement
 

is a lie. You can dress it up any way you want, and try to introduce strawman arguments as much as you want (mount St Helen for example erupted far longer than 17 years ago and has no bearing on the last 17 years). So please show me where is the article I linked to wrong. Show me that there has been no warming in the last 17 years. I've presented evidence... now its your turn to do the same... not just offer some conjecture.

If you accept that the warming has happened... THEN we can discuss the science and the cause!

 

I'm sorry mate but you are out of your depth. Just because you make a measurement doesn't mean because it is precise, it is accurate. Accuracy is a mean figure based on the distribution over time. In the period where the earth has supported life, any measurement of energy distribution must take into account the relevant time-scale. Therefore 50 years is insignificant statistically. FACT.

 

Therefore the data although possibly precise (which I dispute due to the lack of inclusion of influencing factors which you haven't addressed) it is not accurate because the mean distribution of energy displacement over time is broader than the data distribution over 50 years.

 

What you need to demonstrate statistically, is that the effects you see fit outside the normal distribution and you must take into account all the effects on the earth to make categorical accurate measurements.

.

No-one can critically claim to know what the mean distribution is. All we can do is speculate that this period of 50 years is significant.

 

 

I will give you a personal anecdote to explain my scepticism regarding scientific data and it's significance. This happened around 1992.

 

I was working in a laboratory producing results for a global pharmaceutical giant. During the analysis, I was producing data that did not fit their predicted mathematical model. Each set of data I produced was rejected until, after 9 attempts, I produced the data that fitted the model. The previous 8 batches of data was deemed insignificant.

 

It doesn't take Einstein to realise the results used by the client were precise, however they did not accurately represent the distribution of results. I was of course fuming that the client chose what to use and what not to use but they had a deadline and were paying my wages. Ever since that incident I have been wary of results that claim amazing or damning outcomes because they are invariably selective.

 

So please don't patronise me about accepting that warming is happening before you'll talk science with e. I clearly know what I'm talking about where you clearly don't.



#64 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:48 AM

To us.

 

Which is odd.  We are not the ones working in the field.  I imagine this is why there are such things are confidence intervals and alternative models.  Perhaps put this to them.  Have you tried?

I have no desire to challenge the arguments. I have a life to live under the normal distribution curve.



#65 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 01:01 PM

I'm sorry mate but you are out of your depth. Just because you make a measurement doesn't mean because it is precise, it is accurate. Accuracy is a mean figure based on the distribution over time. In the period where the earth has supported life, any measurement of energy distribution must take into account the relevant time-scale. Therefore 50 years is insignificant statistically. FACT.
 
Therefore the data although possibly precise (which I dispute due to the lack of inclusion of influencing factors which you haven't addressed) it is not accurate because the mean distribution of energy displacement over time is broader than the data distribution over 50 years.
 
What you need to demonstrate statistically, is that the effects you see fit outside the normal distribution and you must take into account all the effects on the earth to make categorical accurate measurements.
.
No-one can critically claim to know what the mean distribution is. All we can do is speculate that this period of 50 years is significant.
 
 
I will give you a personal anecdote to explain my scepticism regarding scientific data and it's significance. This happened around 1992.
 
I was working in a laboratory producing results for a global pharmaceutical giant. During the analysis, I was producing data that did not fit their predicted mathematical model. Each set of data I produced was rejected until, after 9 attempts, I produced the data that fitted the model. The previous 8 batches of data was deemed insignificant.
 
It doesn't take Einstein to realise the results used by the client were precise, however they did not accurately represent the distribution of results. I was of course fuming that the client chose what to use and what not to use but they had a deadline and were paying my wages. Ever since that incident I have been wary of results that claim amazing or damning outcomes because they are invariably selective.
 
So please don't patronise me about accepting that warming is happening before you'll talk science with e. I clearly know what I'm talking about where you clearly don't.


So if you're now starting to get in to warming over 50 years not being significant (followed by a block capital fact to somehow give it weight it hasn't got), have you conceded that your point about the planet warming over the last 17 years was wrong? Which is what we are discussing. If the planet hasn't warmed, regardless of reason you need to show the data proving me wrong.

if you have, like it seems you have, then we'll discuss whether the data is significant or not and what is influencing the figures be they orbital mechanics, solar activity or flying spaghetti monster.

As for your personal anecdote, if you are or have been involved in science you will know that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence! Also you're rather ill attempted appeal from authority is a terrible logical fallacy to go for in this instance, as is your strawman about influencing factors.

Also saying I'm out of my depth has no basis and is playing the man not the ball. I'm offering evidence and a chance to really debate these issues.

You're offering logical fallacies and personal insults, something I have gone out of my way to avoid.

#66 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,891 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 01:10 PM

A reduction in deforestation and better utilisation of the current landmass to develop more woodlands would be a decent step to helping remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Granted this is only a tiny step in the big picture but very much worthwhile as it also has the added benefit of creating more habitats for wildlife.

 

The real crux of the issue is reducing CO2 emissions though and that could only be tackled through the utilisation of masses of nuclear power plants across the world. I am surprised the big corporations haven't started to push this yet as it would be a money spinner...

 

Let's get this into perspective - there's over 600 times as much oxygen as CO2 in the atmosphere.  If we take much more CO2 from the atmosphere, trees will die because there'll be nowt for them to breathe.

 

There are two separate questions .....

 

 

Is the world getting warmer ?

