Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:26:05 +0100, Scott
wrote:

I see so this transition out of an ice age just happens to be taking 10,000
years rather than about 100 years as was the case with every previous
transition out of the glacial stage?

ITYF that the time between the trough and the peak of previous cycles
has been a tad more than 100 years. Perhaps you left off a nought or
three? Those figures on the timeline of the graph - they are not
years, they are *thousands* of years. Easy mistake to make.


You're the one making the mistake. The Vostok data you are looking at is old
and as a consequence rather low resolution. The termination of the Younger
Dryas, which marks the end of the last glacial period, appears to have occurred
in less than a human lifetime in terms of oxygen isotopic evidence (a proxy for
temperature), in less than a generation (20 years) for dust content and
deuterium excess (proxies for winds and sea-surface conditions), and in only a
few years for the accumulation rate of snow. Similarly rapid changes have been
observed for stadial-interstadial climate shifts (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles)
which punctuate the climate of the last glacial period. Try looking at GRIP and
GLISP2 ice core data higher resolution work has been done on these.


So you keep saying. More worryingly, I notice that the sea level
started rising at 10 o'clock this morning, and its rate of rise has
been increasing since that time. Similar cycles have occured before,
but maybe this particular change is being brought about by a totally
different mechanism to anything I have seen before (it just looks the
same), and the rising water is not going to stop like it previously
has? If it carries on at this rate, Brighton will be 50 feet
underwater by midnight. Do you think I should pay the council to
recycle my rubbish quickly to stop it? I bet that if I pay the
council, switch off my TV and cycle home instead of burning petrol, I
might *just* manage to stop the alarming rise in sea level by about 4
o'clock this afternoon, and my theory will be proven to have been
correct (with 99% statistical certainty). What do you think?

I think you don't understand the basic facts.

Well, by not taking a car journey today I managed to arrest the rise
of the ocean and the water began to subside at about 4 PM. My fear
now is that if that trend continues, the oceans will be completely dry
by the end of the month. That will lead to a complete lack of rain
and we will all be dead from thirst before Christmas.

If sufficient people send me a bank transfer of £1000, I might be able
to prevent it from happening.


But will it be enough to prevent you construct straw man arguments?

The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.

Fact.

No, it's ********.

But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

You're making the stupid assertion, it's up to you to prove your point.
You may wish to have a look at the speed of climate change in previous
interglacials.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.

Fact.

No, it's ********.

But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

You're making the stupid assertion, it's up to you to prove your
point. You may wish to have a look at the speed of climate change in
previous interglacials.

A rather leisurely affair, taking about 5000 years to complete. If you have
paleoclimatic evidence to the contrary, I urge you to rush out and publish!

Pyriform wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.

Fact.

No, it's ********.

But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

You're making the stupid assertion, it's up to you to prove your
point. You may wish to have a look at the speed of climate change in
previous interglacials.

A rather leisurely affair, taking about 5000 years to complete.

Utter ******** and you just did. The changes occured over periods as
short as decades, not millenia.

If you have paleoclimatic evidence to the contrary, I urge you to rush out
and publish!

Why should I when the evidence is in the process of being published?

Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary

by Jonathan Adams (1.), Mark Maslin (2.) & Ellen Thomas (3.)

(Progress in Physical Geography - in press)

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

"The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many
rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to
decades or even less."

"In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of
the Little Ice Age at about 1650 AD) probably occurred over only a few
decades at most. All the evidence indicates that most long-term climate
change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes."

"Sudden and short-lived warm events occurred many times during the
generally colder conditions that prevailed between 110,000 and 10,000
years ago (isotope Stages 2-5.4). First picked up as brief influxes of
warm climate plants and insects into the glacial tundra zone of northern
Europe, they are known as 'interstadials' to distinguish them from the
cold phases or 'stadials' (Lowe & Walker 1984). The interstadials show
up strongly in the Greenland ice core records. Between 115,000 and
14,000 years ago, 24 of these warm events have been recognized in the
Greenland ice cores"

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change
cough ollocks.

Fact.

No, it's ********.

But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

You're making the stupid assertion, it's up to you to prove your point.
You may wish to have a look at the speed of climate change in previous
interglacials.

It depends what the poster means by 'unlike'. The climate is unstable in the
sense that it can flip very rapidly as it has done in the geological past. We
are witnessing a rise in global temperature which has not be matched by
anything in the recent past - (last, say 1000 years). By injecting an
unprecedented amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are poking this unstable
beast with a stick.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob

wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
André Coutanche wrote:
Cynic wrote:
Scientists can be very similar to detectives. Find a theory
(suspect) and try to prove it. Just like detectives, except right
at the beginning, they tend to look for evidence that supports their
theory (suspicions) rather than deliberately looking for alternative
explanations and things that would disprove the theory. So evidence
of guilt is dug for, and dug deep. Evidence to the contrary would
have to hit them in the face before it was found - nobody is looking
seriously for any of that.
That is precisely wrong. You totally misunderstand how the scientific
method works.
Indeed. For reasons of the kind Andre gave.

The scientific method is founded on carrying out tests (experiments)
that are carefully designed to have the ablity to 'falsify' the theory
/ idea / hypothesis being considered. Ideas become established in
academic science because they 'survive' such 'attacks'.

The scientific method is founded on no such thing - it's founded on a
variety of methodological rules, and not techniques.

Not quite. Scientific research and academic study *uses* a variety of
techniques and experimental/analytical methods, depending on what specific
point is being tested or examined. You design the experiment, measurement
system, and protocol, to be fit for specific purpose. But if you wish to
establish if a given idea/hypothesis/theory/law is reliable or not, then
the above is required. And since you need to determine if a given idea *is*
reliable or not if you wish to use it, then you either need to do such
tests, or satisfy yourself that others have done so in a satisfactory
manner. Thus this is the foundation upon which the scientific method
proceeds or builds.


The foundation is methodological - that's where you get the method from.
That methodology is,
broadly, positivist. It is critical to figure out what counts as 'fact'.
A positivist world is very different
from say a realist world. Paul Feyerabend is (was) good on all this sort
of stuff.

[snip]
There is no real academic credit in simply finding cases that support
an established view. That is regarded as too easy. What wins respect
in academic science is being able to find key 'refutations' based on
evidence which is assessable and stands up to critical scrutiny - and
then come up with a 'new' idea that shows greater ability to survive
similar experiments which could refute it is the idea is not reliable.


I wouldn't argue with that as an approach. There remains the possibility
that scientists cherry pick theories and practice to suit fashion,
pragmatism, commercial concenrs, and prejudice (their own education and
knowledge). 'Respect' isn't necessarily the product of clean and
rational experiments.

ahem You are now talking about 'scientists' not 'science'. :-)


And what is one without the other?!

I'm sure there are academic scientists who tend to work on the basis that
they are trying to make their pet theories 'work'. Indeed, I've seen more
than one research grant final report that showed this in action. ...And
written my 'peer referee' opinion on them. :-) But TBH I have found such
examples are rare.

I'd agree, though, that a lot of research work is relatively humdrum and
unlikely to excite anyone except for a few specialists in the same tiny
area.

Hence I am also fairly sure, based on experience, that what I said above
about how most gain academic credit above the norm is as I described. The
point here is that if a given academic shoves a theory which is easy to
refute, then someone will find it easy to refute it. The result then tends
to be like a game of conkers. The larger the 'reputation' of the idea
falsified, the bigger the qudos of the person/experiment that shot it down.
:-)

FWIW I've never worked in climate science, so have no particular experience
of that area. But I have worked in other areas, both as a member of
research groups, and running them. My experience is that most researchers
in physical sciences behave in accord with what I've written - even if
they've never read any Popper or any other theorists of the scientific
method.

I therefore tend to doubt assertions to the effect that the bulk of climate
scientists are trying to pull wool over the eyes of everyone to push what
Bob claims is "their rubbish theory", or that they are all willfully
deluded or stupid. You will, I hope, pardon me if I also doubt that Bob
Latham and various others here know more about these topics than the said
bulk of professionals. I include myself in this. :-)


I'm not too sure where Bob (etc) is coming from in terms of evidence - I
suspect a lot of this is a reaction to being told, in anticipation of
some sort of authoritarian regime that basically restricts our lives
and takes our money. I don't think the climate change lobby's case is
helped by the constant showing of Arctic ice 'melting' archive footage.
And rather pointless pop concerts ;-)

It's basic common sesne to consume less, and hence work less (at least
for money). Production/consumption of consumer items has lots of costs,
and so far as I can see not many benefits. A 42" plasma only gets you so
far ;-)

Above said, if people want to argue about these issues, I am sure there are
more appropriate usenet groups for doing so. ahem Perhaps even one where
some participants have an established academic research background in
climate work, and know what they are talking about. ;-


Well, yes. But I suppose TV is part of the problem, and could be part of
the solution. It'd be nice if 'tech TV' people had an angle.

Rob

Scott wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change
cough ollocks.

Fact.

No, it's ********.

But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

You're making the stupid assertion, it's up to you to prove your point.
You may wish to have a look at the speed of climate change in previous
interglacials.

It depends what the poster means by 'unlike'.

He made it clear what he means. " utterly unlike any previous change"

The climate is unstable in the sense that it can flip very rapidly as it
has done in the geological past. We are witnessing a rise in global
temperature which has not be matched by anything in the recent past -
(last, say 1000 years). By injecting an unprecedented amount of CO2 into
the atmosphere, we are poking this unstable beast with a stick.

Which doesn't make the posters comment true. I've no objection to anyone
making a considered case for human-induced climate change. Telling pork
pies in an attempt to frighten the children is, however, unjustified and
rather stupid when it is so easily falsified.

It also seems to have become a "green" mantra to repeat that current
events are different to anything that has happened in the past. What is
unusual is the long period of climatic stability that has been enjoyed
during recorded history.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:56:11 GMT, "Slitheen"
wrote:

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

LTC.




My gods, you talk some poop. All other issues aside, watch a very cinematic
film in 16:9,

Ok, Titanic. ?? Alright with you?

On a wide screen in a movie theatre, *Tremendous*.

On a 32" "Widescreen" telly. Pathetic.

then in 4:3.....now tell me if you could really ever go back -
or at least explain the benefits for us to ditch our WS TV's.

I'd sooner watch the news with the newsreader the right shape.

I've posted on here 5 or 6 years ago, when H.P. was in his prime, and
folks rounded on me and said all tv programs could be displayed with
the correct aspect ratio on all modern sets. However I walked through
a TV store on Friday and all widescreen TV's on display were still
showing short fat people. I walked through my living room today and
despite having a recent "Widescreen" TV and a recent SKY TV
installation SWMBO was watching an American film apparently about
people on another planet where gravity is about 2x what it is on earth
because they were all short fat people. I call them "Bellytubbies" .


The fact is, you've had it in for widescreen TV from the get-go, and you're
welcome to the opinion that *you* prefer (for whatever inane reasons) 4:3,
but now you're just getting desperate. "A major contributor to global
warming"?

It wasn't H.P. that invented that, it might have been eco nutters, but
it's not his fault.

And for the record my 32 "Widescreen" TV displays the news with a
correct aspect ratio, but only if I accept a picture size smaller than
my parents TV displayed over 40 years ago.

Erk, yeah.....like so is the constant flow of steam coming from
your head each time you even look at a widescreen telly. LOL

Remember this guy?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200203/s501885.htm

An Australian news item about a single nutter in Holland?

No, since you ask I don't remember it.

(Did you remember the one about the Lithuanian guy who stubbed his toe
in Iceland ??)

Next question.

DG

Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.

Fact.

No, it's ********.

But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

You're making the stupid assertion, it's up to you to prove your
point. You may wish to have a look at the speed of climate change in
previous interglacials.

A rather leisurely affair, taking about 5000 years to complete.

Utter ******** and you just did. The changes occured over periods as
short as decades, not millenia.

I just did what?

Those abrupt climate changes do not appear to involve significant changes in
global mean temperature, and thus no significant change in global radiation
balance. Rather, they are the result of a *redistribution* of heat within
the climate system.

The IPCC fourth assessment considers them, and still
concludes that the current rate of warming is much more rapid than any
previous changes recorded in proxy data. Thus present warming is highly
unusual and acyclic, as we said.

Pyriform wrote:

Utter ******** and you just did. The changes occured over periods as
short as decades, not millenia.

I just did what?

Are you hard of reading?

Those abrupt climate changes do not appear to involve significant changes in
global mean temperature, and thus no significant change in global radiation
balance. Rather, they are the result of a *redistribution* of heat within
the climate system.

Evidence?

The IPCC fourth assessment considers them, and still concludes that the
current rate of warming is much more rapid than any previous changes
recorded in proxy data.

"Suddenly with one bound he was free."

You were denying that the data that I referred to even existed, now you
dismiss it with a wave of your hand, absent of evidence of course. The
current rate of warming is clearly not more rapid than any previous
chance, nor was the previous chance local, or as a result of a
redistribution of heat. (Using asterisks to kighlight something doesn't
actually make a statement true.) The evidence for the rapid change in
past interglacials is exactly the same evidence as that used to claim
that the current changes are unusually rapid. Why does the same data
support one hypothesis now, but a completely different one then?

Thus present warming is highly unusual and acyclic, as we said.

We? That would be you and the voices in your head, right?