Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Science Test
Science cannot be a popularity contest like Strictly Come Dancing. The correct approach for determining whether minority views are reported or ignored is first to examine whether the consensus opinion is as solid as its spokesmen claim and then to examine rigorously the arguments and evidence of the minority. They should not be dismissed simply because they are in a minority. The guiding principle should be the motto of the Royal Society, “nullius in verba”, which roughly translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.
Andrew Turnbull, The Sunday Times, 31 July 2011
If the BBC is determined to follow unscientific recommendations then the result is bound to fail the Turnbull Test, as per the tenet seemingly abandoned by the Royal Sorcery itself. Given the context, any lack of understanding of the scientific process appears to be wilful.
If the Beeb had been in existence at the time, then Einstein would have also have failed the Turnbull Test, given the 'consensus' of Newtonian understanding of physics..Science cannot be a popularity contest like Strictly Come Dancing. The correct approach for determining whether minority views are reported or ignored is first to examine whether the consensus opinion is as solid as its spokesmen claim and then to examine rigorously the arguments and evidence of the minority. They should not be dismissed simply because they are in a minority. The guiding principle should be the motto of the Royal Society, “nullius in verba”, which roughly translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.
Andrew Turnbull, The Sunday Times, 31 July 2011
If the BBC is determined to follow unscientific recommendations then the result is bound to fail the Turnbull Test, as per the tenet seemingly abandoned by the Royal Sorcery itself. Given the context, any lack of understanding of the scientific process appears to be wilful.
Given the current regime in the Beeb, if Einstein had ever reached their dizzy heights of acceptance, he would have undoubtedly fought hard to dismiss the work of Heisenburg, and been give air time to do so, since he himself struggled to accept the work of Heisenburg, as Einstein was convinced that all things should be determinable, yet Heisenburg introduced the concept of probability at the sub-atomic level, which is now well accepted in scientific circles.
Not sure where the Beeb would have stood on this matter, but I'm sure there would have been some well-informed 'tits and ass' reporter spouting some sort of crud.
The 'consensus' changes, as our understanding does - the personalities are irrelevant - but the Beeb reporters are not qualified to have an opinion.
This is science imho!
Blib said:
Was is Facefirst's who claimed to be 'on the fence', when he arrived here, but was found to be running off to a Believer site begging for help?
Or, am I thinking of someone else?
I think you meant to post this on the political thread, didn't you..?Or, am I thinking of someone else?
Earlier on that thread I said:
Facefirst said:
You know, you could lobby for me to be allowed back on the science thread! That would be sporting!
We need to know who you are first. You've made a remarkable transformation since you first popped up, seeking help and guidance from your buddies over on the Bad Science forum...Maybe you should delete this stuff here and transfer it to the other thread..?
If someone's working his strings, that would be a bit naughty...
Latest NCEP ENSO Advisory said:
During July 2011, ENSO-neutral was reflected in the overall pattern of small sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. All of the latest weekly Niño index values were generally near average, ranging from –0.2°C (Niño-3.4) to 0.5°C (Niño-1+2). However, the subsurface oceanic heat content anomaly (average temperature anomalies in the upper 300m of the ocean) continued to weaken and is currently near zero, which reflects the strengthening of the below-average temperatures at depth in the east-central Pacific Ocean. The atmospheric circulation anomalies were more variable during the past month, but the monthly means still reflect aspects of La Niña. For example, convection continued to be enhanced over eastern Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, and generally suppressed over the central equatorial Pacific, mainly south of the equator. Also, anomalous low-level easterly and upper-level westerly winds persisted over the central tropical Pacific. Thus, while tropical Pacific oceanic anomalies indicate ENSO-neutral, the atmospheric patterns continue to reflect La Niña-like conditions.
The majority of ENSO models, and all multi-model average forecasts (indicated by thicker lines, indicate ENSO-neutral will continue into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2011 (three-month average in the Nino-3.4 index between –0.5°C and +0.5°C). Beyond the early fall, the forecasts are less certain with half of the models persisting ENSO-neutral conditions continuously through early 2012. Along with a few other models, the latest runs from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) models predict La Niña to re-develop during the fall. This forecast is also supported by the ongoing La Niña-like tropical atmosphere, subsurface temperature trends, and the historical tendency for significant wintertime La Niña episodes to be followed by relatively weaker La Niña episodes the following winter. Therefore, ENSO-neutral is expected to continue into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2011, with ENSO-neutral or La Niña equally likely thereafter.
Very much in keeping with the previous circular.The majority of ENSO models, and all multi-model average forecasts (indicated by thicker lines, indicate ENSO-neutral will continue into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2011 (three-month average in the Nino-3.4 index between –0.5°C and +0.5°C). Beyond the early fall, the forecasts are less certain with half of the models persisting ENSO-neutral conditions continuously through early 2012. Along with a few other models, the latest runs from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) models predict La Niña to re-develop during the fall. This forecast is also supported by the ongoing La Niña-like tropical atmosphere, subsurface temperature trends, and the historical tendency for significant wintertime La Niña episodes to be followed by relatively weaker La Niña episodes the following winter. Therefore, ENSO-neutral is expected to continue into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2011, with ENSO-neutral or La Niña equally likely thereafter.
69% Believe Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely.
Rasmussen Reports, 03 August 2011
Link
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely.
Rasmussen Reports, 03 August 2011
Link
A pending paper from Prof. Murray Salby the Chair of Climate, of Macquarie University.
Andrew Bolt said:
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
More at WattsBut that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
Blib said:
The fact of the matter is that the truth will out, regardless of how powerful promoters of false theories are.
Of this I have no doubt, especially as the years roll on with no discernable warming, possibly even serious cooling.Just so I can say.............
But then I'm a little childish
DieselGriff said:
A pending paper from Prof. Murray Salby the Chair of Climate, of Macquarie University.
Useful to see this being aired again and from another perspective.Andrew Bolt said:
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
More at WattsBut that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
A couple of people, to say the least, have seen the flaw in a carbon isotope angle. This list doesn't include RealClimate's management however.
Colombo U.,, Gazzarini F., Gonfiantini R.,, “Die Variationen in der chemischen und isotopen Zusammenstzung von Erdgas aus Suditalien”, Leipzig, vol. Vortrag ASTI-67 (1967)
Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., “Evidence that stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum.” J. Pet. Geo, 4, 4, 437-439 (1982)
From the WUWT coverage:
Jo Nova comment on the work of Dr Salby said:
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
Essenhigh was there a while ago:Abstract of the 2009 Essenhigh paper said:
With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (~100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.
We circled an attrition loop with failed rentacomment attacks on Essenhigh a couple of times some while back, which included journal snobbery, hopefully it be avoided this time.UKMO et al explain away 'lack of ocean surface warming in the presence of more tax gas' using models. Although it's entirely as expected, i.e. warmistry isn't wrong as an excuse can always be found, it's curious that there's not one mention of the magical Chinese Coal Genie. And how slick are these model worshippers that an admission of dominance of natural variation over the all-powerful tax gas impact can slip from their mainframes and keyboards so easily. Desperate times, needs must etc.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/...
Also, how cool to write about 'lack of warming' and to title the link 'ocean warming' when it's really all about ocean cooling.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/...
Also, how cool to write about 'lack of warming' and to title the link 'ocean warming' when it's really all about ocean cooling.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff