My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« SCANDAL: Climate activists secretly on public payrolls | Main | ADMISSION: No statistically significant warming since 1995 »

Comments

Falafulu Fisi

Umm, interesting. I am pretty much sure these so called infra-gravity-waves are non-linear waves (since they can travel for long distances with little dispersion or attenuation) similar to rogue waves and tsunami (both non-linear).

The electronic equivalent of these non-linear ocean waves are called solitons used in fibre-optic telecommunication systems. Soliton fibre-optic can carry soliton pulses (waves) over thousands of kilometres (ie, from the transmitter to the receiver) with little wave-dispersion (zero or almost zero) due to its non-linear effect, so solition telecommunication system doesn't need (well no completely) amplifies/repeaters in between this vast distances between transmitter and receiver .Wave dispersion is the wave-property that reduces the transmission carrying capacity bandwidth. The physics is almost the same (solitions & psunami).

Anyone who is interested to see these wave-phenomena in a smaller scale can either visit the University of Auckland Physics Lab or School of Engineering labs because they have got water tanks for conducting these wave experiments in their respective labs.

It would be interesting to see what sort of response RealClimate will put up on their site, since as far as I know, none of the team members have depth of knowledge about wave physics at least have done experiments on waves (linear & non-linear).

If this study is confirmed independently, then the IPCC deserved to be reformed or at best disbanded.

PS : I have conducted wave experiments at the Auck Uni Physics lab in that water tank over there, so it is a subject that I have a depth of knowledge in.

bammbamm

lol! Auckland physics is still very dated ... giggles.

Well- glad to see it is not possibly from CO2!

Anyways - from Europe: http://iceagenow.com/Croat_scientist_warns_that_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years.htm

Did you bring your winter woolies?

Falafulu Fisi

Yep bammbamm, my impression is that staffs at the Auck Physics Department think that AGW is dodgy. Whenever I am passing thru varsity (from library or the gym), I frequently stopped by the Department to just chat or catch-up with former classmates (who are now lecturers) and former supervisors/lecturers.

Some of the academic staffs think that AGW alarmists had exaggerated their claims. One of them is atmospheric and geo-physicist Prof. Geoff Austin, who had published an opinion on the NZ Herald in the past criticizing alarmists for making exaggerated claims.

Falafulu Fisi

Oops! I meant to link to Prof. Geoff Austin's NZ Herald 2 page article.

Clouded thinking hampers science

I wouldn't be surprised if CM turn up on this thread to have a go at Prof. Geoff Austin's credentials as he has done against members of the NZ Climate Science coalition.

CM

Please provide quotes where I had a go at members of the NZ Climate Science coaltion. Alternatively, STFU.

Austin doesn't help himself in that piece by opening with the ridiculous implication that all scientists thought we were in for an ice age.

It was one claim. And there wasn't any consensus about the cause. Or the extent.

Compare that to the current state of scientific opinion on climate change: a vast majority of scientists working in relevant fields agree that the observed increase in average global temperature over the twentieth century (not just a couple of decades as in the Time and Newsweek articles) was due to human activity and generation of greenhouse gases, and to a much lesser extent, solar variation and volcanic activity.

Among scholars of the natural sciences, there are, of course, scientists who disagree... but there aren't many, and most of them only dispute the extent to which human beings are responsible.

The scientific study of the Earth's climate has also obviously come a long way since the 70s.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if Falafulu complains that I can't go on about how experienced I am in the lab.

Ian Wishart

Just pulling you up on this CM:

Compare that to the current state of scientific opinion on climate change: a vast majority of scientists working in relevant fields agree that the observed increase in average global temperature over the twentieth century (not just a couple of decades as in the Time and Newsweek articles) was due to human activity and generation of greenhouse gases

I think if you examine AR4, for what that document is still worth, the IPCC claims it can only detect a probable human signature post 1970, not earlier.

CM

Ok, latter half. So last 60 odd years.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

CM

>>>If this study is confirmed independently, then the IPCC deserved to be reformed or at best disbanded.<<<

Likewise, as my bus was 10 minutes late today, I believe this form of transportation should now be removed from our roads. It has been wholly discredited.

Falafulu Fisi

CM, your example in your comment above makes you look like an idiot. Why don’t you STFU (as your advice to me here) if you don’t have a clue to what you’ve just stated. There is a huge difference between the correctness in the formulation of a physical theory and the approximation of the physical observables that the theory itself is supposed to predict/project. Approximation of physical observables must always naturally follow the correctness of the physical theory itself, and not the other way around. Theoreticians (mathematicians, logicians, physicists) often used the term corollary. Note that cause & effect is central to this natural order.

You're talking about approximation that if you’re 10 minutes late to the bus then that shouldn't be a big deal. It is an irrelevant example, which it can’t be equated to this new proposed linkage of wave patterns & Antarctic ice collapse. The linking of CO2 to the Antarctic ice collapse is what at disputes here, since the correctness of that theory is now being questioned.

Looked at it another way. Newton’s theory of mechanics were wrong (ie, incorrect), however they give approximations to everyday physical observables that we witness around us and yeah we design cars using them. Relativity came along and put the correct formulation into them (ie, causes & effects) are properly accounted for. So, Newtonian mechanics' formulations are good approximations but incorrect physics. Well, we can design cars and everyday structures around us by using the proper physics of relativity, but why use a complex and correct theory to do that, while the good approximating capability of Newtonian mechanics can do fine in those design tasks, even though they’re an incorrect description of physical reality? Do you follow me here, I hope you do?

