Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OM) Totally OT - Climate Change

Subject: Re: [OM] (OM) Totally OT - Climate Change
From: Jez Cunningham <jez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 20:32:53 +0200
12 fascinating pages, thanks!
Jez

On 07/08/2011, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Not to defend Monckton (who is perfectly capable of defending himself on
> any climate related technical subject) but rejecting the current climate
> "consensus" doesn't necessarily require a deep understanding of climate
> related scientific disciplines.  Just a bit of understanding of chaos
> theory and maybe some statistics thrown in.
>
> All of the "bad" consequences of warming are the long range predictions
> of about 20 major climate models.  None of these models agree between
> themselves and none has ever been shown to make an accurate hindcast let
> alone a forecast.  If you believe (as I do) that the earth's climate is
> a chaotic system then trying to forecast climate 50 or 100 years into
> the future is a futile exercise.  Also, if you have ever tried to make
> even a simple forecasting system (as I did in my foolish youth) you soon
> learn that you can force fit almost anything in the universe with a
> polynomial having enough degrees of freedom.  The problem is that such
> fancy fitting is senseless in a chaotic system since such a model's
> ability to predict anything with any degree of certainty is really
> non-existent.  Climate models have hundreds or thousands of
> parameters... all tunable by the model builder... and still very
> incomplete.  Of course, the model builder doesn't believe that climate
> is a chaotic system.  If it is chaotic his reason for existence goes
> away.  And, of course, he doesn't have to stand behind his predictions
> of 100 years into the future since he won't be here.
>
> Here's noted Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson on climate modeling:
> <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html>
>
> On the subject of statistics, climate science depends very heavily on
> statistical manipulation of raw data.  The video I pointed out recently
> from Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/you%E2%80%99re-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science/>
> shows that Muller is extremely upset with the "hockey stick" graph by
> the chicanery employed at the juncture of paleoclimate temperature
> reconstructions (mostly from tree rings) and the modern thermometer
> based temperature records. But that is hardly all that's wrong with that
> graph.  The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions are highly suspect
> and the statistical methods used to do the analysis (Principal
> Components) have been declared invalid by several prominent
> statisticians.  Michael Mann (the author) has never revealed the details
> of his analysis and has (despite repeated requests over years) never
> disclosed the correlation values he previously claimed to have computed.
>   Little wonder because, now that the data is available (like pulling
> teeth) the correlation values with temperature are shown to be so low
> that he would have gotten better results by choosing random "red noise"
> numbers.  If you'd like a detailed analysis you might like to read this.
> <http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf>
> This is a 12 page PDF.  A little statistical training would be helpful
> but not necessary to at least understand the gist of the situation.
> Muller is also mentioned in this paper since it was studying this data
> that convinced Muller that he had been deceived.  Unfortunately, it's
> not only Muller who has been deceived.  This graph has been and
> continues to be the posterchild of the IPCC's claims of dangerous global
> warming.  If you value the truth in scientific method you'll take the
> time to read these 12 pages.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> On 8/7/2011 7:21 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>> Piers wrote:
>>
>>> If you think that, Brian, then you should correct the scurrilous and
>>> biased gossip, fill in the omissions and correct the inaccuracies, as
>>> they
>>> were not obvious to this reader!
>>>
>>> Did he in fact _not_ gain a Classics degree from Cambridge and a diploma
>>> in journalism from Cardiff?
>>
>> If ever I get his e-mail address I might suggest that he himself do the
>> corrections.
>>
>> During his talk he mentioned gaining a qualification in Architecture, and
>> in
>> the course of using it, he also used Calculus making the point that had he
>> not done so, he could not have been sure that the buildings he designed
>> stayed erect. I have yet to get to this part of his talk in my
>> transcriptions to
>> be quite sure on this. ... but I think the term he used was Classical
>> Architecture. I don't know what goes on in - went on - in Classics degrees
>> at
>> Cambridge when he was there. It crosses my mind that perhaps he was
>> required to design classical buildings in those studies.
>>
>> In any case I was upset by the lack of mention of his education in
>> architecture. Perhaps he exaggerated, or at least didn't disclose the
>> context
>> of his architectural education.
>>
>> I am in no position to confirm or deny what wikipedia says as far as they
>> have, ie "Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College,
>> Cambridge, where he received an MA in classics in 1974, and at University
>> College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism studies.".
>>
>> Brian Swale.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz