Originally posted by One Bad Pig
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostI don't think that that's entirely accurate. The linked editorial wasn't any indication of "gotta fix it again", because almost all of the instances it talked about happened before the development of modern climate models. And there's less a lack of consensus on how much the temperatures are going to rise, as there is a consensus that the rise is going to be within a range, but we don't know enough to figure out precisely where in that range it will be.
The latter might seem a bit pedantic, but it's a fairly significant difference.
Again, that's not accurate. There are some consequences that we don't understand well, but lots of them we do. We know the ocean levels will rise. We know heat waves will become more common, cold waves less. We know areas with high humidity will see more precipitation, and that this will come in the form of increased storm intensity rather than more storms. We know that droughts will become more severe because increased heat will dry out the soils faster. etc.
There's uncertainty about the exact degree of those changes that will see, and how quickly the changes will take place, but little uncertainty about whether they'll happen.
However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostWhy and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.
However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-15-2019, 07:59 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostTrust has been hideously betrayed and undermined. It lasted longer than it had any right to, but trust seems to be seriously waning now. Not merely in the corners with those who are easily dismissed - skepticism of 'science' (the industry, not the methodology) is becoming mainstream.
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostDo you really think 'CO2 is a greenhouse gas' is the reason climate is a political issue? It isn't - the computer models are.
And second, the computer models could all be discarded tomorrow and our understanding of climate change wouldn't end up any different. Computer models are one of a huge array of tools we've looked at the climate using. If you focus on them, you miss all the empirical data that tells us about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 levels.
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThere is evidence that CO2 trails warming - by up to 800 years - rather than leading it. That evidence is based in actual data, not modeling of data.Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe public trust has been abused one time too many. Repeating the mantra that CO2 is a greenhouse gas simply won't quell the rising tide of distrust and skepticism."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostWhoa, it's not often I disagree with the Lurch.
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostI brought the story into Nat. Sci. as a push back against the reaction to conservative pressure that has caused climate scientists to minimize the potential impacts of climate change. Any estimate is going to be wrong, one direction or the other, but the current political climate in the US has caused the overestimates to be neglected in favor of the underestimates.
I agree that scientists have been overly conservative about some aspects of climate change - sea level rise springs to mind. But explaining why that was the case is challenging, as the underlying issues were subtle. So I can see why he went with the examples he used instead, since they're clear and easy to understand. Unfortunately, they simply are poor examples of inappropriate conservatism."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostWhy and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.
However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostWell, it's worth asking - do you feel that skepticism is justified? As in, do you think science gets things wrong more often than it gets things right?
One, the fact that this has become a political issue is irrelevant. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas - and it is - it will warm the planet regardless of the politics.
And second, the computer models could all be discarded tomorrow and our understanding of climate change wouldn't end up any different. Computer models are one of a huge array of tools we've looked at the climate using. If you focus on them, you miss all the empirical data that tells us about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 levels.
Let's talk about that then. The evidence of that time lag come from only a single, very specific context: the exit from our most recent glacial period. Entry and exit from glacial periods is driven by orbital forcings, which alter the distribution of sunlight reaching the Earth. So, we would not expect CO2 to initiate the warming seen.
Also, CO2 is being force fed down the electorate's throat as the driver - any other case undermines the whole.
You're arguing facts already in evidence now. No dispute that it is a greenhouse gas - the question is whether it drives or rides.
Actually, polling has indicated that distrust of science in general remains low, and acceptance of scientists' conclusions about climate change has gone up significantly.
Any of these things have sample sizes larger than 10,000? That's still way small, but could be worth a look... assuming they aren't internet polls*.
*Mostly, anyway.Last edited by Teallaura; 11-15-2019, 08:31 AM."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo, the reverse is true - that plant food is also a greenhouse gas is only an issue because of politics..
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThis, too, is incorrect - and sadly points to the biggest problem with the models - we 'know' the right answer and confirm the models once they give it.
