Climate change wankers

Sorry barely, you haven't got it.

Nice Try-Misinformation Update.
I would like to thank those responsible for the false information about the Superbank Sandflow meeting headline story on Sweellnet, and other stuff recently.
Remember I saw the original submissions document and I have a witness who will testify under oath of what we read before it was pulled from public viewing.
Also I now know what you are all up to around our local area in other issues. Buy a pushbike soon surfers.
It's amazing what you can learn when you sometimes ask a deliberate stupid question.
Sorry about posting it here, but Ben and Stu, unless you are in on it, The meeting about the Superbank Sandflow meeting was a deliberate, deliberate attempt to mislead Swellnet patrons.
Not on.

I get it benski you wrote a massive essay to say only use science for what its used for..dribble. and you wonder why you get misinterpreted.?

davetherave wrote:

Nice Try-Misinformation Update. I would like to thank those responsible for the false information about the Superbank Sandflow meeting headline story on Sweellnet, and other stuff recently. Remember I saw the original submissions document and I have a witness who will testify under oath of what we read before it was pulled from public viewing. Also I now know what you are all up to around our local area in other issues. Buy a pushbike soon surfers. It's amazing what you can learn when you sometimes ask a deliberate stupid question. Sorry about posting it here, but Ben and Stu, unless you are in on it, The meeting about the Superbank Sandflow meeting was a deliberate, deliberate attempt to mislead Swellnet patrons. Not on.

Not exactly sure what you're going on about Dave. What "other stuff" are we up to? What "deliberate attempt"? Are you implying some conspiracy at play? 

I can also "testify under oath" who I spoke to. If it ever came to that I really don't think my source would mind that much, and it wouldn't surprise me if you already know them.

I've also spoken to Catherine Kerr at TRESBP who reported some inaccuracies but also that some aspects were right. Unfortunately I'm not sure which aspects, however we're trying to get to the bottom of it. We may even find out tonight.

Benski, fair comment. We need to clarify the modelling procedures and why some models are used and some not. Further that these models are ratified by complying with current measured data. These models are then used to provide probabilistic values for the future. You correctly state - ' I have big confidence that the process of science will get to the bottom of it in time. Whether we know exactly already, I'm not confident.' I would suggest that we are still far away from understanding the science. Truthfully, I am also not confident and I think thats whats Barley is saying. Regardless of where we are with the knowledge of this area of science, the challenge should really be the 'next big thing in energy'. The world will need it.

science doesn't get to the bottom of anything. that's the whole point. theres ALWAYS more. but for the climate change naysayers don't forget the following...

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

'''''when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.'''''

some people want unequivocal proof. the "golden solution" before they will commit to believing anything. those people will be waiting a very long time. meanwhile everyone else just sensibly moves on.

hey hayseed you still using a divining rod to find water on your spread? That's all the science a real man needs right?

Tonybarber, thanks. Just responding to a few points of yours

"We need to clarify the modelling procedures and why some models are used and some not."
This is well documented in the scientific literature and accompanying documents for each model. The choice among models depends on the purpose and what the model does. That is typically documented with each use.

As for the procedures for the general circulation models (GCMs), from memory they are largely differential equation models with a spatial covariance/autoregressive component, but I'm not up on the details. I think there are seven global models that are in use by the climate science community. You should be able to read up on their details if you want to. I'm personally not sure where you'd find the details but you can start at wikipedia and that would have links to the supporting publications.

"You correctly state - ' I have big confidence that the process of science will get to the bottom of it in time. Whether we know exactly already, I'm not confident.' I would suggest that we are still far away from understanding the science."

"The science" isn't a very helpful term because it's so general as to be fairly meaningless. So to clarify what I mean, I'm confident that since we know the fundamental physics of this problem, we know that there will be substantial changes to the climatic system, and therefore everything that's related to it physically. That of course, includes us. The exact details are less certain, but still very well known. And certainly well known enough to state with very high confidence that if we don't reduce carbon emissions, we'll see ongoing major changes. That's the basics of which I'm very confident, as is the climate science community. The quote of HappyAs about the earth is relevant here. The details yet to be ironed out don't mean we don't have enough information to guide policy. The arguments in the science community are far enough beyond the basics now I think.

"Truthfully, I am also not confident and I think thats whats Barley is saying."
I appreciate you aren't confident and that's fine but I don't think barley has an appreciation of the problem. I don't say that as an insult to him/her, but I say that as an observation. That's ok of course, I don't understand surfboard design, we've all got our expertise etc. But in my conversations here I haven't seen evidence that he/she understands what the scientific process involves and what uncertainty means, let alone an understanding of what a model is and how it is developed and used. Again, not an insult but an observation based on how quickly sensible comments are dismissed as rubbish.

"Regardless of where we are with the knowledge of this area of science, the challenge should really be the 'next big thing in energy'. The world will need it."

That's a big challenge for sure. But since we're probably going to see a lot of people moving out of marginal locations and a lot of farming regions becoming less viable in the next century, the implications of climate change are still extremely important. Fortunately it's not a zero sum game, I hope we can continue to work on both sides of the problem.

.

for those lacking confidence, consider the following....

"Professor Arvid Högbom, who was quoted in length in Arrhenius 1896 study On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth[14] had been attempting to quantify natural sources of emissions of CO2 for purposes of understanding the global carbon cycle. Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources.[15] Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming."

now maybe the Professor fucked up a thing or two since I doubt 1890 pollution levels could have been so large but whats important is the date. 18 fucking 96. we've had 120 + years to study it so I reckon the wankers in white coats have worked out a few of the basics over that time.

Hahahaha benski what are you on about..reading data? Models?your non opinion of climate change , your explanation of science or your little undercover digs?
You need to take communication lessons.
face it bro the 'science' fucks it up sometimes..hell its even wrong..yes wrong..reality check?much?

Wow, barley. You've had a hard time from this climate stuff somewhere along the way, mate.

Hey Barley, if you want to people to take your side of the debate seriously (if that's possible), you're going to have to do better than semi-literate insults, it does zero for your credibility.

Everyone has a right to an opinion..just as everyone has a right to question one's opinion.

welcome back nick3 ... I remain brainwashed but what, if anything, do you think we should do with all this climate stuff?

Well Benski, if the expectations are that all are expected to understand the scientific process, the I would say thats poor, very poor communication, as Barley suggests. The confidence in the data alone is low, the confidence (as you state yourself in the science) of the process is low then add to this the doom and gloom promoted by the likes of Gore and Flannery make this debate vitriolic. To dismiss anecdotal experience is a failure. As you know there are new findings and understandings of the climate process still occurring with many unexplained observations. Yet we all are expected to trust a number of climate impacts based on probability. It is also a contradiction that scientists are prepared to predict the next 100 years temperature but unable to assist in immediate term solutions.

oh no!

I agree with tonybarber again

I hate that!

but he's right, scientists know they have a problem with communication, yet they continually fail. in this case to present a cohesive argument. too many egos within the same side trying to outdo eachother.

they need to recruit that pommy dude that does physics on tv

Sorry tonybarber but it's not poor communication for ignoring someone who resorts to lame insults after reading sensible and informative posts on this subject. No one is expected to understand the scientific process if it's not their field, didn't you read where I said that's ok, that we all have our expertise? It was right there in my reply to you.

But if you dismiss something as crap when you don't understand it, I'm not particularly interested in your opinion. It's up to you to understand something if you're going to dismiss it. Otherwise you're likely making a mistake yourself. I be said that about 4 or 5 times now. Critique the science all you like, and do that, please do that, but if you do it from a place of ignorance your critique isn't very valuable. If nothing else people owe it to themselves to do that or they're just wasting their own time.

Finally, you've misunderstood me by suggesting I have low confidence in the process. I have extremely high confidence in the process (and the data collected for this problem in particular). As I've said twice now, I'm not confident that our current understanding is the final one but I am confident that we know enough to know we have a problem and the planet will keep heating up. That's physics.

