|
Re: Global warming
Lets not forget that Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri is actually a former railway mechanic with PhD in..........
ECONOMICS!!! Yep, the head of the IPCC - the UN Climate Change body, is in fact an economist. Not a climatologist. He is as well qualified to speak on climate change as my hairdresser is to speak about brain surgery.:rofl: |
Re: Global warming
[quote=Burbage;8313753][quote=Wol;8313728]
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8313420)
Who?
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: |
Re: Global warming
Monckton is about to be interviewed on Sky at 12.30 AEST (Saturday)
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8316344)
Monckton is about to be interviewed on Sky at 12.30 AEST (Saturday)
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8316344)
Monckton is about to be interviewed on Sky at 12.30 AEST (Saturday)
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8316344)
Monckton is about to be interviewed on Sky at 12.30 AEST (Saturday)
|
Re: Global warming
Latest “error†from IPCC report AR4 (2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...12s12-2-3.html “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced†Dutch newspaper Vrij Nederland reported: http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschapm...el-ontdekt.htm “In its last Assessment Report on the impacts of climate change shows that 55% of Netherlands is below sea level in this area and that 65% of the gross national product is produced. These figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is only one fifth of the Netherlands below sea level and there are only 19% instead of 65% of the GDP generated.†|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8313626)
Many good points, well made.
As a biologist I'm well used to trying to model complex systems myself, and I know how hard it is with even a small number of parameters. The IPCC has two major problems. the first, as you say, is the data they use to build their model. The second, of course, is that they have absolutely no way of testing their model for the purpose of refinement, which is a very necessary process when modelling any complex system. The other difficulty with complex systems is that there are patterns of behaviour that begin to occur in all parameters when you change only one. So even if an increase in carbon dioxide is causing global warming, there is no indication that reducing it will reverse global warming. No more than you can undo an avalanche by finding the pebble that started it and putting it back at the top of the mountain. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ch8s8-6-4.html covers confidence levels on the disparate data use in the report. Interestingly it includes the paragraph: “A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.†Which pretty well agrees with what we had been saying. |
Re: Global warming
Does IPCC stand for International Panel on Climate Cobblers?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8316527)
Does IPCC stand for International Panel on Climate Cobblers?
Doubtless they were under pressure to come out with results, and to come out with results that proved the theory. Add to that the sheer complexity of what they were trying to do, and you have real problems. In my opinion proving AGW is more complex and harder than curing cancer, or discovering immortality. Now everyone is shooting holes in their reports. :( On the other hand, it would appear that a lot of people threw away professional integrity in the cause of prevention of global warming (if it exists). |
Re: Global warming
You don't have to look far for evidence of climate change. The climate here in Canberra and the rest of southern Australia has changed significantly since the 70s and 80s. Temperatures every summer in the last couple of years have been pushing new records and rainfall has been below average in almost every year out of the last ten.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8316605)
You don't have to look far for evidence of climate change. The climate here in Canberra and the rest of southern Australia has changed significantly since the 70s and 80s. Temperatures every summer in the last couple of years have been pushing new records and rainfall has been below average in almost every year out of the last ten.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8316491)
Thanks for the heads up. It was a very interesting lecture. He should have won an oscar. If anyone believes in AGW after watching that they have rocks in their head.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8316605)
You don't have to look far for evidence of climate change. The climate here in Canberra and the rest of southern Australia has changed significantly since the 70s and 80s. Temperatures every summer in the last couple of years have been pushing new records and rainfall has been below average in almost every year out of the last ten.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly. But how do we know that it is not a normal “blip†in the temperature patterns of Australia? A one hundred year old resident of London would not remember the Thames freezing over in Victorian times – but it did. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8316491)
Thanks for the heads up. It was a very interesting lecture. He should have won an oscar. If anyone believes in AGW after watching that they have rocks in their head.
He is certainly very persuasive. But, as he himself says, you have to cut away a lot of - in his case, entertaining - bullshit. The first half of his address was sheer showbiz, including setting up many straw man arguments before blowing them away, and an all-too-easy putdown of Al Gore. (Let's face it, Al is a pantomime dame who has struck it rich in a convenient sort of way.) When Monckton actually got down to the figures it became more interesting - and here we get down to my original thesis: it's too complicated to make a judgement based on raw data, but whether one should just accept Monckton's analysis presented as a rapid series of graphs (however slickly delivered) over any other is IMO very much an open question. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:15 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.