• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (2 Viewers)

Fugl,

Note that I edited #138 (which was a draft that posted unintentionally ) before I saw your response on #140. So please revise #140 accordingly. I'm not going continue this interchange with you because it's unproductive, so you can believe whatever you wish.
Ed
 
Last edited:
Joost,

Many thanks for Post #135. I'll get back to you after it percolates a bit. For starters, I don't wish to defend Easterbrook, but simply to ask for a better explanation of climate cycles and how (or if) they relate to hypothesized AGW? He seems to think we're basically in a natural long-term cycle rather than a short-term man-made global emergency. I could be persuaded otherwise, but my default state is to agree with him.

I'll respond in greater detail to the other study, which is more my area of expertise.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Perhaps my predilection for conspiracy theory is obvious to you but I have little control over your perception. In 2015 I wrote this to MJB., which speaks for itself. And as you can also see I was not evasive or timid about my scientific background.

Ed

...and you remained courteous, too.
MJB
 
...

Now I am a very open-minded person and if anyone presents me with some solid data contradicting existing theory then I think that should be considered very carefully. If the data says "nope" then you probably have to amend your theory.

About the other piece you posted, I take it this was not peer reviewed? (couldn't find it anywhere else than blog posts on Google). I'm not a modeler and my maths is pretty rubbish, so I can't really comment on the contents I'm afraid. What did strike me though is the dearth of references to other studies or even protocols, and the difficulty in tracing the source data used for the exercise (esp. Table II-1 - although some are linked later on in the manuscript). And I stumbled over this bit in particular:
"Finally, it should be noted that every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called “cherry picked temperature time series”. To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide a tropical temperature data set that he felt was most appropriate and credible for testing the THS hypothesis". In other words, the second author was tasked to cherry pick, and no other reason than his personal judgement is given for the selection. If some sort of reason had been given or discussion presented, then at least I could have scrutinised it as an outsider.
...
Joost

Joost,

BF readers may be anticipating a "dust-off," but the most we could accomplish is a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Before getting started, would you please clarify your last comments, which I find somewhat ambiguous regarding a willingness to consider the paper worthy of discussion.

I don't understand the awkward cherry picking statement either, but I'm sure it wasn't an open admission of Dr. Christy's guilt. What they did mean is hard to imagine, but later on they say on pg. 66:
Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate
to question everything about it. Questioning everything is fair
game from 1) the selection of the particular 13 temperature time
series by one of the authors for this analysis to the 2) econometric
parameter estimation methods utilized to 3) the actual models
estimated. On all three, the authors have attempted to be
completely open.
By "completely open" they appear to mean that questions can be directed at them by interested readers. Other databases could also be suggested, but so far I haven't seen their choices disputed.

Peer review deserves a response. This report is an issuance of James Wallace's company, and apparently not submitted for journal publication. Such company reports are very typical for Govt. funded contractors, which often don't find their way into journals. This one was done pro-bono. I am willing to accept the persons listed on pg. 2 as equivalent to reviewers.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Is this news "fit to print?"

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Sun's impact on climate change quantified for first time - SNF.pdf
    366.5 KB · Views: 89
Is this news "fit to print?"

Interesting but cold comfort to the hardened denier. . .. ;)

"According to project head Werner Schmutz. . . this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum."
 
Last edited:
Intereresting but cold comfort to the hardened denier. . .. ;)

... referring to you or me?

Chosun might agree that there's finally a silver lining, but:
The researchers still have a fair amount of work to do before they have a detailed understanding of the relationship between solar activity and the global climate both in the past and in the future.
— i.e., plump up the research budget, please.

Ed
 
Sorry, that was an inside joke. :)

I'd be more than delighted to see that area fleshed out.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Characters in a sitcom, or so Mr. Google informs me. Hmmm. . .. Nicely dodged, but the question still stands. Now, c'mon, fess up, do you have any scientific background at all, however humble? [I know Ed does as he's often said so in this and other threads but he's been so stingy with the details that I have no idea where exactly his expertise lies. Maybe he'll tell us now, maybe he won't. Whatever. . .. Same with you of course.].
Hardly a dodge - you were the one that led in with the haha! after all ...... :cat:
A bit of digging would have seen you turn up Mr Wolowitz's M.Eng., and Ms Fowler's Doctorate in Neuroscience, and while I have worked with some 'r-e-a-l' 'space cadets';) I have never been to space. .... my M.Eng majors were in Renewable Energy, Sustainable Building Design, and Heat Transfer. I also have an MBA and DBA majoring in Strategic Analysis, Managerial, Change and Organisational Psychology, Leadership, and Motivation, as well as a following Director's Diploma.

I have worked formerly as an Air-Conditioning and Ventilation Design Engineer, Managed a Sustainability and Building Design firm, but largely for a decade as a Director of a Global Leading Multi-National Company while doing all the Business Administration studies. Way too young, but semi-retired anyhow, my main interests are landscape whispering and metaphysics. Occasionally I will still take on projects in any of these or former areas in either the Commercial or NGO realms.


Chosun :gh:
 
Hardly a dodge - you were the one that led in with the haha! after all ...... :cat:
A bit of digging would have seen you turn up Mr Wolowitz's M.Eng., and Ms Fowler's Doctorate in Neuroscience, and while I have worked with some 'r-e-a-l' 'space cadets';) I have never been to space. .... my M.Eng majors were in Renewable Energy, Sustainable Building Design, and Heat Transfer. I also have an MBA and DBA majoring in Strategic Analysis, Managerial, Change and Organisational Psychology, Leadership, and Motivation, as well as a following Director's Diploma.

I have worked formerly as an Air-Conditioning and Ventilation Design Engineer, Managed a Sustainability and Building Design firm, but largely for a decade as a Director of a Global Leading Multi-National Company while doing all the Business Administration studies. Way too young, but semi-retired anyhow, my main interests are landscape whispering and metaphysics. Occasionally I will still take on projects in any of these or former areas in either the Commercial or NGO realms.

Yes, I assumed your background was in business or some such practical sphere where pie charts abound. ;)

Metaphysics? Really? I wonder if we understand the same thing by that word?
 
Last edited:
Here is post #61.


Nope. Not a word (or thought) was said about "conspiracy," "sleazy politicians," or "pseudo-scientists*" and it's very consistent with what I said in 2015, which described the academic-political mechanism that gives rise to an insular and polarized situation. For some reason you're trying to fit me into a niche like "liberal" or "conservative," and then apply attributes like "conspiracist" or "denier" to demonize everyone in the niche.

Hopefully, the Liberal party of the future will be liberal- or open-minded as well, and Govt. will go out of its way to fund both sides of any important scientific debate that has strong policy consequences. (The Conservative party should be similarly open-minded.) That is not easy to do because every agency has a political appointee sitting at the top (as we are learning), and NASA/NOAA are executive agencies, i.e., they report to the President. So it is important to have bi-partisan legislation that puts such a policy into effect for all Govt. science organizations, because science should be apolitical.

However it my sound to you Fugl, I do know what I'm trying to say, and I accept responsibility for not expressing it clearly. Believe what you wish, but there is no conspiracy lurking behind anything I've said. Let's hear something more constructive from you than simply a check-list of accusations.

Ed
* In 2015 I said:
Ed,

No such apology is necessary at all. Your salient and insightful points are well, and clearly, made. Crystal clear.

In lay terms it may be (simplistically) understood as "Group think", and probably best not to even get me started on the well established implicit gender bias either https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/gender-bias-scientific-conferences.html


Chosun :gh:
 
Oh courtesy and the internet, don't get me started! ;)
Hope you'll find the discussion engaging and I'm keen to hear any points or criticisms you want to raise.
How did you possum-exorcism go? I'm visiting OZ for the first time in June and can't wait for all the new birds!

J
Joost, still! dealing with possums and repairs among other things, so the replies may come slowly ....

Ed nicely articulated my concerns about the assumptions previously, the main ones triggered were in relation to landscape interactions, etc.

Thanks for your offer of further information. I am independent, genuinely interested, and open one way or the other. Apolitical, I can't be pigeonholed as a this or that, which may not suit some!

It may help to gain an understanding of where I'm coming from.

I have previously asked various people with expertise on this forum for a simple pie or line chart of ALL the factors involved and quanta (even rough ranges), but was told it was too complex! and the science hadn't been done yet. I realize that this may be no small task given the unknown (apart from reconstructions) pre-history temperature, solar, etc records, some unknown variable starting conditions and rates, and even some chaotic (in the mathematical sense) interactions which may defy reliable modeling.

I am interested in the big picture rather than the minute of numerical analysis, and I'm of the view that correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation. My biggest question would be what are ALL the factors that caused the climate to change in the past, and what are those ramifications for the future.

My interest in the whole (A)GW thing is mostly passing because of this and ranges from an ecological point of view (temperature, rainfall, stability, frequency, migration, adaptability), to a change management/sociology/politics point of view.

As far as I understand it the entire Earth's existence and suitability for habitation is a mere happenstance. The collision of the Moon with a formative Earth, resultant tilting (and wobbling, yawing), and orbit of the moon, would provide much of the foundations of our weather. If I understand correctly, the moon is on and ever slightly increasing orbital distance from the Earth which will one distant day cause issues. All of these variables have an effect of whatever direction and magnitude.

Of course I have similar questions of the impacts of Earth's orbit around the sun, and solar activity, and even questions of the effects of the Earth's internal radioactive decay, and continental plate drift, volcanic activity, natural CO2e emissions, etc.

I have witnessed catastrophic damage to this landscape since White Settlement a mere 200-odd years ago. Complete destruction of wetlands, hydrological, soil formation, and fertility cycles, massive drying of the land and deforestation/devegetation, and some areas destroyed through rampant salinity. Just about every creek, every river incised and eroded. Every road replete with insidious culverts - blasting precious soil away to eventually end up in the ocean (I wonder what the effect of this is on sea levels?!).

All of this happened prior to significant fossil fuel use, and I think is mirrored globally. Agriculture historically leading to desertification. The magnitude of these carbon movements is over 10 fold the magnitude of fossil fuel emissions. Some of our soils are down around ~1% carbon, when they should be 4%, and could possibly be double that.

There's the urban heat island effect to consider, and a few other things. (Is there any info on the effects of oilfields being set alight during war etc?). I should say that I'm also rather wary of government's demonstrated (particularly economically illiterate left leaning ones as we experienced) ability to effectively manage any meaningful change or even choose the correct problem to solve.

My understanding of this country's climate is that it is significantly influenced by the IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole), the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index), and some longer term cyclicals, one of which is on a ~600 year cycle and ended certain South American cultures last time it hit (floods). Any factual information on those more obscure longer cycles would be welcome.

So that's the guts of my thinking, and I would be interested in any comment or research progress in these areas, and anything else I have left out.

I would also be very interested in any comment or insight you have on our recent record summer temperatures AND the significant gap to previous records (for December) = 148 years (pre any A in AGW - so just what caused it?) as I detailed in post#76 http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3538652&postcount=76

Below are some links to some latest landscape/hydrology/vegetation research you may find interesting:
https://eos.org/opinions/global-sig...s&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz032417

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=342128


Chosun :gh:
 
....Metaphysics? Really? I wonder if we understand the same thing by that word?
Perhaps? Perhaps not ;)

More spiritual metaphysics and quantum mechanics.

It's been a long time since I've had anything resembling an existential conundrum, and very early on I scooted past the more dour academic epistemological elements of philosophy. I had a healthy curiosity of the scientific method, knowledge/wisdom traditions and the common spiritual thread among the world's religions. Increasing visions led me into the more esoteric and mystical realms where I went straight to the back of the book for the answer.


Chosun :gh:
 
Quantum mechanics? I'm absolutely certain we don't understand the same thing by those words! ;)
 
Last edited:
Which begs the question: What do you understand? :smoke:

The existential conundrum is expressed here:
"The majority of people have no understanding of the things with which they daily meet, nor, when instructed, do they have any right knowledge of them, although to themselves they seem to have." - Heraclitus

The way around the conundrum is to become knowledgeable and think for yourself, i.e., to resist "belief" in what others say just because they said it.

Not sure if that's what you meant, Chosun, but that's my take.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Which begs the question: What do you understand? :smoke:

I'm not sure if that's directed to me or to Chosun but I'll answer it anyway. My understanding of "quantum mechanics" is the common one: the scientific study of how things work in the physical universe at the subatomic level. My guess is that Chosun is using the term very differently, in a vague new agey sense comparable to that in which she's just admitted she uses "metaphysics". Nothing wrong with this, of course (though not my cup of tea), and I'm sure she'll correct me if I've misrepresented her views.

But I'm certain of one thing and that's that your understanding of the phrase "begs the question" differs most profoundly from mine. . .. ;)
 
Last edited:
Which begs the question: What do you understand?

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

First you said that you are absolutely certain you don't understand the same thing as Chosun with regard to quantum mechanics, — which is a claim assumed to be true without evidence.

Then you said that "[my] understanding of the phrase "begs the question" differs most profoundly from [yours]," — which is another claim assumed to be true without evidence.

Who knows what your "understanding" is unless you answer the question: What do you understand?

Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top