You're right. I do look for the contradictory evidence such as this:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013>
Why are they in serious trouble already when these New Zealand
researchers have shown that the main islands have actually increased in
surface area over the past 20-60 years despite the slow rise of sea
level of about 2mm/yr. The logical explanation is that these coral
islands are dynamic and grow upward with the sea level.
Yes, I know, the models say that sea level rise will accelerate and
reach some level higher than today by 2100. Well, it better hurry up.
Recent satellite data show that global sea level rise is actually
showing modest deceleration rather than acceleration.
<http://sealevel.colorado.edu/>
Funny how real data gets in the way of theory. I do have an agenda.
The agenda is to pay attention to *all* of the data. As Einstein said:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." I think the single experiment has
already been done for Kiribati and Tuvalu.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/7/2011 6:23 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Nonetheless, I'm just writing a study guide for a documentary on
> Kiribati and Tuvalu - they don't a bugger about the science out
> there, just the disappearance of their villages and croplands. Two
> degrees up and they'll cease to exist. They are already in serious
> trouble. The models are simply attempts to explain what appears to be
> happening, with differing and competing frameworks. All or some of
> them may be wrong in part or entirely. This does not change the
> observations of a general trend. It is 'normal science'. The fact
> that they disagree is unexceptional - there are several competing
> theories of evolution (Gould vs. Dawkins, for example) but I'm not
> about to throw away the general idea because of it. Climate change
> scepticism is also a normal social reaction to any major shift. Those
> with a deep conservatism or an agenda will seize on any minor
> inconsistency in the argument and claim that it destroys the entire
> hypothesis. Rarely are their own positions brought under the same
> blowtorch. It is better to adopt a cautious scepticism to specific
> theories while recognising the overall problem. But then, we're human
> and prefer utterly polarised arguments where we can shout at each
> other pointlessly, so that's not about to happen. Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 08/08/2011, at 1:03 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Not to defend Monckton (who is perfectly capable of defending
>> himself on any climate related technical subject) but rejecting the
>> current climate "consensus" doesn't necessarily require a deep
>> understanding of climate related scientific disciplines. Just a
>> bit of understanding of chaos theory and maybe some statistics
>> thrown in.
>>
>> All of the "bad" consequences of warming are the long range
>> predictions of about 20 major climate models. None of these models
>> agree between themselves and none has ever been shown to make an
>> accurate hindcast let alone a forecast. If you believe (as I do)
>> that the earth's climate is a chaotic system then trying to
>> forecast climate 50 or 100 years into the future is a futile
>> exercise. Also, if you have ever tried to make even a simple
>> forecasting system (as I did in my foolish youth) you soon learn
>> that you can force fit almost anything in the universe with a
>> polynomial having enough degrees of freedom. The problem is that
>> such fancy fitting is senseless in a chaotic system since such a
>> model's ability to predict anything with any degree of certainty is
>> really non-existent. Climate models have hundreds or thousands of
>> parameters... all tunable by the model builder... and still very
>> incomplete. Of course, the model builder doesn't believe that
>> climate is a chaotic system. If it is chaotic his reason for
>> existence goes away. And, of course, he doesn't have to stand
>> behind his predictions of 100 years into the future since he won't
>> be here.
>>
>> Here's noted Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson on climate
>> modeling:
>> <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html>
>>
>> On the subject of statistics, climate science depends very heavily
>> on statistical manipulation of raw data. The video I pointed out
>> recently from Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller
>> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/you%E2%80%99re-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science/>
>>
>>
shows that Muller is extremely upset with the "hockey stick" graph by
>> the chicanery employed at the juncture of paleoclimate temperature
>> reconstructions (mostly from tree rings) and the modern
>> thermometer based temperature records. But that is hardly all
>> that's wrong with that graph. The paleoclimate temperature
>> reconstructions are highly suspect and the statistical methods used
>> to do the analysis (Principal Components) have been declared
>> invalid by several prominent statisticians. Michael Mann (the
>> author) has never revealed the details of his analysis and has
>> (despite repeated requests over years) never disclosed the
>> correlation values he previously claimed to have computed. Little
>> wonder because, now that the data is available (like pulling teeth)
>> the correlation values with temperature are shown to be so low that
>> he would have gotten better results by choosing random "red noise"
>> numbers. If you'd like a detailed analysis you might like to read
>> this.
>> <http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf>
>>
>>
This is a 12 page PDF. A little statistical training would be helpful
>> but not necessary to at least understand the gist of the
>> situation. Muller is also mentioned in this paper since it was
>> studying this data that convinced Muller that he had been deceived.
>> Unfortunately, it's not only Muller who has been deceived. This
>> graph has been and continues to be the posterchild of the IPCC's
>> claims of dangerous global warming. If you value the truth in
>> scientific method you'll take the time to read these 12 pages.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|