Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

More Warming News!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    My only bone of contention lies in the idea of claiming "settled science" in an area of science where it could not possibly be the case.
    I didn't mean it in that sense, and I don't think anyone means it in that sense. I believe its "possible", in that I know what it would take for it to happen, I just don't believe there's a snowballs chance in hell that we'd ever find such evidence, that would overthrow everything.

    Basically I think anthropogenic global warming is basically correct. The rest of the questions are: how much, how quickly, how bad?

    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    For the area is too wide. I have only seen the proponents of AGW use this terminology. You do not see scientists in the area of physics, biology, etc. make such a claim. Nor would they ever dare too because they know their field is too wide and variable.
    In general inside the hallways of academia, settled science is not a word you use. In discussions in the public I've encountered it in other places. Usually when people try to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about things which scientists aren't debating anymore. Such as whether vaccines work (the science is settled, they work and they don't cause autism), and whether homeopathy doesn't work (it really, really, doesn't, its water).

    Does that mean it's man made? No. The jury is still out on that part of it.
    The jury was in already in the seventies. There was no global medieval warming period, only a local one in europe. The basic outline of the hockey stick graph is pretty much spot on, and can be explained in large part by the greenhouse effect of CO2 combined with the positive feedback of water vapour (increased temperature gives increased moisture with an increased greenhouse effect). We're by far the largest CO2 producers on the planet, dwarfing even volcano emisions.

    The rise in CO2 over the past half century is due primarily to us.

    Conservatives are also starting to change their opinions on this, and I really don't see why they shouldn't. Go back ten years and you'd see politicians arguing that the Earth is actually cooling down. Whatever the scientists said, they'd say the exact opposite. I really don't know what the point of that is.

    Lets say anthropogenic global warming is real. All I'll see happening is that conservatives simple switch statements, act as if they've never been against it, which is what politicians usually do when they change their mind. If they do that they'll be able to take the narrative of the global warming scenario away from the liberals. It'll be about the success stories of free market, companies like Silevo and First Solar, Tesla Motors and free market electricity exchange.

    They can talk about how the free market ultimately handled this problem as effectively as possible, which is what I believe it will, rather than what the great government handouts could.

    If Fox News can change their mind about electrical cars (they haven't had a negative opinion on them in a while now, and now they have commercials for the those luxury sedan type electrical cars). I think the conservative political landscape can do something similar.

    I mean imagine a big throbbing vein on a liberals face as he watches commercials like this, and politicians stealing away one of their talking points.

    Last edited by Leonhard; 04-26-2015, 02:13 AM. Reason: Silevo not Silvio

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      They're not adding any new explanations here.
      I did not mean to say that they were adding something new, but rather that their behaviour fits with the well-known pattern to explain away troublesome data.

      As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.
      Exactly. See above.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        I did not mean to say that they were adding something new, but rather that their behaviour fits with the well-known pattern to explain away troublesome data.

        Originally posted by Leonhard
        As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.
        Exactly. See above.
        In that sense I agree, however they would not be able to do this if it wasn't in fact within the confines of a random fluctuation. If temperature growth has actually flat-lined, they'll be able to find that out eventually, at some point you simple couldn't explain it as a random fluctuation. According to their report it was inconsistent with the worst case model. Again, for reasons I've outlined, that's going to be very unlikely that they suddenly discover that the Earth has stopped warming, as the evidence for anthropocentric global warming is very strong.

        In fact I'm not really sure what you and I are discussing right now. We seem to be in agreement, except we hold different opinions (maybe?) about whether the evidence supports the science of global warming.
        Last edited by Leonhard; 04-26-2015, 02:41 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leonhard
          I didn't mean it in that sense, and I don't think anyone means it in that sense. I believe its "possible", in that I know what it would take for it to happen, I just don't believe there's a snowballs chance in hell that we'd ever find such evidence, that would overthrow everything.

