Is global warming real? (Split from The First Climate Model Turns 50, and ...)

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

This is not an attempt to shift the burden of proof

Why would I be asked to prove something when I've made no specific claim? 

No "proof" is needed, just meaningful evidence.  A specific claim has been made and there must be evidence on which this is based.  Did someone take a poll?  What are the details of that poll?  Population size, specific questions, etc.  That is probably too much detail to ask, but there must be something behind the claim beyond just the anecdotal.  Perhaps there is no such evidence, just a prevailing opinion?  And, even if it is just opinion it doesn't mean it's wrong, just a bit less definite.

 

[Ken Fabian 136]

13 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

said that policies from the Australian Green Party have lead to the increased magnitude of the fires.  Instead of allowing forestry workers to carry out controlled burns of land to control tinder build up, or to let livestock roam free in certain areas, thus trampling down underbrush, foliage in certain areas has been allowed to grow unchecked thanks to protections from environmental legislation.

Australia's National Parks and Forestry and community Fire authorities use controlled burning and have never been prevented by "green regulation" from using it. Leading fire experts and former and current heads of fire authorities reject the claims that green regulation preventing burning off is to blame.

Blaming environmentalists is a nasty political claim that has no actual substance. The forestry industry has long been antagonistic to those calling for forest protection and regulation that limits their access to State owned forest resources - hating greenies comes with the job. But I think conservative right politics has become especially antagonistic and inflaming those hatreds because those are the loudest voices on climate change, the message is cutting through and that issue is gaining popular support.

Australian Greens have no policies that prevent hazard reduction burning - tending more towards promoting indigenous practices of controlled burning. They have never had enough representation to force policies on this. Livestock have been excluded from National Parks because their purpose is for native flora and fauna, not private grazing (a privilege widely abused when and where it was or is permitted); lots of Australians who are not "greenies" fully support that purpose.

Reduced opportunities for burning off are more to blame for inadequate hazard reduction burning, as well as poor resourcing of National Park and Forestry management, that have to have teams and equipment on the ground to do it. Record and near record warm winters are making what was previously a relatively predictable and relatively safe activity - hazard reduction burning - unpredictable and dangerous. Fire authorities have always had all the authority needed, to conduct burning off but they also have authority to call a halt to burning off when conditions are making it too dangerous.They decide, not The Australian Greens.

My own observation and speculation is that one of the crucial things that is changing with climate change warmer winters is lack of dew; my own observation was that previously, winter burning was often self limiting because cool conditions caused dew to form late in the night or early morning. Fires were lit in the previous afternoon or evening with a reasonable expectation they would go out. With warmer conditions there can be no such expectation; these activities are requiring ever greater vigilance, more people on the ground and more equipment.

Around here - in the middle of recent fires - the last few winters would have allowed no more than 1 month of opportunity to fires to burn slowly with low likelihood of escaping containment. That is actually too short a time for large areas with high fuel loads; six weeks can be considered the minimum for a fire to burn out sufficiently to be declared "out" and slow burning trees and tree roots can still restart fires for longer periods than that.

When I consider warming of 3C (at best I think) and possibly more than 5C (with the minimum levels of climate action that would be welcomed by Australia's current government) - it is properly terrifying.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Ken Fabian

[swansont 7440]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Seemingly you are going further, saying 100% of expert scientists agree that humans are altering the climate and that alteration is meaningful increases in temperature. 

I don’t see how you go from “it’s not 50-50” to conclude I am saying it’s 100%.

It will never be 100%. There are scientists who doubt relativity, and others who question QM. But that doesn’t mean there is a controversy. The weight of evidence in favor coupled with objections raised lacking merit. Or, as I suggested earlier - flat-earthers exist. Do I need statistics on them, or is the science enough?

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

   

3 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

It's not a matter of half of the scientific community supporting one position while the other half supports another.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

overwhelming majority of climate scientists (if not 100%)

 

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see how you go from “it’s not 50-50” to conclude I am saying it’s 100%.

The first quote I've shown implies what the second one says explicitly (overwhelming majority) and hints it could be 100%.  But we are quibbling; if you have evidence to support the assertion I'd be interesting in seeing it.  So far it seems that your claim (that the overwhelming majority of well established climate scientists are convinced of AGW. e.g. causes and solutions) is basically an opinion based on who you've "seen" but nothing else.  It's OK to say you have no other evidence.

