ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agw , climate change , climate change denial , climate change research

Reply
Old 25th July 2019, 10:32 AM   #41
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If explaining the actual science is a flawed argument,
No. Claiming their argument is something other than it actually is is a flawed argument.

Quote:
does that mean that explaining what the fossil record says about the Earth’s evolutionary history a flaws argument against creationism?
No, but arguing against the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle would be a flawed argument against biblical creationism.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 12:40 PM   #42
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Claiming their argument is something other than it actually is is a flawed argument.
I wrote:
“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better.”
Other than an autocorrect error on modeling how do you feel this misrepresents their claim?


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

No, but arguing against the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle would be a flawed argument against biblical creationism.
Indeed, but I suggest you need to reconsider who is on “the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle” side of things here. Hint. Nothing I said about clouds or humidity is even remotely controversial in the context of mainstream climate science.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 01:53 PM   #43
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I wrote:
“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better.”
Other than an autocorrect error on modeling how do you feel this misrepresents their claim?
Because everything you wrote after that was about absolute humidity, but the paper was specifically talking about relative humidity. You substituted one for the other.

Quote:
Indeed, but I suggest you need to reconsider who is on “the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle” side of things here. Hint. Nothing I said about clouds or humidity is even remotely controversial in the context of mainstream climate science.
Wow, did you miss the point of that. In my example, you would be arguing against the world riding on the back of 4 elephants on a turtle, not for it. The point isn't whether what you said about humidity or clouds is correct, the point is whether or not it applies to what they claim. Proof that the world isn't on elephants on a turtle may be true, but it's not relevant to biblical creationism.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 02:24 PM   #44
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Claiming their argument is something other than it actually is is a flawed argument.



No, but arguing against the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle would be a flawed argument against biblical creationism.
In the case of this paper, one doesn't need much beyond the penultilate sentence of their conclusion:

Quote:
Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change . The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
If you know that the anthropogenic portion of the increased CO2 is pretty close to 100% at the moment - from isotope analysis, and consistent with known emissions, then you can discard their conclusion as it seems to be based on that one factor.

Why spend any more time thinking about it?
-----
Actually the paper looks pretty shabby, I'd have hoped to have done a more professional job as an undergraduate, at least stating my source for the cloud cover data.

One big red flag to me as an engineer with a physics background is the fact that they seem to be presenting simple linear equationsa single equation for temperature effects, not even differential equations.

Still, if they managed to find a single equation with four variables to explain global warming, then maybe they need to publish this in Science and Nature, as this would be world-shaking if verified.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 05:46 PM   #45
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,100
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Only against one very specific criticism that I saw as flawed. I'm not defending it in general.
Of course not, because defending the obviously indefensible is a losing battle. But you can certainly nitpick one very specific point. Do that a few times and it might seem like you are winning!

Quote:
The closest thing I can find regarding your "humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2" is the statement from the conclusion that "the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%". Whether or not that claim is correct, that's still about a factor of 100 difference in what the paper claims and what you say it claims.
Between 1740 and 2018 atmospheric CO2 went up from 280ppm to 405ppm, an increase of 125ppm (45%!). If less than 10% of that increase is anthropogenic then less than 12.5ppm or 3.1% of current atmospheric CO2 was contributed by humans. Therefore it is at most a factor of 31 difference.

But what if 'humans contribute' (ie. present tense) means the amount of CO2 we are continuing to add to the atmosphere, rather than the total contributed over all time? The current average yearly CO2 growth rate is ~2ppm. 10% of that is 0.2ppm, or 0.049% of 405ppm. If that is what was meant then it is only a factor of 2 difference (on the high side!) - a far cry from your claim of 100.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 06:49 PM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Of course not, because defending the obviously indefensible is a losing battle. But you can certainly nitpick one very specific point. Do that a few times and it might seem like you are winning!
You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to defend the paper, despite me explicitly saying I'm not. The paper is indeed quite weak. As jimbob correctly pointed out, their temperature equation is basically unjustified curve fitting which, given the complexity of climate, almost certainly doesn't contain enough information.

If I point out the weakness in a particular argument for one side of a debate, that doesn't actually mean I've taken the opposite side in that debate. That isn't how logic works. But people aren't really logical. They think if I'm taking the other side, I'm against them personally. So they get upset when I point out a weakness, even though logically the sensible thing to do would be to either correct the flaws in that argument or shift to stronger arguments for that side. It's not exactly hard, certainly not in this case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 07:25 PM   #47
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,558
it is not a real journal
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 09:46 AM   #48
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,904
“I’m not saying the earth is flat, I’m just saying…”
“I’m not saying the WTC was taken down by a bomb, I’m just saying…”
“I’m not saying the moon landing was a hoax, I’m just saying…”
Etc, etc etc.

Claiming to not be taking a position and therefor do not need evidence is standard practice for the pseudo-science brigade.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If I point out the weakness in a particular argument for one side of a debate, that doesn't actually mean I've taken the opposite side in that debate.
You give your game away when that supposed “weakness” is discussing something with actual science behind it instead of diving down the pseudo-science rabbit hole.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

Last edited by lomiller; 26th July 2019 at 09:50 AM.
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 09:55 AM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Claiming to not be taking a position and therefor do not need evidence is standard practice for the pseudo-science brigade.
Oh please. This is one of the least credible accusations against me you could even try.

Quote:
You give your game away when that supposed “weakness” is discussing something with actual science behind it instead of diving down the pseudo-science rabbit hole.
Given that I've explicitly endorsed other criticisms of the paper, I don't think you've got even the slightest idea what "game" I'm playing. You just get your panties in a twist any time someone doesn't take your side on something, no matter how minor.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 09:58 AM   #50
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Oh please. This is one of the least credible accusations against me you could even try.



Given that I've explicitly endorsed other criticisms of the paper, I don't think you've got even the slightest idea what "game" I'm playing. You just get your panties in a twist any time someone doesn't take your side on something, no matter how minor.

I'll say it's a rubbish paper with nothing credible to it, but the typeface looks nice.

Any more substantive defence of the paper is pretty pointless.

Or do you think it has merit, and if so how?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 10:00 AM   #51
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Oh please. This is one of the least credible accusations against me you could even try.

Refusing to provide evidence for the position you are backing describes nearly all your participation on these forums at this point.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 10:39 AM   #52
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Refusing to provide evidence for the position you are backing describes nearly all your participation on these forums at this point.
What position do you imagine that I'm backing? I say "imagine" because that's clearly all you're doing here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 10:51 AM   #53
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What position do you imagine that I'm backing? I say "imagine" because that's clearly all you're doing here.
That's really the point.

I have no idea what your position is, except for attacking lomiller.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 10:53 AM   #54
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,519
The paper made claim P.
lomiller attacked claim Q.
Zig pointed out that Q is not P.

For crying out loud...
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:05 AM   #55
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
That's really the point.

I have no idea what your position is, except for attacking lomiller.
If you want to find out, there's a really easy way to do that. lomiller never did.

I think the paper is not a good paper, and doesn't really support its central claim. If you want something more specific than that, you'll have to ask a more specific question.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 26th July 2019 at 11:07 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:39 AM   #56
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you want to find out, there's a really easy way to do that. lomiller never did.

I think the paper is not a good paper, and doesn't really support its central claim. If you want something more specific than that, you'll have to ask a more specific question.
"Doesn't really support its central claim". That's a very mild criticism of what is presumably a deliberately provocative paper.

As far as I can see, the authors don't show where they obtained their values for cloud cover.

They present a stupidly simple equation that they suggest accounts for how cloud cover affects temperature - it has four terms and is a simple linear relationship.

Even if you accepted that, they don't explain what affects the cloud cover - this seems to be treated as an independent variable, rather than something that is affected by the very temperature that they are trying to model.

Their concluding paragraph has a logical statement that is based on a false assumption - namely that humans are only responsible for 10% of the increased CO2.

Their paper has no merit that I can see.

Do you think their paper has any merit, and if so where?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:43 AM   #57
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The paper made claim P.
lomiller attacked claim Q.
No. I gave some of the basic science relating to the claim, which is necessarily different than the pseudoscience in the paper. Zig proceeded to complain that I followed the science instead of going into the pseudo-scientific rabbit hole the paper was creating.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:43 AM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
"Doesn't really support its central claim". That's a very mild criticism of what is presumably a deliberately provocative paper.
I've only skimmed it. It doesn't seem worth any more of an investment of my time, so my criticism isn't going to be exhaustive.

Quote:
Do you think their paper has any merit
Not really.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:47 AM   #59
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Good, I'm now wondering why your criticism of lomiller for following the paper's assertions to their implications is not redundant.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:51 AM   #60
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
No. I gave some of the basic science relating to the claim
You spoke about absolute humidity. But their claim was about relative humidity. Do you not understand the difference? Given that you didn't even mention "absolute" or "relative" in that initial reply, let alone note which one they were using and which one you were using, I'm not sure you did.

The problem was never that what you said about absolute humidity was wrong.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:56 AM   #61
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Good, I'm now wondering why your criticism of lomiller for following the paper's assertions to their implications is not redundant.
Do you understand what the difference is between absolute humidity and relative humidity?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:56 AM   #62
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
"Doesn't really support its central claim". That's a very mild criticism of what is presumably a deliberately provocative paper.

As far as I can see, the authors don't show where they obtained their values for cloud cover.

They present a stupidly simple equation that they suggest accounts for how cloud cover affects temperature - it has four terms and is a simple linear relationship.

Even if you accepted that, they don't explain what affects the cloud cover - this seems to be treated as an independent variable, rather than something that is affected by the very temperature that they are trying to model.

Their concluding paragraph has a logical statement that is based on a false assumption - namely that humans are only responsible for 10% of the increased CO2.

Their paper has no merit that I can see.

Do you think their paper has any merit, and if so where?
In fact it's so bad, I'm starting to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate junk science.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 12:13 PM   #63
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post

They present a stupidly simple equation that they suggest accounts for how cloud cover affects temperature - it has four terms and is a simple linear relationship.

Even if you accepted that, they don't explain what affects the cloud cover - this seems to be treated as an independent variable, rather than something that is affected by the very temperature that they are trying to model.

