It's all about the science - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 02-07-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

So, how would you go about determining after the fact if the snow had been melting at an increased rate? Rely on data and build a model? But, what if there had not been a weather station there and no detailed measurements of precipitation and temp had been made?

Whether snow is melting or not is irrelevant the issue is whether the climate change which is continuous and has been happening is being driven by Human activity and whether CO2 is a driver as the alarmist claim in their computer models.

BTW what "increased rate" ? where is the data?

The glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age, that is a good thing not a bad thing. If glaciers hadn't melted Cambridge would be under a half mile of ice...

SInce there were no data stations there is no way to measure if any melting of glaciers had accelerated or not, try not to contradict the point you are trying to make in your post.

***patsfan13*** · 02-07-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

As we know, your initial point has to do with a small amount of evidence for glacial melt coming from anecdotal sources.

These sources, along with a massive body of other knowledge, comprises the IPCC data on the subject.

Well you quoted an article from sparkle not me, so your credibility is shredded from the get go, since you can't even identify who you are rebutting.

Quote:

First, let's establish what's wrong with the Fox story. This will not be difficult.

Ah yes attack the messenger, sweet, my guess is that Fox is citing other research not that they are making the claim you will clumsily try to refute below.

Quote:

1)

The two are not mutually contradictory. Were I to put 1000 pounds of ice around my apartment, then fill my ice trays and put them in the freezer, I could, by the logic Fox employs, state "Ice is expanding in much of South Patsfanistan, contrary to the public belief that global warming is melting the Patsfanistan ice cap," with South Patsfanistan signifying the freezer, and the Patsfanistan ice cap signifying my apartment.

Much as global warming does not necessarily predict a particular temperature range for Logan Airport, the significance of the statement "the ice cap is melting" is that, in the aggregate, more ice is turning to water in Antarctica than is amassed there.

This story does not in any way counter said statement; it just asserts local variety in different bits of the continent.

This is actually sort of true, local conditions do vary and these variations have nothing to do with human activity. Of course your leader algore never makes this distinction when making his baseless claims.

Quote:

2. Then the Fox story says that even though "parts of" Western Antarctica are melting, "Parts of" Eastern Antarctica are not (including, we learn, the part claimed by Australia, which is utterly irrelevant.)

3. Here's a precious Foxism: "East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling."

My kitchen is four times the size of my dining room table. And parts of it are cooling. (Never mind that I have piled let's say 10 10-pound bags of ice on my dining room table, and the only cooling ice in the kitchen- the ice trays-are a fraction of that volume.)

We have defined "East" and "West" for no apparent reason other than to purposefully confuse the issue, talked about "parts" of them, and made no effort to talk about the total effect.

I think the point is to show the Antarctic isn't melting as has been claimed by alarmist trying to impose massive taxes on energy and starve people in the third world.

[quote]
4. We wrap up by a statement regarding the South Pole - a specific point in Antarctica, which in our metaphor pretty much equates to a particlar point of frost on top of an ice cube in my freezer. Within this report, there may be 30 localized descriptions of warming and cooling. Yet because "the South Pole" in a very broad sense is used interchangeably with "Antarctica," in Fox-land this must be very convincing.

Unfortunately, nothing in the quoted article does what it purports to do, which is to shake the scientific orthodoxy to its foundations with shocking new data. What it does is rephrase unremarkable but common knowledge, vis., that every point on the globe, or one continent, will not behave as a microcosm of the aggregate effect. [quote]

Ah yes the strawman is slain once again.

Quote:

Now, as I understand it, the IPCC has done something you feel is comparable, which is to include anecdotal evidence in their report. The trouble is that your Fox article -- or articles, plural, if you pile up all the wilfull distortions and plain old lies Fox and its allies are shoveling out at us -- have no actual data backing them up. They only have the large body of actual knowledge from IPCC or other actual scientists, from which occasional "gems" can be extracted -- in other words, they are serving as gadflies, which is somewhat useful, but certainly do not represent a serious challenge to acceptance of, for example, all evidence of glacial melt.

Once again you DO NOT understand. The IPC presented speculation in a magazine written by a mountain climber as a peer reviewed study that is used to justify the findings of the IPCC. More specifically they are trying to create alarm in the part of the world that would be impacted by the Himalayas and their Glaciers. This is why India outraged by this fraud trying to scare their population has withdrawn from the IPCC.

Quote:

As to how the IPCC ended up with data -- data that, were it from the sources we're used to seeing from the deniers, would be considered the height of scientific rigor -- in their latest report, here's a somewhat less over-the-top observation of the same phenomenon.

RealClimate: The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)

In addition to the "shock" in the article title, "shockingly" there is still quite a bit of data out there not in any way linked to the bits we're discussing ad nauseum here.

Funny you attack Foxnews for citing a study (don't know which one the link provided by sparkle only links the image yet you use a link to REAL Climate. This is truly funny, Real Climate is funded by George Soros, who has a huge financial interest in perpetrating the MMGW fraud (check his holding in a huge natural gas field in New Guinea).

