'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

ZTD

dronid wrote: »

That and he's not an environmental scientist. He appears to be a political scientist which, as with politicians, tends to result in selective interpretation of evidence to support a particular standpoint.

He's a statistician. You can use that anywhere.

dronid wrote: »

Now here's a question. Does anyone think our climate is changing? Remember, the answer is yes because our climate is always changing.:D

Yes, but "climate change" is a lazy shorthand "human initiated climate change".

It's a bit like people saying UFOs don't exist. Of course they do.

If it's an object in the air, and you don't know what it is - then it's a UFO.

"Alien spacecraft" is a touch more specific...

ZTD

westernpromise wrote: »

I wouldn't really disagree with the above post and nor do I disagree that the earth does appear to have warmed up slightly. I also completely agree that to pollute is irresponsible and to recycle is elegant.

Recycle is not elegant. *Reuse* is elegant. Recycle is just producing again, but digging it up from somewhere different.

westernpromise wrote: »

Incidentally - I kinda hate to trample on anyone's religion in this way, but it now appears that 1998 wasn't the warmest year after all; it was 1934. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

Warmest year always depends on when and where you measured it, and how good your memory is.

beebearshouse

Just wanna say this is one of the best boards I've participoated in so far. It's been great to read the reactions to my post and counter reactions to those. Great to see such lively discussion going on.
:j

dronid

ZTD wrote: »

He's a statistician. You can use that anywhere.

Indeed. I work with statisticians. You can use them anywhere, and to prove anything.

I still remember that I was requred for a previous job to show that everyone had got the most Millennium money went to every country.

England got most.
Scotland got most per head.
Ni got most major projects per head.
Wales got most individual awards per head.

All felt they had done best. Well all felt they had been hard done by in some way! Statistics are always tricky which makes human initiated climate change along with any kind of planning difficult. On the other hand I still wouldn't disregard the possibility of it and would probably try to limit my effect on the environment. As has been said, it's often cheaper.

And imagine if supermarkets only wrapped each product once! Cornflakes in a bag only without an unneccesary box! Would that make them cheaper? It should. Or maybe Kellogg's profit's would go up!:o

ZTD wrote: »

Yes, but "climate change" is a lazy shorthand "human initiated climate change".
It's a bit like people saying UFOs don't exist. Of course they do.
If it's an object in the air, and you don't know what it is - then it's a UFO.
"Alien spacecraft" is a touch more specific...

I would agree with that. However - to stretch the analogy, if I was flying a plane and a UFO came at me I would still try to avoid it whether it was an Alien spacecraft or a weather balloon. The difference being we may be able to avoid a human created weather balloon but an Alien spacecraft could still hit us. Trying to avoid them is all we can do rather than doggedly assume both are just cloud and we can fly on through!

I think I stretched that analogy about as far as it'd go!:D

tomhill

I would consider Bjorn Lomborg to be the epitamy of the saying 'Jack of all trades ... Master of none'. His background is in political economy and not the natural sciences (not that there is anything wrong with the social sciences ... but it infers he is a layman in the technical discussions surrounding the environment).

The following website lists leading experts in all of the fields represented in Lomborg's discussions. They point out that Lomborg's book fails to live up to rigorous scientific srutiny (an accusation for which he has been under investigation).

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of/

Re Water vapour point. H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. In other words, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means (ie through increase CO2), H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

Re flights. ZTD you have a point regarding the empty seats argument. But special offers like this are designed to gear up demand. Such offers are effectively justifying 5 or 6 trips a day to Bratislava rather than 1 or 2. This means that the air companies can widen their appeal to big bussiness men by offering travel times at any part of the day (increasing their competitive advantage) who thereby subsidising your flight. Part of the problem is that the 'externalities' associated with airtravel are completely unenforced.

ZTD

dronid wrote: »

Indeed. I work with statisticians. You can use them anywhere, and to prove anything.

Well actually, no you can't. The only way you can infer something that isn't supported by the data is to throw the "wrong" data away, or use inappropiate processing on that data (sometimes referred to as "strip mining" the data). And that does happen, though medical research is (IMHO) a worse offender than climate research.

dronid wrote: »

I still remember that I was requred for a previous job to show that everyone had got the most Millennium money went to every country.

England got most.
Scotland got most per head.
Ni got most major projects per head.
Wales got most individual awards per head.

That's fine and easily provable through statistics. Which one is *best* is politics - not stats.

dronid wrote: »

Statistics are always tricky which makes human initiated climate change along with any kind of planning difficult.

Stats are easy (when you know what you're doing). They only become difficult when they refuse to show what is required. Then they need a lot of work doing to them.

dronid wrote: »

And imagine if supermarkets only wrapped each product once! Cornflakes in a bag only without an unneccesary box! Would that make them cheaper? It should. Or maybe Kellogg's profit's would go up!:o

Unlikely. The box is a bit of a red herring. Conflakes in a box tesselate better than cornflakes in a bag, and they crush a lot less easily. If you want them to cheaper, make it part of "food labelling" that the box must be full.

People buy boxed air and think they're getting food, and the supermarket have to transport that air for many miles.

dronid wrote: »

I would agree with that. However - to stretch the analogy, if I was flying a plane and a UFO came at me I would still try to avoid it whether it was an Alien spacecraft or a weather balloon. The difference being we may be able to avoid a human created weather balloon but an Alien spacecraft could still hit us. Trying to avoid them is all we can do rather than doggedly assume both are just cloud and we can fly on through!

I think I stretched that analogy about as far as it'd go!:D

Probably a little bit further than it should.

But continuing: Avoidance is not without its risks - how many RTAs have there been when people avoid birds, dogs etc and end up wiping out someone coming the opposite way? Loads unfortunately. That's why when you have the time, you *must* come to a *reasoned* decision, and not "Something must be done!"

