Global warming? Bollocks!!!...

[b.c.]

...
Science deniers are out to affect public policy by affecting public opinion. They are either doing this with an overt agenda, or they are unwittingly taking up the cause. Most of the anti-GW fodder comes from heavily funded lobbying and PR firms such as The Heartland Institute. ....

Hmmmm...name rings a bell... something about co-sponsoring a recent "billion strong" (last I've heard) march in Washington, I think??

The same "Heartland" group that actively opposes restrictions on smoking and said by some to be an active partner of the tobacco industry?

Whatever overt agenda (deregulation of business and industry?? weakening of enviornmental laws??) could they possibly have??

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

It's worth noting, however, that relatively few are.
(That of course doesn't mean that the 'believers' are all equally convinced, or that they don't remain intelligently open to new evidence.)

I just provided you with the link that proves you wrong. Read it before you post.

"I am not one of the skeptics," he says.

He also says there are hard questions that need to be asked or else people will begin to question him; the second part qualifies the first. Of course, you are going to deny the existence of any such questions, or that they need to be asked.

No serious person has ever said this.

I'm writing this off as obvious sarcasm.

The existence of NAO cycles do not refute the notion that climate change/global warming is happening.

In the part of my post that you chose not to respond to, I clearly point out that the existing climate models completely failed to predict what happened. Not what kinda happened, or should happened, but what actually did happen. This casts some pretty severe doubt on climate models that predict 'global warming.'

I'm going to let you figure out how ... but this quote completely contradicts your position.

It does? How so?

Orthodoxy is that global warming is upon us at all times. The only way to fix it is to listen to our politicians. Then, we get slapped in the face by nature. Nature proves to us that we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground and that all the banter over how dire the 'situation' of the environment is can be dismissed as not fully understanding the workings of the Earth. Just so you know, I've been waiting for mainstream scientists to stop denying that cooling was taking place. Those of us who objectively look at science realized the problems with global warming models from the beginning. Now we get to wait for the liberals to give up the social control, and the misleading propaganda that comes with that, which they derive from global warming; this will be the long wait.

If you condescend to JustAsking, the more astute members of this forum will begin to dismiss you right off the top, E_f_M.
He is broadly informed, serious, and cares about the truth, virtues worth emulating.
It helps, also, to be hooked on phonics.

Lets get this straight, Senior Hypocrite; you condescend to me in the EXACT SAME PARAGRAPH that you tell me not to condescend to someone else who condescended to me in the first place. You talk about being dismissed as lacking credibility yet don't see where you went wrong.

I'm going to be honest with you, I've yet to see many "astute" individuals on the other side in this forum. Pretty much the whole political left here is on par with VinylBOY. I guess they already dismissed me. Shame.

Please fix my grammar/spelling/punctuation I would love to see where I went wrong.

 

[Bbucko]

I'm writing this of as obvious sarcasm.

Please fix my grammar/spelling/punctuation I would love to see where I went wrong.

I would, sweetheart, but I don't even understand what you were trying to say here

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

No, in science no opinion is credible except that which comes out of the accumulated literature in the professional community.

You see, it doesn't matter what any individual scientist thinks about a particular scientific issue because even Nobel Prize winners can be not only be wrong, but sometimes complete crackpots on certain issues (e. g. Linus Pauling and vitamin C).

This too is a fallacy. I would argue that this was a Division fallacy. Latif is wrong because scientists can be wrong.

As for opinions from "Internet scientists", there are a number of things that signal immediately that someone's opinion is not credible. Appeal to Authority is one of them, which you have done here in order to support your personal claims about global warming. ("You're right, global warming is bogus." -EnoughForMe ) A dead giveaway is the conspicuous citing of the credentials of the authority that is being appealed to.

Let me get this straight: I quote a respectable scientist, working for a respectable institute, with published results of a study that found global warming climate models wrong, and what you are saying it that my argument is bunk because I cited credible sources. Of course my other option was to cite no source at all. I never said that what happened must be true because of the person who said it (which is what the fallacy you accuse me of actually entails). I said that a scientist has disproved "Orthodoxy." Now, as Latif says in the part of the article you are choosing to ignore, there are some serious questions.

One of the next signals for non-credibility is that the Appeal to Authority is often done by cherry picking certain statements of the alleged authority so as to suggests that the authority supports your opinion. This is related to another non-credibility signal which is the willful rejection of negative evidence.

Lets get down to brass tacks, did Latif's study find that the Oceans cooled or warmed of the period in which he studied it?

Further, did Latif predict two or three decades of cooling?

I fail to see how you can write this statement when your entire argument hinges on Latif saying "I'm not a skeptic". That's all you have. His study refutes dozens of climate models and yet we can't see where anything went wrong.

In this case, you quotes an authority who by his own admission is not a GW sceptic. The term for taking the publication of a scientist, cherry picking pieces out of it to form a different conclusion that is then attributed back to the author is called "pub jacking" (jargon for hijacking a publication).

I believe this was covered but I'll finish off a few more points. Among global warming scientists there are several camps. Among those is the man-made and the natural cycle divisions. Of the natural cycle camp you have scientists that believe in both domestic and foreign sources of energy. For Latif to say "I'm not a skeptic" does not put him anywhere that can refute the evidence that he presented. He, himself, said that there was cooling. Not warming. Cooling. Not warming. Do you see the problem here?

In this case you have also demonstrated another sign of non-credibility, which is to play on the lay reader's cognitive frame regarding science that equates science to something more like "received knowledge" rather than a work in progress. Science, being the ultimate sceptical intellectual pursuit is constantly challenging and re-testing all of its findings and theories as new information is found and published.

You're reaching here.

A typical non-credible "Internet scientist" likes to point out areas that are undergoing considerable investigation and debate as some kind of weakness rather than the very process that allows science to be so successful. (Ironically, Internet scientists also like to make that the reason why their crackpot notions are not accepted by science is that it is too dogmatic.)

Where did I say there was a weakness? I said there was some interesting finding by a man in Germany, that's what I said. I didn't say science failed. In fact, this is one great example of where science is succeeding.

In this particular case, you have taken the fact that Latif has a particular concern about GW modeling in the area he is working on and claiming that this is a weakness in the overall GW science rather than a strength.

Yes, he disproved many other models that couldn't predict what happened.

Lets take an example: I write a computer program that I claim can predict exactly what the president will do tomorrow, which is 1), 2), 3), and so on. Then tomorrow comes and goes without my predictions coming true. I then run the next day through my model claiming the same thing. Again, I'm wrong. By the third day no one is believing what is coming out of my model. My model was disproven by the fact that what it predicted didn't happen. Latif isn't the only one saying that the oceans are cooling. In fact, there are lots of people saying lots of things about global warming. The simple truth is global warming, it's causes, internal systems, and effects are not established. This comes in direct contrast to what so many people are saying, including your president.

You are able to do this because of another non-credible device that works pretty well with the public. This is called "conflation". Since the public is mostly unaware of the subtleties of the issues in modern science, it is easy to convince them of almost anything.

Now I'm wrong because of "subtleties" that neither I, nor anyone else, understand.

As you quoted from the end of the article, there is no surprise amongst climatologists that the models that they are using for long term climate change are not very good at predicting near term climate change. This is no surprise because there are different effects that dominate the measurements over these different time periods.

The reason it's easier to predict long term trends is that there is less to predict. It isn't hard for a scientist (or a gambler for that matter) to simply say, "the Earth will cool 3.2C over the next 100 years." 1) that scientist doesn't have to be right because nobody will remember, 2) He wont live to see the results or take criticism for being wrong, 3) no one can disagree with them until the 100 years has passed. All of these things add to "credibility" over the long term. What we have with Latif is him predicting 10 years into the future, he's saying there will be cooling. Now, he says that once he gets outside the range of his model the warming trend begins again. This may be true, it may not be true; lord knows. But what isn't disputable is that for the last 5 years he found the oceans cooled. Screw predictions, this is the "observation" part of the scientific method. The fact that the oceans cooled completely undermines the credibility of many scientists predictions.

What Latif and others are pointing out is that our research and our long term models are better at predicting the long term climate change than they are the near term climate change. This is not surprising because in the long term, cyclical effects will average out. But in the near term, cyclical effects need to be understood and correctly modeled.

My interpretation of these articles is that the scientists who are quoted are not GW sceptics. They continue to accept the fact that the professional community has demonstrated that global warming over the few centuries is likely happen and it is likely to be significant.

Of course they are. Even though they never saw what actually happened over the last 4 years (hardly a daily forecast), we should believe them about what will happen in 40 years.

However, they are warning scientists and laymen alike to not look to near term phenomenon and draw quantitative conclusions about the long term. They are also reminding everyone that the near term phenomenon is more complex and less understood than the long term phenomenon.

So, we are to disregard factual observation evidence that would contradict theoretical predictions. Simply put: No.

There is only one reason why someone would pubjack an article, appeal to the author's authority, mispreresent scientific progress as some kind of uncertainty, and wilfully conflate complex issues so as to lead the lay reader to a different conclusion than the original article author.

Did he or did he not say the oceans cooled?

The answer is that the person doing this seeks to effect public policy on a scientific issue not by challenging the science but by using public venues to appeal directly to the public thereby taking advantage of the public's naivete.

You admit repeatedly here that global warming is a work in progress and the models are unreliable. Policy cannot be dictated by the theoretical whims of scientists. We have to consider the reality of our current situation. Obama is proposing Cap and Trade that would knee-cap our economy based on infantile science that has some gaping holes in it; one of which was that no one predicted (in the 90's or otherwise) what actually happened in any of their predictions of what was was going to to happen.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

I would, sweetheart, but I don't even understand what you were trying to say here

Thats exactly what I thought. You tried to pull the 'fix your grammar' insult and failed miserably. One missing F completely destroys your ability to read an entire post.

Go read a book, smarten up, and come back. I'll be here.

 

[Bbucko]

Thats exactly what I thought. You tried to pull the 'fix your grammar' insult and failed miserably. One missing F completely destroys your ability to read an entire post.

Go read a book, smarten up, and come back. I'll be here.

Promise?

 

[JustAsking]

E_For_Me,
I don't think you are paying attention to what I was saying. I didn't say that climate change models are unreliable because they are a work in progress. What I was saying that all science is considered by all scientists to be a work in progress. So there is nothing unusual about the community of professional climatologists constantly working on and improving their models.

Anyone who thinks that science is completely settled on any particular issue is a crackpot. Anyone who thinks that this constant improvement in scientific theories and models is a sign of unreliability is also a crackpot. Can I make that any clearer?

Now, to the point of Mojib Latif and his recent paper he delivered at the World Climate Conference #3 . This talk was reported on the New Scientist article, which was then picked up by BBC and highlighted in a radio program called BBC Today, where various climatologists were interviewed.

Notice that all of this noise is about Latif, who is one of the world's expert on climate modeling and one of the author's of the IPCC reports, delivering a paper as a professional climatologists to other climatologists at one of their most important worldwide conferences. Not surprisingly, Latif, who is an expert climate modeler was giving a talk on advancing the state of the art of modeling in a conference section called, Advancing Climate Prediction Science.

As scientific conferences usually go, there is a general call for papers on various subjects related to the conference's purpose. Chances are the Advancing Climate Prediction Science section was determined before hand and either Latif was invited to speak, because of his contributions to the field, or he submitted a paper into that call for the same reason.

Again, a crackpot might look at this and conclude that if scientists are meeting to talk about advancing something, then it must be broken. The reason why a crackpot might conclude that is because the crackpot has no clue that this is how science works day in and day out. One of the reason why the crackpot doesn't know this is because it interferes with his wingnut internal narrative that science is full of "orthodoxy" and "dogma".

Anyway, if one wants to listen to the section that includes Mojib Latif's presentation, one can go to this page of the Conference proceedings and fire up the MP3 file called Advancing Climate Prediction Science. The section starts with an introduction of the two speakers, the first speaker goes, and then Latif goes as the last speaker.

If you don't have the time to listen to it, let me summarize it for you. Latif is not the lone iconoclast coming in to the scientific proceeding and smashing the orthodoxy of climate change. In fact, Latif is one of the premier workers in this field and if there were an orthodoxy on climate change modeling, Latif might be the head orthodoc.

What is going on here is that Latif is doing his job. Latif is earning his salary as one of the world premier climate modelers and he is moving the state of the art to the next step. You see, one of the main themes of the conference is that now that long term climate change is established as inevitable, it is time for climatologists to move their craft the next level where they can start predicting shorter term and regional variations in climate so that they can be a service to those regions in the world where there might be catastrophic effects. You can easily get that from the first part of the MP3 file.

So Prof. Latif has been working on improving his long term models so that they can be more accurate in the near term so regional problems might be better predicted in the near future by the models. In the various interviews on the BBC Today site, you can hear Latif and the other scientists reaffirm that the long term component of GW will be causing a rise in the temperature of the world as time goes on. But Latif, in considering the near term, understands as all the other climatologists understand that the near term climate is dominated by periodic natural changes that go in cycles that are decades long. There are three of them mentioned specifically as the North Atlantic Oscillation (abbrev. NAO), the Pacific Oscillation,and the Sunspot Cycle. All of these cycles are decades long so you will hear them talked about as decadal variations.

Now these decadal variations are superimposed on the long term global temperature rise, and over the near term, these affects dominate. A plot of the NAO can be seen here. Notice that the NAO is no shocking new discovery, and notice that there are websites set up to show historical and present readings for the NAO. In other words, the decades long natural cycles when viewed over only decades of time or less overwhelm and obscure the unnatural affects of man induced global warming.

In order to improve the performance of his own climate models, Latif is now including some of the decadal affects so the models might be of service to us in the near term. Up until now, the models have been designed for the long term, since it is the long term problems that people have been concerned with. Not surprisingly, Latif has been able to demonstrate that the models now predict the near term much better than before and not surprisingly, the decadal cycles such as the NAO dominate the near term.

Also not surprisingly (just look at the NAO website) the NAO upswing causes an apparent exaggeration in global warming, and then over the next 10 years or so, the NAO downswing will cause an apparent leveling and possibly slight and temporary downturn in global warming.

If you watch the video, you will probably see a lot of climatologists yawning during the presentation because all of them are aware of the near term decadal effects and how they can obscure the systematic rising long term effects.

Again, anyone who thinks this is some lone ranger scientist challenging some kind of orthodoxy is a moron. This is what scientists do every day and it is the reason why you and I are not reading each other's communications on paper by the light of a whale oil lamp. It is the constant challenging of each others work almost daily, followed by refinement and expansion of existing theories that turn whale oil lamps into computers, not orthodox and not dogma.

I invite anyone to read the articles, listen to the audio of the interviews on the BBC Today link I cited, and even watch videos of the conference itself where Latif is simply delivering his latest work to his professional colleagues.

By the way, if anyone still thinks Latif is some lone scientific crusader challenging the orthodoxy, just take look at his own website and note that Latif is not throwing out the book on climate modeling, he wrote the book.

Also note the list of his refereed publications. For anyone unfamiliar with how this works, probably every one of these papers is a challenge to the existing state of the art, and how to improve it, or a response to someone else's challenge. This is how science really works, not by orthodoxy but by constant reexamination of one's own work and the work of others, and then publishing it for critical analysis by others in excruciating detail in professional journals.

One more thing, scan the list of his refereed publications and notice how far back in time we go and still see him publishing on decadal variations in climate. Latif has been publishing stuff about this in the professional journals for at least 10 years or more. I would be surprised if there is a professional climatologist who does not know his name and what he has been working on for the past 10 years.

 

[JustAsking]

Oh by the way, if you don't catch the movie, be sure to pick up Mojib Latif's latest book called Climate Change: The Point of No Return.

Anyone who thinks Latif is some kind of Global Warming sceptic is delusional. Anyone who twists Latif's latest paper at the conference into some kind of denial screed and spreads it all over the internet is irresponsible.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Oh by the way, if you don't catch the movie, be sure to pick up Mojib Latif's latest book called Climate Change: The Point of No Return.

Anyone who thinks Latif is some kind of Global Warming sceptic is delusional. Anyone who twists Latif's latest paper at the conference into some kind of denial screed and spreads it all over the internet is irresponsible.

I don't know how many times I need to repeate this:
I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.

again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.


again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.


again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.


again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.

It will become understood at some point.

 

[SilverTrain]

I don't know how many times I need to repeate this:
I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.

again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.


again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.


again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.


again, I'm not saying Latif is a global warming skeptic.

It will become understood at some point.

Why else would you have posted this:

Thought you might like this:

Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany:

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling. ​

BBC - Today: Tom Feilden: An inconvenient truth about global warming

Either you were attempting to portray Latif as a climate change skeptic, or else you acknowledge that this quoted statement (which you took out of context) does not indicate any skepticism on his part of the reality of climate change.

 

[JustAsking]

Sorry EForMe, but all I see is one of the premier experts in climate modeling adding the well known decadal oscillation effects to his model to make it work better in the near term.

Its like someone modeling long term sea levels has been asked to also predict the tides. So he adds tidal factors into his sea level model and, not surprisingly, the levels in the near term go up and down so dramatically every day, that taken in the near term, they overwhelm the long term effect.

To say this has anything to do with the long term effects is irresponsible.

To say that the long term effects are now disproven is irresponsible.

To say that the model was broken before the change is irresponsible.

To say the orthodoxy of the long term effects were challenged by adapting the model to include the tidal effects is irresponsible.

To say that it invalidates dozens of other long term models is irresponsible.

To say you were just passing along some interesting science, yet you chose a thread called "Global Warming? Bollocks!!!.." is irresponsible.

To say you were just passing along some interesting science but you made the claim that GW was bogus, is irresponsible.

So assuming that you are not irresponsible, i have to also assume you were just announcing Latif's new book, "Global Warming: The Point of No Return". If that is the case, thanks for drawing our attention to this and many other books and papers Latif has written showing the veracity of the science predicting long term Global Warming.

Oh, also, if you have a question about the legitmacy of human induced global warming modeling, I suggest you contact Latif himself. If you have new information that might further the science in this area, a responsible person would contribute directly to the science.

The only reason why you might be here in a Large Penis Support Group tryng to affect people's opinions on AGW is that you have no interest in furthering the science, but rather you have enlisted in the cause of affecting public policy on the topic for some special interest group.

Why else would you be here? Are you under the impression that this forum is populated by climatologists?

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Why else would you have posted this:

Thought you might like this:

Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany:

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling. ​

BBC - Today: Tom Feilden: An inconvenient truth about global warming

Either you were attempting to portray Latif as a climate change skeptic, or else you acknowledge that this quoted statement (which you took out of context) does not indicate any skepticism on his part of the reality of climate change.

I know we're a little short on horsepower over there but the argument stands just the way it is.

Latif (which has now become a red herring) found that the Earth has cooled. Latif is a firm and staunch believer in global warming; yet he still managed to find that the Earth has cooled. He didn't find that current global warming models were correct; which is the real problem for you guys.

I know, it is hard to believe that one who worships at the church of global warming would actually publish findings that disagree with orthodoxy. It happened. That doesn't mean that Latif has to move to Bulgaria and become a monk, it just means that he disproved many global warming models.

Most importantly Latif proved that the dire warnings about immediate man made climate change and the policy suggestions that follow were all premature and driven by a lack of understanding.

Just FYI, whether Latif believes in global warming or not, the result stands.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Sorry EForMe, but all I see is one of the premier experts in climate modeling adding the well known decadal oscillation effects to his model to make it work better in the near term.

Its like someone modeling long term sea levels has been asked to also predict the tides. So he adds tidal factors into his sea level model and, not surprisingly, the levels in the near term go up and down so dramatically every day, that taken in the near term, they overwhelm the long term effect.

To say that the model was broken before the change is irresponsible.

4 years of consistent results, and a prediction for 2 decades more, is hardly the 'short term'. Further, why didn't existing models, ones we based policy on, predict what happened? Why couldn't they, with all the great science that they had, predict the the truth over a 4 year period (or if you believe Latif, a 20 year period)? They didn't even come close. So what you are saying is, we should forget that they were all wrong because we have to stick with the theory at all costs. Which leads us to your next comment.

To say the orthodoxy of the long term effects were challenged by adapting the model to include the tidal effects is irresponsible.

To say that it invalidates dozens of other long term models is irresponsible.

It isn't irresponsible, its the blatantly obvious conclusion. For years "scientists" have been predicting global warming at various rates for the next 1-1,000 years. Now, they've been proven wrong. I know thats hard to swallow. Warming was not, and is not, predictable given the factors they have been considering. Therefore, the policy we were going to base on these models should be immediately halted.

To say you were just passing along some interesting science, yet you chose a thread called "Global Warming? Bollocks!!!.." is irresponsible.

I believe my position is clear. To paraphrase Latif, we have some hard questions to ask or people will start to doubt.

To say you were just passing along some interesting science but you made the claim that GW was bogus, is irresponsible.

You're becoming more clear. Anything that disagrees with global warming is 'irresponsible.' Of course it is. I mean, this is the environment after all. We need to, with our whole heart, dedicate ourselves to denying all that would cast doubt on global warming. Anything other than taking the theory, the way it is, and without doubt is 'irresponsible.' Especially, some guy from nowhere posting real scientific results that disagree with the church of global warming.

So assuming that you are not irresponsible, i have to also assume you were just announcing Latif's new book, "Global Warming: The Point of No Return". If that is the case, thanks for drawing our attention to this and many other books and papers Latif has written showing the veracity of the science predicting long term Global Warming.

Who cares? Not me.

Oh, also, if you have a question about the legitmacy of human induced global warming modeling, I suggest you contact Latif himself. If you have new information that might further the science in this area, a responsible person would contribute directly to the science.

There is more to life than global warming. My job is to make sure that crack pots that insist global warming "is happening" don't get to make policy. If they do get to make policy, it is then my job to make sure it is never implemented. If it is implemented it is my job to neutralized the overwhelming negative effects that the policy had. In the end I hope to hold people who cheerlead for global warming responsible in front of the world.

The only reason why you might be here in a Large Penis Support Group tryng to affect people's opinions on AGW is that you have no interest in furthering the science, but rather you have enlisted in the cause of affecting public policy on the topic for some special interest group.

Yet here you sit doing the exact same thing.

Why else would you be here? Are you under the impression that this forum is populated by climatologists?

Do I need to be under that impression? Is that a prerequisite to discuss global warming? I mean, a thread that I didn't start was already here so I thought, "gee, maybe they would like to keep up to date, and have some comments on these new findings." Alas, I was wrong. All I found here was a bunch of people wearing blinders and handing out lectures on the "subtleties" which clearly prove global warming that I can never understand.

 

[deleted213967]

Too_Much_for_You,

JustAsking is evidently wasting his (clean) energy on you so let me experiment with a blunter approach:

You have been diagnosed with a high-grade, cyclical fever. Yet this morning, your body temperature unexpectedly drops below 103. Your attending physician dumps you as a patient because your fever is now below what she considers the "danger zone".

Later tonight, your body temperature reaches 106 and you die.

I guess your physician should have seen it coming, wouldn't you say?


One mere major volcanic eruption (not too mention a host of other climatic events) could forestall global long-term temperature rises ( = cooling) for at least a year. That doesn't mean that we should count on one to do nothing and wait until the "point-of-no-return" your own source discusses.

 

[JustAsking]

Or here is another scenario that matches Latif's scenario pretty closely.

You have been asked to create a computer model that predicts the height of the tides and when they happen each day. You have access to sea level data in a particular harbor going back into the 1800s. Up until 30 years ago, the sea level data was measured manually, but then was replaced with a sea level sensor that records the sea level once every second and stores it in a computer.

You combine the manual data and the measured data together and begin to work on your model. Your initial assumptions are that the tides are function of the positions of the moon and the sun vis a vis the harbor.

The first thing you notice is that the manual data contains only the readings at high tide and low tide, and the time of the measurements. This is good because you can easily correlate that with the ephemeris data for sun and moon positions at those times. Then you look at the computer acquired data and notice that you have data for sea level for each second of time since 30 years ago.

Not surprisingly, you notice that on top of the changing daily tidal levels there is a fast but periodic (up and down) component due to waves coming in from storms and passing boats. So what do you do about that?

Well first of all you notice (because you are not an idiot) that the wave motion simply changes the sea level up and down over periods of time that are much shorter than the tides. In fact an analysis shows that almost all the waves complete their up and down readings within about 10 seconds. So you have the computer average the 1 second readings together over intervals of 30 seconds. Now you have a much smoother plot of data every 30 seconds that no longer contains the interference of the wave motion. In this data, you have the computer pick out the high and low tide readings for each day and append it to the older manually recorded data.

You decide that you can justify throwing out the wave motion component by averaging, because the mechanism that produces waves is not related to the mechanisms that produce tides (or at least at first approximation). In fact, the waves just go up and down on their own regardless of what the tides are doing.

Then you start building your model looking for a correlation between high and low tide levels and the position of the sun and moon. So now you have a model that shows a systematic correlation between sun, moon, and high and low tide levels.

Then someone gives you a grant to extend the tidal model to include wave motion. This is tough because it involves other things besides the sun and the moon. But you work hard on it and correlate wave motion with windspeed data from weather buoys and weather satellites and now you can predict almost all the short term (waves) and long term (daily tide) with one big model.

Then you publish a paper on how you have extended your tidal models to include waves and deliver the paper at a conference. In that paper and that presentation you warn people that if you look at the data over the very short term (like a few seconds) you will see sea levels going up and down in a manner that completely dominates the slowly rising and falling tidal predictions. And you tell people that if you are not aware of the strong periodic contributions to sea level from waves over the short term, you will get the wrong impression on what is happening on the longer term tidal sea level changes. All your colleagues nod their heads, because this is pretty obvious to them to begin with.

And them suddenly some "Internet Scientist" spreads all over the Internet that orthodoxy of the church of tidal sea level changes has been challenged by this new and astonishing information from the new models that also predict the tides. And he declares the entire science of sea level modeling and prediction to be bogus and that public policy should not be enacted regarding anything to do with tides, because the scientists (you and your model) were wrong all along. He declares loudly to everyone he can, "How could scientists miss wave effects like this that sometimes cause 3 or 4 feet variation in sea level. If they were wrong about this, they must be wrong about tides, too!!!11!!11!!1one111. If it wasn't for this one guy and his new model, no one would have challenged the tidal sea level orthodoxy!!!!111eleventy1!."

And then some other poor slob like me has to spend time pointing out that the new models are simply the old models that have been updated to work with waves, and the modeler for the old and new models is the same guy, and his models are now better. They are better because they can now predict both short term and long term phenomenon, and they still give the same answers for the low tide and high tide sea levels in the long term.

Do you understand this now? Because if not, I think you should buy Latif's book from Amazon and let him explain it to you. I have done all I can.

 

[HazelGod]

Or here is another scenario that matches Latif's scenario pretty closely.
...
Do you understand this now? Because if not, I think you should buy Latif's book from Amazon and let him explain it to you. I have done all I can.

Well done, JA. You, sir, have the patience of a saint.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

Agreed. JustAsking, your posts are always enjoyable and most importantly engaging. Except perhaps when you are made to repeat yourself over and over. Then they are just admirable.

 

[lipollo]

The question is not about whether Global Warming exists or not, the question is whether such a paradigm shift in economic thinking will allow the developed world to rectify its mistakes in destroying its industrial manufacturing base and allow for a new period of growth and prosperity through new jobs and new industries.

This has nothing to do with science, this has to do with political-economic decisions being made to cement the Euro-American economies as the hegemons. No mistake that all the superpowers of utilities in regards to water etc are owned by these countries, and all the new markets for renewable energies and technologies are european based.

 

[Calboner]

Well done, JA. You, sir, have the patience of a saint.

I suspect that JA gets the sort of satisfaction from responding with perfect sang froid to the insolence of half-informed blowhards like Enough_for_me that the rest of us get, or try to get, from putting such people in their place.

 

[JustAsking]

The question is not about whether Global Warming exists or not, the question is whether such a paradigm shift in economic thinking will allow the developed world to rectify its mistakes in destroying its industrial manufacturing base and allow for a new period of growth and prosperity through new jobs and new industries.

This has nothing to do with science, this has to do with political-economic decisions being made to cement the Euro-American economies as the hegemons. No mistake that all the superpowers of utilities in regards to water etc are owned by these countries, and all the new markets for renewable energies and technologies are european based.

lipollo,
I am not sure what you are getting at exactly, but it sounds very interesting. I wonder of you can save us from our endless circles of science denier hell with this fresh new topic of yours?