Man, you would have probably surpassed thousands of posts here at TBR by now , which I think a publisher is willing to offer you a book contract. Have you thought about that? I mean writing a book on climate science?

nat

>>>The linking of CO2 to the Antarctic ice collapse is what at disputes here, since the correctness of that theory is now being questioned.<<<<

No Its not. Infragravity waves are just another problem to add to the list. You might want to reread the article and this time concentrate on what's written rather than the dog-whistle Ian has provided for you.

CM

Falafulu as usual you've missed the boat completely because you're much more interested to telling us all how smart you are.

That the bus was late (not me, you got that wrong as well) should result in the IPCC being disbanded or reformed makes as much sense as the reason you've given. I.e. none.

BTW Realclimate have produced a summary of the actual IPCC 'errors'. Worth a read. Then you could point out where and why they are wrong and we could have an actual discussion about it. Alternatively you can just tell us how smart you are again and continue to get things wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Go on, critique it for us.

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I'm (even remotely) qualified to write a book on climate science.

You seem to be implying that my posts here provide my complete opinion on all aspects of the science. They don't. I usually just point out the gross misrepresentations and distortions that the rest of you happily eat up (or ignore so others will).

Falafulu Fisi

Nat said...
Infragravity waves are just another problem to add to the list.

Ok, what's the evidence for the CO2 connection? At least Infragravity waves can be measured by obvious direct detection. Where is the CO2 connection direct detection? CO2 connection is mostly made by numerical modelling inference (ie, an indirect method and back-testing). The Hockey stick (one of the many climate analytic models available today) for example is an indirect method too.

Even if Infragravity waves are add on to the CO2 induced warming, then we don't know how big its influence is, do we? It could be accounted for 90%, 95% or even 99% of the cause (we don't know yet), which makes attributable cause/s due to AGW negligible.

Doug

Compare Daily Sea Ice.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=12&fy=1979&sm=01&sd=12&sy=2010

We seem to have a lot of Ice where has it come from?

CM

Doug, rather than cherry-picking dates, why not compare the long term trend against what has been happening recently and what's happening now.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Read the latest analysis from the experts:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

the drunken watchman

CM,

I've tied to follow your line of reasoning in your criticism of Falafulu Fisi's Newton/ Einstein analogy, and his rejection of your bus-is-late analogy.

Try as I may, I cannot conclude other than that you are attempting to degrade his argument through diversion.

Nat

you say to ff "You might want to reread the article ..."

well, any reader should be able to understand what FF was saying about the purported Co2 link to melting Antartica. There was no need to be offensive, suggesting that he hadnt read the article, or lacked comprehension ability etc.

I really do get the impression that you warmists are desperate, attaching yourselves to every little spelling mistake you can find in any post questioning your model-based theory of AGW.

You should welcome critique, rather than spew rabies. You should, like the rest of us, be hunting for clues which might discredit (hallelujah!) a thoery that spells doom for humanity. And you should respect the right of the citizenry to question a theory underpinng a massive tax threat to their lives.

Rather, you often appear to rely on personal attacks, sophistry and red herrings.

Hey, you know what? I might have got something wrong in this post. But unlike most warmists, I'm going to be negatively affected by warmism. It's going to cost me money, not make me money. I'm not standing to make a living out of it, and don't have any incentive or spare time to pore over every little typo in these posts.

You got to notice that almost every ardent warmist, at least the ones who resort to cheap tactics in order to discredit criticism of their theory, stand to gain from the theory of warmism. Government salaried job-for-life scientists, politicians, planners, bureaucrats, writers of books on warmism. Winners of Royal Society awards. As they say, follow the money. And yes, conversely, a lot of critique comes from commoners like me who are going to suffer big-time under an ETS. Why shouldn't we require a strict burden of proof?

I really do get the impression that you warmists want AGW, and that you want it bad.

AcidComments

"I really do get the impression that you warmists want AGW, and that you want it bad."

Yeah,

And some of them get rather disappointed and hacked off when the climate/weather dept does the exact opposite to all their Alarmist 'voodoo' predictions.

I.E Unhappy about less hurricanes than what they were predicting with their CO2 AGW/CC BS. Because they wanted to see more death and destruction so they could ram the 'I told you so. It's manmade global warming' BS pulp fiction pseudo science propaganda down peoples throats and try to scare them into submission, etc!

CM

>>>Try as I may, I cannot conclude other than that you are attempting to degrade his argument through diversion.<<<

Please explain the relevance between this study being confirmed and the IPCC then being reformed or at best disbanded. That suggests that all the evidence in the IPCC reports rests on Antarctic ice collapse. It's nonsensical. Just like it would be nonsensical for me to call for the end of buses if the one I want to catch fails to turn up on time.

You say
>>>There was no need to be offensive, suggesting that he hadnt read the article, or lacked comprehension ability etc.<<<

And then do EXACTLY that in the rest of your post.

My kids and grandkids don't gain if AGW is correct. I don't gain anything now if it's correct.

>>>resort to cheap tactics<<<

That's incredibly ironic.

 air jordan 1

Lying disguises our mortality, our inadequacies, our fears and anxieties, our loneliness in the midst of the crowd. We yearn for the comfort of familiar lies to create a more amenable reality. What do you think?

ps3 jailbreak 4.46

I truly love your blog.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you develop this site yourself? Please reply back as I'm looking to create my own personal site and would love to find out where you got this from or what the theme is named. Thanks!

Mouth Herpes Treatment

Its such as you read my mind! You appear to understand so much approximately this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I think that you just could do with a few p.c. to drive the message home a little bit, however instead of that, that is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.

The comments to this entry are closed.