Edit: the quote system didn't work right for me.  It was my intention that the three quotes were by swansont.  Now I have to go check I got it right.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Huckleberry of Yore
Quotes wrong.

[iNow 5855]

Look at the articles on the topic. Look at the organizations who study this and have openly stated their agreement.

This isn’t exactly as loose as you’re suggesting, nor is it in question any longer to anyone approaching the discussion in an intellectually honest manner. 
 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

Thanks, that's better, something I can read and evaluate. 

I'd note from my brief survey of the information provided that I don't see anywhere that they actually polled the population of climate scientists.  Rather, they asked only some of the scientists that had published papers on the subject of AGW over a span of time and came up in their search.  Perhaps that's a good proxy for "overwhelming majority" of "well established" climate scientists, perhaps not.

I see a variety of questionable trends in my field of software engineering, but I've learned the hard way to avoid criticizing them publicly, or face negative consequences.  Hopefully that doesn't happen in the more objective arena of scientific inquiry.

[iNow 5855]

Perhaps you’re waiting for someone to share these graphics

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

 

 

[Strange 4271]

9 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

I'd note from my brief survey of the information provided that I don't see anywhere that they actually polled the population of climate scientists.  Rather, they asked only some of the scientists that had published papers on the subject of AGW over a span of time and came up in their search.  Perhaps that's a good proxy for "overwhelming majority" of "well established" climate scientists, perhaps not.

The whole “9 out of 10 cats” thing is a distraction, anyway. 

There is no serious, scientific “other side” of the argument and it is up to those who claim there is to provide evidence of that. A significant number of widely cited papers, for example. 

[swansont 7440]

10 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

 The first quote I've shown implies what the second one says explicitly (overwhelming majority) and hints it could be 100%. 

A) "it's not half" in no way implies it's 100%, or even close

B) The second quote is not mine, so it doesn't matter what it says explicitly in terms of my statement.

 

10 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

But we are quibbling; if you have evidence to support the assertion I'd be interesting in seeing it. 

And my position is that at this point, we are beyond litigating this nonsense. At some point you have to stop re-inventing the wheel and move on to bigger things. If you want to have the discussion you need to educate yourself on the basics. I should not have to defend that the earth is a sphere, that astrology is not a real effect, or that AGW is the scientific consensus. We reach a point where the evidence is vast, and if you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show it. And if you are unaware, it's up to you to fill the ignorance hole. There's plenty of discussion on the subject.

 

10 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

So far it seems that your claim (that the overwhelming majority of well established climate scientists are convinced of AGW. e.g. causes and solutions) is basically an opinion based on who you've "seen" but nothing else.  It's OK to say you have no other evidence.

No, it's a fact based on what I have seen. If there were a legitimate alternative scientific explanation, we would be seeing scientific discussion exploring it. It's not there.

Instead what we get is what happened earlier in this thread:

"there's a guy who has good arguments against AGW"

"What are the arguments?"

<crickets>

10 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Edit: the quote system didn't work right for me.  It was my intention that the three quotes were by swansont.  Now I have to go check I got it right.

Well, no.

[Strange 4271]

12 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

No "proof" is needed, just meaningful evidence.  A specific claim has been made and there must be evidence on which this is based.  Did someone take a poll?  What are the details of that poll?  Population size, specific questions, etc.  That is probably too much detail to ask, but there must be something behind the claim beyond just the anecdotal.  Perhaps there is no such evidence, just a prevailing opinion?  And, even if it is just opinion it doesn't mean it's wrong, just a bit less definite.

The evidence is the absence of any significant scientific evidence against anthropogenic climate change. 

[dimreepr 1062]

The argument seems to be, its happend before yet here we are, ergo it's nothing to worry about... 

it's happening reg...

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

or even close

I disagree, but, again quibbling.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

The second quote is not mine, so it doesn't matter what it says explicitly in terms of my statement.

You're right, my post misquotes you.  Sorry, editing didn't seem to allow me to fix it.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

And my position is that at this point, we are beyond litigating this nonsense.

I haven't offered any opinion on AGW but simply asked for a reference for your claim, so I've litigated nothing.  When I asked for a reference for your claim you could have simply declined.

If we are beyond litigating then why in the heck did you allow this thread to exist?  The title ASKS if global warming is real, right?  Perhaps you could as moderator added "Yes" and locked it.  Or added "any commentary suggesting the negative will be deleted".

Edited January 15, 2020 by Huckleberry of Yore

[Strange 4271]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Or added "any commentary suggesting the negative will be deleted".

Or, more realistically, "any commentary suggesting the negative will need to be supported by evidence."

There is a general assumption on science forums that well-established mainstream science does not need to be defended. Some forums completely ban any discussion of "non-science" (however that is defined) others allow it under very rigid control, and yet others are a complete free for all. This forum is somewhere in the middle: allowing people to discuss their pet theories or challenge science within some fairly loosely defined limits. But in any such discussions, the assumption is that currently accepted science is taken as already well tested and well supported by evidence. So if someone says it is wrong, they need some pretty convincing arguments. 

Now, one can ask if the world is round or climate change is real, and the answer is yes. One can ask for evidence of that and people may provide it, or provide links to where one can lean more. But there is no requirement for anyone here to do that.

On the other hand, if someone says that the world is flat or says that climate change is a hoax, then they must back that up.

You ask for evidence that there is no "other side". How can anyone do that? There is no evidence of "the other side" because there is no other side to the science.

But, again, if someone says that there is another side that should be listened to, then it is up to them to show (a)  that the other side exists and (b) that it has some valid evidence. (In the many discussions of climate change I have seen, neither of those have ever been done. For good reason.)

(And note that the OP was not "just asking")

2 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

The title ASKS if global warming is real, right?  Perhaps you could as moderator added "Yes" and locked it. 

Maybe it is time to do that. *shrug*

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no evidence of "the other side" because there is no other side to the science.

While the bulk of your response is reasonable I would point out that the "evidence" I was directed to referenced the following:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature:

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Is this not evidence that there is another side?  If we have no confidence in the 2.9% how can we objectively believe the 97.1%?

Lastly, as the title of the thread suggests, several sincere and reasonable questions come to me while considering the question; I dare not pose them in this setting, as I likely would be ridiculed, ostracized, denigrated, belittled, insulted, suspended, banned.  This does not apply to most other topics here, so I try to stick to those.

[Bufofrog 160]

54 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Is this not evidence that there is another side?  If we have no confidence in the 2.9% how can we objectively believe the 97.1%?

Seriously?

[Strange 4271]

56 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Is this not evidence that there is another side?  If we have no confidence in the 2.9% how can we objectively believe the 97.1%?

Not necessarily. It depends on the quality of those dissenting voices or, more accurately, the quality of the evidence and analysis in those dissenting papers. Obviously, it may not be easy for a layman to make that judgement. And, of course, not all of the papers which support climate change are necessarily of high quality. And it may be that some of the 2.9% are actually pointing out problems in flawed papers in the 97% (which is a good thing).

As swansont says, there are serious physicists who think relativity is wrong (and biologists who think evolution is wrong). That doesn't mean there is "another side" that is worth considering. Those people are just wrong.

But it is good that there are people challenging the consensus. Science needs that. Einstein's views on quantum theory were wrong. But the fact that he challenged it made people think more carefully about those issues and come up with better experimental tests to confirm the theory.

56 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Lastly, as the title of the thread suggests, several sincere and reasonable questions come to me while considering the question; I dare not pose them in this setting, as I likely would be ridiculed, ostracized, denigrated, belittled, insulted, suspended, banned. 

I don't think that is fair. None of those things have happened to the OP or to you for asking questions (unless I missed it). 

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not necessarily. It depends on the quality of those dissenting voices or, more accurately, the quality of the evidence and analysis in those dissenting papers.

It doesn't appear to me that the authors of the referenced study included "quality" in their analysis and it isn't obvious how that could be measured.   Under Methodology:

"We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement."

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

None of those things have happened to the OP or to you for asking questions (unless I missed it).

Well, I asked for a reference but was accused of litigating, and my query called nonsense.  I'll refrain and educate myself on the basics, including the cited article which will make for interesting reading.  Thanks.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

I should not have to defend that the earth is a sphere

It's a spheroid.  (Just giving you crap.)

 

[swansont 7440]

4 hours ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

I haven't offered any opinion on AGW but simply asked for a reference for your claim, so I've litigated nothing.  When I asked for a reference for your claim you could have simply declined.

Asking for evidence of an obscure claim is one thing, but this is not obscure. It ends up being a delaying tactic in such discussions, often deployed in ways inconsistent with good-faith arguments. You don’t show up to a class that has a prerequisite and then interrupt by asking for material you should know.

would a reference really matter? You already rejected the 97% statistic (and without much explanation). Why would it work if I reiterated it?

Quote

If we are beyond litigating then why in the heck did you allow this thread to exist?  The title ASKS if global warming is real, right?  Perhaps you could as moderator added "Yes" and locked it.  Or added "any commentary suggesting the negative will be deleted".

I’m participating in the thread. 

Basic forum rules tell us that commentary suggesting the negative needs to be supported with evidence. There’s also a concept that in the mainstream science sections, that mainstream science is assumed to be true. (If a poster thinks otherwise they should be posting their arguments is speculations) Evidence of consensus is not something that comes up in other discussions, though. Why are you holding AGW to a different standard?

[Strange 4271]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

It doesn't appear to me that the authors of the referenced study included "quality" in their analysis

That was kind of the point I was making. 

 

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

but this is not obscure

Which section of the guidelines defines obscurity?

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

It ends up being a delaying tactic

An unfounded accusation.  I'm not in favor of delays.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t show up to a class that has a prerequisite

Shouldn't prerequisites be clearly stated when they apply?

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would it work if I reiterated it?

It probably wouldn't but perhaps you've encountered something else persuasive on the topic; I appreciate your point of view!

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why are you holding AGW to a different standard?

I don't know how to quantify the standards you are referring to, I was simply asking for information.  Citations or guidelines?

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Seriously?

What's the cutoff point at which the minority is to be discounted, shunned, shamed, and ostracized?  I've worked in the field of commercial aviation electronics; if someone tells you that your plane has a 97% chance of making it to the destination, my recommendation is: consider alternative transportation.

Trying to remain on topic, I was interested in the previously posted information about Vincent E. Courtillot but apparently the cited video is in French.  No discussion followed the citation.  From years ago I recall a man called Landsea (?), a noted denier.  Again, given the tone of these posts, I cringe at attempting a dialog on their points of view.  They are ignorant or liars so why bother?

[moth 137]

22 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

if someone tells you that your plane has a 97% chance of making it to the destination, my recommendation is: consider alternative transportation.

Sorry if I'm confused but I think the analogy is 97% are saying the plane won't make it and you are saying we should believe the 3% who claim everything is ok.

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

20 hours ago, moth said:

Sorry if I'm confused but I think the analogy is 97% are saying the plane won't make it and you are saying we should believe the 3% who claim everything is ok.

No, I'm saying that if even 3% are saying the plane won't make it, don't trust the 97%.

22 hours ago, Strange said:

there are serious physicists who think relativity is wrong (and biologists who think evolution is wrong)

Big difference I'd say.  Peaking out my window reveals evolution is obvious; it's actually depressing science took so long to adopt it.  Not quite so with relativity but it's application has been critical in implementing things like GPS not to mention all the evidence over the century or so. 

Global warming is much more difficult to perceive and to measure.  Climate change on the other hand is impossible to disprove and also difficult to measure.  Further, attributing such phenomena, even if they are measured, to human activity adds more difficulty.  

I keep hearing promises of increasing temperatures but I don't see it.  it'd be nice if I could plant my tomatoes a little earlier, and get a better harvest due to higher temps.  What I do fear is global cooling, but that's off topic, right? 

[Sensei 1037]

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Global warming is much more difficult to perceive and to measure.  Climate change on the other hand is impossible to disprove and also difficult to measure.  Further, attributing such phenomena, even if they are measured, to human activity adds more difficulty.  

Did you see video from my previous post?

 

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

I keep hearing promises of increasing temperatures but I don't see it.  it'd be nice if I could plant my tomatoes a little earlier, and get a better harvest due to higher temps.  What I do fear is global cooling, but that's off topic, right? 

Global warming means change of global maxima as well as global minima from moderate to more extremes. For example in the case of United Kingdom temperature will drop and UK will have colder winters than now. Don't be fooled that it's sign against global warming! It will be result of global warming.

[Strange 4271]

25 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

No, I'm saying that if even 3% are saying the plane won't make it, don't trust the 97%.

But that is the exact opposite of the current situation.

Quote

Peaking out my window reveals evolution is obvious

Evolution has, indeed, been obvious for millennia. What was missing for all that time was an explanation (a theory) of how and why it occurred in the way it did. It took the insights and evidence gathered by Wallace and Darwin to change the paradigm.

28 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Global warming is much more difficult to perceive and to measure. 

No it isn't. Testing relativity to the extent it has been confirmed has required incredibly complex and sensitive experiments. Multiple lines of evidence from different experiments have all turned out to be consistent with each other and with the theory. (Keyword: consilience.)

The same is true in climate science. Different ways of modelling and measuring the effects have all produced consistent results. For example, measuring the spectra of radiation transmitted from the atmosphere (using satellites) is completely consistent with the predicted effects for the measured levels of CO2; the measurements of industrial output (using, for example, GDP) matches growing levels of CO2 production; models of how climate is affected by insolation, greenhouse gas levels, albedo (snow, volcanic eruptions, cloud cover), etc can be matched with past conditions, and on and on.

You can keep saying that there is doubt or "another side" or how poor the science is. But until you provide some evidence, these assertions have no value. Especially when weighed against the mountains of scientific evidence.

39 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

I keep hearing promises of increasing temperatures but I don't see it.

Maybe you are confusing weather with climate? In some parts of the world, climate change is likely to result in colder weather (or, at least, more frequent extremes of cold weather). Remember, climate change is about average temperatures increasing, not about "everywhere getting hotter, every day".

The last decade was confirmed as the hottest on record: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176 (but even a decade could be counted as weather, rather than climate).

 

 

 

[Huckleberry of Yore 0]

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Did you see video from my previous post?

I examined the graph but I didn't watch a video, do you mean the one about arctic ice?  Sorry I didn't watch the video.  Anyway, I saw the "alleged" temperature increase but this just leads to more questions.

10 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Don't be fooled that it's sign against global warming!

You know that would be just my luck!  The world would boil over but I'd freeze my butt off somehow.  Lol.

@Sensei, Nihonjin desu ka?  Watashi wa nihongo de heta desu.  Demo Nihon e ikimashita takusan, ichiban ii desu.  Sorry if you're not Japanese, years ago I worked there many times, and loved it.  My poor knowledge of the language is fading.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But that is the exact opposite of the current situation.

I understand what's going on now.  You and moth et al are assigning a negative outcome to global warming, I tend to disagree that it would be negative, and believe the "solutions" proposed would be disastrous.  Regardless, I'd argue that either sentiment is off topic to some degree as we are discussing whether global warming is real, not whether it is good or bad.  Am I wrong?

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

What was missing for all that time was an explanation

While I don't disagree I'd also point out the increased ease with which technology allowed research to bloom after the industrial revolution.  Easier to travel, to publish, etc; my point is that these things may help explain the delay in developing that and other theories.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

The same is true in climate science.

At least you should agree that climate change is what is IIRC correctly longitudinal in nature, in that it requires a span of time to get a perspective.  Not so much for evolution and relativity.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

But until you provide some evidence, these assertions have no value.

To be honest, I suspect the other side is considerably more than 3%, but that is my opinion and I have not sought to persuade anyone except to ask for information.  And, I suspect that even if the "other side" is 3% (or less) we could be in a situation like centuries ago when the prevailing opinion was that the earth was flat, a ridiculed minority believed otherwise.  Of course I suspect I'll be accused of being the flat earther in this discussion so why bring it up.

More than evidence I have questions regarding this topic, but as I've stated previously, I'll refrain as just abuse will ensue, and who has time for that?

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe you are confusing weather with climate?

No need to go there, yes I understand the difference.