BTW IF you had any knowledge you would realize that Real Climate is populated by the CRU crew and Hansen/Mann axis, it is used to attack nonbelievers from a controlled non peer reviewed source. When you can't publish real data in a peer reviewed source you use real climate.... they have no credibility since they are up to their eyes in the fraud.

Quote:

For instance, from the article, here's an image snapped with a no-doubt anecdotal camera, of a glacier below Everest:

Of course it is also valid to say that's one glacier, near one very famous mountain; hence the phrase, "for example."

Now then, having established that the anecdotal can have illustrative uses, the question is, what is the sum knowledge we have of glacial melt?

My understanding is that, in aggregate, there is less glacial ice, and we are losing it (even though it snowed this weekend where I live.)

PFnV

You understanding is very flawed, but you seem to have the true faith, and believe based on faith. I am sure St Gore & Pope Obama will be pleased.

***patsfan13*** · 02-07-2010, 09:55 AM

BTW links on RealClimate and their conflicts of interest:

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : What's NASA and Team Alarmism so Afraid of?

And links to lots of stuff about Glaciers:

[url]http://www.iceagenow.com/growing_glaciers.htm[url]

***Patters*** · 02-07-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Whether snow is melting or not is irrelevant the issue is whether the climate change which is continuous and has been happening is being driven by Human activity and whether CO2 is a driver as the alarmist claim in their computer models.

BTW what "increased rate" ? where is the data?

The glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age, that is a good thing not a bad thing. If glaciers hadn't melted Cambridge would be under a half mile of ice...

SInce there were no data stations there is no way to measure if any melting of glaciers had accelerated or not, try not to contradict the point you are trying to make in your post.

The only point I'm making is that independent, anecdotal reports should not be automatically rejected. They are not a primary source of evidence, but they serve a purpose. It sounds like you're rejecting anecdotal evidence, climate models, CO2 particles in ice, etc. What kind of evidence do you accept? What would convince you that there is a human contribution to global warming? Anything?

PatsFanInVa · 02-07-2010, 11:00 AM

Ya know, 13, I'd love to go back and forth with you, but there seems to be no "forth" to your last post, other than a bunch of capitalization substituting for knowledge (as in "DO NOT UNDERSTAND.")

As to "shredded credibility," why then continue with what you imagine is a rebuttal? Clearly the reverse is true. You and the other deniers hereabouts are once again at odds with the preponderance of the scientific fact, once again cherrypicking exceptions to the rigor of the data "on the other side," and once again declaring all other data supporting that "side" to be "debunked."

As I understand it, the fact that the idiotic Fox story is debunked is true by both our reckonings.

Evidently, the tactic here is to therefore declare that the Fox story -- hauled out as further "evidence" that data is popping up everywhere debunking global warming data -- was never important in the first place, because it is wrong. I am then told that I have created a strawman because I pointed out that this argument is wrong.

Since we both agree that the Fox story is anecdotal nonsense, further backed up by no other data, we could use denier logic, and conclude that no other denier point of view is valid.

The difficulty, of course, is that it is valid to critique one or the other point in the IPCC report. It is not valid to therefore conclude that the entirety of the report, or of the rest of the data for global warming, is all spurious, hence my concern with your cherrypicking method.

Oh by the way, since I do NOT UNDERSTAND, once again I ask: where exactly do you do research science, that you understand so much more thoroughly comparative points of scientific rigor?

It seems to me that you are urging that the notion of peer review be abandoned because it did not catch something, rather than what looks to be the more reasonable conclusion, i.e., that peer review has a value less than ultimate but more than nonexistent (since it typically results in data that are more useful than crackpot internet rants, but less objectively unassailable than, say, omniscient knowledge of the end conclusion of all data, and perfect execution of every treatment of evidence.)

So again, where are you employed as a research scientist (not, for example, as an engineer?) Where did you earn your degree in climate science? Where do you come by your superior understanding? I've asked this before, but I don't remember getting an answer.

Oh and about "shooting the messenger?" How is that not exactly what you're doing when you go after the "funding source" for the primary web site run by actual working climatologists?

Perhaps you are right, and the whole world (particularly the working scientists in the climatology discipline) is conspiring to starve America by manufacturing a fraudulent global warming theory that coincidentally best accommodates the available body of evidence. Perhaps the whole world personally wants to impoverish you and hurt the people around you, and this whole climatological shift thing -- although it fits the aggregate available evidence much better than competing explanations -- is just a ruse.

Maybe everybody is out to get you.

The fact that this is precisely the attitude and argument that I would expect from a paranoid schizophrenic, however, colors my evaluation of the merits of the argument.

My Bad.

PFnV

***patsfan13*** · 02-07-2010, 11:36 AM

Actually the IPCC report has been savaged on many point I have detailed many of them in previous Threads.

In this thread in post #5 I have presented the updates on the climategate scandals and what it means. I would refer you there to review the links and the information presented.

