Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote:

I don't. Here is my question again:

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was
occurring at that time."

No mention of day, year, or any other time period.


so can we ignore your question
For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?
?

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote:

I don't. Here is my question again:

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was
occurring at that time."

No mention of day, year, or any other time period.


so can we ignore your question
For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?
?

We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850.

So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a
temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at any
particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming was
occurring in 1961.

As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked
example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have
requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in
myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at any
time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year 1961
and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example.

Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1
time:

All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given
a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring
at any particular time within that temperature record."

Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide
definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration, chromosome,
light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of science (or,
more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of crank scientific
theories).

If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the statement
"major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or not. At the
moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global warming", the
statement in the subject of this post is meaningless.

So, how about it?

Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance some
more?

"Peter Webb" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message ...
On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote:

I don't. Here is my question again:

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was
occurring at that time."

No mention of day, year, or any other time period.


so can we ignore your question
For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?
?

We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850.

So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a
temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at
any particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming
was occurring in 1961.

As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked
example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have
requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in
myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at
any time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year
1961 and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example.

Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1 time:

All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was
occurring at any particular time within that temperature record."

Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide
definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration,
chromosome, light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of
science (or, more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of
crank scientific theories).

If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the
statement "major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or
not. At the moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global
warming", the statement in the subject of this post is meaningless.

So, how about it?

Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance some more?

You are comparing oranges to apples.
You can define pH and you can also define temperature.
How would you define the change in pH in the oceans.
You would look at the change in pH over time in a large number of sites
around the world.
You could then look at the pH measurements over any period to determine
whether acidification was raking place.
That's exactly what is being done with global temperature.
You define a period and then you can decide whether global warming or ocean
acidification took place.
But don't obscure things by asking silly questions like "Was global warming
occurring in 1961? The time scale is too short.

"Mike Collins" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote:

I don't. Here is my question again:

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming"
was
occurring at that time."

No mention of day, year, or any other time period.


so can we ignore your question
For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?
?

We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850.

So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a
temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at
any particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming
was occurring in 1961.

As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked
example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have
requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in
myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at
any time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year
1961 and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example.

Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1
time:

All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was
occurring at any particular time within that temperature record."

Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide
definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration,
chromosome, light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of
science (or, more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of
crank scientific theories).

If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the
statement "major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or
not. At the moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global
warming", the statement in the subject of this post is meaningless.

So, how about it?

Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance
some more?

You are comparing oranges to apples.
You can define pH and you can also define temperature.
How would you define the change in pH in the oceans.
You would look at the change in pH over time in a large number of sites
around the world.
You could then look at the pH measurements over any period to determine
whether acidification was raking place.
That's exactly what is being done with global temperature.
You define a period and then you can decide whether global warming or
ocean
acidification took place.

How?


But don't obscure things by asking silly questions like "Was global
warming
occurring in 1961? The time scale is too short.

So you can't actually say whether Global Warming is occurring at any
particular time, even with a full knowledge of the temperature records?

Specifically, you can't state whether global warming is occurring now, or in
1998, or in 1860, or at any time at all?

That's a bit strange, as I have heard people claim that Global Warming is
occurring now. I guess you believe them to be wrong?

But anyway, you have told me that you cannot provide a definition of Global
Warming that states whether Global Warming is actually occurring at any
time, and you cannot name a time when it was occurring.

But that still leaves us without a definition of "Global Warming". You have
told us what it doesn't mean, but not what it does mean.

Maybe you forgot.

Could you provide a definition of "global warming"? I still have no idea
what the statement "Major analysis confirms global warming is real" is
actually supposed to mean in terms of global temperatures.

Thanks in advance


Peter Webb

In
-sep
tember.org Mike Collins wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

"Four scientific papers setting out these conclusions have been
submitted for peer review and will form part of the literature for the
next IPCC report on Climate Change. "

Hasn't it, until now, been considered seriously bad form to make public
releases of such papers before they've even been submitted for review?

--
St. Paul, MN

On 29 Oct 2011 15:23:25 GMT, Bert wrote:

Hasn't it, until now, been considered seriously bad form to make public
releases of such papers before they've even been submitted for review?

Not at all. Quite the contrary, the release of preprints is completely
normal and routine in the scientific community, and has been for many
years. It is the standard way that results are passed around inside
any particular research community. Many, if not most papers are issued
as online preprints through services such as arXiv.org.

What is different recently is the popular press picking up on
preprints and presenting them as something other than what they are-
draft results not yet subjected to peer review. This would not be a
problem except for the fact that neither the popular press nor the
general public is well enough educated about science to understand
what this means.

In Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On 29 Oct 2011 15:23:25 GMT, Bert wrote:

Hasn't it, until now, been considered seriously bad form to make
public releases of such papers before they've even been submitted for
review?

Not at all. Quite the contrary, the release of preprints is completely
normal and routine in the scientific community, and has been for many
years. It is the standard way that results are passed around inside
any particular research community. Many, if not most papers are issued
as online preprints through services such as arXiv.org.

However, the cited artcle and others read as if these "preprints" were
actually news releases sent directly to the media.


What is different recently is the popular press picking up on
preprints and presenting them as something other than what they are-
draft results not yet subjected to peer review. This would not be a
problem except for the fact that neither the popular press nor the
general public is well enough educated about science to understand
what this means.

Again, the cited article includes several direct quotes from the papers
authors and others involved, so it's hardly a matter of the "popular
press picking up on preprints."

The comments not only state the conclusions of the studies, but what
effect on the world situation these startling revelations will have.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Oct 29, 5:36*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

This would not be a
problem except for the fact that neither the popular press nor the
general public is well enough educated about science to understand
what this means.

If they wider population understood what the Royal Society cult stood
for, the issue would go to Den Haag.

To get people to believe that one day with all its effects of day
turning to night and temperature fluctuations is not due to the 24
hour/360 degree rotation of the Earth is a type of tyranny that comes
under human rights as it challenges known human achievements at a
level that is crucial and fundamental for a healthy society and the Ra/
Dec generated 1465 rotations in 1461 days is not it.Is the issue not
stated clearly enough for genuine men of stature instead of the
weak ?,even if they previously sought to obscure the genuine
rotational markers of AM/PM for Ra,the wider population is not going
to know what this means but readers here do whether they run and hide
from the issue or not.

I noted that great achievements have humble beginnings,often starting
up in basements until their true worth becomes accepted, empiricism
tries to steal the achievement and bury the innovator in the basement.

On 29 Oct 2011 17:04:46 GMT, Bert wrote:

Again, the cited article includes several direct quotes from the papers
authors and others involved, so it's hardly a matter of the "popular
press picking up on preprints."

The comments not only state the conclusions of the studies, but what
effect on the world situation these startling revelations will have.

The article cited is from the popular press (Science Daily). The story
properly describes the work as being in advance of peer review, and
accurately describes the results reported. I fail to see anything
problematic in this reporting at all. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

How science gets reported in the popular press (especially the
non-scientific press, like major newspapers and websites) varies with
the results being reported. This climate study produced completely
unsurprising results- it simply supported the existing mainstream
viewpoint. As such, it's really no big deal if the authors want to
discuss it in advance of publication. What was newsworthy wasn't the
results, but the fact that a noted denier changed his mind on the
subject There have been several cases recently where research groups
issued general press releases well in advance of publication, and the
reported results- if true- would fundamentally change the way we think
about some things. For instance, the NASA conference about
arsenic-based DNA, or fossils in meteorites, or the CERN conference
about superluminal neutrinos. In these cases, the results were very
speculative (and likely to be found wrong), and IMO the scientists
involved should not have been so public about their work until further
in the formal review process. But that still isn't a matter of
scientific ethics, just of common sense and good judgment.

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for
all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and
every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind,
shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these
rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and
among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

There may be presently no authority to sort out issues which are
affecting the ability of individuals,communities and nations to deal
with a tyranny of speculative fear hence the UN is betraying its own
principles.The fundamental right to educate students that the Earth
turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days is so enshrined as a
principle and that it is challenged by the same community which uses
the UN as a vehicle for global fearmongering is unconscionable.

The weak are driving the arguments for no good reason other than the
'scientific method' is challenged and no amount of arguments can be
brought in front of these people to alter their views as they don't
have views as people understand these things,they have set goals and
all facts are incidental.

This is not a complaint as much as it is a warning,nothing is stronger
than genuine integrity come what may.