Admiral_Bobski
-
Posts
1,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski
-
-
Just a quick final note before I go on my sabbatical
Firstly, thank you to all who have made kind comments on my post. At this precise moment in time I do intend to come back at some point, but I don't know when that may be - we'll have to see how things pan out at my end. I shall keep an eye on the boards in the meantime, to keep myself relatively up to date on the state of the argument.
Before I go I would like to quickly apologise to sunny starry skies if my post seemed like an attack on him (or her - sorry for being gender-non-specific!). I replied to the quote in that post because it made me realise why I haven't been posting on these boards recently, and I would like to stress that I have no gripe with sunny starry skies.
Anyway, I shall call it a day for now and I hope to return in the not-too-distant future.
One final thought for people to mull over while I'm away...can anyone disprove the Leaky Integrator...?
All the best to everyone for 2010!
CB (Rob)
-
Anyone care to try and pass a piece of sound research (and not one that can and has been successfully debunked, and certainly not any political diatribes) past critical eyes on here?
VP and I have been trying to do just that with our own studies...and the response we have got is largely the cause of my absence from these boards. I mean, honestly, what's the point?
I am fed up with making counter-arguments, pointing out logical absurdities and trying to discuss science without any of the associated political, moral or emotional rubbish that seems to always come up in these debates, only to find that those I argue against drone on with the same old stuff as though nothing has been discussed.
I'm sick of putting the time and effort into reading up on the latest (and in some cases the oldest) research, putting forward legitimate questions and counter-arguments only to have them shot down with comments along the lines of "oh, so you're calling the experts idiots, are you?" or "well, I think I'll trust the scientists rather than some poster on some forum or blog somewhere."
I do not see the point in continuing a debate which never evolves, never takes on board the outcome of previous discussions. I don't see the point of putting the effort into making good, solid arguments only to have them misrepresented...and that's assuming anyone even bothers to read them properly. And I have lost count of the number of posts I have put up over the years which have been completely ignored by all and sundry.
I made a New Year's resolution this year to finally grab the bull by the horns and get on with my life - sort out my financial troubles once and for all, get back to writing stories - and unfortunately that also means leaving the Netweather boards behind.
Happy 2010.
CB
-
The Greenland ice cap must have melted entirely while we weren't looking, CB.
-
Snowing in North West London and very windy!
It's been a while since I was last in North West London, but does your picture show what it looks like these days?
CB
-
...if the modes of natural variability have moved towards more neutral phases than they were in the 1990s, then why haven't we cooled as a result? There must be a background warming trend coming from somewhere else to offset them.
Why would the movement of natural forcings towards neutral phases cause cooling? Surely we would need [i[negative phases to cause cooling. Would neutrality not simply lead to more neutral temperature trends (temperature stasis, if you like)? If so then is this not what we have seen over the last few decade or so?
CB
PS - I agree with you wholeheartedly on the theft issue. I've actually been making that exact same argument ever since Napster got into trouble all those years ago and the issue of copyright "theft" (or, more correctly, copyright infringement) became a pub talking point!
-
Here's my family's 4-foot snowman - we'd have made him bigger, but we got distracted by the Mother of All Snowball Fights!
-
TWS, I'm thinking about the stealing of the CRU emails which the auther doesn't condemn? Or, do I misunderstand you and you don't think that was theft? In which case I'm sorry but I think it was. If someone took my private correspondences and plastered them across the interent without my permission I'd certainly call it theft.
I'm sorry but anecdote does not make good data.
So should we prefix every single comment on the CRU emails with a condemnation of the hack? Why?
I think you're missing the point of what actually constitutes "theft", a definition which TWS was attempting (very well, I thought) to clarify. The definition of theft is an entirely separate discussion (perhaps one more suited to the Grammarians' Corner thread?!). Discussion of the content of the the leaked emails is not related to the source of the leak - the emails were copied and distributed, thousands of people then read them: those who read and discuss those emails are not guilty of theft, so why the constant griping about the origin of their availability?
CB
-
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
HO HO HO!!!!
-
We very rarely bat from the same wicket C-Bob but I'd like to echo your sentiments from this household too!
Bugger the future, this is now ,this is real,let's have a ball!!!
That translates as Happy Chrimbo and a slendiferous New Year!!!!
May all our issues be cyberspaced!!!!
CB
-
I've not been around for a few days now for a variety of reasons, not least among them being the mad hellishness that is the Pre-Christmas Preparations! Just thought I'd let everyone know that I'm gearing up for some good old debating come the New Year (if anyone really cares, that is!).
In the meantime, as I don't know when I may get the chance again, I thought I'd wish everyone on these boards the very Merriest Christmas and a happy, joyful and - above all - peaceful New Year.
All the best, folks!
CB
-
I only got about a centimetre, if that
I can dream of a pasting later on today, but somehow I don't think it's going to happen.
-
It would be interesting if they found a tribe of wild tuna living in the rainforest, don't you think...?
-
Maybe what we all need is our own Netweather Lounge-like banter thread where we can all chat about aimless nonsense (non-climate-related) and get to know each other a little bit. Some of us have been arguing with each other for years and still don't know other people on her (and when I say "know" I don't mean biblically
).Frankly I think we're kind of in limbo here - we don't know what temperatures are going to do at the moment. If they keep going up and up and up it might go some way towards favouring AGW (though that could also favour the LI, depending on how long temps keep going up!).
If temps fall precipitously then it would means omething else.
If sea ice grows back it would mean one thing, if sea ice disappears it could mean another - though the loss of arctic sea ice would only prove warming, not necessarily man-made warming.
Basically it's all very complicated, and with a distinct lack of new and exciting science coming out at the moment I don't think we have a great deal to talk about.
Perhaps that's why the conversation is so much like an endless re-run of one day's play at Wimbledon at the moment.
So does anyone want to start a new thread to talk about other stuff (and would that be okay with the lovely mods?).
CB
EDIT - in defense of this idea, os, Pete and I (along with several others) have been chatting in the "Grammarians' Corner" thread in the Lounge and we've been having a really good time (I think - I have, at any rate!). And, after all, 'tis the season to be jolly...
-
What, because I've said it twice? I think it's you calling me tbh
. Anyway, if all I achieve is making people stop for a second before they cry 'Na*i' I think I might have achieved something constructive. I can think of nothing about the debates we engage in merits such a description.Twice this week, perhaps...
:lol:
CB
-
You're very kind, but not entirely accurate, G-W. I am very seldom concise when posting about anything that matters to me, and I have in the past here not always been at all polite.
<snip>
But you're almost always grammatically accurate, os - and that counts for a lot with sad, pedantic people like myself!
:lol:
CB
-
You can't just cry "Godwin!" every time someone makes an allusion to the Nazis, Dev. Sometimes a Nazi parallel is actually valid.
(I'm not saying that this is necessarily such a case, but you're fast turning into "The Boy Who Cried Godwin".)
CB
-
I hope they decide to cull all the evil polar bears, and control all those pesky rapacious penguins. All that farting can't be doing the climate any good at all.
Surely they'd want to keep the polar bears for photo opps?
:lol:
-
Must have missed that C-Bob
there was I thinking that it was more than Harvard and the Smithsonian that thought evaporation and incoming solar did the 'iris' thing to balance out the minuscule variance on solar output....how foolish I have been. Tell me again about this variable delay in impact and how it squares with the 'instant' impacts (was it just a L.I. idea or was it real?).Just a casual observer C-Bob, remember I care for a tri-somi 10P+ impacted child so be gentle on me? Remember words are oh so easy ,it is our actions that define us as men.
And I have spent literally years of my life working with and for the disabled - from people with dyslexia and RSI all the way up to cerebral palsy and motor neurone disease.
If words are so easy then why do so many people have such a hard time using them correctly?
-
I hear eugenics is quite big in India (poor girlies) and we abort evert more 'defective' children in the developed world (kleft palet?....no way, in with the food blender....).
We may squirm at the subject but it appears to be all around us so I struggle to follow your thrust V.P.?
So you're a fan of eugenics then, are you?
Of course, if we're to dissociate ourselves from political and moral arguments then perhaps it should also be pointed out that eugenics was bad science, through and through.
The idea was that you could eradicate stupid people by sterilising the current stupid population (or that was a part of it, at least). This is nonsense, as we all know. Extremely smart people can still breed extremely dull children...
-
Well Svensmark didn't seem to have the heart to join the debate in Denmark now did he (at least his pacemaker works.....unlike his theories.....).
Ah - and Svensmark's solar hypothesis is the be-all and end-all of solar hypotheses, of course. How foolish of me.
And as for good ol' Svante...
Well Svensmark didn't seem to have the heart to join the debate in Denmark now did he (at least his pacemaker works.....unlike his theories.....).
and back in April;
Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".
since then of course we've had a run of very hot global months..........does that mean thinking doesn't need to change???
Ah - the old "Instant Cooling" idea. I thought we'd been through all this...?
-
Indeed! It would seem a bunch of them had been over confident in their remote sensing techniques until an associate saw (first hand) that their interpretations were awry.
It would now seem that a bit of rapid updating to the length of time we have polar summer ice had to be done.
Strange (to me) ,in 07' we first heard of this doom laden prediction but then,swayed by the growth in scepticism and the two years of alleged Arctic 'recovery' pushed the figure back to 2030 at the earliest.
Now the pendulum, with the help of the evidence culled this Sept, has swung back to the "gone in 5 to 7 years" side of things.
At least it shows science can listen and when errors are discovered is the flexible enough to accommodate the new data.
Well then, I guess we'll see if 5-7 years if they're right. Whether the ice melts entirely or not is one thing. Whether the warming that causes the ice to melt is man-made or not is an entirely different thing.
CB
-
Incapable of even remembering the drive of a conversation with 'scientists ' (that's folk who do science) the night before.....poor lad eh? glad we none of us resort to ad homs......
Oh! That's what scientists are! How silly I've been! So scientists also listen to alternative hypotheses and assess them on their merits, I suppose? Hmmm....
-
Well, thank goodness it was Gore who said it, and not some politician or layman catastrophist...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411898.stm
Climate negotiations suspended...
).
. Anyway, if all I achieve is making people stop for a second before they cry 'Na*i' I think I might have achieved something constructive. I can think of nothing about the debates we engage in merits such a description.
there was I thinking that it was more than Harvard and the Smithsonian that thought evaporation and incoming solar did the 'iris' thing to balance out the minuscule variance on solar output....how foolish I have been. Tell me again about this variable delay in impact and how it squares with the 'instant' impacts (was it just a L.I. idea or was it real?).
Leaky Integrator Discussion
in Climate Change
Posted
A while ago I did post up a description of a basic physical process, at an atomic/sub-atomic level, that would explain it. I think it's back in this thread somewhere.
And remember - absence of proof is not proof of absence!
CB