As to the entirety of the IPCC 'report' and it's credibility let's summarize: the data set from CRU has been shown to be corrupted, this is why they engaged in criminal in not complying with FOI request for their data for review by other scientist (this was the finding of the Commission in the UK, charges have not been filed because the statute if limitation for filing charges had expired. But the CRU did engage in criminal behavior), Now we find out that the GISS had manipulated it ground station data also.

These are the data sets used for many (no I don't know the exact %) studies used by IPCC to support the MMGW thesis. The computer modelers also use these same data sets. This bring the whole thesis into question. Especially now that we see (through NASA emails released under FIOA requests) That GISS (ie P Hansen) was also involved in hiding data. We have also seem that raw data sets are missing.

Currently I am not involved in research science although I do statistical analysis of FOREX data sets, for use in trading my margin account. During my time in College (~30 years ago now), I had a major in EE and a minor in Physics. I do my own design/build of audio electronics as a hobby. I can follow technical discussions although I wouldn't claim to be able to understand the nuances of papers on String Theory. I do have a good feel for the problems of trying to model a complex chaotic system with many degrees of freedom like the Climate.

wistahpatsfan · 02-07-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

BTW links on RealClimate and their conflicts of interest:

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : What's NASA and Team Alarmism so Afraid of?

And links to lots of stuff about Glaciers:

[url]http://www.iceagenow.com/growing_glaciers.htm[url]

Are you serious?
Your link to glacier info is a blog by a dork named Robert Felix who posts stories with intros like this:
Yellowstone earthquakes continue
Alert to be issued?
"3 Feb 10 - Since January 17, 2010 Yellowstone has had 1,620 earthquakes, the second largest swarm ever recorded. A reader tells me that Yellowstone might go on first stage alert soon, but I have not yet been able to confirm that.

The other articles has stories about every place on earth where it is unusually cold this year. Ones talking about how cold it is in Minnesota! NO WAY! Minnesota? COLD??? Another one is about how cold it is in Mongolia and Sweden. Bone chilling stuff. It's enough to make Al Gore buy up property on the Florida Keys!

Is that an example of your arguement?

C'MON MAN!

***patsfan13*** · 02-07-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Are you serious?
Your link to glacier info is a blog by a dork named Robert Felix who posts stories with intros like this:
Yellowstone earthquakes continue
Alert to be issued?
"3 Feb 10 - Since January 17, 2010 Yellowstone has had 1,620 earthquakes, the second largest swarm ever recorded. A reader tells me that Yellowstone might go on first stage alert soon, but I have not yet been able to confirm that.

The other articles has stories about every place on earth where it is unusually cold this year. Ones talking about how cold it is in Minnesota! NO WAY! Minnesota? COLD??? Another one is about how cold it is in Mongolia and Sweden. Bone chilling stuff. It's enough to make Al Gore buy up property on the Florida Keys!

Is that an example of your arguement?

C'MON MAN!

I was responding to Patters assertion that anecdotal evidence about glaciers should be taken into account. The link has kot of talk about glacier. Please refer to post #5.

***Patters*** · 02-07-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

As to the entirety of the IPCC 'report' and it's credibility let's summarize: the data set from CRU has been shown to be corrupted, this is why they engaged in criminal in not complying with FOI request for their data for review by other scientist (this was the finding of the Commission in the UK, charges have not been filed because the statute if limitation for filing charges had expired. But the CRU did engage in criminal behavior), Now we find out that the GISS had manipulated it ground station data also.

These are the data sets used for many (no I don't know the exact %) studies used by IPCC to support the MMGW thesis. The computer modelers also use these same data sets. This bring the whole thesis into question. Especially now that we see (through NASA emails released under FIOA requests) That GISS (ie P Hansen) was also involved in hiding data. We have also seem that raw data sets are missing.

The data set has not been shown to be corrupted. The issue is whether the scientists should have kept the old paper records that contained the data they used. Yes, they should have, but to assume the data is corrupt is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Currently I am not involved in research science although I do statistical analysis of FOREX data sets, for use in trading my margin account. During my time in College (~30 years ago now), I had a major in EE and a minor in Physics. I do my own design/build of audio electronics as a hobby. I can follow technical discussions although I wouldn't claim to be able to understand the nuances of papers on String Theory. I do have a good feel for the problems of trying to model a complex chaotic system with many degrees of freedom like the Climate.

I take it you wouldn't believe in String Theory, anyway, since it's based on rather complex models and a number of suppositions, and if successfully marketed could lead to billions in government grants to greedy scientists.

***Leave No Doubt*** · 02-07-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.

RealClimate: The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)

It goes on to describe the "error" and also states the 2005 WWF reference seems to have been a last-minute addition and did not appear in the 1st and 2nd drafts.

Remember Mr. Climategate himself, Prof Phil Jones? He's apparently been receiving death threats from around the world, some encouraging him to kill himself.

Quote:

Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones - Times Online