Greg, now do you believe that Climate Change is real?

rjsterry

paul2718 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So based on a relatively small divergence over the last 10 years, but a preceding 100 years of fairly close correlation, we're going to throw the whole thing out as misguided rubbish? Seems a little rash. Is there a graph that sticks the post-2000 bit onto the pre-2000 bit so that you can see it in context? Your graph does seem to contradict the one(s) I posted, but obviously they are over dramatically different time frames.

I don't think you can claim '100 years of fairly close correlation' since any model output that didn't correlate with history wouldn't persist very long as a potential indicator of the future.

The divergence between model and reality over the last 10-15 years is a hot topic, and I think there is some interesting work being done. It's a bit of a problem that 'wolf' has been cried so loud for the last 15 years.

Paul

Fair point that any model that didn't match historical data would have been a non starter, but I'm not sure that in itself invalidates the model(s). To come up with a model that even does that was not insignificant. That modelling the climate is (even) more complicated than had been thought is not altogether surprising, though.

Edit: Not sure that a claim of 15 years of crying wolf is fair either - the extent of the flattening off of the trend is only really clear with hindsight.

vimfuego

Quite an interesting thread this. And still going.
Anyway, here's how I see it

Sewinman

paul2718 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul

You could easily lay out a similar two points for climate science -
1. Basic physics
2. The temperature over the last 100 years.

notsoblue

paul2718 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul

Most of the public objection to Darwin's theory was due to people just not wanting to accept the implications it had for the origin of mankind.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul

Most of the public objection to Darwin's theory was due to people just not wanting to accept the implications it had for the origin of mankind.

And similarly, I suspect that a lot of the public objection to AGW is due to people just not wanting to accept the implications for our current way of living.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Most of the public objection to Darwin's theory was due to people just not wanting to accept the implications it had for the origin of mankind.

And similarly, I suspect that a lot of the public objection to AGW is due to people just not wanting to accept the implications for our current way of living.

A mate of mine is vehemently anti AGW, not because he cares about the science behind it (he doesn't understand it, and doesn't claim to) but because he thinks AGW is just a modish leftwing ploy to increase taxation on big business. There are other people I know who hate the very idea of sustainable energy because they live in the country and they equate it with views spoiled by wind turbines. Others have (imo) valid concerns about political greenwash and the goldrush attitude of sustainable industry. But overall, I haven't ever heard any credible criticism of the science behind AGW.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Most of the public objection to Darwin's theory was due to people just not wanting to accept the implications it had for the origin of mankind.

And similarly, I suspect that a lot of the public objection to AGW is due to people just not wanting to accept the implications for our current way of living.

A mate of mine is vehemently anti AGW, not because he cares about the science behind it (he doesn't understand it, and doesn't claim to) but because he thinks AGW is just a modish leftwing ploy to increase taxation on big business. There are other people I know who hate the very idea of sustainable energy because they live in the country and they equate it with views spoiled by wind turbines. Others have (imo) valid concerns about political greenwash and the goldrush attitude of sustainable industry. But overall, I haven't ever heard any credible criticism of the science behind AGW.

Interesting how it is both a left-wing plot *and* a get rich quick scheme for businesses

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting how it is both a left-wing plot *and* a get rich quick scheme for businesses

Modish left-wing businesses run by champagne socialists :P

I don't know really, this whole issue is incredibly complexed. Ultimately, my view boils down to the idea that we probably should be looking at technologies for generating energy, manufacturing goods and growing foodstuffs that are sustainable in the true sense of the word. Even if this is at the expense of more established practices.

il_principe

Sewinman wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul

You could easily lay out a similar two points for climate science -
1. Basic physics
2. The temperature over the last 100 years.

100 years? We're talking geological time here, you can't draw any reliable conclusions from looking at the last 100 years.

DonDaddyD

Yes you can.

You could compare the air quality of London during that time to now and how things have changed, especially when you consider things like the great smog.

100 years from today was 1914, I bet the World was colder.

Of course I'd probably go back another 1, 2 or 3 hundred years to see if there was any further correlation... but that's beside the point.... lol.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes you can.

You could compare the air quality of London during that time to now and how things have changed, especially when you consider things like the great smog.

100 years from today was 1914, I bet the World was colder.

Of course I'd probably go back another 1, 2 or 3 hundred years to see if there was any further correlation... but that's beside the point.... lol.

meh I wonder if that smog was any worse for you than all the nasty particulates that float around these days. The air just looks cleaner...

DonDaddyD

To be honest, I referenced that in the hope that someone far smarter than I would answer just that point!

pblakeney

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
100 years from today was 1914, I bet the World was colder.
...

Not so much has changed.
"It was mild or very mild, and the afternoon temperature on the 14th amost reached 14°C."
http://www.london-weather.eu/article.54.html

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

100 years? We're talking geological time here, you can't draw any reliable conclusions from looking at the last 100 years.

The argument is that a change that would otherwise have taken place over a much longer period, has in fact happened in the last 100-200 years. Albeit there is disagreement about whether that is actually the case, and if so then what the cause is.

As for Victorian smog and modern urban air pollution, they're quite different things, with one almost entirely coal-based and the other mostly from burning petrol and diesel. Not sure saying that one was worse than the other tells us much, although the 1952 London (coal) Smog is reckoned to have killed an extra 4000 people during the incident, with another 8000 deaths attributed in the following months. Amazingly it took another four years to bring in the Clean Air Acts. This suggests that modern air pollution kills a lower, but still comparable number - 4200-odd attributable to long term exposure in 2008.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul

You could easily lay out a similar two points for climate science -
1. Basic physics
2. The temperature over the last 100 years.

100 years? We're talking geological time here, you can't draw any reliable conclusions from looking at the last 100 years.

You're right. Let's ignore the scientific consensus on the issue and come out with statements like that that don't actually mean anything but sound like you know what you're talking about and have a legitimate criticism of the evidence presented.

:roll:

notsoblue

Heres some more "warmist" propaganda. http://warmingworld.newscientistapps.com/

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul

You could easily lay out a similar two points for climate science -
1. Basic physics
2. The temperature over the last 100 years.

100 years? We're talking geological time here, you can't draw any reliable conclusions from looking at the last 100 years.

You're right. Let's ignore the scientific consensus on the issue and come out with statements like that that don't actually mean anything but sound like you know what you're talking about and have a legitimate criticism of the evidence presented.

:roll:

Let me just run that through google translate...

Here we are: "You may hold the opinion that you are told to have. No other opinion is permitted. You are not qualified to question the "broad scientific consensus". You will accept it and repeat it. Always remember: good science commands unremitting obedience.

In other news, our armies have inflicted yet more crushing defeats on Eastasia in conjunction with our loyal allies, Eurasia. Tractor production has reached record levels."

rick_chasey

Not really.

I see it like this.

There's a scientific community that go about doing experiments, examining evidence, creating models etc to work out what has, is and will happen.

By and large, they're pretty good at examining what they do with scientific objectivity and making conclusions from that.

They go through various processes whereby they examine each other's work to make sure it is scientifically rigorous and the conclusions match the evidence.

Now, they have the expertise and the access to the evidence, do they not? Surely it makes sense for the ill-informed, un-expert public to put a reasonable amount of faith in these people with regard to their conclusions, right?

Just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Now, there's nothing to stop you going through the same process these experts have - hell, you could be an expert yourself - and find your own credible evidence and conclusions which are contrary to what the community is broadly saying at the moment. Great. You're adding to Human's knowledge on the issue.

So no, i'm not saying your may not hold an opinion that is separate from the scientific community. But I am saying said opinion carries no credibility. The science discredits it. Have it if you want - it may or may not suit other agendas that are tangential to whether Climate Change is occurring or not (i.e. the implications on politics etc if it is), but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

In my eyes it's a stance not very far removed from creationism.

MaxwellBygraves

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Here we are: "You may hold the opinion that you are told to have. No other opinion is permitted. You are not qualified to question the "broad scientific consensus". You will accept it and repeat it. Always remember: good science commands unremitting obedience.

The Flat Earth Society still exist, but that doesn't mean you have to take them seriously.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my eyes it's a stance not very far removed from creationism.

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

The Flat Earth Society still exist, but that doesn't mean you have to take them seriously.

Wow. You two really have fully signed up to this, haven't you? Proper CC jihadis.

You both do realise, I hope, that (respectively) creationism is about as scientific as magic, and that both science and observation positively disprove flat earther theory? So that is, in scientific terms, unanimity that those two ideas are absolutely and certainly wrong.

Whereas your beloved CC scientists represent a "broad consensus", that advances views as to what is "likely", varying degrees of "confidence". So (I assume) that you understand that a broad consensus is, by definition, not unanimity, and that degrees of confidence as to what is likely are not certainty.

It is precisely this sort of ill considered and sloppy rhetoric that gives the CC people a bad name. If you really think doubt about CC science is to be equated with creationism or flat earth believers, then you plainly understand very little of what science realy is about. But hey, don't let me get in your way. Just think of me fatwa'd, and you can get on spreading the Word.

Ps. Models. You know that the only test of a model is how well it predicts future events, don't you? Any model can be adjusted, tweaked, bent out of shape and generally cheated with to accord with past observations. You might want to research the Catholic church's mathematical model that was used to explain the motion of objects in the sky - with the earth at try centre of the Universe. The model could be made to work, no mistake - just every time a new observation came along that didn't fit, a further "adjustment" was made.

rick_chasey

So you think because there is a small chance it's wrong it's best to ignore it all?

I'm not saying I believe - I'm saying with what science has done so far it seems likely enough to accept and therefore address.

To make things clearer - what do you think? I'm just assuming from the title.

rick_chasey

And to be clear, I'm using words like 'likely' and ' probably' carefully and precisely.

It's not sloppy. It's accurate.

florerider

basic physics sets up the context that increased CO2 will make warming inevitable - the atmosphere remains permeable to incoming energy at the wavelength of sunlight but blocks outward heat transmission at the wavelength the earth emits.

the only question therefore is what the effects will be and how fast they occur.

The warmest decade on record (700 years) is hardly "no evidence"

The recent wetness and volatility is right in line with predictions made decades ago for the effect of climate change - ie warmer oceans mean an increase in extreme weather events for maritime countries.

What confuses people was the media reporting it a global warming with changes to Australia type climates for northern Europe based on one dry and hot summer. That was never the projection made by climate scientists.

The impacts on the oceans have been significant already, and there is no body of opinion disputing that.

Sewinman

The latest IPCC report states a 95% probability of the consensus view being correct. Hang on to that 5% Greg.....you can keep your Audi!

Paulie W

Whenever I head the phrase sicentific consensus I reach for my copy of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

rick_chasey

Please enlighten us.

Paulie W

In a nutshell - and without really reflecting the nuance of his argument - Kuhn argued that scientists seek to confirm dominant theories or paradigms rather than refute them; and that these paradigms do not exist outside the cultural context in which they emerged. The creation of consensus is thus to be expected (and is in a significant sense intertwined with the cultural context in which it was created) and shouldnt be confused with any notion of scientific truth. When a critical mass of results emerge which cannot be explained by the theory/paradigm, a period of scientfic revolution begins during which the dominant paradigm is deconstructed and rejected and a new one emerges - Kuhn argued that this model of paradigm shift much better reflected the history of science.

Personally, I'm fully on board with the idea of climate change being a function of human activity or rather that human activity has accelerated the process of change; mainly because I think many of the initiatives to combat this perceived problem are in themselves a good thing.

notsoblue

Dominant theories only become so because they become the best way to explain something at the time. As soon as someone comes up with a better theory, things move on. I don't think some people really understand the built in transience of theories within the "consensus".

rjsterry

Paulie W wrote:

In a nutshell - and without really reflecting the nuance of his argument - Kuhn argued that scientists seek to confirm dominant theories or paradigms rather than refute them; and that these paradigms do not exist outside the cultural context in which they emerged. The creation of consensus is thus to be expected (and is in a significant sense intertwined with the cultural context in which it was created) and shouldnt be confused with any notion of scientific truth. When a critical mass of results emerge which cannot be explained by the theory/paradigm, a period of scientfic revolution begins during which the dominant paradigm is deconstructed and rejected and a new one emerges - Kuhn argued that this model of paradigm shift much better reflected the history of science.

Personally, I'm fully on board with the idea of climate change being a function of human activity or rather that human activity has accelerated the process of change; mainly because I think many of the initiatives to combat this perceived problem are in themselves a good thing.

I think that gets to the heart of it. Trying to reduce our use on fossil fuels (and other finite resources for that matter) has numerous other benefits, quite apart from the arguments over AGW. Only yesterday, someone posted about how traffic on Putney High Street has already breached annual limits for levels of NO2.

notsoblue

I totally agree with PaulieW.

Also, this was a very interesting post on climate change: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... ce/cfpy15c