Jump to content

Science Not Settled


Wxman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's why the Humlum paper is bunkum
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/

It's related to the point I brought up before that they are looking at a derivative (or differential) rather than the data itself.

Short version: they discovered that El Ninos warm the ocean and release CO2. Their analysis has no hope of detecting longer-term trends

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Was aware of the data, but the first time I'd seen the chart, which only reinforces the fact there are natural cycles of temp/CO2.
If that's the first time you've seen those much published, several times linked here, for several years now standard common informational graphs, then you have no idea what you are talking about in this thread.

 

That's more or less equivalent to someone talking about the weather patterns over the Great Plains, complaining about the weather forecasters not paying attention to natural cycles, and when shown a map of the region saying that they had never seen a map showing the Rocky Mountains before.

 

To repeat: nobody is or ever has been claiming there are no natural cycles of temp/CO2. Everybody knows all about that. Everybody involved (except apparently a few denialists) has seen all this stuff, years ago. That's something everyone at all informed in the matter already knows. That's not news. That has been carefully taken into account by every single scientist and researcher claiming that the CO2 boost is dangerous and will trap large amounts of heat likely to alter the climate. Every single one. They've all seen the graphs, measured and charted and analyzed the natural cycles, and incorporated them into their analyses, predictions, theories, and explanations. The entire field of climate researchers now attempting to warn you guys about some of the effects of boosting CO2 as we have been is fully informed about all the natural cycles, and has been for many, many years now.

 

There are no "cycle denialists". Not one. None. Is that clear? Does anyone need to repeat that any more, for your edification?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to mention is that since the long-term trend in warming is between 0.1 ºC and 0.15 ºC per decade, then any annual change will be of order 0.015º. The fact that graphs are showing much larger fluctuations shows that they are not showing the effects of CO2, which is not surprising, since the 2-3 ppm changes in in CO2 concentration are not predicted to cause such large changes in temperature. Nor should you even expect to see the annual effects, as they will be drowned out by the much noisier weather variation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So much for the so-called warming pause

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

 

[T]he global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Just read another article in Wall Street Journal (WSJ) dissing global warming.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

 

It basically says the pause in global warming over the past 15 years shows that climate scientists have been wrong and there is nothing to be alarmed about.

 

Then I came to this forum and found the link above from Swansont which shows there really has not been a pause.

 

It is very disturbing that the WSJ continues to publish editorials without telling its readers the whole story. We need someone who is an expert in this area to write to the WSJ and straighten them out. The public needs to know the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very disturbing that the WSJ continues to publish editorials without telling its readers the whole story. We need someone who is an expert in this area to write to the WSJ and straighten them out. The public needs to know the truth.

Write to the WSJ all you want. Murdoch and his minions control the content and no group of well reasoned or set of informed letters will change his underlying objectives, ideologies, nor his desire to root any of his publications in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Science from a human point of view. Nobody likes to lose face.

 

Especially the thousands of scientists who've signed-up to "Man-made Global Warming". They've committed themselves to the idea. So, suppose the idea were proved wrong. What would happen? It would cause a devastating loss of face. Everyone who believed in the discredited idea would look silly.

 

So the idea must be kept going. At least until all the old scientists who believed in it, are safely dead, or senile. Then new young scientists, will see more clearly.

 

Isn't that how Science works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Science from a human point of view. Nobody likes to lose face.

 

Especially the thousands of scientists who've signed-up to "Man-made Global Warming". They've committed themselves to the idea. So, suppose the idea were proved wrong. What would happen? It would cause a devastating loss of face. Everyone who believed in the discredited idea would look silly.

 

So the idea must be kept going. At least until all the old scientists who believed in it, are safely dead, or senile. Then new young scientists, will see more clearly.

 

Isn't that how Science works?

 

Nope. It's a BS straw man of how science works.

 

Scientists are wrong all the time; experiments or theoretical ventures don't work out, ideas get shot down. Works in progress get modified or abandoned in light of new information. If science worked the way you describe we never would have embraced relativity or quantum mechanics, because they were contrary to the classical status quo.

 

Generally speaking, scientists are much more interested in getting it right. That's how you make a name for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Science from a human point of view. Nobody likes to lose face.

 

Especially the thousands of scientists who've signed-up to "Man-made Global Warming". They've committed themselves to the idea.

Why do scientists who accept "Man-made Global Warming" dislike losing face any more than scientists who have accepted any other theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Scientists are wrong all the time; experiments or theoretical ventures don't work out, ideas get shot down. Works in progress get modified or abandoned in light of new information. If science worked the way you describe we never would have embraced relativity or quantum mechanics, because they were contrary to the classical status quo.

 

Generally speaking, scientists are much more interested in getting it right. That's how you make a name for yourself.

 

Swansont, you may be too idealistic in your view. You're probably right, that specific bits of Science - "works in progress", as you put it - can get modified in the light of new information.

 

But my point is this: once an over-arching general idea has been accepted, it isn't easily got rid of. I know from your always impressive posts, that you're a true scientist, and have a good knowledge of scientific history.

 

So you surely know, that the history of Science contains quite a few examples of great scientists who resisted change . Like Galileo, Cavendish, Lord Kelvin, and - most prominently - Einstein, who until his dying day, never really embraced Quantum Theory.

 

I think this lends some support to my basic contention, which is that Science progresses, when old scientists die, and new scientists replace them.

 

So getting back to the "Man-made Global Warming" business. This current theory will hold the field until about 2025 at max. Then it'll be "disproved" by a new (revisionist) scientific generation. Who will warn of "Global Cooling", and the urgent need to increase anthropogenic carbon emissions - to ward off an incipient new Ice Age.

 

Or perhaps by then, we'll just get on with doing our own thing, and adapt as necessary to the Earth's natural climate cycles. But I doubt it. We need a threat of Doomsday, don't we?

Why do scientists who accept "Man-made Global Warming" dislike losing face any more than scientists who have accepted any other theory?

Because these days it's different. The World Wide Web has unfortunately propagated the views of the AGW community to the whole planet. They've got everyone on Earth worried about "carbon-footprints"! Supposedly. Actually, most people can recognise a load of cobblers when they see it. But anyway, any backing-down, would cause AGW proponents a massive loss of face, and humiliation on a global scale.

 

Therefore, we must wait until they die, or quietly retire, before new sane views can be brought in. That will be by 2025, probably, though hopefully sooner.

Edited by Dekan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swansont, you may be too idealistic in your view. You're probably right, that specific bits of Science - "works in progress", as you put it - can get modified in the light of new information.

 

But my point is this: once an over-arching general idea has been accepted, it isn't easily got rid of. I know from your always impressive posts, that you're a true scientist, and have a good knowledge of scientific history.

 

So you surely know, that the history of Science contains quite a few examples of great scientists who resisted change . Like Galileo, Cavendish, Lord Kelvin, and - most prominently - Einstein, who until his dying day, never really embraced Quantum Theory.

 

I think this lends some support to my basic contention, which is that Science progresses, when old scientists die, and new scientists replace them.

 

So getting back to the "Man-made Global Warming" business. This current theory will hold the field until about 2025 at max. Then it'll be "disproved" by a new (revisionist) scientific generation. Who will warn of "Global Cooling", and the urgent need to increase anthropogenic carbon emissions - to ward off an incipient new Ice Age.

 

Or perhaps by then, we'll just get on with doing our own thing, and adapt as necessary to the Earth's natural climate cycles. But I doubt it. We need a threat of Doomsday, don't we?

 

This ignores the fact that the way something becomes a generally-accepted idea is not because of scientists who want to "save face" or on some whim.

 

Ever hear of of phlogiston and Lamarckism? Are these taught as accepted theories? They were general ideas that were accepted in their day, and have gone the way of the dodo. Because they were wrong. Contrary evidence came to light and the ideas had to be discarded. My previously-mentioned QM and relativity were accepted despite general acceptance of classical physics. Because evidence demanded it.

