Talk-Polywell.org

Hey AGW deniers, what's your take on this?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128823662

Estimating plankton population by directly correlating it with the transparency of the sea is really nonsense.

Apart from the obvious error induced by the operator, you can do that type of correlation only in very few particular conditions, and only with set of data that have identical basic indicators for temperature, stream velocity, moon phase and date. And even so you should discern between plankton and suspension to have a meaningful result.

Those results proven nothing, neither in favor nor against.

There is also the issue that the argument being made does not argue for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's an argument for Climate Change--as there is no mechanism described whereby the proposed change in climate is wrought by human affairs.

vankirkc wrote:Hey AGW deniers, what's your take on this?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128823662

Here is what Jeff Id thinks:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... e-science/

And a nice bit on closed science:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-differ ... t-science/

Until climate science opens its books totally it can't be trusted. That is the canon of science. No more secret data. No more secret methods.

No more Hide The Decline.

I'd like to complain that the initial poster of this thread was using a perjorative term to describe scientific skeptics. Hate speech.

IntLibber wrote:I'd like to complain that the initial poster of this thread was using a perjorative term to describe scientific skeptics. Hate speech.

I love speech. Even hateful speech.

Once a person puts the debate in religious terms you can tell (s)he is not interested in science. Always a good thing to know.

MSimon wrote:

IntLibber wrote:I'd like to complain that the initial poster of this thread was using a perjorative term to describe scientific skeptics. Hate speech.

I love speech. Even hateful speech.

Once a person puts the debate in religious terms you can tell (s)he is not interested in science. Always a good thing to know.

I realize that. I was holding that particular liberal bleeding heart to his own politically correct standards. I try not to hold fascists to my own standards, they fail every time, and holding them to their own standards is much more entertaining.

IntLibber wrote:

MSimon wrote:

IntLibber wrote:I'd like to complain that the initial poster of this thread was using a perjorative term to describe scientific skeptics. Hate speech.

I love speech. Even hateful speech.

Once a person puts the debate in religious terms you can tell (s)he is not interested in science. Always a good thing to know.

I realize that. I was holding that particular liberal bleeding heart to his own politically correct standards. I try not to hold fascists to my own standards, they fail every time, and holding them to their own standards is much more entertaining.

I knew that. I just like discussion (argument?) for entertainment and possible enlightenment. And the chance that I might turn a good phrase.

“To capture the public imagination, we [scientists] have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

The quote is from Stephen Schneider

Which is why climate "science" is untrustworthy. How do we know these guys are being honest?

MSimon wrote:

“To capture the public imagination, we [scientists] have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

The quote is from Stephen Schneider

Which is why climate "science" is untrustworthy. How do we know these guys are being honest?

You mean Michael Mann's beady little eyes didn't twig you to what was going on? Schneider slipped a few more whoppers in just before he slipped the mortal coil the other day, one being that PNAS blacklist of climate skeptic scientists, and the other being an absurd and seriously flawed piece he's got in the PNAS Proceedings un-peer-reviewed that claims that climate change is the cause of illegal immigration from Mexico.

Giorgio wrote:Estimating plankton population by directly correlating it with the transparency of the sea is really nonsense.

Apart from the obvious error induced by the operator, you can do that type of correlation only in very few particular conditions, and only with set of data that have identical basic indicators for temperature, stream velocity, moon phase and date. And even so you should discern between plankton and suspension to have a meaningful result.

Those results proven nothing, neither in favor nor against.

What obvious error?

On what basis do you assert that the correlation is only applicable in certain conditions, and that if so such conditions were not met in the study? Did you read the study itself, or are you assuming they didn't consider suspension versus plankton?

GIThruster wrote:There is also the issue that the argument being made does not argue for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's an argument for Climate Change--as there is no mechanism described whereby the proposed change in climate is wrought by human affairs.

The article mentions overfishing as one possible cause of the decline in plankton. The logic was a decline in larger fish meant less zoo plankton was being consumed, who in turn consumed more of the plant plankton.

IntLibber wrote:

MSimon wrote:

IntLibber wrote:I'd like to complain that the initial poster of this thread was using a perjorative term to describe scientific skeptics. Hate speech.

I love speech. Even hateful speech.

Once a person puts the debate in religious terms you can tell (s)he is not interested in science. Always a good thing to know.

I realize that. I was holding that particular liberal bleeding heart to his own politically correct standards. I try not to hold fascists to my own standards, they fail every time, and holding them to their own standards is much more entertaining.

True stripes revealed. How many perjorative terms did you use there in reference to me?

I don't care what you call me, nor should you care what I call you. The subject of the thread is either right or wrong, and that's all that matters.

I suspect the real reason you took that approach to responding is that your objections to the conclusions of the climatologists are not based on facts or science, but on political beliefs. The approach of most of the naysayers up to now has been to attack the character of the messengers rather than the message itself, as evidenced by email-gate.

Actually no. Most people have no respect for climate science because it was revealed the single central premise, the hockey stick argument; is a big fat lie. Not only is it a lie, but the liars conspired to lie and got caught.

This observation might degenerate into name calling, etc., but there's no changing the point that CO2 is not nearly so much a greenhouse gas as water vapor, and there is no reason to believe at a specific temperature gouts of the stuff will pour out of the oceans and bake the planet. That has been the central claim for AGW for almost 20 years now and we now know, all the data suggests otherwise. There is almost no science left for AGW folk to stand on.

Climate change is another matter, but the real data says the planet most corresponds to what our sun is doing. Not politically correct, but that's what the science says. What's politically correct is to find climate change connections anywhere and everywhere you can, so that you can grab some attention and some grants. Politics has turned science into a big joke.

vankirkc wrote:

Giorgio wrote:Estimating plankton population by directly correlating it with the transparency of the sea is really nonsense.

Apart from the obvious error induced by the operator, you can do that type of correlation only in very few particular conditions, and only with set of data that have identical basic indicators for temperature, stream velocity, moon phase and date. And even so you should discern between plankton and suspension to have a meaningful result.

Those results proven nothing, neither in favor nor against.

What obvious error?

The error of the person that is making the measurement.
In case you never saw it a Secchi dish measurement is made by hand, and the moment you do not see anymore the dish is "estimated" by the operator, hence is subject to an obvious error that depends from operator to operator.
Stream presence will also add an additional error to the length measurement thanks to our old friend Pitagora.
Just check how many errors we have and we still have not taken into consideration wave movements, wind conditions, light conditions and so on.....

Secchi dish use has never been standardized (at least it was not until 20 years ago), as its main use was to give an "approximate" indication of the water body transparency, no more no less.

vankirkc wrote:On what basis do you assert that the correlation is only applicable in certain conditions, and that if so such conditions were not met in the study?

Plankton concentration on the surface (first meters) and particle suspension is hugely variable according to temperature, tidal phase, meteorological conditions, salinity and even hour of the measurement.
There is so much literature about this that I will not even go into details. Google it and you will find a ton of references to read.

vankirkc wrote: Did you read the study itself, or are you assuming they didn't consider suspension versus plankton?

Considering that most of the plankton (50 micrometers and lower) was discovered only in the 80's and that serious plankton checks was started only in the early 90's, I don't think they even had the tools to discern suspension versus plankton before that period.


Again, using 150 years of inconsistent data can only give you inconsistent results. Not in favor nor against, just inconsistent.