As for probability, when you get sick and start chemo, you do so on a basis of the probability of its success. Same when you get pop a pill for something. Almost every policy decision, medical decision and personal decision is made on a probability. We're lucky today that the science of statistics has progressed so far as to be able to quantify those probabilities effectively. Currently, based on all the research we're 99% sure the earth is warming because of greenhouse gas emissions. That's fairly certain.

By the way, who said scientists aren't prepared to help with solutions?

Think I'm gonna bail out of this. I'm writing well laid out and very clear posts explaining the state of the science and get told I have poor communication skills. I call some of you out for lazy thinking because you dismiss scientific findings as rubbish when you don't understand it or the basis for it, and it's scientists that have the poor communication skills.

Seriously you lot need to own up to your responsibility to develop critical reading skills. If you think you know better than the science community, read up on it properly and show them. Listen to the informed response and go from there. Why would you want to be ignorant? Don't answer that, I'm out.

Good idea benski. Don't give the ignorant oxygen!

Well that's a shame Benski as I was enjoying the reading. Even your 'clarifications', which you may have deemed uncessary, brought more info to the table.

Yeah real shame Benski, really loved the approach of not firing up and giving the measured thought out reply. These other idiots are just that.

Surprised you lasted so long Benski. Bravo for the attempt but sadly it was doomed from the start.

Well shit I didn't realise many were reading these although I should have since you've commented along the way. Cheers fellas, very nice of you to say. It takes a lot of time and effort to organise my thoughts on this stuff and when I'm away from a phone or computer it bubbles away in my head in a distracting way while I think about these issues so it's better for me that I bail. And I think I've said all I have to say anyway.

I actually came back to clarify that my last question wasn't a snarky dig at sypkan wanting to be ignorant even though that post came after reading his and so probably appeared to be. It was a generally directed question.

Thanks again and chat another time. Cheers.

Fair enough Benski … not sure if I used the word 'crap'. But I can see others wish to be vitriolic and that can in part be blamed on poor communication. Granted the science is complex but I don't believe we humans have a full grasp of it at this stage - so much is being discovered as we speak. Hence, the debate really needs to be 'what to do about it'. For Aus that has very important implications.

for what it's worth I wasn't saying your communication was poor benski, you're doing a fine job. I just think the scientists seem to be all over the place as they all have different interests and agendas.

if the science is so beyond doubt (which I believe the majority probably is) they should be able to shoot down the nay sayers much easier, but instead we get vague statements like 90!% of climate scientists agree with 99% probability, well yeh they do, but if you broke down the model outcomes from mild warming to catastrophic they would all be on different parts of the scale. and the scale is the problem as the public has heard so many scenarios.

I think someone actually needs to research the consensus. then present the agreeance with various scenarios so the public can really know the level of consensus. present in categories like

5% of scientists believe in no warming
10% believe in warming cooling pattern
20% mild warming <1 degree
50% significant warming 1-3 degrees
15% catastrophic, we're fucked

just a suggestion, at worst it could weed out who and who aren't good authorities on the subject, which appears to be the biggest problem

soldier on benski
and play nice bogans, even nick3s posthad some good points, but why would you answer them with that tone?

didnt like the science to be questioned..scientifically intelligent ..socially inept..ah well another one bites the dust

Proudly ignorant, eh Barley? Good for you, sport!

Stuey if he wants to write essays on a climate science topic while saying he has no opinion on climate change then good on him..you gotta ask what was the point?

barley wrote:

you gotta ask what was the point?

I often ask myself the same thing.

Haha good one! Life's too short for thermal dynamics.

Yeah mate fuck reading ay?

gee a day when nick3, barley and tones all contribute (??) to a forum. How on earth do you remember all those passwords hayseed?

Benski, I also appreciated your posts and hope you reconsider your decision to end it here; although as Blindboy discovered before you its hard to constantly argue with stupid.

Gotta love fridays...

Ok, given that most of you seem to have a masters or PhD in 'spatial covariant analysis', would it be unfair to ask for summarised understanding of this and how it relates to climate models (with no links to Wiki) for the number of 'idiots' that love to surf and may have a little experience in scientific endavours or earthly matters.

And meanwhile in a far more important field of science:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/the-loudest-monkeys-have-the-s...

braudulio wrote:

And meanwhile in a far more important field of science:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/the-loudest-monkeys-have-the-s...

Fuck, doesn't that make you laugh?!
Not that anyone's pointing any fingers of course...

And I'll say it again Benski, many thanks for the clearly considerable time and effort you've put into your posts - it goes over the heads of some but not all.

Benski vs the 3 Stooges

forget Back To The Future II, we here yet??

more quality SB, the 3 stooges had also come to mind with me.

Fuck yeah. Thats how i roll anyway yeeheew

Thanks Benski for your informative posts from page 7 onward.

Gee those Canadians must be a pack of wankers voting in a new government promising real action on climate!

benski wrote:

Sheepdog you compared land only data to combined land and sea data, found a difference and declared it's why people don't trust the science. Compare land only from BOM with land only from noaa and what do you find? No difference. Colder than average winter reported by both agencies. Hope you can see that.

I'm not defending noaa, there's nothing to defend, I'm calling out your misinterpretation. That's all. We should question the science all the time but do it properly. Comparing the data from each agency properly shows there's no problem. This example shows we should also question ourselves when we question the science.

And I'm not putting words in your mouth at all. You did start by asking if and implying that noaa make up their data.

edit: And apologies for not apologising but I didn't think you "proving" that you mentioned Sydney only when you provided links about Sydney and Melbourne was such a big deal. The substantive issue is the data you're referring to so I put in some further investigation, as you said the "scientific way" ;-) and found you were quite right about the time frame of the data No ifs....no buts....(as you'll see I acknowledged). But you were wrong about the comparison, you interpreted the noaa map incorrectly by comparing it to the wrong BOM data...no ifs and no buts. And what do I get, no "whoops sorry mate" as you expect from me, just some rubbish about how the land and sea data should cancel each other out and that you'd like to drop it now. Crikey you're worse than me! ;-)

Sheepdog, since you arrived on this site carrying on about your genuinely impressive forecasting skills (I still remember your early descriptions of the formation of a weather bomb for the sunny coast, you have remarkable understanding of the weather), you would delight in jokingly rubbing it in Ben and Don's face when they were a foot or two out in a forecast and you got it right. You're expecting me to apologise for misreading your post about Sydney and Melbourne, despite you providing links to articles about both cities. And yet, when I prove to you that you're misinterpreting the data as your basis that we can't "trust the science", you carry on about how the land and sea temps should cancel each other out as though you understand the methodology noaa should have used better than them. That's of course a separate issue from your initial misunderstanding (and another kind of debate that would be informed by understanding the model behind the combined data), but I thought you might have said, "whoops sorry mate".

Sorry if I was too harsh mate but don't expect me to go easy on you when you make claims about "the science" when you appear to have made a mistake and it turns out you have made one (just not the one I originally thought ;-) ).

You see... This is why I walk away from this topic;
You didn't address my water temp data supplied above... You made a big deal, and considered it your trump card sayin NOAA was a combined chart (water and land temp) whereas BOM was land temp only........ I have now supplied the water temps.... You refused to touch it with a ten foot pole, and instead dredge up "dirt' like a liberal staffer finding crap on an adversary.... Yeah I used to have fun with Ben, don, Craig, FR.... But they stuck it to me just as much as i stuck it to them.... And it has absolutely nothing to do with with the NOAA map in question.... Just a blatant red herring.....

man, what is it about this site, people constantly arguing about flys walking up the wall?

its simple, either you accept the science or you don't, i for one don't care if you do or don't but for fucks sake be real in your belief, state it clearly and stop pretending by saying one thing and believing another.

you hayseeds out there that believe you know better than the world's top climate scientists based on your "personal experience" of "observing weather" are just that dumb arsed. believe it if you want but stop pretending here you represent a view other than one rooted in last century thinking.

personal experience of observed weather COUPLED with science is valuable but it doesn't replace it.

WTF's a hayseed? Hah i googled it..
Floggy your a hypocrite, whinging about everyone arguing and name calling and ya doin it yaself..as nelson says..'haha'