Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 02 September 2014, 12:10:52 PM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Climate Change, and the Kubic theory of relativity  (Read 8849 times)
jalanperak
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 697


View Profile
« on: 21 June 2010, 20:02:46 PM »

Hi Kubes,

Since you feel the IPCC has zero credibility, let's start with a conclusion from IPCC 2007.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that the global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

What about this statement do you disagree with?
Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« on: 21 June 2010, 20:02:46 PM »



 Logged
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 21 June 2010, 22:49:20 PM »

Hi Kubes,

Since you feel the IPCC has zero credibility, let's start with a conclusion from IPCC 2007.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that the global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

What about this statement do you disagree with?


Of course I disagree.  

The IPPC have provided absolutely no scientific data or evidence, no analysis, and made a massive and arrogant presumption that they or mankind know absolutely EVERYTHING that influences climate change and what is normal.   A comparable statement is that:  "We see the sun rise in the morning in the East and set in the evening in the West, therefore we conclude the sun must surely rotate around the earth because we can't think or any other reason."   That was "very good science" for thousands of years until about 350 years ago.  The scientists who agreed, did not even know what they did not know, and made a naive and fundamental error based on an assumption that was total incorrect.

Mankind only has a rudimentary understanding what causes the climate change and or climate systems.

There many other statements that are highly problematic in this claim.  Why did they chose the last fifty years?  Why did they pick such a tiny time frame?  Why not a pick 1,000 years, or 2,000 years?   Why not 10,000 years, 100,000 or 500,000 years?
« Last Edit: 22 June 2010, 2:21:12 AM by Kubes.SG » Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 21 June 2010, 23:02:13 PM »

We have to strip away the hype (on both sides), and get right down to the science.  Here are my questions:

What observable scientific evidence is there that proves that man-kind's emission of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, is the cause of global warming?

What observable scientific evidence is there that CO2 has caused global warming in the past?  Start at 500 years (well before mankind's alleged  influence) and go way back in time as long as you want.

These are the most critical questions that need to be answered.  The basis of the entire AGW theory is that man-made CO2 causes global warming.  If you cannot provide the observable scientific evidence that this is true, then everything about the theory of man-made global warming collapses.
Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
TheWrathOfGrapes
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 702


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 21 June 2010, 23:03:46 PM »

There many other statements that are highly problematic in this claim.  Why did they chose the last fifty years?  Why did they pick such a tiny time frame?  Why not a pick 1,000 years, or 2,000 years?   Why not 10,000 years, 100,000 or 500,000 years?


Well, 65 million years would be about just right.
Logged
Old Mike
Guest
« Reply #4 on: 23 June 2010, 3:58:20 AM »

South Africa is experiencing an unusually cold winter.
Logged
fareastjunebug
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 23 June 2010, 6:25:39 AM »

JP - you've opened up a large can of worms and I hope you have a lot of time to devote to it. Kubes does.

Kubes is, at least on this topic, OCD.
Logged

Do or do not, there is no try.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 23 June 2010, 8:06:44 AM »

JP is a scientist.  JP is on the b-oard of several scientific conferences.  JP has been involved in the publication of peer reviewed articles.

All this scientific "authority" is unfortunately meaningless.   As a (hopefully) good and honest scientist JP has assumed that the field of Climate Science follows the same rigorous challenges, open debate, application of scientific method, and open access to data/research/results as does his own scientific discipline.  

JP assumes there is observable evidence, repeatable research that proves link between man-made CO2 and global warming (ie: the debate is over). JP assumes that CS "peer review" involves a very large number of qualified independent anonymous experts reviewing CS research papers by examining the raw data, algorithms, theorems, result sets, etc., to ensure that scientific process has been followed and the conclusions are reasonable and valid.  JP assumes that CS is not controlled by a tiny cliche of 43 "climate scientists" who have taken control of nearly all CS related journals, bodies, panels, b-oards and control what is to be published and what is not.  CS assumes that computer modeling of Climate Systems and future climate changes are accurate and precise for hundreds of years in the future.  JP assumes these same Computer models have been able to accurately replicate the climate patterns of the last 500 years.  JP assumes that big oil and big business massively outspends the poor but passionate CS community to create FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) and distort the CS message.

