Climate Change Affecting Hops Quality?

[LLoyd]

Don't apologise QB. I thought you were sticking to your principles and simply questioning my questioning. No harm it that.

 

[Jonez]

Mars

The planet Mars is also exhibiting a warming trend. A 2007 National Geographic article states: "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturaland not a human-inducedcause. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said."

Very interesting. That will be a good argument to prove the warming is not man made. On the other hand, they admit the planets are warming. This contradicts the articles on Marlow's link where they say there has been a cooling since 2001.

 

[Leigh]

I would have thought the point of science was the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the world through observation and experimentation.

rejecting a theory ratified by a huge number of experts and backed up by a large amount of observational evidence is't really being scientific now, is it?

But what are they comparing the observations against? Climate is a function of geological time. Global Warming is premised on a graph that was produced in the 80's that even the IPCC has admitted is statistically incorrect (remember the hockey stick?) as it accumalates multiple datasets and extrpolates outside of the measured range.

Al Gore in his mocumentary included the hockey stick...first year stats tells us you never draw a relationship through multiple sets of data (tree rings, ice cores, thremometre measurements, satellite measurements, sediments etc). First year stats also tells us that your accuracy gets worse outside of the region of the primary dataset...

So what we have is a loose relationship between all of these parameters over the last 30-100 years between "actual" measurements and other data, all plotted on one graph, with one line, and worse, extrapolated outside the range for 1 to 10,000 years (depending on which version you look at). To make matters worse, it is plotted against a "normalised" year of 1900, which on closer analysis is one of the best years to give the biggest difference in apparent temperature today!

Plot each dataset individually (as stats tells you that you must), and perform a sensitivity analysis (i.e. normalised to a few different years) and you get a very different result. This is the graph in the great swindle movie...in that one the normalised year was chosen to show the least difference between 1900 and today...

So which is more right?

As to the IPCC. I always find it amusing that scientists from companies like Exxon are accused of having an agenda, but apparently the paid members of the IPCC don't...LMAO

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

As to the IPCC. I always find it amusing that scientists from companies like Exxon are accused of having an agenda, but apparently the paid members of the IPCC don't...LMAO

Exxon is a business with a vested interests, the IPCC is a scientific body.

 

[Leigh]

Exxon is a business with a vested interests, the IPCC is a scientific body.

So what exactly constitutes a scientific body?

And why do you assume that a scientific body also does not have a vested interest?

Would be interesting for the government funded scientists on the IPCC to come out and say "climate change doesn't exist" and do themselves out of a job?

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

Scientific theories work like this: If it explains your data, then it's a good theory. If you can find a single example where it doesn't work when it should - either you qualify where and when the theory can and can't be used, or you throw it out like yesterdays rubbish and start again. If the arguments from the dissidents can't be explained away using the theory/models, then the theory/models is/are useless. Pretending that the dissidents don't count just hides the problem.

This makes it obvious you're totally missing my point. I think we're basically arguing along the same lines - for the need for solid science, rigorously critiqued, analyzed, tested, adjusted and argued.

What I'm arguing is that:

a) the members of the IPCC are field leading scientists who don't cling to a any quasi-religious "humans, bad. climate hotter" mantra. They base their opinion and recommendations on rigorously scrutinized science. they adapt their models and recomendations based on this science.

B) the science involved in climate modeling is ******* difficult. I'm relatively stupid. I lack even the most basic skills needed for assessing if a certain methodology or model is good or bad science.

c) This means I have to defer to someone (or preferably a group of people, who cover the various disciplinary niches necessary for coping with something as big as "climate") who CAN assess the validity of the methodologies and models used.

d) While it would be nice to live in a wonderful utopia where we have the time, funding and support to all become well-versed across a range of scientific and arts disciplines, this isn't pragmatically possible. This is why we have a division of intellectual labor.

e) for the purpose of policy formation, especially on urgent issues, we sometimes have to just have to rely on whatever the scientific community is telling us the most complete theory to date.



I'm getting a bit bored of this now. I need to start hitting people up for advice on the design and setup of a miracle box party-rig to cope with all this hot weather we've been having lately.....

edit: crap. b ) was replaced by an emoticon again. Told you I'm not all that bright.

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

So what exactly constitutes a scientific body?

a professional organization dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. NOT a company dedicate to the persuit of a profit.

And why do you assume that a scientific body also does not have a vested interest?

I don't believe in objectivity at all, in any context, I think everything is always already contigent, ideological and political, but for the sake of not upening up a whole new can of worms - I wanted to keep it simple, and keep the argument in a positivist vein.

lets not get into ******* ontology and epistemology - at least no until I get myself my afternoon coffee!

 

[OzMick]

Some people just need something to worry about. I read a few weeks back that of 3000 people surveyed recently over 800 believed the Millenium bug was a real threat. No surprise there but in 1999 the number was around 70% so some are lying or forgot their stance. The interesting bit was that of the 800, over 700 also believed in "global warming" when only about 50% of the general pop believes in it. If I can find the report I'll post it here, it was from some USA Uni. I never believed in either but the same guys I know who preached about the Millenium bug are now on the global warming bandwagon. No death threats please,...

Sorry, but the Millenium Bug is/was very real, which was the reason that so much work could be (and was) done behind the scenes to ensure that things would be fine the next day (in vast contrast to the global warming theory, where everything is up for debate, and not arguing for or against in this post, just killing off some FUD). In most circumstances it wouldn't have done anything in any case, but when you see news items such as this http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn/comment/22...ds-test-4807172 that indicate how much big business still relies upon a 50 year old programming language, you want to be very sure that banks aren't cocking up your transactions. Hardly apocalyptic, but if banks had beggared up everything for even a few hours it would have been an absolute bitch to recover from. Likewise, if a power plant had control valves tied up to open or close based upon time of day for peak/offpeak demand things could have gone screwy resulting in brownouts/blackouts potentially. Maybe not, but not impossible.

 

[jonocarroll]

If that's your view, then so be it. The view taken (I'm going to speak for a few people here, apologies if this is inconsistent with your actual view) by the people arguing against you is;

-- the IPCC report was done poorly and proper scrutiny has not been applied, yet you seem to be trying to defend their claims to the nth degree. You can't defer the criticisms of a piece of science yet at the same time defend it as an authoritative source.

-- the opposing views to the IPCC report have all but been swept under the rug (okay, this one's probably the media's fault).

-- if you don't understand the scientific methodologies used, you can't critique them. Just as you have deferred your requirement to understand the science (by finding what you deem to be an appropriate authoritative source) you must also defer your requirement to critique that source (by finding an equally appropriate counter source).

In the end, it's not really fair for you to say you have an opinion of the interpretations and conclusions of the research any more than it's fair to have an opinion on whether or not you have a particular viral infection. Doctors are trained to be able to interpret those results. Scientists are trained to interpret the scientific results. This analogy is rather apt, since I have the same annoyance at lay people who do try to interpret medical results. In that case, you end up with (as an example from 'Bad Science') the british measles-mumps-rubella-vaccination-causes-autism scare. In this case, you end up with the worldwide global-warming-is-coming-to-kill-your-family-and-your-beloved-childhood-pets scare. In both cases, this is distinct from what the 'truth' may be, and what the research predicts (these two may indeed be separate statements).

We can certainly end this here. Hopefully it has been a useful discussion on the interpretation of scientific research.

Wait, weren't we talking about hops?

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

-- if you don't understand the scientific methodologies used, you can't critique them. Just as you have deferred your requirement to understand the science (by finding what you deem to be an appropriate authoritative source) you must also defer your requirement to critique that source (by finding an equally appropriate counter source).

That's the point. I've explicitly said I'm not critiquing the methodologies - I'm relying on what I thought was a general consensus in the scientific community, and on the findings of a group of very respected real scientists; the IPCC.

anyhoo - been a good day of chatting, and a great way to procrastinate and avoid a mountain of work I've had building up.

now about that miracle box chiller..... want to put some of your science training to work in designing one for me QB?

 

[jonocarroll]

Oh, one more point, since it's likely to come up in a reply;

You might say that we 'need' the watered-down science for the policymakers. I say bollocks to that. If the policymakers don't understand the science properly, they stuff up the policy. Clearly, the policymakers have no sense of scientific rigor. Ideally, if they couldn't understand it, the policymakers would obtain the services of unbiased reseachers to compile a complete review of the thing they are making policy for (criticism of the IPCC report states that this didn't happen and authors gave preferential treatment to their own work). But to do this, the policymakers need to understand whether or not the researchers they have hired are able to/have done an unbiased, fair study (people gladly accepted the IPCC report, with no mention of the criticisms). The only way around that is to hire another group of researchers to find out if the first group did an unbiased study... and so on ad infinitum.

The alternative would be to train scientists on policy making. Sure, this requires a lot of work too, but is less dependent on tough statistics (which can throw the results completely) and (I suppose) more dependent on legal training and the like that have well-defined methods. If you stuff up the policy, you can go back and change it. If you stuff up the statistics, people believe the results anyway.

 

[jonocarroll]

That's the point. I've explicitly said I'm not critiquing the methodologies - I'm relying on what I thought was a general consensus in the scientific community, and on the findings of a group of very respected real scientists; the IPCC.

Hopefully you now realise that it's not quite so much of a consensus as the media would like you to believe. Maybe all of the criticisms can be explained away be the science. Maybe they can't. That's not for you and I to worry about.

now about that miracle box chiller..... want to put some of your science training to work in designing one for me QB?

Wasn't someone selling these recently?

Depends how efficient you want it to be. Small esky + 3m of beer line + bag of ice will do it.

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

The alternative would be to train scientists on policy making.

I'm guessing you already know this, but Einstein was actually offered the job of president of Israel sometime early on in the game (early 50's I think.....can't find it on wiki).

Wonder what the world would have looked like today if he accepted......

 

[Brewer_010]

We should all be tending to believe the science given our hobby is based on it. And give the planet the benefit of the doubt. It is pretty irrelevant whether we caused global warming it or not, we know burning oil and coal is no good, so let's change.

This article is from New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032...r-drinkers.html about the saaz growing area.

The vast majority of science suggests that the planet is warming, and thus having an effect on these hop growing regions.

So "Stop Global Warming or Kiss Your Saaz Goodbye"!

Save the polar bear or the mighty Saaz hop?? I'll be doing my bit to save the saaz (and the Hallertau)

 

[himzol]

They can probably express themselves clearly, without saying contradictory things that make them seem a bit daft.

If haven't explained my self clearly, and you think me daft...so be it.

I'll take the bait, though.

If it seems I was baiting anybody, then I apologise, this was not the intent. The intent was to explain that knowledge in a specified area of expertise does not make you smarter than anybody else, who may have knowledge in another area, which in it's own way is just as usefull

I'll put it to you that whatever it is they earned their "alphabet" in is a more useful (and difficult to master) skill than the changing of a tap washer.

No disagreement on the difficulty...how usefull it is depends on the application.

As an example, my qualifications were next to useless to me or anybody else for a period of about ten years while I was in managment..the skills I had learned aquireing those letters behind my name, were not being applied.

Himzo.