There is too much at stake.

ZTD

tomhill wrote: »

I would consider Bjorn Lomborg to be the epitamy of the saying 'Jack of all trades ... Master of none'. His background is in political economy and not the natural sciences (not that there is anything wrong with the social sciences ... but it infers he is a layman in the technical discussions surrounding the environment).

The following website lists leading experts in all of the fields represented in Lomborg's discussions. They point out that Lomborg's book fails to live up to rigorous scientific srutiny (an accusation for which he has been under investigation).

That's old news - he was cleared. However the timeline and sequence of events is interesting. It does show that if you don't sing the right song - you will be persecuted, just like the heretics of old.

tomhill wrote: »

Re Water vapour point. H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. In other words, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means (ie through increase CO2),

Or by the sunspot cycle (see the link previously supplied).

tomhill wrote: »

H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

And dwarfing changes in carbon dioxide emissions.

tomhill wrote: »

Re flights. ZTD you have a point regarding the empty seats argument. But special offers like this are designed to gear up demand. Such offers are effectively justifying 5 or 6 trips a day to Bratislava rather than 1 or 2. This means that the air companies can widen their appeal to big bussiness men by offering travel times at any part of the day (increasing their competitive advantage) who thereby subsidising your flight. Part of the problem is that the 'externalities' associated with airtravel are completely unenforced.

So why would you want to gear up demand for a loss leader?

It doesn't matter how many times you fly to Bratislava, there are only a certain number of big businessmen who wish to fly there. If we take your assumption that people are only going there because of the cheap fares, then all that flying more frequently (given a fixed number of profitable passengers) does, is increase costs. Airlines doing that face going out of business.

However, if there is real demand, then they are responding to it, and also responding to it's erratic nature.

dronid

ZTD wrote: »

Well actually, no you can't. The only way you can infer something that isn't supported by the data is to throw the "wrong" data away, or use inappropriate processing on that data (sometimes referred to as "strip mining" the data). And that does happen, though medical research is (IMHO) a worse offender than climate research.

I was assuming that the 'wrong data' was thrown away as a matter of course by people proving a point either way.

ZTD wrote: »

That's fine and easily provable through statistics. Which one is *best* is politics - not stats.

I would certainly agree with that.

ZTD wrote: »

Stats are easy (when you know what you're doing). They only become difficult when they refuse to show what is required. Then they need a lot of work doing to them.

And, boy has a lot of work been done!:rolleyes:

ZTD wrote: »

People buy boxed air and think they're getting food, and the supermarket have to transport that air for many miles.

Yes, to be fair, that was a very poor example and I'm glad you came up with a much better one!

ZTD wrote: »

Probably a little bit further than it should.

Yes, it rather got away from me.:o

ZTD wrote: »

But continuing: Avoidance is not without its risks - how many RTAs have there been when people avoid birds, dogs etc and end up wiping out someone coming the opposite way? Loads unfortunately. That's why when you have the time, you *must* come to a *reasoned* decision, and not "Something must be done!" There is too much at stake.

Again I would agree with this. My actual concern is how much evidence is enough, and indeed is there ever going to be enough? And would it make sense to not be rampantly consumerist as a default state? I do understand that the term 'rampantly consumerist' could very easily be picked apart. I would quantify it, more but, frankly, it’s a sunny day and I should be out having a walk! I think you know what I mean!:D

Frankly, one of the most persuasive arguments regarding climate change is that George W acts as thought he is sure it’s not happening. Therefore it probably is.

And yes, I was being facetious!:D

ZTD

dronid wrote: »

I was assuming that the 'wrong data' was thrown away as a matter of course by people proving a point either way.

When you're trying to prove a point - don't throw data away. All people have to do to dismiss your argument is say "You threw data away."

dronid wrote: »

Again I would agree with this. My actual concern is how much evidence is enough, and indeed is there ever going to be enough?

All of it - whatever you have. See "not throwing data away" above. Give me the raw data. ALL of it! Give me the processed data, and the rationale for the processing. I'd even accept composite measurements given full transparentcy. Then give me your conclusions.

Then I can go through, do the same, and check for howlers.

Even if I then pick holes in it, they could only be small holes to do with emphasis (barring bad arithmetric errors).

Alas at the moment, the climatologists refuse to release the entirity of their raw data, release some part of the processed data having performed some dodgy processing (current favourite seems to be 1-tailed t-test, rather than 2-tailed) and then pull a hockey stick out of their bottom, like some kind of dodgy !!!!!! site.

And I'm expected to believe that without question? :eek:

dronid wrote: »

And would it make sense to not be rampantly consumerist as a default state? I do understand that the term 'rampantly consumerist' could very easily be picked apart. I would quantify it, more but, frankly, it’s a sunny day and I should be out having a walk! I think you know what I mean!:D

Unfortunately "rampantly consumerist" is a rational response to inflation. But that's an ecomonic thing, and not all that much to do with the environment.

Actually... :think:

dronid wrote: »

Frankly, one of the most persuasive arguments regarding climate change is that George W acts as thought he is sure it’s not happening. Therefore it probably is.

He also believes he's not descended from apes, or the ancestors of them (see previous picture), and that God actually made him that way.

Even more confusing...

jaggie2004

Last year I was taken in by the "global warming" issue with the hot summer we had, droughts and hosepipe bans were in effect, so i increased recycling, changed to energy efficient light bulbs and made a few other changes but I have noticed that this year there is less referance to "global warming" and a greater use of "climate change" in the news. The cold and wet summer has made me realise that climate change happens. I will keep recycling but having watched a program, showing a painting, from the 17th century of people ice skating and roasting an ox on the frozen river thames. My feelings now are, you can't change history and you can't control the weather. Life's for living so get on with it.