All of JP's assumptions are WRONG.  VERY WRONG.

Ready when you are JP.  You're the scientist, so this should be easy.  
« Last Edit: 24 June 2010, 9:48:41 AM by Kubes.SG » Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
jalanperak
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 697


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 23 June 2010, 11:25:03 AM »

Hi Kubes,

Since you feel the IPCC has zero credibility, let's start with a conclusion from IPCC 2007.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that the global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

What about this statement do you disagree with?


Of course I disagree.  

The IPPC have provided absolutely no scientific data or evidence, no analysis, and made a massive and arrogant presumption that they or mankind know absolutely EVERYTHING that influences climate change and what is normal.   A comparable statement is that:  "We see the sun rise in the morning in the East and set in the evening in the West, therefore we conclude the sun must surely rotate around the earth because we can't think or any other reason."   That was "very good science" for thousands of years until about 350 years ago.  The scientists who agreed, did not even know what they did not know, and made a naive and fundamental error based on an assumption that was total incorrect.

Mankind only has a rudimentary understanding what causes the climate change and or climate systems.

There many other statements that are highly problematic in this claim.  Why did they chose the last fifty years?  Why did they pick such a tiny time frame?  Why not a pick 1,000 years, or 2,000 years?   Why not 10,000 years, 100,000 or 500,000 years?


I asked you what you disagreed with, and you basically said, "everything." That's not really a defensible answer.

Let's take it a point at a time

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean"

You don't think there has been a statically valid trend in average global temperature? (leave aside the stupid hockey stick). The data would say otherwise.

"together with ice mass loss"

A pretty straightforward bit of work

"support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely"

In other words, about a 95% likelihood

"that the global climate change of the past fifty years"

Fifty years shows the effect of industrialization. There's lots of data going back farther.

"can be explained without external forcing"

Volcanos erupting, cows farting, coal burning, etc. would be examples of external forcing

"and very likely"

Again, that probability thing, in this case about 90%

"that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

In other words, probably not just cow farts.

« Last Edit: 23 June 2010, 11:36:43 AM by jalanperak » Logged
jalanperak
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 697


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 23 June 2010, 11:27:18 AM »



All of JP's assumptions are WRONG.  VERY WRONG.

Ready when you are JP.  You're the scientist, so this should be easy.  

Well, if nothing else, I've shown that I don't make assumptions about the person I'm debating with, and I can keep emotion out of the picture.
Logged
jalanperak
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 697


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 23 June 2010, 12:16:20 PM »

We have to strip away the hype (on both sides), and get right down to the science.  Here are my questions:

What observable scientific evidence is there that proves that man-kind's emission of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, is the cause of global warming?

What observable scientific evidence is there that CO2 has caused global warming in the past?  Start at 500 years (well before mankind's alleged  influence) and go way back in time as long as you want.

These are the most critical questions that need to be answered.  The basis of the entire AGW theory is that man-made CO2 causes global warming.  If you cannot provide the observable scientific evidence that this is true, then everything about the theory of man-made global warming collapses.

These are good questions.

"What observable scientific evidence is there that proves that man-kind's emission of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, is the cause of global warming?"

I expect there is none that would meet your standard of proof, nor would meet the standard typically demanded by more exacting and controllable fields of study. It's one thing to measure and quantify the parameters of a laser beam - most everything is repeatable and controllable. In the area of climatology, there's a huge amount of uncertainty. The strongest statement I'd make here is that the data suggests there is a correlation between the increase in man-made CO2 over the last fifty years and the observed 1 degree F increase in average global temperatures.

"What observable scientific evidence is there that CO2 has caused global warming in the past?  Start at 500 years (well before mankind's alleged  influence) and go way back in time as long as you want."

It's a bit of a debate right now, but conventional wisdom has it that it's actually the other way around. Gore's movie showed a graph of CO2 levels and average temperature that appeared to almost overlay each other. What he failed to mention is that the ocean is the earth's greatest CO2 buffer, and it tends to release CO2 when temperatures rise and absorb it when temperatures drop. The graph shown is (at least as far as I can tell) accurate, it's just the conclusions drawn were, at minimum, misleading. The change in CO2 level lags the temperature change by about 800 years.

I like your statement about stripping away the hype. There is far too much of it on both sides. The climate change zealots are cherry picking and overstating the data, while the deniers are using that as an excuse to claim all the data is invalid.

Let me re-state this argument in very different terms: Suppose someone told you that the rojak stall you liked to eat at had a 50% probability of serving contaminated gravy, and if the gravy were contaminated, you had a 1% chance of dying from eating it. In other words, you had a 0.5% chance of dying from eating uncle's rojak. Would you eat it? Would you eat it if the alternative cost of aunties clean rojak was 2x, 3x, 10x as much? I won't presume to answer for you, but I know I'd be sitting over by aunties stall.

I see the global warming issue in a similar way, but with the numbers looking a lot worse. It's all but impossible to conclusively prove that man-made CO2 is causing an increase in temperature, but the data, when stripped of all the hype and emotion, suggests there is a causal relationship. And if so, then taking reasonable action seems like a prudent idea.
« Last Edit: 23 June 2010, 13:47:03 PM by jalanperak » Logged
$Pripps
Guest
« Reply #10 on: 23 June 2010, 13:08:13 PM »

Let me re-state this argument in very different terms: Suppose someone told you that the rojak stall you liked to eat at had a 50% probability of serving contaminated gravy, and if the gravy were contaminated, you had a 1% chance of dying from eating it. In other words, you had a 0.5 chance of dying from eating uncle's rojak. Would you eat it? Would you eat it if the alternative cost of aunties clean rojak was 2x, 3x, 10x as much? I won't presume to answer for you, but I know I'd be sitting over by aunties stall.

I see the global warming issue in a similar way, but with the numbers looking a lot worse. It's all but impossible to conclusively prove that man-made CO2 is causing an increase in temperature, but the data, when stripped of all the hype and emotion, suggests there is a causal relationship. And if so, then taking reasonable action seems like a prudent idea.


I think this sums up well what many people think (including myself). It is not about being right or wrong, its about being cautious.

Logged
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: 23 June 2010, 14:00:48 PM »


Let's take it a point at a time

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean"

You don't think there has been a statically valid trend in average global temperature? (leave aside the stupid hockey stick). The data would say otherwise.

"together with ice mass loss"

A pretty straightforward bit of work

"support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely"

In other words, about a 95% likelihood

"that the global climate change of the past fifty years"

Fifty years shows the effect of industrialization. There's lots of data going back farther.

"can be explained without external forcing"

Volcanos erupting, cows farting, coal burning, etc. would be examples of external forcing

"and very likely"

Again, that probability thing, in this case about 90%

"that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

In other words, probably not just cow farts.


JP:  let's look at the IPCC statements and your supporting arguments which in are maroon below.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean"

You don't think there has been a statically valid trend in average global temperature? (leave aside the stupid hockey stick). The data would say otherwise.


When look at trends you must have a meaning time period.  In the history of climate (4.5 billion years) looking at what has happened in a 50 year period is like a ten of second in a marathon.  We can detect patterns and trends better looking more statistically valid time periods of tens of thousands of years.  Just so you understand why using meaningful time-periods is so critically important, check this out the temperature changes over the last 425,000 years and you will see that we right at the end of a 10,000 year warm period.

You need to scroll to the left to see the info on the right side.

 

Within this current warm period you can see that there has also been significant variation in temperatures globally.  In fact there have been many periods in the last 11,000 years that have been significantly warmer than now, within recorded human history.  You do know why the Vikings called gave Greenland that name?



What is bad science, and highly misleading is focusing on the last 50, 100, or 150 years and claiming "this is unprecedented warming and the hottest years ever recorded".  Entirely false. Sure there has been some warming, but this is entirely cyclical and follows the little ice age of 1600-1850.  During this period there were often Ice Fairs on the frozen Thames River, and Dutch kids skated to school, etc.  

Just looking at the 20th century we see periods when the temp increased and decreased.  The greatest and sharpest temp increase actually happen from 1900-1940s, followed by a temp decline from 40s to the late 70s.  Then a period of temp increase from late 70s to the late 90s.


 
When we look at the last 12 years, we see that there has actually been sight decrease or decline in global temperatures.  The last few northern winters have been the coldest and snowiest for many decades, unfortunately not captured in this graph, but the downward trend had started:


« Last Edit: 24 June 2010, 10:00:41 AM by Kubes.SG » Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 23 June 2010, 14:58:27 PM »

"together with ice mass loss"

A pretty straightforward bit of work


Ice mass where?  It has been increasing rapidly in the antarctic and also increasing in the Arctic over the last few years.  Proved so data, time-period, etc. 


"support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely"

In other words, about a 95% likelihood


Wow you provided a number.  But I have no idea how you came up with 95.  What number does "very unlikely" produce?  Again, where is the support.  You can't just put forward that ice is melting and then say that supports mankind's CO2 emissions cause global warming.  Where is the linkage, the relationship.



that the global climate change of the past fifty years"

Fifty years shows the effect of industrialization. There's lots of data going back farther.


Bullshit.  Industrialization started in the early 1800s.  You could say that the latest massive economic growth started 65 years ago after the WW II ended when US, WE JP and other economies rebuilt and grew rapidly, with huge increases in cars, manufacturing, energy consumption and consumerism.  But what happened to the climate and global temperatures - they Cooled.  Yes, during what would have been the period when mankind's emission of C02 increased the fastest, global temperatures went DOWN until the late 70s.



"can be explained without external forcing"

Volcanos erupting, cows farting, coal burning, etc. would be examples of external forcing


JP, now you have to use your brain.  Do you know why Singapore is always hot, and say Greenland is not?  Do you know why at locations further north (and south) they have seasons of cold and hot temps?   Do you even know why the seasons are opposite between the northern and southern hemispheres?   Yes, the greatest influence of the temperature on earth is the sun.  Did you know that when we are having global warming on earth, the martians are dealing with global warming on Mars at the same time.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

"External Forcing" what a fun term.  Unfortunately the CS community outright reject that anything outside the atmosphere can be the cause of global warming.  The research is continuing but the parallels and evidence is mounting along with the understanding that solar cycles on our sun are a key factor of temperature and climate change on earth.

Here is a snapshot of just the last century. Even a non-scientist can see that there is there is a strong correlation between sunspot activity and cycle length, versus CO2 increases.



"and very likely"

Again, that probability thing, in this case about 90%

Ohh!!!    "very" gives a 90.      JP, are you really serious?  You are embarrassing yourself.




"that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

In other words, probably not just cow farts.


Good, some attempted humor.  Yep the green vegetarian AGW alarmists have had a go at meat eaters, trying to claim we are destroying the planet.  Let's look at the science of Green House Gases.  This chart shows that the biggest green house gas is water vapor, usually manifested as clouds.  What you also see is that CO2 and mankind's contribution is absolutely minuscule.








Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: 23 June 2010, 15:38:27 PM »


These are good questions.

"What observable scientific evidence is there that proves that man-kind's emission of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, is the cause of global warming?"

I expect there is none that would meet your standard of proof, nor would meet the standard typically demanded by more exacting and controllable fields of study. It's one thing to measure and quantify the parameters of a laser beam - most everything is repeatable and controllable. In the area of climatology, there's a huge amount of uncertainty. The strongest statement I'd make here is that the data suggests there is a correlation between the increase in man-made CO2 over the last fifty years and the observed 1 degree F increase in average global temperatures.

It is not my standard of proof.  It is scientific standard of proof.  Don't pretend that there is a correlation - that both have an overall upward trend over a very very short time-frame is not a correlation.  However, sunspot activity and temp change do have a strong correlation though I cannot quote the statistic significance.

The MASSIVE issue is that there is no evidence or even proof of a relationship between man-made CO2 and global warming.  It is not acceptable to say we see CO2 and the Temp both go up therefore CO2 is the cause.  But the political and community support for this big lie that "justifies" the introduction of enormous new taxes, support for incredibly inefficient and expensive new renewal energy sources, and massive structural changes to all economies that will cost annually $1.5 trillion dollars by 2020 and $3-4 trillion annually by 2050.  All this will destroy economic activity and the quality of life of all people on earth.  You can see what this insanity is already starting to do to the economies of California and some European countries.




"What observable scientific evidence is there that CO2 has caused global warming in the past?  Start at 500 years (well before mankind's alleged  influence) and go way back in time as long as you want."

It's a bit of a debate right now, but conventional wisdom has it that it's actually the other way around. Gore's movie showed a graph of CO2 levels and average temperature that appeared to almost overlay each other. What he failed to mention is that the ocean is the earth's greatest CO2 buffer, and it tends to release CO2 when temperatures rise and absorb it when temperatures drop. The graph shown is (at least as far as I can tell) accurate, it's just the conclusions drawn were, at minimum, misleading. The change in CO2 level lags the temperature change by about 800 years.


Excellent.  You have done some research.   If you take a look at the Al Gore movie he said something like, "There is a relationship between temperature and CO2, and it is complicated".  He knew very well that he was misleading people by making it appear that CO2 caused temps to rise.  Remember the Medieval Warm Period in my graphs above?  It is likely that that warming period is the cause of the CO2 increase we see today, as the Oceans warm and release their CO2 store.  

Here is solid article from 2008 that I can only source via an India newspaper, that lays out how the Russians view AGW.  In summary, it is complete bullshit.  http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008071055521000.htm&date=2008/07/10/&prd=th&   We saw in Copenfarcen that the Chinese also knew full well that AGW is total bullshit and they were not going to destroy the economy.   




Let me re-state this argument in very different terms: Suppose someone told you that the rojak stall you liked to eat at had a 50% probability of serving contaminated gravy, and if the gravy were contaminated, you had a 1% chance of dying from eating it. In other words, you had a 0.5% chance of dying from eating uncle's rojak. Would you eat it? Would you eat it if the alternative cost of aunties clean rojak was 2x, 3x, 10x as much? I won't presume to answer for you, but I know I'd be sitting over by aunties stall.

I see the global warming issue in a similar way, but with the numbers looking a lot worse. It's all but impossible to conclusively prove that man-made CO2 is causing an increase in temperature, but the data, when stripped of all the hype and emotion, suggests there is a causal relationship. And if so, then taking reasonable action seems like a prudent idea.


Ahh, the old "But what if the skeptics are wrong, and we could have saved the planet" argument.  This is the fall back emotional plea when all the facts, science, and evidence proves that climate change is natural and not man-made.   My counter argument is why would you destroy the world's economies, reduce quality of life to 1880 standards, on the incredibly slim chance (actually zero chance) that man-kind can do something to control the earth's climate.  The proposed measures is like spending 25% of your income every year to protect against your hair turning gray/grey by the time you are 80 years old.  You could do it, but it makes absolutely no sense.

Your analogy is very weak.  Deciding to eat different food, is not the same as the consequences of economic impact of proposed AGW changes.  Let me give you a much better analogy.   Let's say a young lady in her late teens developers an incredibly powerful fear of developing breast cancer.  There is no family history and the chance of developing it are less than 0.1% based on advanced DNA testing.  Despite this information, her fear and paranoia is so great that she decides she must have a double mastectomy and a hysterectomy (to control hormones) to address her perceived risk.

In doing so she will destroy most of the potential, joy and quality of her life for the next 70+ years.  Little chance of marriage, no chance for her own kids.  Great personal damage and a life unfulfilled, simply to protect against something that has 1 in a 1,000 chance of happening.

This is much closer to the situation of AGW and the impact of destroying economic activity and quality of life on earth to reduce CO2 emission levels to 20% of 2000 levels by 2050.  

The massive cost and consequence of trying to fix a problem that has such a tiny chance of happening is nothing but insane.

JP, are you worried about being hit be a meteorite - that could happen too?
« Last Edit: 24 June 2010, 10:20:11 AM by Kubes.SG » Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 23 June 2010, 15:48:00 PM »


I think this sums up well what many people think (including myself). It is not about being right or wrong, its about being cautious.


Pripps, if your logic and rational thought works this way then you should also take following actions.  Not sure of your gender, so some may not apply:

o  avoid a stroke - remove your brain
o  avoid a heart attack - remove your heart
o  avoid testicular cancer - become a eunuch
o  avoid liver cancer - remove your liver
o  avoid breast cancer - double mastectomy

These are types of the radical interventions you state would be needed.   Leading a healthy life, good food, exercise, checkups, are just precautionary measures, and will not mitigate the risk.  
« Last Edit: 24 June 2010, 10:21:40 AM by Kubes.SG » Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines