Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

Climate change

87 posts in this topic

Imo man made "climate change" is just a big purple hippopotamus, there simply isnt enough data to prove that humans are the driving force. Even if co2 levels were to rise as predicted the atmospheric levels would still be well below those that existed during the cambrian era (7000 parts per million against approx 400 ppm today) and life flourished.

For the second time in the thread (though to a different person) I'll ask... what data would you accept?

There is a heck of a lot of supportive data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you're not really a scientist.  I bet you made that up.

I don't have to prove anything to you, however data has to be measured over a significant period in order to demonstrate fact over artifact, that I learnt during my degree and still stands today. 100 years measuring the temperature of the earth is insignificant. measuring 17 years within the 100 years is statistically no less significant over the period the earth has supported life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to prove anything to you, however data has to be measured over a significant period in order to demonstrate fact over artifact, that I learnt during my degree and still stands today. 100 years measuring the temperature of the earth is insignificant. measuring 17 years within the 100 years is statistically no less significant over the period the earth has supported life.

So, your claim to be a scientist was just that you did a BSc some time ago.  Pretty much meaning, you made it up.

 

Do you think that you are better qualified on the subject than people who research it for a living, or just far more intelligent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes my main point perfectly. You link to an unattributed, hysterical, web article and hold that up as a piece of informed opinion.

Getting an insurance renewal quote from an aging system is trivial, although it cost the company a few thousand in goodwill payments, but if nothing had been done about the Y2K then all computer systems, whether scientific, technical or commercial, that relied on date calculations on data fields of just 2 digits would have failed. It would have taken a little bit more than a 'bit of overtime' to fix and many organisations wouldn't, couldn't, have survived.

Again, the people who knew about the problem, who had investigated it and designed solutions, knew that washing machines and cars were not going to stop working. Those ideas were left to those with fertile imaginations or mischievous intent. The parallels with the climate change situation are clear. With Y2K some easily-confused people bought into the concept of planes falling out of the sky. With climate change, similar people take the most extreme speculation about what the effects might be, and then hold these up as being the definite predictions of all those who warn about man-made climate change.

 

1. No I didn't, I linked it to demonstrate the level of hype.

 

2. And therefore I think the comparison is valid. The significance of the Y2K "problem" was over hyped based on a complete lack of clarity over the impact. However, in order to avoid this unknown impact we spent ££billions. The fact that the experts understood what "might" cause the problem and applied the fix does not demonstrate it was a significant problem. Over the whole globe the number of computer chips to which the bug fix was not applied that still worked, IMO would be a significant statistical number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your claim to be a scientist was just that you did a BSc some time ago.  Pretty much meaning, you made it up.

 

Do you think that you are better qualified on the subject than people who research it for a living, or just far more intelligent?

Are you deliberately starting to discredit my opinion because your only course of action is to get personal?

 

Answer my other questions about what the significance of data is and maybe you would be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the second time in the thread (though to a different person) I'll ask... what data would you accept?

There is a heck of a lot of supportive data.

Last 17 years the world has not increased temperature.

 

Previous 100 or so it has.

 

Mankind on earth 40,000 years or so  0.025% of the time the earth has supported man the temperature went up with no significant impact. God knows how insignificant it would be if we considered how long the earth has supported life.

 

I'm not ignorant to the effects of flood, drought, heat waves or ice ages but no-one can statistically claim that the data supporting "climate change" (whatever that means ) is the reason for it, when we know categorically that the earth has suffered far more significant changes than we are seeing now when man was not pumping carbon into the atmosphere to any great degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last 17 years the world has not increased temperature.

 

Previous 100 or so it has.

Thats an outright lie. See it debunked here (sorry I can't create links in chrome... don't know why)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Mankind on earth 40,000 years or so  0.025% of the time the earth has supported man the temperature went up with no significant impact. God knows how insignificant it would be if we considered how long the earth has supported life.

Which oddly coincides with the amount of time we've been industrialized.

I'm not ignorant to the effects of flood, drought, heat waves or ice ages but no-one can statistically claim that the data supporting "climate change" (whatever that means ) is the reason for it, when we know categorically that the earth has suffered far more significant changes than we are seeing now when man was not pumping carbon into the atmosphere to any great degree.

ah the old "the climates changed before" lie! See this myth debunked here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

there is a lot of data supporting climate change. Maybe if you state the data you disagree with and we'll look in to it. As with everything I'll change my opinion based on the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you deliberately starting to discredit my opinion because your only course of action is to get personal?

 

Answer my other questions about what the significance of data is and maybe you would be justified.

I have no reason to answer your questions.  I am not qualified to do so.

 

There are lots of people all over the world investigating such things, of varying levels and with differing viewpoints.  There is a broad concensous, but if you want the exact reasoning, you can read the huge amount of literature on the subject.  It would be stupid of me, with no real expertise in the area to attempt to explain it all.

 

You are the one saying they have have all got it wrong, it is you who must explain why.  I would suggest that a rugby league forum is not the best place.  Have you tried addressing your concerns to one of the many research institutes around hte world investigating it?  They might be grateful that you altert them to their oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats an outright lie. See it debunked here (sorry I can't create links in chrome... don't know why)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Which oddly coincides with the amount of time we've been industrialized.

ah the old "the climates changed before" lie! See this myth debunked here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

there is a lot of data supporting climate change. Maybe if you state the data you disagree with and we'll look in to it. As with everything I'll change my opinion based on the evidence.

 

The data is insignificant. Full Stop.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no reason to answer your questions.  I am not qualified to do so.

 

There are lots of people all over the world investigating such things, of varying levels and with differing viewpoints.  There is a broad concensous, but if you want the exact reasoning, you can read the huge amount of literature on the subject.  It would be stupid of me, with no real expertise in the area to attempt to explain it all.

 

You are the one saying they have have all got it wrong, it is you who must explain why.  I would suggest that a rugby league forum is not the best place.  Have you tried addressing your concerns to one of the many research institutes around hte world investigating it?  They might be grateful that you altert them to their oversight.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet never lies!!!    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could never happen, could it, Ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017