Wayne said...

Dispute it all you will but "the men in the know" said the earth was flat etc.
Not dumb at all thanks barn. You may be a sheep and accept the common thinking.
Your choice.
Only takes 1 person to disprove/prove something.
Heard of Einstein ?

Ever heard of Galileo? He was the man who debunked the Geocentric theory.. He developed what we now know as modern science... Before him, everyone was Ignorant of science, so they weren't by our standards what you call 'men of science'

He proved the Heliocentric Theory with solid Science, empirical evidence, testable, repeatable, observable facts which were fully compatible with new information, and completely open to be falsified.. This is science.. Science as we know it didn't exist before him.. There were no scientists before him dumdumb..

These 'men in the know' were priests, Imams and Philosophers who looked at the clearly flat horizon and the sun rising and setting like it does and came up with the Geocentric hypothesis..

Those 'men in the know' teach us a good lesson that we can't take out 'gut feeling', 'woman's intuition' or 'looking out the window at that dang rain' to decide what to believe, you need to look at all the evidence available, and this evidence is available in reputable, peer reviewed science journals like Nature.

Einstein? Explain to me again, because I've temporarily forgot, Exactly what the theory of relativity actually means again? And what hypothesis it disproved?

And why do you choose to 'believe' Einsteins white coat and disbelieve other white coats?


(note, I'm not claiming there is no bad science or crappy scientists, but they only get found out by better science, as Chris249 said)

Scientist generally set out to test a Null Hypothesis - 'that there is no statistical significance in a set of given observations'. This would have been the starting assumption in this instance regarding wind and waves over the period that data had been collected (ie the Null Hypothesis would have been that "over the last 23 years there has been no change in wind speeds and ocean wave height").

The scientists, starting with this Null Hypothesis, would have investigated the data and noticed that there seemed to be a trend toward increasing wind and wave conditions during extreme conditions (ie the highest waves were becoming higher and the strongest winds were becoming stronger). Having noticed what appeared to be a trend, the scientists would have applied a set of statistical analysis tools to the data to examine whether this trend was likely to be due to random variation or an actual change in wind strength and wave height over time. If there really was a change over time, then this would disprove their Null Hypothesis that "over the last 23 years there has been no change in wind speeds and ocean wave height". As it turned out, using their statistical tools, they found that this trend was unlikely to be due to random variation and concluded that extreme wave height and extreme wind strengths were on the increase. An interesting outcome! There was no bias, the data can be looked at by all and the same outcome will be concluded.

Given this general process, I don't know why some people criticise scientists for the work they are trained to do (ie collect and analyse data)? I should add that looking at the data is just the end part of the 'science', building the equipment to collect the data is usually the difficult bit!

Does anyone actually have an issues with the way this wind and wave study was conducted, or is it just a few who simply refuse to acknowldege the way science (in general) operates regardless of the study or the findings?

Wayne said...

barn said...

I'm just choosing to believe the scientists who dispute global warming is man made or heavily influence.
You're choosing to believe the ones that do.

If the jury (ie the broad scientific community) were out on this one then I'd agree with you, but there is a lot more data to suggest that man-made global warming is occurring (that's not to say it is though); so at this point in time, I reckon we should be taking this seriously and not assuming it is some kind of conspiracy cover-up and that we (the general public) are all being deceived! Our response at the present time should be to assume that man-made global warming is occurring and to consider whether we wish to act and take heed of what the majority of scientists are saying will be the consequences if we do not.

Wayne said...

barn said...

And why do you choose to 'believe' Einsteins white coat and disbelieve other white coats?

i'm doing exactly as you're doing. I'm just choosing to believe the scientists who dispute global warming is man made or heavily influence.
You're choosing to believe the ones that do.
I'm not disputing science at all, but not all scientists agree 100% on everything until it is proven by the best science of the time.
If you are a scientist (you're not i'll guess) and can prove to me what you believe, fine. If not, then it's your opinion.
Let's say 70% of scientists think 1 thing and 30% think another. Does it mean the lesser are wrong? No, not until it's proven.
I think man made global warming is a bit difficult to prove.

