Hey Aidan, I was just wondering, do you have the math? As an old engineer, I had it all many years ago, but had to work to get it back up to scratch a few years back.

Now I'm wondering just how much math you would have had to do. Is there computer software that does all the stuff we had to do the hard way. In my day we still used things like slide rules, logs, pens & paper, but I guess that may be so old fashioned that you don't need to know the math, if the computer can do all that boring stuff for you.

Hey Aiden,
"Try reading the story you linked to in its entirety: you'll find it refutes your claim!"

Ahh... I see.
You got me, that'll teach me for assuming.
My mistake, I apologise to everyone;
- Good job for calling it out.

Was my surmise correct?
Aidan,
Do you really not get it what was meant by having the iphone in one hand while protesting against coal ?
I only hope for the sake of our future that you're a one-off in your mentality !

Hasbeen,
I remember when I was at Uni, we were told why learning the mathematics was so important: just using software may be sufficient for technical engineers, but as professional engineers we'd be writing the software! And that proved to be correct - I've written a few bits of software using javascript and the Google Maps API.

Nowadays calculators and spreadsheets have totally replaced slide rules and log tables (and to some extent, even pens and paper) but most of the mathematical techniques are still the same. An exception is moment distribution equations, which have largely been replaced by finite element analysis.

My mathematical skills are at the normal civil and mechanical engineer level: much higher than would be expected of the general population, and more than adequate for most purposes. But even if my math skills were up to electrical engineer level, I still wouldn't be able to construct a climate model to place an upper bound on warming from CO2, as you seem to think you have done - there are just too many variables and feedback mechanisms even before you consider the tipping points. I'm quite happy to leave the complicated modelling to the professionals, though I would be interested in knowing how that 3/4°F figure was derived. Would I be correct in deducing (by the scale used) that it's from an American source rather than your own application of mathematics?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Climategate was an example of fraud. And if you don't know the context of the emails, they do look like fraud. But in context (with Britain's tabloid newspapers misreporting findings and misleadingly claiming that climate change wasn't happening, much like many on this board do) trying to prevent that happening again was a reasonable reaction. With hindsight it was unwise, but they did not commit fraud and the investigation cleared them of that.

And hypothetically, had Climategate been a fraud, it wouldn't mean the other work in this field around the world was also fraudulent.

individual,
>Do you really not get it what was meant by having the iphone in one hand while protesting against coal ?
I assumed it was literal. After all, runner was first to mention it and he's very keen on literalism!

But if there is another meaning and my surmise was incorrect, you'd better explain instead of repeatedly asking semirhetorical questions.

If my surmise was correct, of course, it reflects badly on you - but your repeated questioning only amplifies that.

To Aidan.

Your right that reducing localized pollution would help in the same cause as trying to reduce greenhouse gasses. However, I look at the issue from a long term practical side. Watching the news and the narrative for global warming, change and the general scope of enviornment all emergancies. All of those play off of two core concepts. 1) that we aren't taking care of our planet (which is true), and 2) an unhealthy shot of fear that the end is near (which despite the talk has never showed any real signs of being true).

At first a person moved to help the planet or even " save the earth" will, be supportive to the causes of global warming. But if we pay attention and watch what's being said over and over again you realize it's all crap. My point is that you can still take on enviornmental causes and issues without supporting a lie. Climite Change and global warming do not have any track record of being reliable. Or of acknowledging that they were wrong and correcting their findings. Which is a shame because of how closely environmental issues were tied to global warming, both will sink when people wake up from the shot of fear that the world isn't ending in 5-10 years. Don't be attached to a lie, in fact be cautious of being too close to something unreliable. They'll both drown you when they are found to be in error.

You can care about the enviornment without claiming climite change. We should start doing this now before no one cares about the enviornment due to the lies of global warming.