Junk Science

the_13th_redneck said:
Alright here's my issues with the data you represented.

Here's the full report of Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities in gridded global climate data (I assume you know what this means without looking it up).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Click to expand...

There's a review of this paper here which answers your query

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ds-affected-by-economic-activity-ii/#more-507

They rely on the fact that these measurements are derived using the very same type of physical laws as those predicting an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased GHG levels
Click to expand...
:)

I also think that M&M2007 is biased and gives an incorrect picture, as they do not discuss the fact that also the world oceans are warming up, and whether any economic activity can take the blame for that. I think it is difficult to argue that factors such as the urban heat island effect plays an important role here.
Click to expand...
(this is what I said)

They split the data by randomly picking points which were either used for training the data or validating the model, thus data from adjacent sites which are related will end up in the different batches for training or validation.
Click to expand...

I think the results of M&M2007 analysis and conclusions are invalid because
- They do not properly account for dependencies (this is a statistical requirement for valid analysis)
- They over-fit the regression.
- Their results look unreasonable (by this he means some of the greatest anomolies are for non-urban areas, you would except the opposite)
- They "cherry pick" the MSU data that gives the lowest trend
Click to expand...

Other issues include that the timeframe was not ideal picking up natural fluctuations and economic activity was spead over an entire country (in other words Moscow would be compared with Siberia!)

Once corrected most of the local effects 'melt' away

 
Last edited:
Yeah the study's got issues. They all seem to have their issues. And the thematic map at the end of your post, again it's an opinion.
As for cherry picking data, everyone does that. In fact, you somewhat "have to." It's called setting parameters. Everyone does it. Everyone.
However this point you made "They do not properly account for dependencies (this is a statistical requirement for valid analysis)" I think this one is critical.
 
senojekips said:
The simple fact remains, that for every argument supporting man's influence on GW, if one cares to look, and is willing to accept the word of one "expert" against another, there is always an equally vehement argument disputing the data of the first, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are comparing of thousands of experts in favour of GW in favour of a few dozen against and half of these are employed by the oil industry. This is no different to the tobacco scandal of the last century, who do you believe the majority who are employed to do independent research who are scrutinised by their colleagues, or a small minority with strong vested interests? This paper actually shows that contrary arguments are published, it is just that they are largely refuted on further analysis.

senojekips said:
We can argue until we're blue in the face and fill the pages with graphs and data, but as yet there is still no proof that man is influencing our weather patterns to any significant degree if at all .
Click to expand...

The proof that man is influencing the climate is inherent to the nature of the greenhouse gases themselves. Half the instruments I use for measuring air pollution from vehicles rely on the same principles to work. The only debate is precisely how much heating these cause relative to the other forcings once all the aerosols are taken into account, and we even know that to within certain limits.

The fact is that the earth's surface temperature is rising faster than any point during the last two thousand years (as indicated by about 5-7 different methods of measurement) just at the time we release masses of these greenhouse gases and the public are still being misled into believing it can be largely blamed on the sun! The evidence is there within a reasonable level of certainty.

It gets worse, all indications are that the earth will undergo positive temperature feedback as the poles melt and other greenhouse gases trapped in the tundra and sea are released. Shouldn't it be the sceptic who is providing proof that we don't need to insure ourselves against these eventualities?
 
Del Boy said:
I am not going over it again, it is simply a top academic rebuffing the Al Gore bandwagon by pointing out that each little man 'doing his bit' ain't going to affect matters relating to our position . Big solutions needed and needed now, enormous decisions to be taken and put into action now. Fossil fuels - OUT. If we don't want here a windfarm twice as big as Wales, then nuclear without delay. Other wise , stop the greenwash. Yes, that's what I said, the Greenwash. I didn't write the book; I'll try to find the reference. (Television news discussion , involving Al Gore's presention. Greenwash - everything to do with Al Gore.) We can't prevent Global warming, and while we can learn to live with it, the Greenwash is futile .


I am not getting into arguments as I have not yet had the chance of reading the book, so I have to wipe my sword for the time being. You will hear from me again on this one.
Click to expand...


OK, MontyB, this is the guy i was listening to. It seems he has a new book published on the subject. You might find him interesting, here is a little about him :-


http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/
http://www.withouthotair.com/
 
perseus said:
The problem is that you are comparing of thousands of experts in favour of GW in favour of a few dozen against and half of these are employed by the oil industry.
Click to expand...
Just read what I said and only what I said,
for every argument supporting man's influence on GW, if one cares to look, and is willing to accept the word of one "expert" against another, there is always an equally vehement argument disputing the data of the first, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
and please don't try to put words into my mouth, it won't work.

Yes,.. I know "your" experts are the only ones who have got it right, and the rest of the world is inhabited by bogans. You've told us before, ad infinitum. That's how come this debate has degenerated to the stage where one can't believe anything they read and little more of what they see.

And for the last time, I'm not arguing against GW, just unproven acceptance that it has been caused or influenced by man.
 
Last edited:
There is a message here for all those who so willingly quote the work of others on subjects such as in this thread. I'm sorry that the video clip US centric and that he takes ten minuted to say what could have been said in one,... but the message is there..... for those who have the desire to take charge of, and responsibility for, their own lives.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/159947/Why-is-America-So-Crazy.html

Don't go through life as a "little birdy"
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
There is a message here for all those who so willingly quote the work of others on subjects such as in this thread. I'm sorry that the video clip US centric and that he takes ten minuted to say what could have been said in one,... but the message is there..... for those who have the desire to take charge of, and responsibility for, their own lives.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/159947/Why-is-America-So-Crazy.html

Don't go through life as a "little birdy"
Click to expand...

Other than the irony of having someone tell us we should be thinking for ourselves I don't think he is telling people not to believe others but more to ask questions and find answers from the information available.

I for one rarely quote work that I am not prepared to accept as accurate and before I accept it as accurate it has to meet certain criteria one of which is that it must be repeatable by sources independent of the originator.

In terms of the global warming argument I am choosing to quote work that has been repeated countless times since 1830 so I am relatively certain that it is accurate work, however I find that this discussion is symptom of the problem as a whole in that we are fixated with issues less important than the problem itself.

Lets say for arguments sake that man has no effect on the earth or its environment and the natural cycle of global warming raises sea levels 1 meter, what problems will this cause us?
Now lets assume that man has a small effect on the cycle and the sea levels rise 1.2 meters (instead of the 1 meter of natural rise) would our life be better or worse if we tried to prevent or slow that 0.2 meter increase?
 
I might suggest that perhaps it doesn't seem ironic to me as I have used this method of forming my opinions for as long as I can remember. I didn't need this bloke to make my opinions for me or allow him to influence my decision making, I just happen to agree with his general drift insofar as making up my own mind.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
If we don't want here a windfarm twice as big as Wales, then nuclear without delay. Other wise , stop the greenwash. Yes, that's what I said, the Greenwash. I didn't write the book; I'll try to find the reference.
Click to expand...
I've read most of McKays draft book or at least the main elements. First I think he suggests some innovative solutions and at least tries to address the issues which is more than government policy does. MacKay actually advocates 6 scenerios of supplying power most of which include large amounts of renewables including wind, although he does think nuclear is cheaper than the alternatives. He has made quite a few serious boobies though. I just address his calculation of the wind farm area required to power the UK car fleet.

First MacKay says in note 26
I aim to estimate the consumption of a "typical moderately-affluent person" – the consumption that many people aspire to. Some people don’t drive much. I want to estimate the energy consumed by someone who chooses to drive, rather than depersonalise the answer by reporting the UK average, which mixes together the drivers and non-drivers.
Click to expand...
Is he trying to estimate the future consumption here? In other parts of the report no increase in ‘consumption’ is allowed for, not even for air travel. This is inconsistent and confusing.

He also seems to be comparing wind energy to the primary energy of petroleum, but the former can be converted into automotive power far more efficiently than the latter. Another problem is that no allowance is made for the much lower fuel consumption of modern Diesels, which are driven further than older cars. Note also he has used the heat of combustion for butter instead of petroleum! (see first page in car chapter)

For a like for like comparison for changing petroleum into an equivalent electric power figure for cars it is best to start with the actual fuel used. There was 22 million tonnes (22 billion kg) of petrol and diesel combined used in cars based on 2006 UK Dept of statistics figures(a). The heat of combustion of petroleum fuel is around 46 x 10^6 J/kg (b) (or 12.7 Kwh/kg not 8kWh/kg) so this is equivalent to 1.012 x 10^18 J / year of fuel petroleum energy ….. (1)

By some estimates electric vehicles are 1.2 times more energy efficient than conventional gasoline cars in the translation of fossil fuel to automotive power, depending on the particular assumptions of vehicle energy use and energy chain efficiency(c). This accounts for electrical transmission losses. Let us assume fossil power stations the main source of energy in this 1.2 assumption. Power stations are typically 50% efficient. In the case of wind turbines Mackay’s 2 w/m2 is already defined in terms of primary (electrical) energy, so there are no power station losses. Hence the electrical energy requirement for an electric car from a wind turbine is only 0.5/1.2 = 0.416 times that of the energy from a petroleum fuel. We multiply this by the petroleum energy in …….(1) to find the wind turbine energy necessary to replace petroleum. This is equal to 420 x 10^15 J/y …….(3)

MacKay assumes wind turbines can achieve 2 w/m2 of land area land area of UK which has an area of 242 000 km2. Therefore, the total wind power potential of the UK is 484 x 10^9 W or 15.2 x 10^18 J/yr. …..(2)

Hence we can find the proportion of UK land that is necessary to supply ALL UK cars with propulsion using wind turbines by dividing (3) by (2) = 0.0276 or about 2.7%. Note this is similar to the area of the Hebrides where the wind is highest, although the Isle of Lewis recently rejected a wind farm application. Yes the area would increase if driving increases but not to the extent of requiring 20% of the UK land area as he claims.


(Incidentally I am surprised that increasing the vertical swept area of the wind farm doesn’t also increase power for a given wind speed. According to his formula, you could obtain the same power from many closely spaced micro turbines as a few big ones, assuming they are at the same height)
a) See table 3.1 in http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/217792/2214291/TSGB2007Final_linksV12.pdf
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
c) http://www.rqriley.com/ev-tech.htm
 
Last edited:
Glad to see MacKay's spotlight has been of interest Perseus. It is good to see that you are in a position to question points in this way. I imagine that you could discuss these through his web-site, he seems the type who would respond to sensible debate. Good post Perseus, wish I was up to scratch.
 
Del boy

I actually sent him an Email with this and a few more points, but yes he has a web site for replies as well so I may pop in in there.
 
Good stuff Perseus ; you obviously have legitimate questions on his take ; would be most interesting to hear what unfolds.
 
I've actually been in an Email dialogue with him over the past few days (though my work Email to make it more official). I made a few criticisms of various details, mainly on the wind issue but also questioning whether his view that there is limited scope for reducing fuel in aviation. Unfortunately this aviation issue got a bit heated. I eventually cut off the dialogue but told him I enjoyed reading the report and complemented him on the overall strategy ideas in the report etc. (I think he has excepted the issues on wind and is a bit embarrassed about the 'butter' issue).
 
Last edited:
I usually attempt to let people down gently, and often admit I am wrong. The GW 'debate' has just got out of hand, the more evidence that was gathered in its favour the more misinformation was circulated.

How to answer the claims of a Climate Change Sceptic – World Wildlife Fund -
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/cause/climate_sceptics/index.cfm
Misinformation about Climate Science – Union of concerned scientists - http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climate-misinformation.html

A guide to facts and fictions about climate change – Royal Society
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed – New scientist - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Climate change myths – Met Office - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

TEN POPULAR MYTHS about Global Climate Change
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

A personal page but very informative
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm

Debunking the Urban Legends of Climate Change - Some Frequently Heard Arguments from Climate Sceptics and Why They're Wrong (or Simply Irrelevant) - http://www.climate.org/2002/topics/climate/debunk-climate-myths.shtml (note this link is sometimes down)

Just about everyone who has a science background has lost patience with this, me included, because the arguments have been worn out long ago. You won't find many scientists who are even willling to discuss this, it is a dead parrot. Thankfully Exxon who has been partly behind the misinformation strategy seem to have finally thrown in the towel.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-w...nge-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html

That doesn't mean people will stop disagreeing with how to stop it or even if it is worth stopping at all. These are economic and social questions that cannot be settled using hard data.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I think he just got tired of your "ah your data is flawed but mine is correct totally!" approach.
Click to expand...
That sounds familiar. It must be a real let down when you can't even get agreement between two persons who are allegedly "on the same side" of the debate.

This is a typical example of why I have a very healthy scepticism in these matters. Too many eggheads trying to milk what they see as, potentially the worlds largest cash cow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top