Exercise 1

http://www.jocn-journal.com/article/S0967-5868(13)00591-2/abstract

This paper is available from a Journal and related to health in NZ. It is well researched. Its observations are excellent.

The data came from primary sources, in fact every Neurologist in NZ so it is precise and truly reflects the incidences of MS in the population.

This is an example graph, I just avoided paying the $30 for the article but roughly speaking its close enough for our assignment.

So here is the hypothetical situation for your groups to consider;

NZ is experiencing population growth and it has been decided to open up the Auckland Islands for population.

The Auckland Islands are at 57 degrees South.

Your job is to look at predictions of required Health Care for the new populous on the Islands with respect to expectations of MS.

There are some hints below.

So here is an analogous activity ;

http://physics.info/radiation/practice.shtml

Scroll down to the Vostock Ice Core plot.

Scroll down to the scatter graph with the 400 ppm Mauna Loa extrapolation point.

http://physics.info/radiation/vostok-co2.html

Now compare the well known Ice Core temperature and CO2 time series, and this scatter correlation graph.

Extend to 400 ppm and predict the temperature change. ( Its marked just in case you miss it )

Make policy suggestions about this in relation to your media awareness and understanding of AGW or "Climate Change".

Quick question, Is the temperature at Vostok 10 degrees as your plot suggests ?

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89606.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/new-karl-buster-paper-confirms-the-pause-and-models-failure/

Things to consider ;

Primary / Secondary data

Correlation vs Causation

Independent, Dependent and Control Variables

Empiricalism

Assumptions

Bias

Paradigms of Thinking

Inductive Logic

Deductive Logic

Patterns in Data

A skeptical attitude towards analysis of the data

Null Hypothesis ( vs. a non falsifiable hypothesis )

Unknown factors that are known

Unknown factors that are unknown

Errors in the data

Grounded approach, take both sides of an assumption / conclusion and look at the pros and cons of the arguments.

Deliberate Distortions or Data manipulation

Longitudinal errors and "Revisions"

Predictions are not the real unless the science is known !

You have to guess and test many hypothesis !

Until the prediction happens it can't be measured.

Plotting new points on a graph based on past trends is actually a prediction and if you don't have a concrete "law" or real understanding of your variables to base the extrapolation on, you are in a heap of trouble.

Science readjusts it's acceptance of "theories" or "laws" as a better explanations come along.

NULL Hypothesis reading......

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/

This is not a scientific hypothesis:

More CO2 will cause some warming.

It is arm waving.

This is a scientific hypothesis:

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause the lower troposphere to warm by ___ °C.

Thirty-plus years of failed climate models never been able to fill in the blank. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report essentially stated that it was no longer necessary to fill in the blank.

While it is very likely that human activities are the cause of at least some of the warming over the past 150 years, there is no robust statistical correlation. The failure of the climate models clearly demonstrates that the null hypothesis still holds true for atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

Have a look at Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist Lecture clip from the 60's here.( Quantum Field Theoretician Nobel Prize Winner )

Have a look at this video about cognitive Bias.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/12/perspective-needed-time-to-identify-variations-in-natural-climate-data-that-exceed-the-claimed-human-co2-warming-effect/

A comparative analysis of the two pervading points of view on CO2

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/14/two-competing-narratives-on-carbon-dioxide/

and another....

https://fee.org/articles/be-wary-of-the-orwellian-enlightened-class/

Exercise 2

Compare the 2 following Videos, Ridley with Hansen for Observations vs Predictions.

Make a 2 column list and count Observations in each video and Predictions in each video.

Science is about what we know about what we observe.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/

Viscount Matt Ridley

http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

James Hansen's latest

************ STOP PRESS ***********

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/

Hansens Latest as at Dec 2106

Some opinion

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/19/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-climate-science/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/20/a-geological-perspective-on-sea-level-and-storm-surges/

ABC Commentary

Exercise 3

Read this article below and critically analyse it.

Compare the Government's position on 1080 to its position on AGW. Why the 180 degree attitudes ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11734355

http://www.theusrus.de/blog/global-warming-causality-vs-timeframes/

Satellite temperatures against the IPCC predictions

The "new" NOAA longitudinal data revisions of ship born mainfold sea water intake temperatures to restore the IPCC 2 degrees C per century expectation. Read about Loginitudinal studies, measurement errors and revisions and think about the Cultural Cognition effect.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Also note the trend from 1900 to 1940 is identical, but at a time when CO2 was an insignificant factor.

Why did 1940 - 1960 show a reverse trend, also trending against the hypothesis ?

The 130 year average, area under the graph, is zero by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjlPvwRP-fM

NOAA Data Set commentary

You can track these adjustments and then compare to other variables for correlation, and guess what ....

http://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/

Scroll towards the end and listen....

Proxy CO2 of 10,000 years ago under represents by a factor of 2 in the Ice Core Record

Proxy CO2 of 100,000 years ago under represents by an factor of 15 in the Ice Core Record

Swings in 100 ppmv are in effect swings of 1500 ppmv.

The modern observed changes of 100 ppmv are hardly remarkable or effectual.

Dr Richard Lindzen on Climate Change

Dr Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace

Dr Moore Again

http://www.climatechange101.ca/

Climate is driven by energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect stops enough of this energy from escaping back into space, resulting in the earth having a temperature capable of supporting life as we know it. Without greenhouse gases the average earth temperature would be minus 18 °C, rather than our current livable plus 15 °C. Natural water vapour and clouds make up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 responsible for 3.6%. Of this, about 0.12%, or 0.039 °C can be attributed to human activities. Further incremental increases in CO2 become less and less effective. - See more at: http://www.climatechange101.ca/#sthash.wpRXBOHO.dpuf