 

If it is, what's causing it ?

 

Neither of these are clear cut.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#67 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:10 PM

So if you're now starting to get in to warming over 50 years not being significant (followed by a block capital fact to somehow give it weight it hasn't got), have you conceded that your point about the planet warming over the last 17 years was wrong? Which is what we are discussing. If the planet hasn't warmed, regardless of reason you need to show the data proving me wrong.

if you have, like it seems you have, then we'll discuss whether the data is significant or not and what is influencing the figures be they orbital mechanics, solar activity or flying spaghetti monster.

As for your personal anecdote, if you are or have been involved in science you will know that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence! Also you're rather ill attempted appeal from authority is a terrible logical fallacy to go for in this instance, as is your strawman about influencing factors.

Also saying I'm out of my depth has no basis and is playing the man not the ball. I'm offering evidence and a chance to really debate these issues.

You're offering logical fallacies and personal insults, something I have gone out of my way to avoid.

 

I'm sorry but you need to stop digging the hole. 50 years in a billion years is insignificant statistically regardless of whether the world warmed up or not.

 

My opinion is that it is not proven statistically that the world is on a trend to a warmer phase that will have negative consequences. Anecdotal evidence suggests it is but it is not accurate. That is an opinion too.

 

My anecdote was not presented as evidence, it is  an anecdote which I clearly used to explain my scepticism towards presented scientific data. I only had one anecdote, not 2 so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

 

You believe your data is evidence and that my view is an opinion. That is not debate.

 

Remember, you called me a liar? Clearly not. You were also the first to use capitals to highlight your view.

 

may I also point out that the "straw man" analogy, is precisely what your data is. It highlights a potential unknown outcome, for which we all should take heed.

Which reminds me, I must put the bin out, it's recycling tomorrow.



#68 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:11 PM

Let's get this into perspective - there's over 600 times as much oxygen as CO2 in the atmosphere.  If we take much more CO2 from the atmosphere, trees will die because there'll be nowt for them to breathe.

 

There are two separate questions .....

 

 

Is the world getting warmer ?

 

If it is, what's causing it ?

 

Neither of these are clear cut.

 

That's why they should put lead back into pencils.



#69 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,615 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:59 PM

Incontrovertible proof that climate change a serious issue.

 

The end of the world is nigh, says Bob Geldof as he predicts climate change could wipe out humans in the next two decades

 

See Guardian article


Edited by JohnM, 06 October 2013 - 09:00 PM.


#70 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 09:19 PM

Incontrovertible proof that climate change a serious issue.

 

The end of the world is nigh, says Bob Geldof as he predicts climate change could wipe out humans in the next two decades

 

See Guardian article

JohnM is telling porkies - the link is to a Daily Heil report!!! :)


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#71 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,615 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 10:00 PM

The Internet never lies!!!    :)



#72 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:41 AM

Imagine someone with no background or deep knowledge of the subject sounding off and thinking people should take them seriously.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#73 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,615 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:14 PM

Could never happen, could it, Ed?



#74 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:49 PM

Anyone who knows what it takes to maintain the moorland for grouse will also be aware of how ecologically imbalanced this countryside is. Essentially any predators are dispatched in traps, poisoned or shot to allow the grouse to flourish in such numbers to make the sport of shooting worthwhile.

 

Meanwhile the rabbits over populate with no predators around, they carry disease and myxomatosis everywhere. They build warrens in river banks, and hillsides, which when it rains, cause landslides and flooding.

 

Rats are becoming immune to warfarin and can't be contained. Warfarin was pretty much the only affordable way of keeping rats down without the usual foxes, etc. There are more expensive alternatives but they are becoming uncontrollable in these environments.

 

Also currently, there is good money to be made in a sexy sport like grouse shooting, so a lot of land is being managed and developed to allow 4x4's to get closer to the action to save our poor celebrities any problems getting to the butts on foot.

 

Maybe some of our celebrity spokespeople would consider this before embarking on a mission to save the planet.


Edited by Ackroman, 07 October 2013 - 04:06 PM.


#75 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:49 PM

 

double post


Edited by Ackroman, 07 October 2013 - 03:50 PM.


#76 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,313 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 06:57 PM

When I was a kid, towards the end of the long holiday in August we'd be bored, looking for something new to do., and every year someone would come up with the bright idea, "I know let's go BlackBerrying" So along the railway embankment we'd go with our jam jars, and we'd be lucky between the three or four of us to get enough ripe berries to half fill one jar. Plenty of red ones, loads of green ones, but very few ripe black ones. By mid to late September there'd be plenty. But every year it was the same, no matter how good a summer it had been. Now? These same bushes alongside the railway were laden with ripe fruit by mid-August - by September the lot had been picked, and it was the same last year and the year before. The blackberries are ripening about a month earlier than they did 50/60 years ago. Maybe anecdotal, may not be hard evidence of climate change, but something's causing this, and I reckon I know what it is.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#77 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:37 AM

Maybe all this extra ice will land on us soon.



#78 ligella nawson

ligella nawson
  • Players
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:18 PM

Everyone who comes on here will be dead in less than 100 years so why does climate change bother you

#79 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:45 PM

it doesn't



#80 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,600 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 06:06 PM

Everyone who comes on here will be dead in less than 100 years so why does climate change bother you

What a lovely thought.  Screw everyone else as long as you are happy.  Some people actually have kids and grandkids...


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users