Inconvenient Bullshit.

[PoppingTom]

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

...says the religious about the religious......







it's still fun......isn't it ?http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/images/3dc/smilies/ugly/jumpin_ugly.gif

 

[JackLuis]

WHo give a crap?

"Worldwide 1.1 billion people still relieve themselves outdoors, with eight out of 10 of them living in 10 countries, according to the most recent drinking-water and sanitation report by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO)."

Some people have more basic problems. You can whimper all you want about GW or Health Insurance reform, but civilization is established by water and sewage systems.

The west takes it for granted.

 

[stephen55]

What John Brignell does...and doesn't do...

Feel free to ignore the math. It's here simply to deal with this Dr. John Brignell guy that trysail pasted three times. (More on that at the end.)


Relative risk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In statistics and mathematical epidemiology, relative risk (RR) is the risk of an event (or of developing a disease) relative to exposure. Relative risk is a ratio of the probability of the event occurring in the exposed group versus a non-exposed group.[1]

RR= \frac {p_\text{exposed}}{p_\text{non-exposed}}

Consider an example where the probability of developing lung cancer among smokers was 20% and among non-smokers 1%. This situation is expressed in the 2 × 2 table to the right.
Risk Disease status
Present Absent
Smk a b
Non-smk c d

Here, a = 20(%), b = 80, c = 1, and d = 99. Then the relative risk of cancer associated with smoking would be

RR=\frac {a/(a+b)}{c/(c+d)} = \frac {20/100}{1/100} = 20.

Smokers would be twenty times as likely as non-smokers to develop lung cancer.

Another term for the relative risk is the risk ratio because it is the ratio of the risk in the exposed divided by the risk in the unexposed.


I like this John Brignell guy, I just don't like what he's doing. He's a retired Professor of Industrial Instrumentation. He earned his BSc(Eng) and his PhD from London University. He knows his math and he knows his science. He just doesn't know his limitations. That is, he doesn't know every other branch of science. Kind of like the Maritime Engineer in my last post who got into a paleontology debate about tyrannosaurus rex. As I recall, he wasn't a Brit. He was a Scot. (A Brit with a sense of humor.) Great Britain has a long and colorful history of boffins (the Brit slang for scientist) in disparate fields railing against each other, usually in the Letters section of British journals. Some have been going on for over a decade. Such stuff is rarely allowed in journals outside of Great Britain.

Dr. Brignell has taken his knowledge of statistical mathematics and waded in on many issues in science and medicine, particularly medical epidemiology. (Who gets sick, how often, when, where and why.) Because the why of medical epidemiology is the contentious part, thats where he wades in.

For example, he disagrees that second hand cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. He doesn't go along with the idea that chlorinated fluorocarbons, like Freon, harm ozone levels. He thinks DDT wasn't a problem and he frequently disagrees with medical epidemiologists on risk factors for everything from sun lamps to abortion.

Underneath all of this is his first of three trick. Relative Risk (rr), which was explained at the top. Brignell had decided that a relative risk value of 1.5 or less is statistically irrelevant in medicine epidemiology and now AGW. Why an Instrument Engineer has made this decision is beyond me. He uses it to show he is right and all those people who work in their fields are wrong.

His second trick is to back up his claims by appealing to a book Sorry, Wrong Number, on statistical mathematics and how it is abused by just about anyone working with statistics. The book was written and published by...wait for it...Brignell.

His third trick has been to amass an astoundingly long list of magazine, newspaper, internet and any and all articles that disagree with AGW. This trick is nothing new. It's the old Big Lie trick. Keep saying the same thing over and over again, long enough and people will start believing you.

So, just as a Maritime Engineer can show you that he could have outrun a tyrannosaurus rex, an Instrument Engineer can show you that AGW is wrong and that second hand cigarette smoke doesn't hurt you.

That third trick of massing up every and all articles that support your position, repeating them if necessary. Does that remind you of anyone here?

 

[JackLuis]

Disputed Bay of Bengal island 'vanishes' say scientists

"A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas, scientists in India say."

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Professor Sugata Hazra of the School of Oceanographic Studies at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. "

 

[Huckleman2000]

Remember when those clever Republicans were talking about the big snowfall and how it disproved Global Climate Change?

Wonder what they're saying now about the rain in the Northeast.

Here's what real scientists are saying:

The Northeast has been walloped with record-smashing deluges and flooding.

I have called this type of rapid deluge, “global warming type” record rainfall, since it is one of the most basic predictions of climate science — and it’s an impact that has already been documented to have started, as I’ll discuss.

Of course, in this country, you’ll be hard pressed to find any discussion of global climate change in connection with this deluge. The Today Show ran 3 stories this morning and never mentioned climate change at all. But is it too much to ask after so many in the media mislead the public into thinking that the record snow was somehow evidence against human-caused global warming?

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CEI-4-2009.gif

 

[trysail]

CRU's historic temperature record must now be viewed as tainted.

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it’s a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:

It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”
It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC
None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?

Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.

So what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline” of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.” Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.

Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

 

[trysail]

Frontline ( PBS )
April, 2007
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/video/share.html?s=frol02n48eq72

Dr. James Hansen’s testimony before Congress in June 1988.

[Senator] TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.

DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

[Senator] TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.

 

[trysail]

"A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas, scientists in India say."

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Professor Sugata Hazra of the School of Oceanographic Studies at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. "

It makes a great story for a desperate editor to use to fill empty airspace or newsprint; unfortunately it's not true.

Any sailor with experience and knowledge of estuaries will tell you that low-lying sedimentary land and bottom features shift all the time. In my native Chesapeake, it is absolutely normal for sandbars and islands to appear and disappear.

Note in the map below that the island was a river estuary, meaning it wasn’t made out of rock as claimed. It was made out of mud and sand. From Wikipedia:

The island was situated only two kilometers from the mouth of the Hariabhanga River. The emergence of the island was first discovered by an American satellite in 1974 that showed the island to have an area of 2,500 sq meters (27,000 sq ft). Later, various remote sensing surveys showed that the island had expanded gradually to an area of about 10,000 sq meters (110,000 sq ft) at low tide, including a number of ordinarily submerged shoals. The highest elevation of the island had never exceeded two meters above sea level. [1]

…

The island was claimed by both Bangladesh and India, although neither country established any permanent settlement there because of the island’s geographical instability. India had reportedly hoisted the Indian flag on South Talpatti in 1981 and established a temporary base of Border Security Forces (BSF) on the island, regularly visiting with naval gunships. [3][4]

Wikipedia Map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/South_Talpatti_Island.jpg

The AP claim... is that global warming induced sea level rise has submerged the island, and that is complete nonsense.

Let’s look at sea level trends in the region. Here’s the NOAA Tides and Currents map of the area from their interactive web site.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/new_moore1.jpg


NOAA’s nearest tide gauge ( http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=500-101 ) shows sea level rising in that region at 0.54 mm / year, which means that would take nearly 2000 years for sea level to rise one meter. See the plot below:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/vishakhapatnam_mslt.png


Note that since the island was first discovered in 1974, the sea level graph above shows 19.4 mm (0.76 inches) rise based on a rate of 0.54mm/year.

Sea level rise is a relative phenomenon. It can be caused by sea rising, or land sinking. Sort of like sitting on a train at the station, and you can’t tell if your train has started moving or the adjacent one.

Looking at a satellite image of the Bangladesh delta, one can see how tides, currents, silts, and other factors shape what is a tenuous boundary between land and sea:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bangladesh_delta_satellite.jpg

Temporary estuary islands and sandbars appear and disappear all the time worldwide. Sometimes it can take a few years, sometimes a few centuries. Note that most of the area near South Talpatti Island is only 1-3 meters above sea level anyway, which means that such low lying islands made of mud and sand are prone to the whims of tide and currents and weather...

*****​

...Sea level rises and/or land subsides, estuary flows change, and sandbars appear and disappear. In this case of a tiny sandbar/island near the Bangladesh delta, it has nothing to do with global warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...onsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/

 

[trysail]

Remember when those clever Republicans were talking about the big snowfall and how it disproved Global Climate Change?

Wonder what they're saying now about the rain in the Northeast.

Here's what h ttp://clim ateprogress.org/2010/03/31/northeast-hit-by-record-global-warming-type-deluge-rainfall-flooding/ are saying:

h ttp://climatepro gress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CEI-4-2009.gif[/img]

As a matter of fact, I don't. I remember most reasonable people warning against exactly that ( i.e., don't extrapolate a trend from a weather event ).


What I DO REMEMBER is a bunch of dimwits making noise and confusing weather with climate— sort of like what Joe Romm is doing with the above posts to his blog that you pasted.





http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

DOC > NOAA > NESDIS > NCDC Search Field: Climate Monitoring / Climate At A Glance / CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES / Help

CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
February 2010


The average temperature in February 2010 was 32.4 F. This was -2.2 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest February in 116 years

 

[JackLuis]

As a matter of fact, I don't. I remember most reasonable people warning against exactly that ( i.e., don't extrapolate a trend from a weather event ).


What I DO REMEMBER is a bunch of dimwits making noise and confusing weather with climate— sort of like what Joe Romm is doing with the above posts to his blog that you pasted.

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Professor Sugata Hazra of the School of Oceanographic Studies at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. "

I believe the good Dr. was attributing GW, but was on very shifty ground himself. The estuary has been changing for millions of years and all sands shift.

Neat Pix trysail.

 

[oggbashan]

"Worldwide 1.1 billion people still relieve themselves outdoors, with eight out of 10 of them living in 10 countries, according to the most recent drinking-water and sanitation report by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO)."

Some people have more basic problems. You can whimper all you want about GW or Health Insurance reform, but civilization is established by water and sewage systems.

The west takes it for granted.

I have a bound volume of the 1840s satirical magazine Punch.

At the time the UK's government was debating a sewage system for London because the stink and pollution of the River Thames was becoming intolerable.

Punch was rude about the proposals. They said, if London spends fantastic sums of money on sanitation eventually every town and village in the UK would want clean piped water and sewage and that was obviously impossible.

In my lifetime some of my relations have drawn water from their back garden well, modernised with an indoor pump, and used an earth closet in the back garden. Now most all towns and villages have what my elderly relations called "company's water" (and sewage). My brother's present and former house still has hand pumps to draw water from their private wells - very useful for the garden in periods of drought.

In the 1970s we hired a holiday cottage. We had to pump up the water, by turning on an electric pump, between set hours every evening. If not, we would be waterless the next day. Each cottage in the area had a set time to draw its water from the communal well. By the 1980s the pumps were timer controlled. In the 1990s they finally got "company water" and for the first time had to PAY for water supply.

Sewage? Until the 1990s every cottage just sent it into the nearby river.

It is easy to forget that a clean supply of water is a recent phenomenon even in the developed world.

As an aside, my local council, along with many others in England, has been closing public toilets because they cannot afford to keep repairing the damage caused by vandalism. Our large town has a problem, like many, with binge drinking on Friday and Saturday nights. Closed toilets plus binge drinking equals urination in the streets by revellers caught short, both males and females. The response - fixed penalties for anti-social behaviour but NOT more open toilets, or toilets open late at night. Almost all the toilets close at 6pm, summer and winter.

Og