Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Nasa have released their October figure: +1.03C. Not just the warmest October but the highest monthly anomaly in the record too.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...
So the question remains - would it have been the warmest October anomaly ever if the Paris conference was not this year?http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...
Jinx said:
No one complains about MMGW - it's the unproven CAGW theory
Had to google CAGW theory, and found this interesting article.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
Halb said:
Had to google CAGW theory, and found this interesting article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
Well written article but he's quite out of date with a lot of it. For example, the 1945 cooling period has been successfully reproduced in models for >10 years now. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
hairykrishna said:
Halb said:
Had to google CAGW theory, and found this interesting article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
Well written article but he's quite out of date with a lot of it. For example, the 1945 cooling period has been successfully reproduced in models for >10 years now. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
His assertion that they don't reproduce the satellite record is also wrong, as they do within uncertainty bounds. His complaint about the match to proxy records is too vague to address. He trots out the "no warming since '98!" trope. There's probably other stuff.
He also seems to go off the rails a bit towards the end, presenting climate scientists as being completely in love with every tiny aspect of their theories.
He also seems to go off the rails a bit towards the end, presenting climate scientists as being completely in love with every tiny aspect of their theories.
Edited by hairykrishna on Saturday 21st November 14:17
Can't find an engineering sub-forum, so this will have to do:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/powe...
Features old, battered Ferrybridge (2000MW using coal) and new, shiny Ferrybridge (68MW using waste).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/powe...
Features old, battered Ferrybridge (2000MW using coal) and new, shiny Ferrybridge (68MW using waste).
V8 Fettler said:
Can't find an engineering sub-forum, so this will have to do:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/powe...
Features old, battered Ferrybridge (2000MW using coal) and new, shiny Ferrybridge (68MW using waste).
But think of the 'carbon' saved!http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/powe...
Features old, battered Ferrybridge (2000MW using coal) and new, shiny Ferrybridge (68MW using waste).
Gandahar said:
Nice graphic there. Beyond natural variation your point is what exactly?
One of the recurring points of discussion in the Climate science arena is about the appeal to authority that is "Peer Review".
Peer review was created as a valuable means of assessing and potentially advancing knowledge from new research.
In a pure science environment, the sort of environment that in Europe, certainly, used to exist perhaps 3 decades ago, it was generally held to work well.
Once other pressures came into play and the the needs to produce papers become career drivers, quickly followed by the need to attract funding, things began to change.
Recently the effects of this, together with ever greater knowledge requiring ever more specific areas of scientific focus and therefore fewer people who might be able to provide quality peer review ... seem to have warped the system somewhat. And across the board.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?...
That is not an article written about Climate Change science and is primarily a coverage of some serious issue that have become public mostly in China where the pressures are probably the greatest in the world. However in a world where international academic interworking is extremely typical in the modern era one would have to be concerned that similar issue may be observable, even if not rampant, everywhere were one to look into it.
This short article seems to explain the whys and wherefores of how peer review can be gamed and indeed is gamed in a significant scale by some players. It seems to me to be worth reading in order to understand the nature of the pressures to publish and then consider whether ot not it is likely that such pressures, felt throughout academia, may have resulted in "issues" everywhere to some extent.
If one was to conclude that human nature would suggest that to be a highly plausible conclusion (even if some of the instances are relatively trivial) it would strongly suggest that total faith in all results presented and relied upon is, at the very least, open to question. Or should be.
Peer review was created as a valuable means of assessing and potentially advancing knowledge from new research.
In a pure science environment, the sort of environment that in Europe, certainly, used to exist perhaps 3 decades ago, it was generally held to work well.
Once other pressures came into play and the the needs to produce papers become career drivers, quickly followed by the need to attract funding, things began to change.
Recently the effects of this, together with ever greater knowledge requiring ever more specific areas of scientific focus and therefore fewer people who might be able to provide quality peer review ... seem to have warped the system somewhat. And across the board.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?...
That is not an article written about Climate Change science and is primarily a coverage of some serious issue that have become public mostly in China where the pressures are probably the greatest in the world. However in a world where international academic interworking is extremely typical in the modern era one would have to be concerned that similar issue may be observable, even if not rampant, everywhere were one to look into it.
This short article seems to explain the whys and wherefores of how peer review can be gamed and indeed is gamed in a significant scale by some players. It seems to me to be worth reading in order to understand the nature of the pressures to publish and then consider whether ot not it is likely that such pressures, felt throughout academia, may have resulted in "issues" everywhere to some extent.
If one was to conclude that human nature would suggest that to be a highly plausible conclusion (even if some of the instances are relatively trivial) it would strongly suggest that total faith in all results presented and relied upon is, at the very least, open to question. Or should be.
Edited by LongQ on Friday 27th November 22:42
ALT F4 said:
So, this climate change carry on....
Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?
Short answer:Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?
No.
Long answer:
No,
regards,
Jet
jet_noise said:
ALT F4 said:
So, this climate change carry on....
Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?
Short answer:Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?
No.
Long answer:
No,
regards,
Jet
no = it would not make diddly squat difference = the difference would not be diddly squat?
yes = it would make diddly squat difference = the difference would be diddly squat?
plunker said:
jet_noise said:
ALT F4 said:
So, this climate change carry on....
Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?
Short answer:Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?
No.
Long answer:
No,
regards,
Jet
no = it would not make diddly squat difference = the difference would not be diddly squat?
yes = it would make diddly squat difference = the difference would be diddly squat?
"yes, absolutely"
and then provide details of what difference it would make and how, to clarify your answer, in case of any grammatical issues that could be misunderstood
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff