|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 25, 2023 5:09:50 GMT
I had a skim through the thread last night and read the Connolly linked paper - I say read, I mean glanced through the abstract and conclusion. A browse through Google and Google Scholar turned up the following:
While I've no wish to participate in this particular debate, I can see that contributors are looking for balance so I thought the links might be useful.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 25, 2023 8:07:36 GMT
I had a skim through the thread last night and read the Connolly linked paper - I say read, I mean glanced through the abstract and conclusion. A browse through Google and Google Scholar turned up the following:
While I've no wish to participate in this particular debate, I can see that contributors are looking for balance so I thought the links might be useful.
Thanks Equivocal. I doubt they'll look at it. So for them. The conclusion is that Connolly et al made many statistical errors to reach conclusion that the sun is causing global warming. SOLAR WARMING IN BLUE. CONNOLLY SOLAR IN ORANGE. WARMING IN BLACK.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 25, 2023 9:03:39 GMT
I had a skim through the thread last night and read the Connolly linked paper - I say read, I mean glanced through the abstract and conclusion. A browse through Google and Google Scholar turned up the following:
While I've no wish to participate in this particular debate, I can see that contributors are looking for balance so I thought the links might be useful.
It would be interesting to hear what Connolly's defence is. What we're seeing here is that scientists disagree, contrary to what the politicians claim. They're not quite as bad as economists - where, so the joke goes, if you ask 2 economists a question you'll get 3 different answers - but scientists have been arguing about theories for centuries. And that's exactly as it should be - especially when the current theory of global warming has got the amount of warming wrong so consistently. That usually means the theory is wrong. I'd suggest that what we've got here is an argument about the observed data - not the usual argument about theory. You notice that one abstract refers to the "corrected solar attribution". The problem here is that the data that the scientists are trying to use to evaluate climate change has been accumulated over the decades by many different methods. For example sea temperature has been measured by dropping a wooden bucket in the sea and sticking a thermometer in it. Later a plastic bucket was used, then buoys and now satellites. All recorded different temperatures - same with land temperatures. Weather stations are put in different locations and locations become gradually more urbanised. In order to eliminate "erroneous" data the scientists use filtering algorithms to smooth out the data. Otherwise the data is all over the place. The problem is that, in order to determine which data is "erroneous", the filtering algorithm obviously has to have a theory to work from. And one of the theories that the orthodox scientists use is the one that CO2 causes global warming, so it's not surprising that they end up with different graphs. It doesn't prove anything. You'll notice that the ETCW has disappeared on these graphs. That's because this warming occurred against a background of no increase of CO2 so the filtering algorithm "smoothed" data that showed warming.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 25, 2023 9:32:48 GMT
So you basically have no academic background or work experience in science. Which is why you don't understand how science works. And your "keen interest in science" is basically googling for ideas that fit in with your own. There have been a lot of very good articles that have been linked to on this thread which do not support the scientific orthodoxy - and which cannot be characterised as "some bloke's blog". These are highly qualified scientists. And you've been asked a lot of salient questions - none of which you have answered. You've just made silly comments about dinosaur farts or aliens. Not only do you not know any of the answers - you haven't yet understood the question. You must have been a very difficult pupil at school. Did you always think you knew better than your teachers? I said. YOUR TURN. What's your scientific background, can't wait to see what you invent. Luckily for me my lack of understanding science etc lead me to the same conclusions as 90+% of the worlds climate scientists. While your vastly inaccurate guesses of the amount of urbanised land and you wild assumptions on the cooling effects of forests on a global scale have bought you into agreement with a few crackpot bloggers. We'll leave it at that shall we. There is no evidence that 90+% of world climate scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming - and you have no evidence to show this. Even if you did it's not what scientists "think" that matters - it's whether the theory makes accurate predictions. And my data on urban areas is taken from reputable sources - but as I said is irrelevant anyway. All you need to do to get a rough sanity check of how much cooling rural areas cause is to compare temperatures in two sites in equivalent places, one rural and one urban. And the difference is substantial - way greater than the 1.1C attributed to CO2. Since the albedo of both is roughly the same that should be a rough measure of the cooling of photosynthesis. You need to explain why - but it's another question that you just ignore. As for my academic background I've obviously got O-levels but also A-levels and S-levels in chemistry, physics and maths. Then I did physics at Cambridge and did a PhD then worked in research until I moved on to working in computing (no money is science). But that doesn't make me an "expert" at anything - certainly not climate science. The thing is that when you study a subject an detail (which you probably have never done) it makes you aware of how little we really know. Science is never settled. And climate change study is at a VERY early stage. In a hundred years we'll laugh at the CO2 theory just as we laugh at the phlogiston theory.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 25, 2023 11:43:52 GMT
I said. YOUR TURN. What's your scientific background, can't wait to see what you invent. Luckily for me my lack of understanding science etc lead me to the same conclusions as 90+% of the worlds climate scientists. While your vastly inaccurate guesses of the amount of urbanised land and you wild assumptions on the cooling effects of forests on a global scale have bought you into agreement with a few crackpot bloggers. We'll leave it at that shall we. There is no evidence that 90+% of world climate scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming - and you have no evidence to show this. Even if you did it's not what scientists "think" that matters - it's whether the theory makes accurate predictions. And my data on urban areas is taken from reputable sources - but as I said is irrelevant anyway. All you need to do to get a rough sanity check of how much cooling rural areas cause is to compare temperatures in two sites in equivalent places, one rural and one urban. And the difference is substantial - way greater than the 1.1C attributed to CO2. Since the albedo of both is roughly the same that should be a rough measure of the cooling of photosynthesis. You need to explain why - but it's another question that you just ignore. As for my academic background I've obviously got O-levels but also A-levels and S-levels in chemistry, physics and maths. Then I did physics at Cambridge and did a PhD then worked in research until I moved on to working in computing (no money is science). But that doesn't make me an "expert" at anything - certainly not climate science. The thing is that when you study a subject an detail (which you probably have never done) it makes you aware of how little we really know. Science is never settled. And climate change study is at a VERY early stage. In a hundred years we'll laugh at the CO2 theory just as we laugh at the phlogiston theory. I also did physics and chemistry as career subjects and worked in process testing and research for my first five years at work when, like you, I found the pay piss-poor and moved out; I left just two months prior to taking my chemistry and physics National Certificate exam. But the logic required for those subjects never gets lost.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 25, 2023 14:10:32 GMT
Yes, the methodology and logic never go. I've also been very interested in music all my life - although, in this case, I haven't been formally trained. I remember a few years ago there was a thread on a music forum that I follow that was talking about "music theory". There was so much bollocks being spouted I had to tell them a bit about theory, because I tend to look at everything from a scientific viewpoint - I can't help it. So I pointed out that the "theory of music" started and ended in about 500BC with Pythagoras designing the scales from a mathematical point of view. All that's happened since then is that people have designed a system of terminology that is so bonkers that no one can have a sensible discussion about music without ending up in an argument about what the terminology means. The problem is that the Pythagorean scale had 12 notes - i.e. A# was not the same as Bb, etc. But with the modern equal temperament there are only 8. So the whole concept of "keys" goes out of the window - and modes. Yet the musical stave is stuck in 500BC where people have to learn different keys and talk about nonsense like augmented thirds and diminished fourths and perfect fifths etc etc. It's all nonsense - and they have a whole load of exams that test them on this pointless terminology. So I wrote a post pointing this out - and that music theory was bollocks and that you could remove most of the difficulties that students have learning music by adopting a 12 note chromatic scale, eliminating keys and modes and making every chord (of a particular type) look exactly the same wherever it was on the stave. Because the problem with music was/is that equal intervals are represented on an irregular interval stave. The really funny thing is that this - completely incontrovertible - fact caused a HUGE amount of anger among the musical community, who have spent their whole time engaging in pedantic arguments about terminology without realising that it's all meaningless. There was a massive "pile-on" with most people being very insulting - in a discussion about musical theory!. Some people just think how they're told to think and can't think for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 25, 2023 16:17:55 GMT
I had a skim through the thread last night and read the Connolly linked paper - I say read, I mean glanced through the abstract and conclusion. A browse through Google and Google Scholar turned up the following:
While I've no wish to participate in this particular debate, I can see that contributors are looking for balance so I thought the links might be useful.
Thanks Equivocal. I doubt they'll look at it. So for them. The conclusion is that Connolly et al made many statistical errors to reach conclusion that the sun is causing global warming. SOLAR WARMING IN BLUE. CONNOLLY SOLAR IN ORANGE. WARMING IN BLACK. So to be realistic a peer reviewed paper produced by over 20 climate scientists contained what others believe are erroneous statistical assumptions and as such produce results that are believed to be inaccurate. I think largely that is what we have been trying to say. That science is far from settled, that errors are made all over the place and scientists disagree frequently as a matter of principle as well as a matter of fact.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 25, 2023 20:05:37 GMT
There is no evidence that 90+% of world climate scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming - and you have no evidence to show this. Even if you did it's not what scientists "think" that matters - it's whether the theory makes accurate predictions. And my data on urban areas is taken from reputable sources - but as I said is irrelevant anyway. All you need to do to get a rough sanity check of how much cooling rural areas cause is to compare temperatures in two sites in equivalent places, one rural and one urban. And the difference is substantial - way greater than the 1.1C attributed to CO2. Since the albedo of both is roughly the same that should be a rough measure of the cooling of photosynthesis. You need to explain why - but it's another question that you just ignore. As for my academic background I've obviously got O-levels but also A-levels and S-levels in chemistry, physics and maths. Then I did physics at Cambridge and did a PhD then worked in research until I moved on to working in computing (no money is science). But that doesn't make me an "expert" at anything - certainly not climate science. The thing is that when you study a subject an detail (which you probably have never done) it makes you aware of how little we really know. Science is never settled. And climate change study is at a VERY early stage. In a hundred years we'll laugh at the CO2 theory just as we laugh at the phlogiston theory. I also did physics and chemistry as career subjects and worked in process testing and research for my first five years at work when, like you, I found the pay piss-poor and moved out; I left just two months prior to taking my chemistry and physics National Certificate exam. But the logic required for those subjects never gets lost. I never doubted you, only you doubted me. I don't fling out unnecessary insults about peoples intelligence just to score stupid kiddies points, but only after repeat attacks on me. For me what you write on here is either right or wrong, if its right I say so. If I'm wrong I say so. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 25, 2023 20:07:29 GMT
Thanks Equivocal. I doubt they'll look at it. So for them. The conclusion is that Connolly et al made many statistical errors to reach conclusion that the sun is causing global warming. SOLAR WARMING IN BLUE. CONNOLLY SOLAR IN ORANGE. WARMING IN BLACK. So to be realistic a peer reviewed paper produced by over 20 climate scientists contained what others believe are erroneous statistical assumptions and as such produce results that are believed to be inaccurate. I think largely that is what we have been trying to say. That science is far from settled, that errors are made all over the place and scientists disagree frequently as a matter of principle as well as a matter of fact. But do you accept the conclusions of the scientific community, or will you just wait a few weeks and just repeat this disproved theory.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 25, 2023 20:38:05 GMT
So to be realistic a peer reviewed paper produced by over 20 climate scientists contained what others believe are erroneous statistical assumptions and as such produce results that are believed to be inaccurate. I think largely that is what we have been trying to say. That science is far from settled, that errors are made all over the place and scientists disagree frequently as a matter of principle as well as a matter of fact. But do you accept the conclusions of the scientific community, or will you just wait a few weeks and just repeat this disproved theory. What are the conclusions of the scientific community? One part of that Community has produced a paper stating x and indicating the IPCC were wrong in their assumptions. Another part of that community has produced a paper to say that x was wrong and the assumptions contained therein were wrong. The conclusions of the scientific community is that they seldom agree on anything. I may repeat it if those stating x comeback with sound reasons why those critical of them are wrong. But it is science it is far from settled in any direction and probably never will be and that, as ever, is the point.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 25, 2023 20:49:17 GMT
I also did physics and chemistry as career subjects and worked in process testing and research for my first five years at work when, like you, I found the pay piss-poor and moved out; I left just two months prior to taking my chemistry and physics National Certificate exam. But the logic required for those subjects never gets lost. I never doubted you, only you doubted me. I don't fling out unnecessary insults about peoples intelligence just to score stupid kiddies points, but only after repeat attacks on me. For me what you write on here is either right or wrong, if its right I say so. If I'm wrong I say so. Just saying. They're sometimes necessary and therefore not insults. Now go and blub somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 25, 2023 20:52:14 GMT
But do you accept the conclusions of the scientific community, or will you just wait a few weeks and just repeat this disproved theory. What are the conclusions of the scientific community? One part of that Community has produced a paper stating x and indicating the IPCC were wrong in their assumptions. Another part of that community has produced a paper to say that x was wrong and the assumptions contained therein were wrong. The conclusions of the scientific community is that they seldom agree on anything. I may repeat it if those stating x comeback with sound reasons why those critical of them are wrong. But it is science it is far from settled in any direction and probably never will be and that, as ever, is the point. So you don't.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 25, 2023 20:52:39 GMT
I never doubted you, only you doubted me. I don't fling out unnecessary insults about peoples intelligence just to score stupid kiddies points, but only after repeat attacks on me. For me what you write on here is either right or wrong, if its right I say so. If I'm wrong I say so. Just saying. They're sometimes necessary and therefore not insults. Now go and blub somewhere else. How sad.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 25, 2023 23:30:58 GMT
What are the conclusions of the scientific community? One part of that Community has produced a paper stating x and indicating the IPCC were wrong in their assumptions. Another part of that community has produced a paper to say that x was wrong and the assumptions contained therein were wrong. The conclusions of the scientific community is that they seldom agree on anything. I may repeat it if those stating x comeback with sound reasons why those critical of them are wrong. But it is science it is far from settled in any direction and probably never will be and that, as ever, is the point. So you don't. You asked if I accepted a conclusion from a community. We do not know what the conclusions of that community are, we know the IPCC conclusions but they are not the scientific community. It is not the scientific community that is querying the findings, it is another group of scientists in the same community. They may be right, they may be wrong they may be both right and wrong but that outlook holds for all such published papers that are queried. I accept that it has been queried and that there are questions as regards the Connolly paper that should be addressed. This is called acceptance of critical appraisal, you ought to try it, it may work wonders for you.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 7:08:04 GMT
You asked if I accepted a conclusion from a community. We do not know what the conclusions of that community are, we know the IPCC conclusions but they are not the scientific community. It is not the scientific community that is querying the findings, it is another group of scientists in the same community. They may be right, they may be wrong they may be both right and wrong but that outlook holds for all such published papers that are queried. I accept that it has been queried and that there are questions as regards the Connolly paper that should be addressed. This is called acceptance of critical appraisal, you ought to try it, it may work wonders for you. Have any scientific institutes defended Connolly's calculations as correct? Several have not.
|
|