 

There is no such evidence demanding that global warming be taken down. There's very little science being done by the global-warming-is-wrong camp. It's mostly innuendo, cherry-picking data, and like here, conspiracy mongering. You mention a few individual scientists who resisted new ideas, or saw resistance, for a time — until the evidence demanded that their ideas be accepted as correct. but that's not what you're claiming, so the comparison is moot. This is not an example of one or two scientists resisting an idea in the face of evidence. You're claiming it's 97% of the scientists, and: what mound of evidence are they ignoring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you surely know, that the history of Science contains quite a few examples of great scientists who resisted change . Like Galileo, Cavendish, Lord Kelvin, and - most prominently - Einstein, who until his dying day, never really embraced Quantum Theory.

 

 

But science isn't about what Cavendish or Einstein believed- it's about the evidence.

And the evidence is utterly unequivocal.

We know that the CO2 released by mankind burning fuel is (at least a contributory) cause of global warming.

 

And every time someone makes some counter-observation, it is shown not to be valid.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So getting back to the "Man-made Global Warming" business. This current theory will hold the field until about 2025 at max. Then it'll be "disproved" by a new (revisionist) scientific generation. Who will warn of "Global Cooling", and the urgent need to increase anthropogenic carbon emissions - to ward off an incipient new Ice Age.

 

Funny. How can one seriously put these (paraphrased) contradictory sentences together???

 

1) Carbon emissions don't warm up the planet. The whole theory will be disproved -- 10 or 11 years -- max. The planet's actually cooling down and we're heading for a disastrous new phase of glaciation.

2) It's gonna be so bad, we're gonna have to increase carbon emission to stop the planet from cooling down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Carbon emissions don't warm up the planet. The whole theory will be disproved -- 10 or 11 years -- max. The planet's actually cooling down and we're heading for a disastrous new phase of glaciation.

 

Indeed. Two spectacularly bold sentiments made with absolutely no science or evidence to back them up. It's one thing to claim that the planet isn't warming up; there are graphs (which, as a previous links explain, is missing some crucial Arctic data and ignores some ocean warming) where you can't definitively say there is surface warming over a certain span of time, owing to the noise. However, to claim that the planet is actually cooling is a much stronger statement, and utter bollocks.

 

To claim that CO2 does not have a warming effect is a bizarre assertion. Because if someone sincerely believes this, then they don't believe insulation works. Which would prompt me to ask them if they wear a coat when it's cold outside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who needs evidence when you can have proof by wishful thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking#As_a_fallacy

 

Thanks John - I tried to read the linked article. But found it a huge impenetrable mass of deplorable pseudo-scientific verbiage. Just management-speak, with added scientific words to jazz it up.

 

The only bit that that stuck in my mind was this: "Participants observing negative flanker targets underestimated less than positive or negative targets".

Is that advice to NATO radar operators on getting range estimates for Su-27 fighter jets? Obviously not But it might as well be, for all the sense it makes.

 

Surely the article boils down to this - we believe what we want to believe.

 

Like man-made Climate Change. If you want to believe in it, you will. And if you don't want to, you won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

back on planet Earth, here's what I actually linked to

"In addition to being a cognitive bias and a poor way of making decisions, wishful thinking is commonly held to be a specific informal fallacy in an argument when it is assumed that because we wish something to be true or false, it is actually true or false. This fallacy has the form "I wish that P is true/false, therefore P is true/false." Wishful thinking, if this were true, would rely upon appeals to emotion, and would also be a red herring."

Of course, it's possible that you can't distinguish that from

"Just management-speak, with added scientific words to jazz it up."

 

What do you make of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

However when you sum it up as "If you want to believe in it, you will. And if you don't want to, you won't. "

you overlook the fact that the evidence is on one side, and that believing that side is reasonable, but believing the other side is wishful thinking.

In effect, you ignore the fact that reality doesn't care what anyone believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your kind post. I scanned the Wikipedia article on the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" (what an absolutely delicious name!)

The D-K Effect, when stripped of its customary coating of verbal effluvia, seems to boil down to this invaluable insight:

 

"When you're dumb, you're too dumb to realise that you're dumb".

 

Well, who'd ever have thought that?

 

Regarding your suggestion that "reality doesn't care what anyone believes" - isn't that a little bit at odds with QT - observer-generated wave-function collapse, and stuff?

 

Thanks again, I do appreciate not being banned (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your kind post. I scanned the Wikipedia article on the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" (what an absolutely delicious name!)

The D-K Effect, when stripped of its customary coating of verbal effluvia, seems to boil down to this invaluable insight:

 

"When you're dumb, you're too dumb to realise that you're dumb".

 

Well, who'd ever have thought that?

 

Regarding your suggestion that "reality doesn't care what anyone believes" - isn't that a little bit at odds with QT - observer-generated wave-function collapse, and stuff?

 

Thanks again, I do appreciate not being banned (yet).

Do you believe that is "at odds with" the quantum "stuff?"

 

...if you think reality cares what the observer believes, then...

This would be another example of wishful, or magical, thinking.

 

~

Edited by Essay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regarding your suggestion that "reality doesn't care what anyone believes" - isn't that a little bit at odds with QT - observer-generated wave-function collapse, and stuff? "

No, The outcome of, for example, Schroedinger's cat experiment does not depend on whether or not I like cats.

So that was a dumb comment.

 

And there'e also the glitch in your "logic" that I believe in global warming "because I wan't to".

Of course I don't- it's a very bad thing.

I don't want to believe in it, yet I do.

That is, obviously, the opposite of wishful thinking.

So that was a dumb comment.

 

 

Yet you posted them as if you thought they were some sort of rebuttal of my points.

 

As you say "When you're dumb, you're too dumb to realise that you're dumb".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like man-made Climate Change. If you want to believe in it, you will. And if you don't want to, you won't.

 

Yes, there are people out there that treat facts like religion, and settle for belief. But you forgot to include the people who look at the science and reach a conclusion and keep belief out of it. The vast majority conclude that AGW is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

You'll need to substantiate why all 11,944 peer reviewed studies are not "REAL science".

You need to carefully read all the studies and weasel words people use surrounding these studies.

 

Though the 97.4% agree mankind influences global warming, that number is not accurate to use when saying human activity is the cause of warning.

 

Is it proper to include anyone as expressing mankind has a "significant" impact on the climate as implying mankind is "the primary" reason? How many scientifically mined people are here? Think about the scientific definition of “significant.”

 

Isn't that a bit disingenuous, and shouldn't we be careful about the integrity of such authors?

 

Funny. How can one seriously put these (paraphrased) contradictory sentences together???

 

1) Carbon emissions don't warm up the planet. The whole theory will be disproved -- 10 or 11 years -- max. The planet's actually cooling down and we're heading for a disastrous new phase of glaciation.

2) It's gonna be so bad, we're gonna have to increase carbon emission to stop the planet from cooling down.

Well, I agree CO2 warms the planet, but by far less than the consensus agrees to. A new paper has the sensitivity for CO2 at 0.43 degrees / doubling.

 

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf

 

Years back, I looked at the absolute maximim possible for CO2 sensitivity to be 0.55 degrees.

 

This paper also quantifies the solar changes to well over what the consensus says, and also is more in like with my assessments years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the 97.4% agree mankind influences global warming, that number is not accurate to use when saying human activity is the cause of warning.

 

Is it proper to include anyone as expressing mankind has a "significant" impact on the climate as implying mankind is "the primary" reason? How many scientifically mined people are here? Think about the scientific definition of “significant.”

You seem to be playing word games, but that doesn't change the fact that human activity is currently the primary driver of climate change. Continuing to deny this well established fact only makes you look blind and/or foolish, and that's true regardless of how good of an engineer you might be in other arenas.

 

forcings.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.