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostAnd we get this from?
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo dispute that it is a greenhouse gas - the question is whether it drives or rides.
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostSo few polls are large enough to be unweighted that in such uncertain polity we can discard any of the tinyies with safety. There are better indicators of growing public distrust and it's unwise to ignore them."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostI've got no idea what you're arguing here. CO2 being a greenhouse gas - as scientists and dictionaries define "greenhouse gas" - is a factual question. Politics has nothing to do with it.
It's only an issue because of politics. There's little empirical support for CO2 driving current warming - and none for the 12 year deadline. If not for the political power climate change garners as an issue, this wouldn't even be a footnote in Scientific American (literally, who'd bother to footnote CO2 being greenhouse gas?).
I invite you to read the IPCC reports and discover that it is, in fact, correct.
Great, consensus... Seriously, from where? Empirical? Modeling? Karnak's hat?
Your mistake is thinking it's an either/or. It can easily be both, driving in some contexts and acting as a feedback in others.
Well, if you want to discard multiple independent polls that all point in the same direction, be my guest. But at least i can provide evidence to back up my claims.
And that doesn't support part of your point at all. You said:
Actually, polling has indicated that distrust of science in general remains low, and acceptance of scientists' conclusions about climate change has gone up significantly.
That you think the second part is supported by good evidence is frankly silly - pull one you think has merit and I'll check it - but a page full of unreliable (because they haven't been reviewed) graphs isn't good evidence of anything other than your ability to use Google - and you know it."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostGreat, consensus... Seriously, from where? Empirical? Modeling? Karnak's hat?
1) I included the link specifically because it lays out the evidence - conveniently, in graphical form right at the top of the page. So, you clearly can't be bothered to even engage with what i'm saying.
2) You keep denigrating the evidence and explanations i provide without bothering to back up any of your claims at all, thereby ensuring i'm the only one who has to make any effort here.
3) You make blatantly false statements - "There's little empirical support for CO2 driving current warming" being a prime example - but then dismiss the scientific evidence that shows them to be false.
It's clear that there's absolutely no evidence i could provide that will shift you out of your position, in part because you won't do me the respect of even looking at the evidence i'm providing anyway. So, i see no point in wasting my time."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostWhy and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.
However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.
The political and business forces at play here are all using basic public ignorance to stall the impact to themselves in terms of $$$ or continued employment as politicians to muddy the waters. And unfortunately ignorance of science is a fairly useful partner, because here in the US we have a large evangelical base that has been thoroughly conditioned to both fear science and accept global conspiracy theories through the twin arms of organizations like AIG and ICR and 'end times escatology' that tries to find fitting maps of the symbology in Revelation to existing political and scientific advances.
And it doesn't help that there are a non trivial number of high visibility scientists out there campaigning vocally against these same religious beliefs rather than trying to create bridges between the scientific and religious communities.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostYou should try it more often! I'm told it's fun.
I get that this is the argument it's meant to make. I just feel it does it poorly. The examples it uses are all cases where we simply didn't have enough data to understand an aspect of climate change, and that's a context where conservatism is appropriate. Scientists weren't minimizing the impact here; they simply had no information about the impact.
I agree that scientists have been overly conservative about some aspects of climate change - sea level rise springs to mind. But explaining why that was the case is challenging, as the underlying issues were subtle. So I can see why he went with the examples he used instead, since they're clear and easy to understand. Unfortunately, they simply are poor examples of inappropriate conservatism.
I'm also reminded of some scientists in Italy that had mistakenly given out a low probability of a quake that did in fact happen being tried for manslaughter:
https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/11/...arthquake-fear
So my guess is climate science and scientists are never going to be on the positive end of public policy or out of the woods WRT conspiracy theories of various sorts - that is just what ignorance does.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-15-2019, 09:48 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostMickiel.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
30 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
5 responses
48 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Today, 11:35 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment