[Al_U_Card]

A clearer image of just how doomed we are?

[Cascade]

Winstonm, on 2012-November-20, 07:11, said:

You seem trapped in the same mindset I see almost always with deniers - a comparison of science to religion/philosophy.

Science is not in the "proof" business - that is religion/philosophy/law. Everyone but the jurors "knew" the facts about O.J.

In unknowns, we can only take our best guess and live with the results. If you are waiting for total proof, see O.J.

1. I don't think that I am a denier. I don't know where the truth lies. I am skeptical of those who tell me what to believe based on what I can see is flawed data and other arguments.

2. If science is not in the "proof" business then it is disingenuous to claim "science is settled". To repeatedly tell me that the science is settled whilst in quiet acknowledging significant errors is the analysis is misleading at best, it is treating the population with contempt. It is a dumbing down that seems to be designed to mislead.

3. I see what I think can only be described as marketing style hype and religious style fervour trying to convince me to believe in AGW. For example I watched (some of) Al Gore and others on Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality.

I don't know from personal observation what is happening in other parts of the world. I don't even know the full facts of what is happening in my backyard. However when I see information protrayed that is obviously not correct or not known or if it is known without any supporting evidence and used to support an ideal I will be naturally skeptical of the underlying claims and the motives of the people (Climate Reality) trying to push that information.

In particular in the Climate Reality videos there is a section on what is happening in New Zealand. The overview states "Dirty Weather has infiltrated New Zealand..." and they give some anecdotal evidence of weather events. They claim they are examining the 'connection between dirty energy and dirty weather'. From 1:47 in the appropriate video they show the Manawatu gorge without naming it. This gorge is around 25km from my home. The road through the gorge is about 140 years old. Throughout that 140 year history this gorge due to the steep unstable geography has experienced many slips. However without proof they show a slip (admittedly a particularly bad one) across this road (not railroad as claimed in the video the railroad is on the other side of the river) as an example of a dirty weather impact. Yes they acknowledge that slips are frequent in New Zealand but I bet they get more mileage out of showing a big nasty slip than they lose from a minor disclaimer and even that was conditional. Whilst this event was triggered by rainfall it was not so extreme as to register on a list of 14 extreme events in the NIWA statistics for October 2011 in New Zealand. It seems to me very unlikely that there has been established any causality between AGW and this event and yet it was show cased as an example of 'dirty weather' around the world. I am going to resist being convinced by this sort of deception and continue to look for hard evidence untainted by political hype and marketing campaigns.

[Daniel1960]

Cascade, on 2012-November-20, 13:23, said:

1. I don't think that I am a denier. I don't know where the truth lies. I am skeptical of those who tell me what to believe based on what I can see is flawed data and other arguments.

2. If science is not in the "proof" business then it is disingenuous to claim "science is settled". To repeatedly tell me that the science is settled whilst in quiet acknowledging significant errors is the analysis is misleading at best, it is treating the population with contempt. It is a dumbing down that seems to be designed to mislead.

3. I see what I think can only be described as marketing style hype and religious style fervour trying to convince me to believe in AGW. For example I watched (some of) Al Gore and others on Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality.

I don't know from personal observation what is happening in other parts of the world. I don't even know the full facts of what is happening in my backyard. However when I see information protrayed that is obviously not correct or not known or if it is known without any supporting evidence and used to support an ideal I will be naturally skeptical of the underlying claims and the motives of the people (Climate Reality) trying to push that information.

In particular in the Climate Reality videos there is a section on what is happening in New Zealand. The overview states "Dirty Weather has infiltrated New Zealand..." and they give some anecdotal evidence of weather events. They claim they are examining the 'connection between dirty energy and dirty weather'. From 1:47 in the appropriate video they show the Manawatu gorge without naming it. This gorge is around 25km from my home. The road through the gorge is about 140 years old. Throughout that 140 year history this gorge due to the steep unstable geography has experienced many slips. However without proof they show a slip (admittedly a particularly bad one) across this road (not railroad as claimed in the video the railroad is on the other side of the river) as an example of a dirty weather impact. Yes they acknowledge that slips are frequent in New Zealand but I bet they get more mileage out of showing a big nasty slip than they lose from a minor disclaimer and even that was conditional. Whilst this event was triggered by rainfall it was not so extreme as to register on a list of 14 extreme events in the NIWA statistics for October 2011 in New Zealand. It seems to me very unlikely that there has been established any causality between AGW and this event and yet it was show cased as an example of 'dirty weather' around the world. I am going to resist being convinced by this sort of deception and continue to look for hard evidence untainted by political hype and marketing campaigns.

Cascade,
I do not think that you are alone in this. Hurricane Sandy has been described by some as the result of climate change. Yet, it was nowhere near the most powerful or destructive hurricane to hit the area in the past two centuries. Actually, the area has been rather hurricane-free in the past half century, until now. Perhaps, it was the warming temperatures that steered the hurricanes away from New York, and now the cooler temperatures are bringing them back. Similarly no causality between AGW and hurricane Sandy either. Just hype, and lots of it!

[dwar0123]

Cascade, on 2012-November-20, 13:23, said:

1. I don't think that I am a denier. I don't know where the truth lies. I am skeptical of those who tell me what to believe based on what I can see is flawed data and other arguments.

How skeptical are you of AL and his flawed data and arguments? Both sides have people who are guilty of this, pretty much all of human discourse is steeped in nonsense on both sides. If after you filter all the information and nonsense through your own personal lenses, if you not concerned by climate change, yet still post opinions on it frequently, I think that would classify you as a denier.

Quote

2. If science is not in the "proof" business then it is disingenuous to claim "science is settled". To repeatedly tell me that the science is settled whilst in quiet acknowledging significant errors is the analysis is misleading at best, it is treating the population with contempt. It is a dumbing down that seems to be designed to mislead.

Right, like everything AL spews isn't guilty of the same from the opposite point of view. Back to the first point, both sides do this, its human nature, I suppose because it often works.

Quote

3. I see what I think can only be described as marketing style hype and religious style fervour trying to convince me to believe in AGW. For example I watched (some of) Al Gore and others on Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality.

I don't know from personal observation what is happening in other parts of the world. I don't even know the full facts of what is happening in my backyard. However when I see information protrayed that is obviously not correct or not known or if it is known without any supporting evidence and used to support an ideal I will be naturally skeptical of the underlying claims and the motives of the people (Climate Reality) trying to push that information.

In particular in the Climate Reality videos there is a section on what is happening in New Zealand. The overview states "Dirty Weather has infiltrated New Zealand..." and they give some anecdotal evidence of weather events. They claim they are examining the 'connection between dirty energy and dirty weather'. From 1:47 in the appropriate video they show the Manawatu gorge without naming it. This gorge is around 25km from my home. The road through the gorge is about 140 years old. Throughout that 140 year history this gorge due to the steep unstable geography has experienced many slips. However without proof they show a slip (admittedly a particularly bad one) across this road (not railroad as claimed in the video the railroad is on the other side of the river) as an example of a dirty weather impact. Yes they acknowledge that slips are frequent in New Zealand but I bet they get more mileage out of showing a big nasty slip than they lose from a minor disclaimer and even that was conditional. Whilst this event was triggered by rainfall it was not so extreme as to register on a list of 14 extreme events in the NIWA statistics for October 2011 in New Zealand. It seems to me very unlikely that there has been established any causality between AGW and this event and yet it was show cased as an example of 'dirty weather' around the world. I am going to resist being convinced by this sort of deception and continue to look for hard evidence untainted by political hype and marketing campaigns.

And every cold wave is used as further proof that climate change isn't happening. I am not here to convince you that Sandy means anything with respect to climate change, it doesn't. I doubt any serious scientist would suggest otherwise. It is very easy to pick apart the climate change argument when you only attempt to refute the weakest positions put forth.

[luke warm]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-20, 14:00, said:

I am not here to convince you that Sandy means anything with respect to climate change, it doesn't. I doubt any serious scientist would suggest otherwise.

no, but there are plenty of non-serious, and unqualified, politicians who are trying to convince us of that very thing

[dwar0123]

luke warm, on 2012-November-20, 16:26, said:

no, but there are plenty of non-serious, and unqualified, politicians who are trying to convince us of that very thing

I seriously doubt any of them are posting in this thread.

[Al_U_Card]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-20, 14:00, said:

How skeptical are you of AL and his flawed data and arguments?

Do, please, be specific. Since my flawed data can only come from sources that are national and peer-reviewed, describe the flaws.

Arguments, like data, can be interpreted. That those interpretations differ is the basis for discussion. Decrying the messenger or using pejorative descriptors such as "spewed" does not bode well for an open debate.

There are way too many instances of "sleight of hand" in the alarmist camp to not be wary of their stance, especially since it involves so much of our money and prosperity. The above illustrated "model projections versus reality" is just one case in point. We are to "believe" that further in the future the results will miraculously fall into line with their modeled result? If at first you don't succeed, find another sucker.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-20, 03:42, said:

This is precisely the problem. For every piece of rubbish AI posts here there is at least one equally as misleading posted on the AGW side. It is a little like the advertising for the American presidential race. Separating out the pieces of science based on good maths and statistics is not an easy task and it is no surprise that some sections of society have started to wonder what to think. It is tough enough even when you have some knowledge of the methods involved. Let us make an agreement - any link posted in this thread is regarded as bogus until someone else posts a meaningful argument as to why the underlying science in the linked article is indisputable. My guess is that very few links will meet this criteria (ignoring fanboi arguments).

I would claim there is essentially no indisputable science in the field of medicine. I still go to the doctor and take his advice.

I am a mathematician myself, and my impression is that you are expecting a standard of rigor that is impossible in a field like climate science. There is no "scientific method" that works for all sciences. How could there be, when there isn't even the level of rigor expected for mathematical proofs varies widely between different field of mathematics.

[Al_U_Card]

cherdano, on 2012-November-20, 17:29, said:

I would claim there is essentially no indisputable science in the field of medicine. I still go to the doctor and take his advice.

And after a routine check-up, your doctor (diplomas on the wall) tells you that you have a terminal condition with only months to live. You might well give him all of your money because he is trying to find a cure for that condition OR you might just ask for a re-test or a second opinion...

Even at that, climate science is in such dispute that, as a diagnostic tool, let alone a definitive method, it is as shown in the above graphic, more than somewhat off the mark. Remember that all of the doomsday scenarios are founded on and developed from these same models.

[dwar0123]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-November-20, 16:37, said:

Do, please, be specific. Since my flawed data can only come from sources that are national and peer-reviewed, describe the flaws.

Arguments, like data, can be interpreted. That those interpretations differ is the basis for discussion. Decrying the messenger or using pejorative descriptors such as "spewed" does not bode well for an open debate.

There are way too many instances of "sleight of hand" in the alarmist camp to not be wary of their stance, especially since it involves so much of our money and prosperity. The above illustrated "model projections versus reality" is just one case in point. We are to "believe" that further in the future the results will miraculously fall into line with their modeled result? If at first you don't succeed, find another sucker.

I can't believe I bothered to respond, utterly pointless, I really should just ignore you.

You use sources that filter national and peer reviewed data using sleight of hand. Hardly the same thing.

Hadcrut3 raw data

2011 - 0.35
2010 - 0.50
2009 - 0.44
2008 - 0.31

Hadcrut3 data as represented by your graph
2011 - 0.32
2010 - 0.47
2009 - 0.43
2008 - 0.31

Using the 2008 data point to calibrate where the positions of the other 3 data points should have been.

source - http://www.metoffice...ace-temperature

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-November-20, 16:37, said:

Do, please, be specific. Since my flawed data can only come from sources that are national and peer-reviewed, describe the flaws.

Let's start with post number 471 in this thread, in which you posted badly flawed and blatantly misleading graph.

When I pointed out the errors in your post, your "defense" was

Quote

Monkeyed charts....as in the fraudulent MBH hockey-stick you mean? Using upside-down proxies and spliced-on temperature records to hide the decline? (To say nothing of the rest of the statistical shenanigans heretofore described, for which we are still waiting for a pronouncement from our resident statistics teacher.)

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-November-20, 07:27, said:

So, the accused presents exculpatory evidence of their innocence and they are still to be convicted?

What you posted is the type of logical fallacy that most "believers" use along with various strawman, consensus or arguments from ignorance (we don't know what else it might be so it must be that...) .

Wrong. What I am saying is that if you are waiting for proof, you will be waiting forever because science is not about providing enough evidence to convince you - that is what your pastor/lawyer/philosopher does.

[Daniel1960]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-20, 18:37, said:

I can't believe I bothered to respond, utterly pointless, I really should just ignore you.

You use sources that filter national and peer reviewed data using sleight of hand. Hardly the same thing.

Hadcrut3 raw data

2011 - 0.35
2010 - 0.50
2009 - 0.44
2008 - 0.31

Hadcrut3 data as represented by your graph
2011 - 0.32
2010 - 0.47
2009 - 0.43
2008 - 0.31

Using the 2008 data point to calibrate where the positions of the other 3 data points should have been.

source - http://www.metoffice...ace-temperature

I am not sure where either of you are getting your data, but the HadCru website list the following temperatures for the last 4 years:
2011 - 0.340
2010 - 0.478
2009 - 0.443
2008 - 0.325
http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

Comparing recent temperatures with Hansen's prediction would look something like this:
http://clivebest.com...6/plotcomp1.png

[mike777]

Three innovative new energy technologies are explored in the current issue of Technology and Innovation — Proceedings of the National Academy of Inventors:


http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

---

Rice unveils super-efficient solar-energy technology


scientists have unveiled a revolutionary new technology that uses silicon dioxide/gold nanoshells and N115 carbon nanoparticles to convert solar energy directly into steam. The new “solar steam” method from Rice’s Laboratory for Nanophotonics (LANP) is so effective it can even produce steam from icy cold water.

The technology has an overall energy efficiency of 24 percent. Photovoltaic solar panels, by comparison, typically have an overall energy efficiency around 15


http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

[Daniel1960]

mike777, on 2012-November-21, 08:30, said:

Three innovative new energy technologies are explored in the current issue of Technology and Innovation — Proceedings of the National Academy of Inventors:


http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

---

Rice unveils super-efficient solar-energy technology


scientists have unveiled a revolutionary new technology that uses silicon dioxide/gold nanoshells and N115 carbon nanoparticles to convert solar energy directly into steam. The new “solar steam” method from Rice’s Laboratory for Nanophotonics (LANP) is so effective it can even produce steam from icy cold water.

The technology has an overall energy efficiency of 24 percent. Photovoltaic solar panels, by comparison, typically have an overall energy efficiency around 15


http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

Sounds promising Mike. Any idea on the costy of the technology?

[mike777]

Daniel1960, on 2012-November-21, 09:28, said:

Sounds promising Mike. Any idea on the costy of the technology?

As of today I would think very expensive.

But if..if..solar powered energy can follow something close to Moore's law...something to continue to research at a basic level.


This intense heating allows us to generate steam locally, right at the surface of the particle.”

Steam is one of the world’s most-used industrial fluids. About 90 percent of electricity is produced from steam, and steam is also used to sterilize medical waste and surgical instruments, to prepare food and to purify water.

Most industrial steam is produced in large boilers, and Halas said solar steam’s efficiency could allow steam to become economical on a much smaller scale.


see this video

[Daniel1960]

FYI,

A new website has begun, which explores many diverse climate viewpoints. Thus far, it seems quite worthwhile.

http://www.climatedialogue.org/

[mike777]

solar energy funnel to harness a broader spectrum of light

MIT engineers propose a new way of harnessing photons for electricity, with the potential for capturing a wider spectrum of solar energy

November 28, 2012
.



A visualization of the broad-spectrum solar energy funnel (credit: Yan Liang/MIT)

The quest to harness a broader spectrum of sunlight’s energy to produce electricity has taken a radically new turn, with the proposal of a “solar energy funnel” that takes advantage of materials under elastic strain.

“We’re trying to use elastic strains to produce unprecedented properties,” says Ju Li, an MIT professor. In this case, the “funnel” is a metaphor: Electrons and their counterparts, holes — which are split off from atoms by the energy of photons — are driven to the center of the structure by electronic forces, not by gravity.


http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

[Daniel1960]

mike777, on 2012-November-28, 10:12, said:

solar energy funnel to harness a broader spectrum of light

MIT engineers propose a new way of harnessing photons for electricity, with the potential for capturing a wider spectrum of solar energy

November 28, 2012
.



A visualization of the broad-spectrum solar energy funnel (credit: Yan Liang/MIT)

The quest to harness a broader spectrum of sunlight’s energy to produce electricity has taken a radically new turn, with the proposal of a “solar energy funnel” that takes advantage of materials under elastic strain.

“We’re trying to use elastic strains to produce unprecedented properties,” says Ju Li, an MIT professor. In this case, the “funnel” is a metaphor: Electrons and their counterparts, holes — which are split off from atoms by the energy of photons — are driven to the center of the structure by electronic forces, not by gravity.


http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

Very nice. Thanks for the link.

[PassedOut]

Latest news on climate change:

Antarctica, Greenland ice definitely melting into sea, and speeding up

Quote

What had been a blurry picture about polar ice — especially how it impacts sea levels — just got a whole lot clearer as experts on Thursday published a peer-reviewed study they say puts to rest the debate over whether the poles added to, or subtracted from, sea level rise over the last two decades.

"This improved certainty allows us to stay definitively that both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing ice," lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in Britain, told reporters. Not only that, but the pace has tripled from the 1990s, the data indicate.

Sea level rose 60 percent faster than UN projections, study finds

Quote

In a peer-reviewed study, the experts said satellite data show sea levels rose by 3.2 millimeters (0.1 inch) a year from 1993 to 2011 — 60 percent faster than the 2 mm annual rise projected by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for that period.

"This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low," the team wrote in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The experts also said the IPCC was just about spot on with its predictions for warming temperatures.

"Global warming has not slowed down or is lagging behind the projections," lead author Stefan Rahmstorf, a researcher at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said in a statement. "The IPCC is far from being alarmist and in fact in some cases rather underestimates possible risks."

Looks like the people hoping to kick the problem down to their kids and grandkids by denying its existence might face some of the consequences themselves...