1. I'd say you're 70:30 ratio is a bit generous!.

2. It's a pretty big hint when you're '30%' of scientists include Ian Plimer.

3. This argument of 'choosing to believe the minority of scientists who agree with me' is a creationist argument. I'm guessing you're a creationist. Creationists generally hope that mainstream scientific thinking will one day backflip and suddenly agree with them.

Wayne said...



If you are a scientist (you're not i'll guess) and can prove to me what you believe, fine. If not, then it's your opinion.

I am, but as it would take hours to politely type the facts, I'll simply refer you to Scienceblogs and this blog in particular which has all the refutations you need to prove to you that, yes, if you fart to much in your space suit, it starts to smell.. and we only have one spacesuit.

scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic


(oh and PZ Myers will help with that creationist logic @ scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ )

fullmoon the question being debated is not how much we contribute. i believe that's been quantified.

the question is what depth of bad will we see and what is the best method to stop what we are doing.

pierrec45 said...
And I don't care about what others say: in the early-mid 80s on summer months, when I was young and we'd feel like cruising and sailing at Balmoral, we wouldn't wonder about the wind. It was gonna be NE and on-shore, unless a S-change. The mates would come from far away, because they were never be upset about the wind - I know that for a fact, 'coz there were whingers, and I'd remember. We'd sail on a NEer, that's all no questions asked (and perhaps a bit of perv, as we was young and immature).

There are a lots of non-NE now, even in the midst of summer. I don't go there anymore - I'm too old

Pierre, I was there too, and I can recall so many light-wind days that I went out and bought a Div 2 board because it was so often too light for the One Design.

I can also recall lots of regattas where we had many days of light wind - I've still got the articles I wrote while racing in the pro circuit races and they tell of many days of light wind in the early-mid '80s. In the Sony regattas we normally got about 3-4 days of decent wind, and they were run in the windiest time of year. I used my Div 2 board in the '83 Rip Curl and '84 Sony at times because the Raceboards couldn't get planing, which means the wind was pretty light. In one Sony, they were so desperate to get an event going they dragged out a One Design and had a fun freestyle comp. on the lagoon.

As it happens, I've got a sample of wind for those late '70s to mid '80s midsummer days, courtesy of the weather description of the Sydney-Hobart races which were contained in old race programmes.

Here's the descriptions of day 1 weather from the time I started windsurfing to '83.

'78 - "12-15 knots NE with rain".
'79 - "12 knot sou'easter. Outside the Heads, all yachts were close hauled and the breeze lightened to under 10 knots."
'80 - "the start was in light easterlies which remained through the first afternoon."
'81 - "Strong southerly winds at the start."
'82 - "A light air start, ENE, which remained throughout the first day and evening."
'83 - "A moderate easterly provided good close-reaching conditions to the heads."

So in six years during that period, there was not a single strong NE seabreeze on December 26; it was even lighter in '76 and '77, before I started windsurfing. I know those reports are accurate; I did the '80 and '82 races and in my mag collection I've also got reports of the races which tally with the information above.

So, with respect, there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate that it was not a succession of strong winds at the time. There were many, many light wind days. Of course, when we were in our first few years windsurfing and weighed less, 12 knots was quite a good breeze so it may well have seemed stronger!

So basically, there's evidence even in my own library that winds were NOT stronger back in the good old days.

Gestalt said...

fullmoon the question being debated is not how much we contribute. i believe that's been quantified.

the question is what depth of bad will we see and what is the best method to stop what we are doing.

Unfortunately I dont believe it has been quantified. Everything from that point is academic.

This site will give you all the historical data you could poke a stick at,

weatherspark.com/?;a=Australia/SWANBOURNE_WA_6010

The non-man-made argument reminds me of the hole-in-the-ozone layer thing in the 80s. You may remember that it was almost daily news at the time in Australia, being a southern-hemisphere phenom.

First was denied, mostly from the US - wrong measurements. Then was small, but probably a freak thing, and there was no possible link with man actions. There was no 500-year data reference, etc.

We know how this one ended.

Perhaps my analogy is wrong. Perhaps the link between cigarette and cancer is better? I believe technically the latter is still not formally proven, so why not start smoking?

Barn, don't twist what i said. i didn't refer to 70% of scientists being right on this topic. I said "Let's say 70% of scientists think 1 thing and 30% think another. Does it mean the lesser are wrong?" It's an example.
I don't think it makes me a creationist because i have an open mind on this, unlike you. I'm an evolutionist. Can't believe you draw that conclusion.
Did i say anywhere that scientists are not smart etc? No, i said why would you chose to believe 1 from one group and dispute another and say the ones you don't agree with are not reputable? You've made up your mind, great.
I'm still to be convinced.
if it was proven reasonably that man made global warming was incorrect, would you change the way you think or just say it's a crock?
I'm very much in favor of cleaning our act up, where appropriate, but don't think we need to be scared into it.
Why is the Gov't so hell bent on a carbon tax when they still like coal generated electricity and ignore all the sustainable technology available?
We are still very small contributors globally, even if we are large per head of population.

AUS02 said...

Gestalt said...

to be honest, the jury isn't out.

I said if the jury was out - I agree with you that it's not

yep, i understand. my post was more inspired by yours rather than in response to.

DAM71 said...

Gestalt said...

to be honest, the jury isn't out.

global warming is real, man made global warming is real and there isn't a peer reviewed scientific body or government that believes otherwise.

argue that all you want but that's the reality.

This comment is both naive and unfounded.

Why - firstly where is the data of proof. As Chris mentioned no real research proves beyond doubt that one thing occurs 100% of the time. So to make a definitive comment that man made global warming is real requires an absolute set of data from research that has been repeatedly determined. Is this possible with longitudinal monitoring style studies that i would expect climatology to utilise? Most likely not in our life time anyhow.

Now as i understand it - and i have never been able to read any relevant journals to support my comment (its my observation), there is a data set that demonstrates that there are increases in global sea temperature. I find it difficult for any scientist to prove to any degree of statistical significance the contribution of 'man' to this temperature increase. As mentioned prior it is not possible to prove - thus comments like above that "man made global warming is real" is no more than someone accepting the publicly driven dogma.

If anyone can supply links to actual journal articles from well recognised and industry respected journals - i for on would be most appreciative. I'm not interested in reading the crap put forward by the committee of the department of whatever. Which to be honest is all you get on the internet, unless you subscribe to journals directly.

naive hey, that's funny stuff as you are going against the majority view of current science. what does that say about you.

"There is a greater than 90 per cent likelihood that most of the global warming since the mid 20th century is due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities." csiro....

and here are some of the quantified figures.

Since the Industrial Revolution (about 1750), global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has risen 37 per cent, methane 150 per cent and nitrous oxide 18 per cent.

The increase in CO2 concentration is primarily due to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while increases in methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

The CO2 concentration in 2008 of 383 parts per million (ppm) is much higher than the natural range of 172 to 300 ppm that has existed for the past 800 000 years.

notice the use of the words 800,000 years above.

some more facts from the csiro.

Results of this climate change include:

retreat of glaciers and sea-ice
a decline of 10-15 per cent of the Arctic sea ice extent and a 40 per cent decrease in its average thickness
snow depth at the start of October has declined 40 per cent in the last 40 years in the Australian Alps
an average sea level rise of 20 mm per decade over the last 50 years
changes in mating and migration times of birds
pole-ward and altitudinal shifts of plants and animals (especially in the Alpine zone)
an increase in coral bleaching due to increased water temperature.

The Earth is warming
Globally, observed CO2 emissions, temperature and sea levels are rising faster than expected.

The warming has been fastest over land, and greatest in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

Global ocean temperature rose by 0.10 ?C between 1961 and 2003, to a depth of 700 metres.

In Australia, there has been a 0.9 ?C warming since 1950.

We have already observed changes to our climate that are more rapid than anything the earth has experienced for at least 1800 years.

so there is an expected temperature change from the quantified data of 4deg. it's currently around .8 higher than it should be due to man made global warming and is expected to be 1.2-1.5 deg or higher by 2030.

the global average temp dif between and ice age and a warm period is 5 degrees. so what does that say.

so you and everyone else on this thread that are saying global warming is not real or is not man made are infact claiming that you know more than the scientist who have dedicated their lives studying this. they have documented the changes and those changes are inline with predictions. it's funny how you have done no study on climate warming yet you know best.

i'll back science myself. they have been telling us for at least 20 years that all is not good in the environment. they have been telling us since the 60's that the world is changing and they think it's us.

now there is consensus across numerous strands of science.

here are the documents that the csiro put foward. you can go into any scientific bodies website. try nasa etc. it's not hard. there is a search engine called google, it's fantastic.

Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. 2008. Climate change, sea-level rise and extreme events: impacts and adaptation issues. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Hobart, Australia.

Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. 2008. Position Analysis: CO2 and climate change: ocean impacts and adaptation issues. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Hobart, Australia.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. 2008. Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Australia's Physical Infrastructure. ATSE. Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Caillon et al 2003. Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III. Science. 299(5613): 1728 - 1731.

Church J et al. 2008. Sea Level Rise and the Vulnerability of Coastal Environments. In: Newman P. (ed). 2008. Transitions: Transitioning to a Resilient City. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 191-210.

Church J et al. 2008. Briefing: A Post-IPCC Update on Sea Level Rise. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Hobart, Australia.

CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology. 2007. Climate Change in Australia: Technical Report 2007. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia.

Department of Climate Change. 2007. Climate change science frequently asked questions.

Department of Climate Change 2007. Hot topics in climate change science.

Fawcett R, Jones D. 2008. Waiting for global cooling. Bureau of Meteorology. 9 pp.

Hennessy K et al. 2006. Climate change impacts on fire-weather in south-east Australia. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia.

Hennessy K, Fitzharris B, Bates BC, Harvey N, Howden SM, Hughes L, Salinger J, Warrick R. 2007. Chapter 11. Australia and New Zealand. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE. (eds). In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Hennessy KJ, Fawcett R, Kirono D, Mpelasoka F, Jones D, Bathols J, Whetton P, Stafford Smith M, Howden M, Mitchell C, Plummer N. 2008. An assessment of the impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climatic events. CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Hennessy K. 2008. Climate Change Evidence, Impacts and Risk Management. In: Newman P. (ed). Transitions: Transitioning to a Resilient City. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 23-34.

Hobday AJ, Poloczanska ES, Matear RJ. (eds). 2008. Implications of Climate Change for Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture - A Preliminary Assessment. A CSIRO report for the Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia.

IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA.

IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon SD, Qin M, Manning Z, Chen M, Marquis KB, Averyt M, Tignor, Miller HL. (eds). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA.

IPCC. 2007. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE. (eds). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC. 2007. Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA. (eds). Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.

Luthi et al 2008. High resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650 000-800 000 years before present. Nature. 453: 379-382.

Lockwood M, Fr?hlich C. 2007. Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880.

Loulergue et al. 2008. Orbital and millennial-scale features of atmospheric CH4 over the past 800 000 years. Nature. 453: 383-386.

Lucas C, Hennessy KJ, Bathols JM. 2007. Bushfire weather in Southeast Australia recent trends and projected climate change impacts. Report by CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and Bushfire CRC for The Climate Institute. 84 pp.

Mann et al. 2008. Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS. 105(36): 13252-13257.

Newman P. (ed). 2008. Transitions: Transitioning to a Resilient City. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 191-210.

Pfeffer et al 2008. Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise. Science. 321(5894): 1340-1343.

Rahmstorf S, Cazenave A, Church JA, Hansen JE, Keeling RF, Parker DE, and Sommerville RCJ. 2007. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science. 316: 709-710.

Raupach M, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Canadell JG, Kleppe G and Field CB. 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(24): 10288-10293.

Sheehan P, Jones RN, Jolley A, Preston BL, Clarke M, Durack PJ, Islam SMN, Whetton PH. 2008. Climate Change and the New World Economy: Implications for the Nature and Timing of Policy Responses. Global Environmental Change. 18(3): 380-396.

Stokes CJ, Howden SM. (eds). 2008. An overview of climate change adaptation in Australian primary industries - impacts, options and priorities. Prepared for Land and Water Australia by the CSIRO Climate Adaptation National Research Flagship. CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.

Whittaker R. 2007. Understanding Climate Change: The Story of the Century. New Holland Publishers, Sydney, Australia.

www.csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html

There is a lot of quoting of models, predictions, scientist speak etc blah blah blah, but when we can't forecast the weather accurately more then a few days ahead, I'm going to take the conclusions drawn by any predictions etc with a grain of salt.

Even working in a professional environment I'm sure most of you will notice that when presented with the same body of evidence, different people will inevitable have different opinions and draw different conclusions. So are all these journal articles etc a waste of time? Does it tell us anything appart from the fact that we all have different opinions. And can we really trust scientists, who are people just like ourselves, not to have their own or the agendas of others in mind when they write these articles? Yes its all very tin foil hat. So really, arguing about it by presenting numerous articles refuting each other is circular and completely pointless.

So to get back on topic thou, is climate change happening? Who knows on a macro global scale. So the question we fall back to is that, can we afford to gamble on the people who say that climate change isn't happening? Which brings me back to this picture that barn posted.

barn said...

Noone can honestly state that they understand the climate, and the mechanics behind it changing or not changing. To state that we have enough evidence to prove that we have no affect on it, is pure ignorance. And to ignore the possibility that we may be doing irrepairable damage is pure stupidity.

I should disclose, personally I think that climate change probably is occuring and possibly we humans do play a significant part. Afterall we did manage to put a hole in the ozone layer, so its not like we don't have a track record on this type of thing (yes that is a broad generalisation). Oh and I'm against carbon tax (the reasons for it seem political rather then environmental).

We have some understanding yes. What I mean is do we completely understand it. Are we able to exactly quantify how and the scale of human influence on climate change? This debate wouldn't exist if we could (thou there is some evidence that people will continue to debate issues even when irrefutable proven wrong, see downwind faster then wind thread).

There are degrees of understanding and I should have been more specific.

At this stage we merely acknowledge that climate change exists, and that human influence may have some affect on it.

Swoosh I agree, none of us are qualified to look at the data sets and make an opinion, the only people who can really make a conclusion from all the evidence are the big gun scientists.. This is after all climate science, and we don't get a say in the matter, its their call to make..

Just like when they said all the CFCs were putting a hole in the ozone layer, We had to take their word for it and, we were in no position to decide weather to believe them or not..


I figure if there is a good chance our emissions are causing damage that chance is only going upwards when China and India start ticking over and then global emissions will dwarf current levels. Its all going to become pretty clear. But by then I doubt it will be our biggest problem!


---


Wayne, I'm not a climatologist so you don't have to include me in your ratios, we are all laymen in this field. But you claimed that there are scientists who disagree with global warming? I put to you that they are often the scientists stepping outside their field.

You challenged me what I would do if I was confronted with evidence that would change my mind, and I pointed out that you are confronted with evidence that should change your mind, so you should accept your challenge. Don't think I'm twisting words.


(You threw Einsteins name around before, and I asked you what he disproved, still waiting)