Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 226 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Topic Options
#17275 - 12/16/06 03:00 AM Shoreline Peril
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Previous estimates of how much the world's sea level will rise as a result of global warming may have seriously underestimated the problem, according to new research.

The study, published in Science, uses a new "semi-empirical" method instead of relying purely on computer modelling. While some modelling significantly underestimates the amount of sea-level rise that has already been seen over the last century, the new method matches the observed rise very closely, says Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, who conducted the new study.

The existing computer model deviates even more from the actual observations built into the new estimates included in a draft of the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be released in February 2007.

At the top of the range of possible temperature rises estimated by the last IPCC report, the rise could be as great as 140 centimetres by 2100. That would be bad new for cities like London and New York, which lie close to sea level, and would leave them facing an increased risk of devastating storm surges. Even the lowest predicted temperature rises would cause a 50 cm rise, Rahmstorf says.

The predictions in the previous IPCC report ? its third ? ranged from 9 cm to 88 cm by 2100, and the initial draft of the next report was to cut those figures in half. But Rahmstorf, who is a lead author of the paleoclimate section of the upcoming report, says he hopes his new results will be incorporated before IPCC 4 is officially released in February 2007.

The full story is at:
http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...an-thought.html
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
.
#17330 - 12/19/06 12:27 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
The predictions in the previous IPCC report ? its third ? ranged from 9 cm to 88 cm by 2100


wow that's a big range. In other words, they have no idea. I wish I could make predictions that big. In fact I will. I predict that the temperature on Dec 19 in the year 2050 will be between 15 degrees and 38 degrees. Let's see if I'm right.

Top
#17338 - 12/19/06 02:34 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: JonathanLowe]
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Originally Posted By: JonathanLowe
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
The predictions in the previous IPCC report ? its third ? ranged from 9 cm to 88 cm by 2100


wow that's a big range. In other words, they have no idea. I wish I could make predictions that big. In fact I will. I predict that the temperature on Dec 19 in the year 2050 will be between 15 degrees and 38 degrees. Let's see if I'm right.


Nonsensical comment. You know very well that the prediction depends on the CO_2 emissions. It's like predicting the number of people that will be killed if nuclear war breaks out. Such a prediction could be like the expected number of death is in the range 10 million to 1 billion.

It's not like "they have no idea" at all.

Top
#17348 - 12/19/06 05:56 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: Count Iblis II]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Lowe is a troll plain and simple. He has no PhD. He has no credentials in climatology. He has no expertise in statistical analysis. And he has no references that back up his statements.

What he posts might as well be about an invisible purple rhinoceros.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17360 - 12/20/06 02:30 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
"He has no expertise in statistical analysis."

Sorry? You must have forgotten the previous thread. Please take this back and stop spreading lies.

Top
#17366 - 12/20/06 04:54 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I'll take it back when you address the issues raised by Count Iblis. And by address them I mean deal with them as would a professional degreed statistician ... not just someone whose learned to bluff at the card table.

"No expertise" doesn't mean you don't have a degree (though I have my doubts). No expertise means a lack of demonstrated expertise in the field.

And if you find that judgement harsh ... consider that it was what you have posted that has led to it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17376 - 12/20/06 06:12 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
wow Morgan is showing a new side, even the thought of admitting he was wrong. Despite the fact you questioned the validity, the university and the degree, and I proved it with a scan of my results, but hey. I guess if you don't believe a scan of the results, you're not going to believe anything are you?

but I won't reply with my comment to Count here as I did so in a previous thread. See here: http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...=1&fpart=10

Top
#17377 - 12/20/06 01:47 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: JonathanLowe]
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Originally Posted By: JonathanLowe
wow Morgan is showing a new side, even the thought of admitting he was wrong. Despite the fact you questioned the validity, the university and the degree, and I proved it with a scan of my results, but hey. I guess if you don't believe a scan of the results, you're not going to believe anything are you?

but I won't reply with my comment to Count here as I did so in a previous thread. See here: http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...=1&fpart=10


So, what is the P value for agreement with the observed average global trend of 0.6 ?C per century? Is that so low that one should reject the hypothesis that Australia is warming as fast as the rest of the world?

Top
#17383 - 12/20/06 04:00 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: Count Iblis II]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Originally Posted By: Count Iblis II
So, what is the P value for agreement with the observed average global trend of 0.6 ?C per century? Is that so low that one should reject the hypothesis that Australia is warming as fast as the rest of the world?


well the problem with 0.6 degrees per century as Rics pointed out in the earliest post in this section, and I ave clarified, is that working out whether temperatures have increased or decreased based on maximum or minimum temperatures, I believe, is not a great way of working at it. Better still is working out the same thing but at certain constant times, eg. midnight, 6am, 9pm etc. this obviously can be done, and I would gather that if australia was going to go with the trend of the rest of the world (in particular studies of the northern hemisphere) we would see an increase of 0.6 degree at all times. But keeping in mind that the temperature analysis of all places in the world, I believe, is not very statistically sound, mainly because it deals in minimum and maximum temperatures only.

I will look at the same analysis with certain times, but that is also based on the assumption that the world has increased by 0.6 degrees per century at each time of the day, something of which has not been proven, let alone tested.

Top
#17390 - 12/20/06 06:24 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe wrote:
" working out whether temperatures have increased or decreased based on maximum or minimum temperatures, I believe, is not a great way of working at it."

Now being a degreed statistician you know it wholly unacceptable, especially in a field where you have no expertise, to write "I believe."

Lets try it now like someone who earned a Masters degree in something more technical than basket weaving. On what basis do you believe this? Who else in the field of climatology agrees with your belief system? Where was this published?

If you've got the degree ... act like it.

And while you are at it why don't complete the following three names and help us understand the difference between them.

DARLING
SMIRNOV
WILKS
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17401 - 12/21/06 01:31 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
statistics on maximum and minimum are unacceptable for a number of different reasons. Firstly because the variable time is allowed to vary. There are some instances where a maximum and minimum occur within hours of each other, and hence not a very good representation of the average. The maximum temperature has a lot larger variation than the minimum (generally), and hence a simple of addition of the two is play school stuff, not statistical analysis.

And Morgan, once again, you are pretending as if my nature of my degree is up in the air. This when I personally scanned my results to you. Please stop the BS.

And the names you listed? Please. What you testing me now? I really shouldn't even bother playing your little games. I find it actually quite offensive, but if you must then this is it and all I will say on the matter, because I do not ever need to prove myself anymore than I have.

ANDERSON DARLING
KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV
WILKS SHAPIRO

I think it's obvious the difference, and I use the AD test quite often, but once again I have no need whatsoever to prove myself any more than I have.

Please Morgan, can we talk science here?

Top
#17413 - 12/21/06 09:50 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe asks:
"Please Morgan, can we talk science here?"

We can. I am always ready to do so. All I ask is that you act like the degreed professional you claim to be. That means don't just throw out numbers off the top of your head but find a reputable source link to substantiate them or clearly mark those things you can not substantiate as personal opinion.

I don't think asking you to provide links is an unfair burden. Especially when what you are posting conflicts with the opinions of the most reputable science labs on the planet.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#18128 - 02/12/07 01:58 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
factsvsfiction Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 11
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Da morgan, just because one doesn't belong to the club does not mean their position is any less valid. Can you stick to the subject and keep the cheap shots to yourself. It adds nothing to the debate to keep saying you are not one of us.
I would like to see you being ready to talk science all the time, and stop filling your post with trash talk. for instance "All I ask is that you act like the degreed professional you claim to be." Just put your positon without the parental mode ie the test above. It will make for a much healthier debate.
_________________________
Barry N Depledge

Top
#18187 - 02/17/07 05:10 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: factsvsfiction]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
fvf wrote:
"just because one doesn't belong to the club does not mean their position is any less valid."

In this case it does.

If you don't understand aerodynamics you've no business designing airplanes. When you don't understand climatology you've no business criticizing the work of those that do.

When you attorney makes a recommendation do you disagree with him on points of the law? When a surgeon recommends a specific procedure do you argue about which instruments to use? When you see a building on fire do you go up to the fire captain and tell him you've a better way to fight it?

Again ... this is a matter of science. And a professional gambler, no matter how self-confident, is not in a position to disagree with essentially every reputable university and government lab on the planet unless desirous of being labeled a crackpot.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#18197 - 02/17/07 07:54 AM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
factsvsfiction Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 11
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Ok DA Morgan. If someone is offering an alternative view (well documented) they would evaluate it on its merits. They would not cloud their judgement by trying to discredit the person. They would say thankyou and evaluate the date on its merits without prejudice. If they found the data to have flaws they would point them out in a straight forward manner. they would concentrate on the data and the issue not the person or their standing in society.
_________________________
Barry N Depledge

Top
#18203 - 02/17/07 05:40 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: factsvsfiction]
TwoSheds Offline
Member

Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 52
Loc: MA
facts,

You're knew to this forum so I think I should let you know that when debating an issue with DA you have to be willing to put up with his debate style. Which generally goes as follows:

Ad Hominem abusive
real argument
Ad Hominem abusive

So it can get frustrating if all you want to do is have an interesting argument. You tend to spend a lot of time defending yourself against personal attacks, as opposed to defending some idea you may have. It's unfortunate because he brings up interesting topics quite alot, but who wants to spend a few hours being called an idiot every other post?

Top
#18211 - 02/17/07 09:58 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: TwoSheds]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
fvf wrote:
"Ok DA Morgan. If someone is offering an alternative view (well documented) they would evaluate it on its merits."

Not at my university. Well documented translates into stuffing pages.

Here's what it requires for something to have merit:

1. A knowledge of prior and current state of the art.
2. A proposal that specifically indicates, point-by-point, the differences from prior and current state of the art.
3. Evidence of where the current state of the art does not accurately describe objective reality.
4. Supporting evidence to show how the new paradigm both explains the state of the art and extends it where the state of the art can not adequately map observations.

Arguing that one person's opinions is as valid as another's may be true when discussing rap music or your favorite color. The mass of a top quark is not open to discussion unless you work at CERN or SLAC.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#18652 - 03/06/07 12:26 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: DA Morgan]
factsvsfiction Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 11
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Ok MOrgan, if someone goes to you, hey that theory of yours has some limitations. Then someone gives a dataset to backup their assertion, you have a duty to listen. If the said someone shows the dataset from a reliable source then hey it has to be evaluated. Otherwise we shut the door to the dissenting voices. Fine if your running a religion, not so fine if you are posing as one with value.

quote Da Morgan "If you don't understand aerodynamics you've no business designing airplanes"

Well if someone produces a dataset that asserts you have the stress levels on the wings of the airplane incomplete you listen. remember the disater with the space shuttle when the data was ignored re the O ring seals in the booster tanks. the dissenting voice was drowned out by the overwhelming need to do something. So lets look at the whole picture and evaluate those with dissent voice(that offer a dataset based on tested information).

Top
#18662 - 03/06/07 10:59 PM Re: Shoreline Peril [Re: factsvsfiction]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
factsvsfiction wrote:
"Ok MOrgan, if someone goes to you, hey that theory of yours has some limitations. Then someone gives a dataset to backup their assertion, you have a duty to listen.

Decidedly not the case.

Datasets are meaningless without being connected with the validity of the dataset and without being connected to a method of analysis that is verifiable. And without all being subject to peer review.

Anything less is the equivalent to asking Paris Hilton to weigh in on the nuclear cross section of Niobium.

factsvsfiction wrote:
"Well if someone produces a dataset that asserts you have the stress levels on the wings of the airplane incomplete you listen."

Nonsense. You could produce such a dataset ... it would be of zero value. I could produce such a dataset ... it would be of zero value. If you believe what you wrote ... interpret this:

10 61.18222 -149.863
1028 32.7578 -117.0778
1028 32.6958 -117.1122
1028 32.755 -117.1133
1028 32.7011 -117.0672
1028 32.7636 -117.0186
10 61.13806 -149.883
1028 32.7475 -117.2447
1028 32.6339 -117.0822
16 29.4526 -95.039
10 61.11222 -149.8667
16 29.4095 -95.2566
1028 32.7028 -117.1428
10 61.195 -149.945
1028 32.7919 -117.0882
16 29.6999 -95.6135
146 33.1678 -97.1114
146 33.0539 -96.9897
5 32.93583 -96.7203
5 32.89444 -96.7192
146 32.8686 -96.9872
146 32.7256 -97.4703
146 32.905 -97.2561
146 32.8364 -97.1631
146 32.7097 -97.2931
146 32.8144 -96.9897
146 32.8231 -97.2378
146 32.735 -97.2272
146 32.6483 -97.3961
146 32.66778 -97.3536
146 32.715 -97.4158

Knock yourself out.

Then stop confusing values with value.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.