"Take No Shit, Take No Orders".
Is this not an order?
It's the peelers trying to f**k with the soap dodgers heads isn't it?
89 posts • joined 19 Jun 2013
"Take No Shit, Take No Orders".
Is this not an order?
It's the peelers trying to f**k with the soap dodgers heads isn't it?
"people should be working on making storage solutions that could earn them a pretty penny"
"It suprises and disappoints me that the readers of this site, who I suppose imagine themselves to be modern, educated and technical"
It surprises and disappoints _me_ that someone who imagines themselves to be modern, educated and technical doesn't realise that the reason this isn't being done is that it's an impossible task.
In September wind produced almost _zero_ output for 22 days....http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Wind requires 100% conventional backup to be available nearly 24/7 and _doesn't_ reduce CO2 emissions (if you think that's important). The only people who benefit from wind are windfarm (subsidy farm) owners and landowners.
"We (the scientific community) came to consensus decades ago."
You are showing the quality of your scientific training if you think consensus means anything.
"People like you don't want to hear it because it may cause some minor inconvenience to your lifestyle. Don't pretend to be skeptical for any other reason than convenience."
This is a really odd thing to post, I've been pondering over this for the last day or so.
I've just realised, it's a defence mechanism. If you convince yourself that only lazy anti-'science' big oil funded luddidtes question what we're told by the all powerful all knowing 'scientists' then it helps you convince yourself that all is well in your, enormously funded, bubble.
" I was always taught when looking at a paper then I needed to consider the perspective of the writer and the context of the paper."
A true observation is a true observation, it shouldn't matter who says it.
But if you are adopting this approach then you'll have to take into account the fact that those working in climate 'science' have a massively vested interest in not de-railing the funding bandwagon. What are they all going to do when the sham is exposed?
Or if you want to discount the input of anyone funded by 'big oil'....
"Science is an acceptance of a working hypothesis, a model, ready to be struck down and replaced at any moment, when a better one is found,"
A better one doesn't have to be found.
If an experiment shows a hypothesis to be wrong, then it's wrong.
"Why did they pick 1997? Because 1997 and 1998 were high-anomaly years,so they skew short-term analysis. Had they started from 1999, or 1996, they would have seen a clear trend"
A _tiny_ trend (depending on how you cherry pick your start point).
You have missed the big picture.
~ 1/3 of the CO2 since the industrial revolution has been emitted since then, the increase in temperature has been practically 0.
> This is why we have the scientific method.
Can you tell us what you understand this to be?
Instead of being spoon fed bollocks from 'skeptical science' why don't you look at the raw data to see what's going on...
You can pick the data source, dates, apply averaging etc.
Any changes in "deep" ocean heat are within the measurement errors.
"All you've managed to demonstrate is that some people, sometimes even those with a sciency background, be they MPs or naval-officers-turned-journalists, let dogma override reason whenever this particular topic comes up."
Aye, except two of them are letting reason override dogma.
"Wheeling out NASA astronauts and engineers is a classic example of the appeal to authority fallacy"
Whereas saying that because they aren't climate 'scientists' they suddenly can't follow a logical train of reasoning, isn't?
When it came to discussing getting someone into space I think they'd have been a hell of a lot more honest than.....
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Ability to lie through their teeth to keep the gravy train rolling = 0.
"Even NASA unfortunately has a few Republicans that believe the stuff on Faux News working for them."
Perhaps they do but what has that to do with 49 vastly experienced engineers and astronauts demainding that NASA takes a scientific approach to AGW?
As you obviously didn't read it here it is....
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
"Again...I prefer to get the opinion of scientists...Like the guys at Nasa:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ No internet troll can argue against them. If they say it is getting worse, it is getting worse. They collect the data."
I'll counter your NASA climate 'scientists' with some NASA employees who have a record of actually getting things done (astronauts and engineers)....
Do they have to fuck off too?
"They think 'green power' is getting special treatment"
And they would be right....
And that's on top of the vastly inflated price per KWH green energy producers are paid.
> Those files must hold some seriously bad information to be withheld
As an example of 'seriously bad information' I'd invite all readers to have a look at Harry Read Me for an example of the quality control involved in (one) climate model......
I still haven't heard what software development quality standards the current models are developed to.
"The problem here is that the information being asked for requires processing into a format where it's of use to the person requesting it and this takes custom software to be written and there is no funding for it. "
Why? This sounds like arse covering balearics.
If its any use to climate scientists as it is then that format should be OK for anyone else who wants to look at it.
" Using logic and not checking against observation was the medieval way to do physics.
It took several hundred years to break people of that habit."
There's still a whole "field" of science working that way.
A friend when trying to decide whether to do medicine or engineering looked at the staff car parks of a big respected engineering company and the local hospital.
He did medicine.
Aye, but water vapour's a much stronger greenhouse gas and there's 40 times as much of it.
Hence my request to "show CO2 causes warming in an atmospheric experimental model"
Ie demonstrate CO2 has any real effect.
"The trend in the University of Alabama satellite record since 2000 is warming of 0.1C per decade."
Is it broken? All the other records show warming has halted.
I was trying to explain that complex systems can be better understood by breaking them down into sub-components and looking at the interactions between them. Do you not understand this? You don't _in general_ have to knock a house or bridge down to know it's going to be strong enough. Providing examples where test structures have been tested to destuction doesn't negate this point.
You shouldn't need a physical model the size of the earth to physically show CO2 causes warming in an atmospheric experimental model. There is still no empirical data to show CO2 causes warming. WHY IS NOBODY TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THIS?
"Correct. They are tuned by modifying the parameters, something I don't think you understood."
I understand completely, and what they're trying to model, which is why I think they're a joke.
" And yes, they are tuned to match the past because (drum roll) we can't tuned in to match the future because it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you can suggest a way around this?"
Understand the physical processes driving the changes and base your model on that obviously. Not tweaking parameters to get a 'best fit' (which is what they're doing).
http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf Top of page 12
"So,what statistical model does§10.2.2 choose? None. That is, §10.2.2effectively acknowledges that we do not understand the data well enough to choose a statistical model. The conclusion is thus clear:it is currently not possible to draw statistical inferences from the series of global temperatures"
I can't see that from here (work security), I'll try to look tonight although we have a Halloween party.
"So there's a bunch of rebuttals for you. I guess you're going to ignore them and raise some other objections instead, right?"
The only point you might have addressed is the availability of _some_ of the models, and I note the date on that is 2009. The reason I keep bring other point up is there are so many holes in the AGW 'conjecture' it's hard not to keep pointing another one out.
"Not facing unpleasant possibilities is what is going to cause them to happen, you don't like this so the shutters come down hard."
It's funny how warmist Believers seem to think they understand the motivation of us Realists. My reluctance to accept the 'faith' is because nobody's actually shown that CO2 is the primary cause of the recent warming, the billions of dollars spent annually on 'climate change' research could be much more productively spent elsewhere.
As I've posted before....
There was as much warming between 1910 - 1940 as between 1970 - 2000 with much less CO2 in the atmosphere.
There has been no warming since 2000 and we now have 8% more CO2 than the 2000 levels.
How do you square that in your head?
"I really have no time for being trolled by creationist level prats incapable of using a search engine so I will finish this thread here.
What is it they say when people resort to insults?
"Enjoy your future; you've earned it."
You too, although you can stop worrying that the world is about to end. I'll be telling my kids they have a rosy future they should be excited about, the sky isn't going to fall in. Boomshanka.
"if you can find me a large number of Earths, all exactly in the same state, that we can tweak individual variables upon and allow them to diverge to see what the outcome is, I'm more than happy. As I pointed out above, we don't have this luxury."
Aye but it's odd how in other disiplines things can be modeled and tested with representative models. They don't need to knock a whole bridge down to show how strong it is or knock a building down to show it will withstand (or not) an earthquake.
It's as if they're afraid to do the experiments in case the whole house of cards is shown to be a sham.
"how the bloody hell else do you think models are tuned to match reality?"
No, they're tuned to match the _past_. This doesn't mean they have _any_ predictive worth (as demonstrated by the inability to predict the halt in warming over the last 15 years).
"The IPCC suggests they're good enough to be concerned about the real world"
OK. Say you're a climate scientist and you _honestly_ believe the world is at the point of disaster if things don't change _soon_. If you had the 'evidence' that this is the case would you not release your workings so that they could be reviewed and debated? You'd want as many competent people to look at what you have to back you up that the world is indeed in trouble.
Point me to a single climate model that's been released for general review?
"you haven't a clue"
I am perfectly happy to wait to see which of us is the one with the clue.
"One of the important points, however, is that a low efficiency solar panel is not really the same as a low efficiency coal-fired power plant."
No, you know what you're going to get out of the coal plant and don't need 100% backup for when it's dark.
"For example, my question in my previous post, as an engineer, what kind of hard evidence do you want. I notice this has gone unanswered."
Evidence that is well documented, repeatable, reviewable and which hopefully includes some real world experiments. With all the money going into AGW research why has nobody tried to experimentally show the AGW effect in a physical model that emulates real world conditions?
_All_ the 'evidence' that CO2 was the driving force for the small amount of warming between 1970 and 2000 is based on changing parameters in models that are based on the way they think they climate system works. Changing parameters and finding the results match the way the model is constructed is a self fulfilling 'prophecy'.
It is said that 'the models are based on simple physics', if it's that simple why are they all wrong?
"The only reason why green power is more expensive than it should be was FIT were set in the hope that someone would build a nuclear power station and feed a huge amount of money into big business."
I can't follow this reasoning at all, can you explain what you're talking about?
"Green power was only expensive because of the feed in tariffs."
Yes, exactly, we are paying vastly over the odds for 'Green' power via massively inflated FITs.
"If you are an engineer then the vast majority of your work is based 100% on the word of others."
I only have to 'believe' a few basic principles, much of our lab work at university was showing these hold true. Everything else can be derived and tested.
"You accept the findings of others and you base your work off of that"
Only if they seem sensible and the results make sense.
The same amount of warming between 1910 - 1940 as 1970 - 2000 with much less CO2 in the air.
No warming since 2000 with 8% more (than 2000) CO2 in the air.
Climate 'models' continue to show an increased rate of warming.
Can you point to a peer reviewed climate model? Can you indicate the quality standards the climate models are developed to?
"And what's so special about 12 volts in your house that it cant turn a little compressor, or even be converted to a voltage that you feel is more suited to the job?"
Because it's not the voltage but the power (VxI) that's important. You can produce 240V from your 12V source but you'll only get 1/20th the current out (assuming 100% efficiency).
And your solar panels don't make much sense in the short dark winter days here in the UK.
"rather than strict calls for hard evidence that we are to blame."
Exactly, there is still no evidence that would stand up in any sort of Engineering 'court' that CO2 drove the short period of warming from 1970 - 2000.
Green power is expensive because it's not reliable and because of the vastly inflated price for any electricity ot _does_ produce.
"If everything else has been examined, the assumption holds water until an alternative is found."
I'm sorry that is balearics.
You can show a theory is false without having to provide an alternative.
"I.e. with the current level of knowledge the only explanation for this phenomenon is man is causing it."
What phenomenon? That CO2 was rising during the warming of 1970 - 2000 so it must have been causing it, despite the fact there was the same amoung of warming between 1910 - 1940 with much less CO2, and CO2 has been rising since 2000 with no warming?
"If we assume that the general scientific consensus is correct, and that the planet is in fact warming,"
Are you sure you're an Engineer? One who actually designs things?
As an Engineer who does I'm not taking anyones word that "it'll all work OK", I want to convince myself this is the case, I want to see the raw data. In the case of CAGW...
...it convinces me we have nothing to worry about.
How much protection can a decent anti-virus tool give against the vulnerabilities that a lack of support might open up?
You're going on about what a great politician he is, but similarly.....
Anyone who will consider voting in the independence referendum based upon a personal admiration of one man is a muppet who doesn't deserve to have the responsibility of voting.
He's shown he's a liar, why should we trust him when he says Scotland will be better on its own?
I personally think his only goal is to get his name in the history books. What's he going to do when we mostly vote no?
"We don't hate England or English what we do hate is being governed by an elite, remote parliament which no-one up here votes for"
That's odd, I have been since moving to Scotland 15 odd years ago.
"Clearly the people you worked with provided an unrepresentative sample of the Scots population as a whole.
Clearly thinking they're doing a reasonable job in the Wee Pretendy Parliament isn't the same as wanting an independent country!
"We are switching to Linux Mint XFCE
Dump the wallpaper and change to the high contrast icons. And relax."
...until you want to print something over the network!
"and zoom out
That is the historical record, NOT the _current_ trend, ie the derivative of the curve _now_.
See point a in the first graph.....
"And now they're in the Yorkshire wolds.
by the way, they're at 54N, i.e north of Leeds."
So we're _starting_ to get back to the sort of climate they had in the middle ages, although I wonder how much of advantage modern vine strains give them?
Good luck to them, I hope they prosper. I'm sure they're hoping for another degree or two of warming!
"Are you really not aware that the CO2 response is logarithmic? "
On that note, at the current rate it'll take 230 odd years to get to 800ppm (on the probably incorrect presumption that there's no negative feedback in the Earth's eco-system) for the small increase
of < 2 Deg C.
>"The increase in CO2 is also a much more significant factor in this trend than variations in the sun's output."
CO2 levels and sun activity increase, earth warms.
CO2 levels continue to increase, sun activity halts, earth temperature halts.
If the evidence doesn't match the theory the theory is WRONG. R Feynman.
> Since 1998, we've have many of the warmest annual
> average temperatures on record.
Do you not realise what happens when you get to the top of a sine wave?
> Looking at the trend, 5 year averages, it's clear that the warming is continuing.
You can take as many 5 year averages as you wan in the last 10 years.....
If that looks like continued warming to you then.....?
They had _Vineyards_ as far north as Leeds.
Not an odd straggly single vine with protection from the elements.
> What do you get when you have random-walking variations
> around a steadily increasing mean?
> A pattern like this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif
You mean steady slow global warming since the little ice age. Noting to worry about, not driven by CO2 and not 'running away'.
> Do you find THAT an inconvenient truth?
I find that a reassuring truth that allows me to encourage my daughters to be excited about the future but to be properly environmentally responsible when they can.
Temperature measurement sites in California have been found to show increased warming roughly in proportion to the size of the local population.
> As the first scientist to comment in this thread,
As the first person to declare themselves as a scientist you mean?
> tree rings are a poor temperature proxy after about 1950, and hence
> cannot be used to infer temperatures since them.
My poor Engineering head takes this to mean that they cannot be used to infer temperatures _ever_.
What makes them reliable before 1950 in your eyes?
> *Globally* the temperature rises.
Rose, It stopped 17 years ago.
An inconvenient truth perhaps?
> Because Margaret Thatcher was a well known tax and spend lefty.
Who saw the light and recanted much of her earlier belief in AGW.
If what we're seeing is the top of a sinusiod, with the peak centred at 2010, your "analysis" will show a warming trend for the next 30 years of cooling!
What are you trying to justify?
> Was there no rise in atmosperic CO2 levels between 1910 and 1940?
Very little compared to the 1970-2000 levels which supposedly drove the almost identical amount, and rate, of warming.
"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012,"
Why the sudden chance to 1951?
It couldn't be because there was a period of cooling from 1951 to the start of the 1970's so the trend from then is much lower than the previously used 1970 -> 2000 ?
> If you have a period where CO2 has increased but temperature hasn't increases, it
> follows that the CO2 will explain a larger proporiton of the total temperature
> change than it had.
In the real world it would be seen as evidence that the 'theory' was wrong.