Funny goings on in the world climate model.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by chieftiff, Nov 16, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

  2. Certainly bizarre, we made our annual forray to the UK last month, laden with sweatshirts and jackets for a typically chilly autumn in Yorkshire only to find ourselves going around in short sleeves or T shirts all the time. At the same time other regions were having freak snow falls and hail storms. Mrs LujonSA was severly p*ssed off because carrying extra unnecessary weight meant she could not bring back to France the usual UK sourced goodies, (twelve month's supply of Yorkshire Hard-water Tea Bags etc.), she would have liked without exceeding Ryanair's mean-spirited baggage allowance.
  3. Typical rubbish from the "antis"/"deniers"/whatevers - they, deliberately and knowingly - mix upclimate and weather.

    It merely shows their ability at PR and spin rather than science. IF they want to challenge the science, then fine - but merely trying to con people with puff pieces like that just shows how dishonest or scientific illiterate they are.

    Repeat after me "weather" does not equate to "climate".

  4. I'm guessing it all depends on who is footing the bill for their little research projects.

  5. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    And the difference is?

    The world climatic model is based on historical weather data (because we have yet to develop the little time travel machine) extrapolated and corrected (using a version of the logistics equation) to form a mathematical prediction based on a little educated guesswork. If the data is poor no amount of good will or educated guesswork is worth sh!t. What this article is saying is that the robust scientific method of gathering, validating and distributing that data is............. well............crap! and has been for some time by the look of it. What were you saying about weather and climate again?

    The single most important issue surrounding the global warming debate, it's cause and potential effect is not theory it's credibility and specifically the credibility of historical data. Whilst you can pick holes in the debate it is incredibly difficult to pick holes in the computer programmes or mathematics they are based on; because these are classed as corporate secrets (we are talking a great deal of money here) Whilst I think it's universally accepted that temperatures are rising the debate surrounds "by how much and at what rate...... is it a natural cycle or man made event" The accuracy of data is very important and to dismiss these recording errors shows how little respect you have for science. Here's some more GISS errors:

    If you understand the concept of non-linear dynamics; small changes in initial conditions can (and invariably do) lead to large changes in final or intemediatory reults you may consider questioning what we are being told by these "credible" organisations.

    Science needs debate and doubt, without it, it ceases to be science and falls into the realms of politics...... sound familiar?
  6. No it isn't.

    It is taking a genuine (as far as the article is concerned) error and is trying to invalidate the whole of Climate Science !

    Likewise the comment regarding the "Hockeystick" is incorrect - there was some concern over the original graph, but there have been numerous other analyses which have validated the basic shape (although differing in detail).

    It is typical of the "antis"/"deniers"/whatevers that they know very little science and almost no climate science.

    IF only they would actually demonstrate some scientific reasoning to back up their claims instead of just throwing mud then maybe there would be some sort of valid scientific debate. As it is there is no real debate going on because almost all credible climate scientists believe in Climate Change and the "antis"/"deniers"/whatevers don't even try to debate the issue, merely sitting on the sidelines throwing mud and making lots of noise.

    Anytme you get near one of these "antis"/"denyers"/whatevers, just ask them why they aren't actually challenging the Climate Change supporters in scientific debate - you won't get an answer.

  7. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    You may want to read the article again then, they are doubting the validity of data, if you go to the link I added you will see that GISS has somewhat of a history of unreliable data!

    If you don't think that there is a genuine scientific debate going on you aren't reading wide enough, half of the scientists who signed up to the IPPC report on climate change are not happy with it's predictions (more exactly; they believe the rate of climate change is exaggerated in the report and does not reflect the academic work they put forward to be included in it). Whilst most (but not all) agree it is occuring as a man made event many believe the report has been politically misinterpreted.

    I'm probably the greenest person you'd meet, I fully support recycling (when it really is recycling, not pushing one countries problems to another for financial gain) I am appalled at the crap that is being pumped into our atmosphere (and the debate surrounding carbon is really fogging the issue of some nasty stuff we are poisoning our planet with; like Nox, cyanide and oestrogen) I could go on but my issue is that there is so much non-scientific crap preached and reported for the purpose of scare mongering and taxing that it has become almost impossible for joe public to make rational decisions about what he/she is being told.

    When an article appears that discredits one of only 3 agencies globally responsible for gathering and validating world temperature records, regardless of whether it was a genuine error or not (the point is mute in science, it's an error and significant at that) you suggest it's nonsense? You bring up the subject of "genuine scientific reasoning" now think about it, what is data validation?

    Edited to add: If you are genuinely interested in the science behind the hype and not just one of the many sheep who have leapt onto the political bandwagon you may want to boookmark GISS's site and view their data, they do a good job (but as has been revealed need to tighten up their validity checking.) This is an interesting chart and demonstrates just why the debate is wide open at he moment despite Al Gore's politically and financially motivated assurance that the debate is done and dusted:
  8. B#gger. I was hoping for some real proof that it's all a load of crap. Was about to write to Broon for a car and fuel tax rebate.
    Climate change is a natural phenomenon, although mankind's activities aren't helping. We may be able to slow it down, but we can't stop it.

    Live with it.

    Look on the bright side; if anything, English wine should improve somewhat.
  9. Chieftiff, that's an interesting link, however it doesn't answer the question why is so much ice melting? There is enough documentation made over decades to prove that the ice is melting in the Alps, the Artic, in the Andes and elsewhere. Large amounts have gone. Dramatic climatic changes are almost as old as the Earth, so is this change just a part of normal circumstances or man made or a bit of both? Whatever the answer, climate change is here. A reletively minor stats c0ck up does nothing to change the situation. Lies, damn lies and statistics?
  10. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Probably because the mean Earth temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees C since 1880 which is the basis for sea ice observation. There is good news though, October saw the fastest seasonal increase in ice growth in the history of satellite imagery:

    It's also interesting to note that Arctic Sea Ice has retreated considerably further than it did in 2006-2007 (the accepted recent record) in 1947 (I think, although it may have been 1942 I will have to do some reading)

    Edited: you may also want to question why a significantly large (there is nothing minor about it) data glitch for Ocober's records seems to have effected every month for the entire year on GISS's website? Perhaps data validation has no quality assurance process which has led to a sudden urge to get it right post exposure? just a thought.
  11. Those sat images are a year out. I can't find any from this year
  12. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Unfortunately you will have to read the information below the pictures, sea ice imagery is not what you think it is (photographs) they are combinations of images taken at different wavelengths and combined to give a more accurate image, October 2008 isn't illustrated yet.

    Edited....again! Here is an image though and some notes as to why:
  13. Thanks understand about the imagery. Just nothing mentions anything about 2008 below the pictures only uptil November 2007. Hence my confusion. Unless I'm going completely mad I couldn't see any reference
  14. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Undertsand the confusion, see my edit to my last post.
  15. Thanks fella.
  16. Yep, real estate values will be rising shortly in Greenland...:D
  17. A follow up comment to the article states that CO2 is far less of a pollutant than Methane, released into the atmosphere by the World's cows causing six times as much pollution as cars do.

    So, as I suspected, climate change is all the fault of the bloody veggies. I vote we round 'em all up and put 'em in specially designed 'Abbatoir Camps', where they can be force fed on beef and tripe in order to drive down the cattle population until we have a decent summer.

  18. And Termites release more Methane than a Cow
  19. I'm an "anti". I don't need to enter into any scientific debate, because thousands of scientists already do that on my behalf. To dismiss scientific opinion (oxymoron, surely?) because it is expressed by those who do not specialise in climate matters is ludicrous.

    My problem with the Global Warming lobby is that it is a self-licking ice-cream. Too many of the would-be opinion formers rely for their salaries on unproven science, but challenge the logic of their arguments and they become indignant, which is a sure sign that they are not certain of their argument.
  20. Where as on the other hand the majority of the so called "experts" that denounce Global Warming just happen to be on the payrolls of the major Oil boys...Hmmmm wonder why that is... :dwarf:

    Everyone has an agenda on this issue and it's what suits them that counts, time will tell who is right and who is wrong, hopefully my descendants will have colonized some planet far far away...and this shit ball of a planet will be on display in the local museum under the title of "what not to do when trying to become enlightened".... :hockey:

Share This Page