| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bigfoot
Mangled
Joined: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 24,386
Location: The distant future - the year 2000. (Canada)
|
 Posted: Sat 8th Mar 4:51am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Prof. Badtouch wrote: | Yah, that's me, young, hipster, savvy, and sceptical.  |
Care for another pipe old chum?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CrustyMTB
Wrecked
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: 4,583
Location: Back in the Hood
|
| Posted: Sat 8th Mar 5:33am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is great on so many levels, 3 people who appear to know what they're talking about (I offer no opinion) arguing above my head
Phunk, who rather predictably for an economistian argues "the market will save us!! don't mess with the market!" but it turns out hates democracy while at the same time agreeing with
Jono, who sensibly says "whether the science is right or wrong lets stop polluting"
All this time the Prof is throwing poo at people for the quality or otherwise of their discourse...
And bigfoot and I are sitting on the sidelines heckling...
Quality...
This is why I'll always come back to vorb
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfoot
Mangled
Joined: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 24,386
Location: The distant future - the year 2000. (Canada)
|
| Posted: Sat 8th Mar 5:42am Post subject: |
|
|
Its what its for isnt it? 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E Dogg Capizzle
Mangled
Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 21,051
Location: Riding the Entertainment Mastodon
|
| Posted: Sat 8th Mar 8:17am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Throwing poo is what I do best.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrokenKonaRider
Worn
Joined: Aug 02, 2005
Posts: 996
Location: In your garden
|
| Posted: Sat 8th Mar 10:17am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh noes!
Polar Bear Rugs Endangered as Global Warming Pushes Hunt Limit
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=ad_dkwtXz.TE&referblahblahblah
The Bush administration is considering a proposal to declare the animals a threatened species. Protected status would make it illegal to import bear trophies, eliminating a selling point for Mason and other brokers peddling 10- to 12-day Canadian Arctic adventures to U.S. hunters.
``Who wants to pay that kind of money for that kind of hunt and not bring your trophy back?'' says Jerry Bateman, who paid $25,000 to Mason's Adventures in the Wild for a polar hunt in 2006. Bateman, a retired General Motors Corp. quality-control inspector, returned with an 8 1/2-foot bear that's now stuffed and displayed in his Howe, Indiana, home.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j2hyde
Flogged
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 3,526
|
| Posted: Sat 8th Mar 3:48pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CrustyMTB wrote: | Quality...
This is why I'll always come back to vorb |
Well I'm here for the pussy. A recent study concluded at 97% of hot chicks love geeks who argue on the internet. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skidston
Worn
Joined: Feb 19, 2007
Posts: 558
|
| Posted: Sat 8th Mar 5:03pm Post subject: |
|
|
| j2hyde wrote: | | CrustyMTB wrote: | Quality...
This is why I'll always come back to vorb |
Well I'm here for the pussy. A recent study concluded at 97% of hot chicks love geeks who argue on the internet. |
And the other 3% were well known liars.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GravityCanterbury
Joined: May 08, 2005
Posts: 301
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 5:57am Post subject: |
|
|
| skidston wrote: |
You can't just say "it's too complicated to understand", because if you look at climate models' ability to reproduce temperatures within the measurement period you'll see they are shockingly accurate. Therefore their predictions of the future are worth paying attention to (at the very least).
|
They can't even tell us reliably what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, when we extrapolate that to the 'future'.....
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfoot
Mangled
Joined: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 24,386
Location: The distant future - the year 2000. (Canada)
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 6:41am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skidston
Worn
Joined: Feb 19, 2007
Posts: 558
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 4:03pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GravityCanterbury wrote: | | skidston wrote: |
You can't just say "it's too complicated to understand", because if you look at climate models' ability to reproduce temperatures within the measurement period you'll see they are shockingly accurate. Therefore their predictions of the future are worth paying attention to (at the very least).
|
They can't even tell us reliably what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, when we extrapolate that to the 'future'..... |
Predicting the weather tomorrow depends on reliably knowing the current conditions of the atmosphere. A small error in the initial conditions will lead to large errors in the forecast. This is the "chaotic system" problem that J2Hyde was on about.
Climate change predictions are predicting the change in the stastical mean state, not the actual weather for every day for 100 years into the future. This relies on knowing the changing boundary conditions, e.g. the change the longwave radiation being emitted from the Earth's atmosphere.
So whether or not you can acurately predict climate change has little to do with whether you can predict next week's weather.
This is a common misperception that people have - I suppose it is a fairly complicated thing to understand.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skidston
Worn
Joined: Feb 19, 2007
Posts: 558
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 4:12pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a seminar on tomorrow morning at NIWA about attributing recent temperature changes to anthropogenic forcings. The guy is a fairly eminent scientist.
Perhaps you guys that understand all the flaws and pitfalls of 1) modelling climate change, and 2) attributing it to human activity, should come along and enlighten us as to where we are going so wrong?
| NIWA wrote: |
NIWA Seminar
Attributing observed changes in physical and biological systems to anthropogenic climate influences
Professor David Karoly, Univ. of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
The IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) found, with very high confidence, that observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. Observed changes related to regional warming has been found primarily in terrestrial biological systems, the cryosphere, and hydrologic systems. The IPCC Working Group I AR4 concluded that most of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. For the first time, the IPCC extended its attribution to the continental scale, stating that it is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century.
Here we describe a joint attribution study across multiple physical and biological systems at both global and continental scales by 1) demonstrating consistency of observed changes in natural systems with warming; and 2) conducting spatial analyses that show that the co-location of observed changes in natural systems and areas of warming is highly unlikely to be due to natural variability of the climate or the systems themselves and is consistent with the responses to anthropogenic climate change. We show that changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases and conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems at continental and global scales.
10:30am Thursday 20 March 2008
Main Conference Room, NIWA Wellington
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E Dogg Capizzle
Mangled
Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 21,051
Location: Riding the Entertainment Mastodon
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 4:14pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skidston wrote: | should come along and enlighten us as to where we are going so wrong?
|
Enlighten you? Aren't you just a PhD student? Don't get ahead of yourself buddy. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skidston
Worn
Joined: Feb 19, 2007
Posts: 558
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 4:18pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prof. Badtouch wrote: | | skidston wrote: | should come along and enlighten us as to where we are going so wrong?
|
Enlighten you? Aren't you just a PhD student? Don't get ahead of yourself buddy. |
You are right, i do humbly appologise. When I said "us" I did of course mean "them".
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skidston
Worn
Joined: Feb 19, 2007
Posts: 558
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 4:22pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prof. Badtouch wrote: | | skidston wrote: | should come along and enlighten us as to where we are going so wrong?
|
Enlighten you? Aren't you just a PhD student? Don't get ahead of yourself buddy. |
Although, if i'm really honest, i'd have to admit that I would also be interested to know why the whole AGW thing is parc. Just one of those annoying curiosities, you know....
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E Dogg Capizzle
Mangled
Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 21,051
Location: Riding the Entertainment Mastodon
|
| Posted: Wed 19th Mar 4:25pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm doing my lectures on pseudoscience at the moment, including a part on the accusations of climate science being a case of junk science. It's a genuinely interesting case of the intersection of politics the media and science. Of course what I say there is quite different to any bogus opinions I might express here.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
