+ Reply to Thread
Page 43 of 62 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 613
  1. #421
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    DJNette, my quote was on what the data showed. Your quote was what they predict. They are two very different things. This is evident by the numerous use of the word 'likely' in your quote. It is just a prediction. If the data does not show it despite us increasing CO2 levels for over a century, when will it show?

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Anyone who works with mathematical models (be it climate, cyclones, flood, air quality etc models) will tell you that the real world data will never reflect what the model gives you. However the absolute numbers don't matter, what matters is that the model provides an indication of the most likely outcome. That is what the climate change models are telling us, the most likely outcome. Just because the actual data does not match the model exactly does not mean the model is wrong.
    Great comment!

    Let all ignore the data, and just focus on the models.
    The data must be wrong, and the models are right.

  2. #422
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    And severe and longer winters in the nothern hemisphere.
    This I am concerned about.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2RQLFTRLR

  3. #423
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,664
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    DJNette, my quote was on what the data showed. Your quote was what they predict. They are two very different things. This is evident by the numerous use of the word 'likely' in your quote. It is just a prediction. If the data does not show it despite us increasing CO2 levels for over a century, when will it show?
    This comment above shows you have no idea about the basics of risk management. I would strongly suggest you read up on the fundamentals of risk management to familiarise yourself with how the term "likely" is used in this context.

  4. #424
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,186
    Thanks
    481
    Thanked
    1,049
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger
    Oh please, I'm not suggesting the data is 'wrong'. I'm merely pointing out that you don't discard a whole model because real life is different. You would then use the updated data to re-run the models and try and get a closer prediction.

    Anyone can quote nice graphs from websites, but this is not research and it does not prove much.

    For instance your first graph related only to cyclones, not 'storms'. Ask people in south east queensland to define a severe storm and it wouldn't include a cyclone.

    Your graphs of rainfall days across Australia also mask what is really happening as they average out the extremes. The graph does not show if it is getting wetter in the north and drier in the south.

    If your efforts of research are only to copy some graphs without trying to understand the data collection and the researchers conclusions then it is not really research.

    I appreciate that you believe all you need to do research is the ability to look up stuff, but this is just not try.

    I have a number of qualifications, and non of them qualify me to delve into the areas that you seem to freely jump into without any scientific training. As other posters have mentioned, if you have found such amazing information I suggest you head down to your local peer reviewed journal and submit a paper. After that you might start to gain some credibility.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to DJ Nette For This Useful Post:

    Kirst33  (26-04-2013)

  6. #425
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Bec~ View Post
    This comment above shows you have no idea about the basics of risk management. I would strongly suggest you read up on the fundamentals of risk management to familiarise yourself with how the term "likely" is used in this context.
    I deal very heavily with risk management thank you. You have to manage risks. You don't have to avoid them. Not sure if you are aware of the term ALARP - as low as reasonably practical. It would be unreasonable and not practical to think that you would/could spend billions of dollars in an attempt to minimise an increase in cyclone activity that doesn't actually exist.

  7. #426
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Oh please, I'm not suggesting the data is 'wrong'. I'm merely pointing out that you don't discard a whole model because real life is different. You would then use the updated data to re-run the models and try and get a closer prediction.
    Looks like they need to update all of their models then, because none of them are even close.
    CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Anyone can quote nice graphs from websites, but this is not research and it does not prove much.
    It is more powerful than assumptions. Beebs assumption was that there were trends showing everything getting worse. I have done more research than posting graphs.

    If you have data that shows cyclone activity, or storm activity, or rainfall getting worse, I would love to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    For instance your first graph related only to cyclones, not 'storms'. Ask people in south east queensland to define a severe storm and it wouldn't include a cyclone.
    Is that your preferred form of research? So they would not regard a cyclone as a severe storm? Again, if you have data to show that severe storms have become worse, I would love to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Your graphs of rainfall days across Australia also mask what is really happening as they average out the extremes. The graph does not show if it is getting wetter in the north and drier in the south.
    Is it getting drier in the South? Where did you get that from? Again, I would love to see your data.

    From the BOM.

    southern australia.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    If your efforts of research are only to copy some graphs without trying to understand the data collection and the researchers conclusions then it is not really research.

    I appreciate that you believe all you need to do research is the ability to look up stuff, but this is just not try.

    I have a number of qualifications, and non of them qualify me to delve into the areas that you seem to freely jump into without any scientific training. As other posters have mentioned, if you have found such amazing information I suggest you head down to your local peer reviewed journal and submit a paper. After that you might start to gain some credibility.
    I have the ability to look at a time series graph of rainfall and then determine if that rainfall in increasing or decreasing. I do not need someone to attach paragraphs with the words 'likely' embedded throughout in order to determine what is actually happening. I feel for you that you are incapable of doing this.

    Why do you assume that I have no scientific training? Maybe Al Gore should also publish a peer reviewed paper. Why is he entitled to draw his own conclusions and make millions of dollars from them?

  8. #427
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,186
    Thanks
    481
    Thanked
    1,049
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I deal very heavily with risk management thank you. You have to manage risks. You don't have to avoid them. Not sure if you are aware of the term ALARP - as low as reasonably practical. It would be unreasonable and not practical to think that you would/could spend billions of dollars in an attempt to minimise an increase in cyclone activity that doesn't actually exist.
    Ok, lets talk about risk management then. I'm not sure if your dealings are with the current Australian Standard or the old one, regardless the risk matrices that most people use are pretty similiar.

    Lets consider that the consequence from climate change is in a category of catastrophic or major (which is what the majority of scientists and evidence is telling us) and use Father's likelihood of rare or improbable. Any risk matrix will give this as a risk rating in the high range. A range that suggests that actions to reduce the risk must be undertaken. You don't have to move far up the likelihood range to get to an extreme risk.

    Given the millions of dollars that cyclones currently cost, I wouldn't think it was unreasonable to spend money on ways to reduce the cyclone risk. As an aside my home/contents insurance went up from $1500/yr to a quote of $10,000/yr following the recent cyclones and floods. Clearly someone with access to a lot of data thinks there is an increased chance of floods and cyclones.

    How are you applying a risk rating to the data that is out there? The Queensland Government now routinely applies a climate change factor in its flood and storm surging data. This is not because they want to pander to scientists, its because their risk assessment has shown that there is a real risk that flooding and storm surge will increase and they will be sued if they have let people build in area that is subsequently inundated due to sea level rise.

    In any case, this is certainly a more entertaining way to spend my Friday night then watching the footy, but I still don't understand where you are hoping to go with all of this debate? If you are right, you can have a nice moral victory over all of us, if you are wrong we will be all too busy trying to adapt to remember who you were.

  9. #428
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,186
    Thanks
    481
    Thanked
    1,049
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger
    Why do you assume that I have no scientific training? Maybe Al Gore should also publish a peer reviewed paper. Why is he entitled to draw his own conclusions and make millions of dollars from them?[/QUOTE]

    Because a number of pp have asked you this question and you have either previously indicated that you didn't or you avoided the question. If you do have the training then let us know what it is.

  10. #429
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Any risk matrix will give this as a risk rating in the high range. A range that suggests that actions to reduce the risk must be undertaken. You don't have to move far up the likelihood range to get to an extreme risk.
    Your statement above is not necessarily correct. There is no set risk level that invokes a requirement. The acceptable risk level can be set or changed by the appropriate authority. An extreme risk may be acceptable under certain circumstances. Eg, a military operation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    Given the millions of dollars that cyclones currently cost, I wouldn't think it was unreasonable to spend money on ways to reduce the cyclone risk. As an aside my home/contents insurance went up from $1500/yr to a quote of $10,000/yr following the recent cyclones and floods. Clearly someone with access to a lot of data thinks there is an increased chance of floods and cyclones.
    Not really. The councils have allowed construction in flood prone land without appropriate measures being met. This did not cause an issue for insurance companies until a major flood hit after a substantial increase in housing in those flood prone areas. Now they need to recoup some money and stockpile for the next flood. There has, and always will be, floods in Australia.

    On the financial side, there have been studies on the cost of mitigation versus adaption. Bjorn Lomborg has covered this in great detail. In regard to the ALARP principal, those studies suggest that by 'doing nothing' would be an appropriate course of action, and that risk mitigation is not practical due to the costs involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    This is not because they want to pander to scientists, its because their risk assessment has shown that there is a real risk that flooding and storm surge will increase and they will be sued if they have let people build in area that is subsequently inundated due to sea level rise.
    That is what insurance is for. I wouldn't sue the council if my house got flooded. That is not the council's fault. I may, however, sue them if they did not let me remove a dangerous tree that subsequently destroys my house.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    In any case, this is certainly a more entertaining way to spend my Friday night then watching the footy, but I still don't understand where you are hoping to go with all of this debate? If you are right, you can have a nice moral victory over all of us, if you are wrong we will be all too busy trying to adapt to remember who you were.
    You can do both, I'm watching the footy.
    Where do I want to go? I guess I want to highlight that the science is not settled. I'm not expecting people to jump off the bandwagon, but at least open their eyes to some 'inconvenient truths'.

  11. #430
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Let all ignore the data, and just focus on the models.
    The data must be wrong, and the models are right.
    I'm a modeller. DJNette is right, these systems are too complex for us to be able to predict future events with absolute certainty. Models are our 'best guesses' as to what will happen based on our current scientific knowledge. As our knowledge improves, so do the models.

    Measurements of past events are great and they are used to inform and improve our models, but without the models, they don't help us predict future trends.

    Sure, models aren't perfect, but Father, if you have any better way to predict future events I'd love to hear it.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Meg2 For This Useful Post:

    DJ Nette  (27-04-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Vanuatu - Great or not so great?
    By Clarabelle in forum Destination Suggestions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-10-2012, 10:56
  2. Green poop
    By Alphabetsoup in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-05-2012, 20:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Softer than your bub's bum Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Australia's favourite eco brand has delivered a gorgeous baby collection. Made from organic bamboo, Boody's extraordinarily soft and stretchy, skin-friendly tops, bottoms, onesies, bibs and wraps don't 'cost the earth'. Get 20% OFF! Code BUBHUB16.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
SRC Pregnancy & Recovery Shorts
Want pain relief during pregnancy, and to continue working and exercising? Fancy a speedy recovery after childbirth? Want to regain your pre-baby body shape fast? Recommended by healthcare professionals, SRC compression products will let your body do its most important work.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!