I thought that Global Warming believers always claim that SOL has
absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming and, it is all caused
by manmade C0 2 or something or other ?
Best Regards, Bill
We are in a solar minimum and global warming does not stop. as the NASA article says. SDO was not launched to prove or disprove anything but only to get more data on the Sun's activity. We need more data on the Sun, and more data on past climate from the ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. But until we get them we should use a "prudent attitude" and control greenhouse gases emissions (not only CO2). Raising the efficiency of thermal engines and power plants and increasing building insulation and the use of solar power and other renewable energy sources is a good bet independently of global warming. The Earth's resources are not infinite, like oil and gas fields and coal.
Tullio
But until we get them we should use a "prudent attitude" and control greenhouse gases emissions (not only CO2).
Agreed.
Well, there were certainly plenty of good reasons for reducing petroleum dependence prior to the AGW business. Alas it will probably prove to be a expensive distraction, which no amount of re-badging or yes-buttery will save.
The main reason why the ETS failed DownUnda was not the idea, or even the amount ( when we were finally told the amount ), but was the total failure of proponents to identify the ultimate use to which the money would be put. So it could well be fine if you shave ~ $18B AUD / year out of the economy ( around $1200 per household annually, consumption based ) but if it truly was for the sake of a carbon dependence problem then why was it that none what-so-ever was allocated/devoted to alternatives? The lack of that clarity allowed cynicism to rule ( no shortage of that in the Aussie electorate ), on the suspicion that proceeds would go to the usual frippery and wastage.
Now if they'd hard linked ETS funds to domestic solar facilities and such like - instead of burying such schemes - I'd be in it in a heartbeat. But that would be unregulated/free sunshine wouldn't it? No market for that .....
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) NB. Australia has oodles of googleplexes of free sunshine.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I still believe in the NASA data.And I am crunching climate models from the UK Meteorological Office and Oxford U. I've seen with my eyes my beloved alpine glaciers retreating and disappearing. If there is no global warming, why do they melt? Try to explain this.
Tullio
If there is no global warming, why do they melt? Try to explain this.
This is why we do science. We look at evidence. If the evidence doesn't suit our thinking we re-think and re-look. Otherwise we get stuck with the Politician's Fallacy : Something must be done, This is Something, so let's do This.
One doesn't prove an assertion simply because no-one has a counter explanation : that's a failure of process, not a proof of fact.
So if the CO2 is going up, the temperature ain't and the tree ring data disagrees we need to look elsewhere. If this Jones fellow chose to believe in warming despite the significance levels he set ( plus other errors ) then we need better researchers, not word play and dis-ingenuity.
The topic is too important to accept poor quality assessments, non-sequitirs or hubris. Feelings may motivate us but dispassionate process is the key to lasting success.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
This is why we do science. We look at evidence. If the evidence doesn't suit our thinking we re-think and re-look. Otherwise we get stuck with the Politician's Fallacy : Something must be done, This is Something, so let's do This. ...
Unfortunately, there is also the politics and psychology of the skeptics/denialists. It's looking like their views are so entrenched and passionate that reasoned discussion is impossible. It's all degenerating into Media FUD and a religious war.
Meanwhile, the fallout is such that scientific progress is stifled due to the overwhelming deluge of conspiracy theories and hostility towards the science.
The examples given there were more than rigorous enough at the time the results were published. Under today's poisonous stare from the sceptics, every word is twisted to 'prove' that Global Warming doesn't exist.
The worrying thing is, are we actually suffering a very effective morass of orchestrated FUD from the Marketing departments of the oil and coal industry?
Note how the much weaker tobacco industry very successfully stifled scientific progress regarding smoking health issues for a few decades... I'm not sure that with the present exponential industrial growth (and subsequent pollution) that we have a few decades to procrastinate regarding global warming...
I ought point out the significance of 'significance'. Unfortunately it is often phrased as a right/wrong delimiter, when it actually is simply a measure of whether a given data set/trend could have been produced by sampling variation. In a rough sense it's a way of defending us against incidental factors.
There are more than a few assumptions in the use of significance levels. But the one that really kills this measure for utility is trimming the data - selective inclusion and exclusion of points. That absolutely destroys any basis for confidence what-so-ever in the conclusions.
The 95% quoted is a number of standard deviations away from 'null'. So there would be no shortage of people going in and out of Las Vegas casinos with gambling results/behaviour under this level - and this should cause no concern about any untoward/illicit theme with either the gambler or the house.
So the key point I wish to make is that 94%, 95% or 96% significance levels is definitely not 94%, 95% or 96% right ( or wrong depending on how the hypothesis is phrased ).
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) As far as Mr Jones goes, he presumably would have accepted the hypothesis if it had exceeded the 95% line. He accepted it when it was under the 95% line. So he accepts the hypothesis regardless of the data. That's a pretty damning admission ..... whatever else he was up to, that doesn't deserve the label of science.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
NASA has just launched the
NASA has just launched the Solar Dynamics Observatory to monitor the Sun's activity. I still trust data from NASA:
Global warming.
Tullio
RE: NASA has just launched
HI Tullio !
I thought that Global Warming believers always claim that SOL has
absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming and, it is all caused
by manmade C0 2 or something or other ?
Best Regards, Bill
RE: HI Tullio ! I
We are in a solar minimum and global warming does not stop. as the NASA article says. SDO was not launched to prove or disprove anything but only to get more data on the Sun's activity. We need more data on the Sun, and more data on past climate from the ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. But until we get them we should use a "prudent attitude" and control greenhouse gases emissions (not only CO2). Raising the efficiency of thermal engines and power plants and increasing building insulation and the use of solar power and other renewable energy sources is a good bet independently of global warming. The Earth's resources are not infinite, like oil and gas fields and coal.
Tullio
Global Warming in Last 15
Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits
So, they've been... Uh, Lying to us. What a surprise.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews
RE: But until we get them
Agreed.
Well, there were certainly plenty of good reasons for reducing petroleum dependence prior to the AGW business. Alas it will probably prove to be a expensive distraction, which no amount of re-badging or yes-buttery will save.
The main reason why the ETS failed DownUnda was not the idea, or even the amount ( when we were finally told the amount ), but was the total failure of proponents to identify the ultimate use to which the money would be put. So it could well be fine if you shave ~ $18B AUD / year out of the economy ( around $1200 per household annually, consumption based ) but if it truly was for the sake of a carbon dependence problem then why was it that none what-so-ever was allocated/devoted to alternatives? The lack of that clarity allowed cynicism to rule ( no shortage of that in the Aussie electorate ), on the suspicion that proceeds would go to the usual frippery and wastage.
Now if they'd hard linked ETS funds to domestic solar facilities and such like - instead of burying such schemes - I'd be in it in a heartbeat. But that would be unregulated/free sunshine wouldn't it? No market for that .....
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) NB. Australia has oodles of googleplexes of free sunshine.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Global Warming in Last
I still believe in the NASA data.And I am crunching climate models from the UK Meteorological Office and Oxford U. I've seen with my eyes my beloved alpine glaciers retreating and disappearing. If there is no global warming, why do they melt? Try to explain this.
Tullio
Also Greenland glaciers melt.
Also Greenland glaciers melt. See this "Nature"article:
Nature
Tullio
RE: If there is no global
This is why we do science. We look at evidence. If the evidence doesn't suit our thinking we re-think and re-look. Otherwise we get stuck with the Politician's Fallacy : Something must be done, This is Something, so let's do This.
One doesn't prove an assertion simply because no-one has a counter explanation : that's a failure of process, not a proof of fact.
So if the CO2 is going up, the temperature ain't and the tree ring data disagrees we need to look elsewhere. If this Jones fellow chose to believe in warming despite the significance levels he set ( plus other errors ) then we need better researchers, not word play and dis-ingenuity.
The topic is too important to accept poor quality assessments, non-sequitirs or hubris. Feelings may motivate us but dispassionate process is the key to lasting success.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: This is why we do
Unfortunately, there is also the politics and psychology of the skeptics/denialists. It's looking like their views are so entrenched and passionate that reasoned discussion is impossible. It's all degenerating into Media FUD and a religious war.
Meanwhile, the fallout is such that scientific progress is stifled due to the overwhelming deluge of conspiracy theories and hostility towards the science.
Just one example:
Climatologist Phil Jones fights back
The examples given there were more than rigorous enough at the time the results were published. Under today's poisonous stare from the sceptics, every word is twisted to 'prove' that Global Warming doesn't exist.
The worrying thing is, are we actually suffering a very effective morass of orchestrated FUD from the Marketing departments of the oil and coal industry?
Note how the much weaker tobacco industry very successfully stifled scientific progress regarding smoking health issues for a few decades... I'm not sure that with the present exponential industrial growth (and subsequent pollution) that we have a few decades to procrastinate regarding global warming...
Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
I ought point out the
I ought point out the significance of 'significance'. Unfortunately it is often phrased as a right/wrong delimiter, when it actually is simply a measure of whether a given data set/trend could have been produced by sampling variation. In a rough sense it's a way of defending us against incidental factors.
There are more than a few assumptions in the use of significance levels. But the one that really kills this measure for utility is trimming the data - selective inclusion and exclusion of points. That absolutely destroys any basis for confidence what-so-ever in the conclusions.
The 95% quoted is a number of standard deviations away from 'null'. So there would be no shortage of people going in and out of Las Vegas casinos with gambling results/behaviour under this level - and this should cause no concern about any untoward/illicit theme with either the gambler or the house.
So the key point I wish to make is that 94%, 95% or 96% significance levels is definitely not 94%, 95% or 96% right ( or wrong depending on how the hypothesis is phrased ).
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) As far as Mr Jones goes, he presumably would have accepted the hypothesis if it had exceeded the 95% line. He accepted it when it was under the 95% line. So he accepts the hypothesis regardless of the data. That's a pretty damning admission ..... whatever else he was up to, that doesn't deserve the label of science.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal