Re: OT: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science

On Dec 27, 3:52 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

<snip>
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs..

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear.  One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further.  Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers..

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment.  Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause.  But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view.  The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

The Earth's temperature has varied over a 1% range over the last
10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period. Data from
here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2...

This assumes The Greenland ice cores are representative of global
temperatures.

My comment was informed not ignorant as you suggested. In fact the
global temperature now is about the average for the holocene period.
That allows for a 1.5C rise in Greenland since the last ice core
sample of 1905.

If you look at the data the there was a temperature rise of about 1C
per century 1200 years ago so even the recent rate of rise in
temperature is not unique for the Christian era let alone the
holocene.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them.  First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two?  I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them.  I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two.  So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill.  But that's what it takes -- work.  Are you willing to do that
with me?

I am afraid unlike you I don't have the time for detailed navel gazing
over minor aspects of climate science. Reading this stuff is something
I do for light relief after spending 6 days a week running a business
and working as it's main engineer.

However as far as I am concerned the onus is on the alarmist community
to actually demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of temperature
rise. Self consistent models don't do it. Various claims of positive
feedback don't do it. And retrospective changes to the temperature
record don't do it.

And it is far to say that the hockey stick is crap science as
climategate and "hide the decline" have shown. If tree rings aren't a
good proxy for temperature since 1960 as they don't agree with teh
instrument record then they are not a good proxy for temperature in
the pre instrument age.

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions.  It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

It is not profound ignorance as you like to think

As a number of us have been forced to think by your inept arguments
and incompetent way with evidence

but a considered rejection of the claim that "the science is settled".

"Considered"? Ravinghorde doesn't know enough for his opinions to rate
as "considered" - you can't "consider" what you don't understand. The
word imples observing a subject, and thinking about what you have
observed, and Ravinghorde doesn't observe the stuff he presents well
enough to appreciate what it actually means, which means that he isn't
in a positon to think about it in any useful way.

In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer.

But obviously too difficult for Ravinghorde, since he makes a habit of
getting its wrong.

It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

A claim that might carry more weight if Ravinghorde showed more signs
of understanding what he posts.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

The same kind of social control that banned chlorofluorocarbons to
stop the ozone hole getting any bigger, and got sulphur-scrubbers
installed in the smoke stacks of power stations to put an end to acid
rain?

An anathema to more rabid right-wingers, no matter how sensible in
practice.

Grow up. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem that we are going
to have to deal with. The solution is going to be more expensive than
getting rid of chloroflurocarbons and SO2 emissions, but nowhere near
expensive enough to disrupt society or require more government control
than we have at the moment.

Thank you.  I wish i could present my position so well.  It is politics,
not science.

More wishful thinking. Ravinghorde's position is that he is allowing
his political opinions to dictate what "scientific" advice he will
listen to. He doesn't know enough about the science involved to
distinguish between nonsense that he sees as supporting his preferred
understanding and the coherent body of peer-reviewed work that
doesn't, and when he does get hold of respectable peer-reviewed work,
he's inclined to quote bits of it out of context for support, when the
work as a whole contradicts what he wants to claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

Relevant Pages

  • GOT ONE (was Re: Craftsman mini multimeter with K thermocouple )
    ... What accounts for the loose specs in cheap digital equipment (I am ... agree that the temperature is 210. ... Seems to have more lag than one would expect in an exposed thermocouple ... heat shrink is but at 430 or so playing with the I-Roast it was ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: OT: Climate Change Debate - PING Francis
    ... has just been posted on the wattsupwiththat.com blog that deals ... As Ravetz says in the essay, ... I think his assessment of the implications for climate science of the ... relating the increase in mean temperature to a doubling of CO2, ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: global warming hoax
    ... Because whenever I ask these questions, they are not answered by the many "climate science" believers in this group. ... In the absence of anthropogenic CO2, why has the earth warmed and cooled over the last 100,000 years minus the last 100 years? ... You trotted it out to object to my dates for when the earth started to warm, rather than address the actual question which was why the earth has warmed and cooled in the recent historical past in the absence of anthropogenic CO2. ... Nobody knows what actually drives temperature change, that is why none of the models has ever had predictive validity. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: frequency/clock stability
    ... there usally another aging spec in addion to stability, ... seemed they assuming some unchanged temperature. ... Oscillator specs and crystal specs (often used as the frequency setting ... Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: [opensuse] Unstable system - who is the culprit?
    ... If you go to the AMD site you will find the specs for the various CPUs ... they make and the temperature at which they are designed to ... CPU has been well within the range when it's been running at 50-60C. ... 70c is the absolute maximum operating temperature, ...
    (SuSE)