Their concluding paragraph has a logical statement that is based on a false assumption - namely that humans are only responsible for 10% of the increased CO2.

Their paper has no merit that I can see.
As I pointed out on page 1, they are doing something even worse

The way the calculate “natural temperature change” IOW the supposed non-anthropogenic portion of global warming is:
[(average change in T) / (average change in cloud cover)] * (change in cloud cover)
Which they then compare to the temperature data.

And conclude that the result is a good fit with the observed change in temperature. Of course it is, all they did was take temperature, and multiply and divide it by the same number. Yeah one was averaged first the other was the individual values but the average of the resulting temperate still isn’t going to be any different than the original temperature data no matter how you look at it.

This appears to be entire basis for their claim that humans are not causing the observed warming.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 12:20 PM   #64
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You spoke about absolute humidity. But their claim was about relative humidity.
Water vapor feedback plays an important role in climate sensitive and depends on absolute humidly. If you are going to discuss the actual science relating to climate sensitive you are going to be talking about absolute humidity.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 12:51 PM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Water vapor feedback plays an important role in climate sensitive and depends on absolute humidly. If you are going to discuss the actual science relating to climate sensitive you are going to be talking about absolute humidity.
You are now arguing that absolute humidity matters and relative humidity does not. But that isn't what you said before. Before, you simply stated that absolute humidity is driven by temperature changes. Which may be true, but what you said still didn't speak to relative humidity, which was their claim. And again, since apparently you will misunderstand if I don't make this clear, that remains the case regardless of the truth of their claim, which is why pointing it out isn't really a defense of their claim.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 01:44 PM   #66
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
As I pointed out on page 1, they are doing something even worse

The way the calculate “natural temperature change” IOW the supposed non-anthropogenic portion of global warming is:
[(average change in T) / (average change in cloud cover)] * (change in cloud cover)
Which they then compare to the temperature data.

And conclude that the result is a good fit with the observed change in temperature. Of course it is, all they did was take temperature, and multiply and divide it by the same number. Yeah one was averaged first the other was the individual values but the average of the resulting temperate still isn’t going to be any different than the original temperature data no matter how you look at it.

This appears to be entire basis for their claim that humans are not causing the observed warming.
Yes, I kept reading that and disbelieveing what I was actually seeing - which is why I wrote this:
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
In fact it's so bad, I'm starting to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate junk science.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 08:16 PM   #67
Warmer1
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 450
"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice."

Can't believe I missed that zinger!

Last edited by Warmer1; 26th July 2019 at 08:18 PM.
Warmer1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 12:51 AM   #68
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by Warmer1 View Post
"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice."

Can't believe I missed that zinger!
That's where I started, so didn't initially bother with the rest.

The more I read the paper, the more I think it has to be something like an attempted Sokal. It would be hard to cram in so many howlers in a short space, inadvertently.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 02:20 PM   #69
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,519
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
That's where I started, so didn't initially bother with the rest.

The more I read the paper, the more I think it has to be something like an attempted Sokal. It would be hard to cram in so many howlers in a short space, inadvertently.
Or they were paid for it. Climate change denial is a profitable idea.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 08:31 PM   #70
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,100
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to defend the paper,
No, I know you aren't defending it - because it's indefensible.

Quote:
If I point out the weakness in a particular argument for one side of a debate,
But that's not what you are doing, you're nitpicking. And when the weaknesses in your own arguments are exposed (eg. claiming an inflated 'factor of 100 difference') you brush it aside. Some people may have misread something or been sloppy in their wording, but the correct response is not to jump down their throats. If people are getting emotional it's due to the way you engaged them.

Quote:
that doesn't actually mean I've taken the opposite side in that debate.
No, of course not. You're just 'correcting their mistakes'. But that's all you have been doing. The OP asked if anyone could 'take apart this study, piece by piece?', but rather than contribute to that effort your response was to 'take apart' any criticism of it by nitpicking.

This is classic a tactic used by debaters looking to score points against the other 'side' without having to reveal their own (perhaps because their side is indefensible, or they want to 'win' the debate, or they just enjoy trolling). Either way the fact that you decided to enter the debate this way shows that your goal is not honest discussion.

Quote:
logically the sensible thing to do would be to either correct the flaws in that argument or shift to stronger arguments for that side.
If you are on the same 'side' then logically the correct thing to do would be for you to provide any stronger arguments you can think of. But you did not do that. First you asserted that there was 'no evidence' for the OP's impressions of the report. Then you implied that the other 'side' may be correct because relative humidity is not the same as humidity. At this point all you have done is weaken the case for AGW. And yet, though you claim to not be on the other 'side', you presented no arguments against it.

Quote:
I've only skimmed it. It doesn't seem worth any more of an investment of my time, so my criticism isn't going to be exhaustive.
So you're just here to nitpick?

Quote:
The paper is indeed quite weak. As jimbob correctly pointed out, their temperature equation is basically unjustified curve fitting which, given the complexity of climate, almost certainly doesn't contain enough information.
And can't even be bothered providing your own analysis? No, your criticism isn't exhaustive - it's nonexistent.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.