Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Gibbon » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:35 am

Don't worry about it too much. It gave me the opportunity to use a rare and wonderous joke. :hyper:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:16 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm

An independent panel has found that there was no scientific malpractice by the CRU in East Anglia. However, of more interest to me is that they have been critical of the organisation for not using professional statisticians, and also the way in which other organisations (including the IPCC) have presented the results in an oversimplified manner and without warning of the level of uncertainty in the data. I've always looked at the figures provided from the point of view of a statistician, and decided that they shouldn't have led to the conclusions that were being publicised with such certainty.

Two specific points are noted in the article. Firstly:
It is straightforward to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station - albeit with uncertainties attached.

But some countries have many weather stations, while others have very few, and there are sizeable areas of the Earth with no surface measurements at all.

What this means is that instead of providing a figure for the average temperature of the Earth, they're only producing an estimate. And not a particularly good estimate, it's just all we've got to work with. Each station's record will show an irregular pattern through history, some will show hotter temperatures than 'normal' when others show colder. If we had the data for the unmeasured areas, we might have a different picture altogether. And when you consider that there's been no consistency in how this data has been collected for any meaningful period of time, then it's difficult to trust that the results tell us anything, particularly when they only show a fractional change over time.

The other point is:
They said it had neglected to highlight the discrepancy between direct and "proxy" measurements, such as the tree ring data often used to reconstruct past temperature changes.
I remember having this debate with Doz earlier in the thread - he was adamant that the estimations of historical temperature changes were accurate enough to be compared with the empirical evidence collected at the weather stations. The reality is that it is impossible to retrospectively take a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station. Unless I take a measurement of the temperature where I'm sat now, no one will ever be able to tell me what it was at this exact moment. That's not to say there's no purpose in trying to work out what has happened in the past. But the limitations of doing that need to be recognised, and the results can't be used in comparison with the data collected from the weather stations. The information available is nowhere near the same level of detail.


User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Thu May 13, 2010 9:18 am

I guess he's got to find something to do to keep himself busy. I like the mirrors idea, it reminds me of Futurama.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9575
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by theadore » Thu May 13, 2010 10:19 am

Although every time it rains i'll shake my skinny fists at the sky and curse his name

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:54 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

The summary seems to be that the IPCC are 95% convinced that humans are the main cause of temperature rises since 1950, and we should pay no attention to the fact temperature has stopped rising in the last quarter of that period. As someone looking at it from a sceptical point of view, I don't find that a very convincing stance. 15 years isn't significant throughout the whole history of the planet, but it is when you're saying you're 95% sure that A has caused B for 63 years. If B hasn't happened for the last 15 years of that 63 year period, then surely you need a comprehensive answer as to why to only have a 5% doubt.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14331
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:40 pm

Less coal burning.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:22 pm

A resurgence of pirates...

Image

It just makes me laugh: rising temperatures are considered bad and therefore must be man's fault. But constant temperatures are confusing and must be the result of some unexplained force of nature.

It can't possibly be the case that global temperatures have always fluctuated year on year for all sorts of reasons and we've only started noticing once we started keeping records year on year. I'm pretty sure I asked back when this thread started, but what is the global temperature supposed to be?

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Moon » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:42 pm

mrblackbat wrote:Less coal burning.
if we are ignoring countries like China and India :lol:

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Gibbon » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:42 pm


User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:50 am

I suppose it depends on your standpoint. If you want to believe humans can intervene and that token gestures of conservation will determine the future, it's depressing. But I found it quite a refreshing attitude...

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Gibbon » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:30 am

I think, as a parent of a two year old, the suggestion that in 20 years the shit will hit the fan and we could see the loss of 80% of the world's population by 2100 is pretty terrifying.

Luckily, I don't know enough of the science to put a huge amount of stock in his opinion.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:46 am

Not wanting to depress you further, but there's a whole load of possible disasters and tragedies that could affect you and your family in those 20 years. I don't know whether his prediction is right or wrong, I'll find out if I'm still around by then. In the meantime I intend to enjoy living whilst I can.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Gibbon » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:19 am

That's exactly what I intend to do too. It doesn't make predictions like that any less perturbing though.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14331
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:22 am

A supervolcano will go off. The Earth is very likely to be hit by an extinction level asteroid. Eventually the Sun will expand into a red giant and irradiate everything.

:shrug:

Post Reply