          Basically I think anthropogenic global warming is basically correct. The rest of the questions are: how much, how quickly, how bad?
          It's a claim that shouldn't be made in a scientific field that is largely variable, period. It matters not to me how it is meant. If anyone in the AGW field wants to be taken seriously, claiming "settled science" should be dropped. It does no one any good.

          Originally posted by Leonhard
          In general inside the hallways of academia, settled science is not a word you use. In discussions in the public I've encountered it in other places. Usually when people try to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about things which scientists aren't debating anymore. Such as whether vaccines work (the science is settled, they work and they don't cause autism), and whether homeopathy doesn't work (it really, really, doesn't, its water).
          The field of medicine is not as widely variable as global temperatures, physics, and biology. These are two completely different things. I think people have forgotten that science is a process, not a conclusion. It will be interesting to see how the "settled science" crowd reacts when there will be an inevitable change in the data.

          Originally posted by Leonhard
          Conservatives are also starting...
          It doesn't matter to me what conservatives/liberals do or don't do. I only care that people do not fall into the trap of believing that science is "settled" and won't change drastically.
          "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jesse View Post
            It's a claim that shouldn't be made in a scientific field that is largely variable, period.
            The facts I put on the table about global warming in post #31, haven't varied for decades now. Point to anyone one of them that's undergone any significant amount of change. The only one I can even think of is the holocene warming period, but we've known that one wasn't global and its only only been confirmed later. That's it.

            physics, and biology
            Plenty of settled things within biology and physics. The theory of general relativity is largely correct, even if we'll one day discover some extreme (likely Big Bang or blackhole related) extreme cases where something different will occur, the fact that GR describes the motion of things in the universe is utterly settled. Ain't gonna budge. No matter what the Einstein haters will say, clocks slow down when things go faster.

            Too many examples from physics to list.

            The same with biology.

            Fundemental revolutions in science are rare.

            It doesn't matter to me what conservatives/liberals do or don't do.
            It does to me, because conservatives playing the "global warming is a liberal conspiracy" strategy is a bad game. First of all its wrong, so they'll never have the evidence on their side on it, those politicians who try to play that game will inevitably smell of crank.

            I say, change the game and beat the liberals on their own turf.

            Or go on losing. Its up to you guys. At least in Denmark we don't play this game.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
              My only bone of contention lies in the idea of claiming "settled science" in an area of science where it could not possibly be the case. For the area is too wide. I have only seen the proponents of AGW use this terminology. You do not see scientists in the area of physics, biology, etc. make such a claim. Nor would they ever dare too because they know their field is too wide and variable.

              Is there global warming? I personally believe there is since we should be naturally warming from the last ice age. Does that mean it's man made? No. The jury is still out on that part of it. There is no "settled science" here.
              Wrong on the underlined. It's claimed about evolution all the time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                In that sense I agree, however they would not be able to do this if it wasn't in fact within the confines of a random fluctuation. If temperature growth has actually flat-lined, they'll be able to find that out eventually
                And what does this ambiguous 'eventually' mean? Reduced rate of warming for 11 years is considered within the bounds of natural fluctuation, you said earlier that 30 years (twice and a bit) would falsify the theory but I'm sure a lot of scientists will disagree.

                In fact I'm not really sure what you and I are discussing right now. We seem to be in agreement, except we hold different opinions (maybe?) about whether the evidence supports the science of global warming.
                I'm primarily dubious about whether the science is of any use now at the moment, since the more severe projections (that there would be disasters abounding) have largely failed or been proven unlikely ("statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections").

                IMO the climate scientists need to sort out their house given the many wrong predictions and failed models before they (or others) use the products of what is still an immature science to push for drastic economic changes.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Leonhard
                  The facts I put on the table about global warming in post #31, haven't varied for decades now. Point to anyone one of them that's undergone any significant amount of change. The only one I can even think of is the holocene warming period, but we've known that one wasn't global and its only only been confirmed later. That's it.
                  This is all well and good. Decades, when we are talking about global temperatures over time, are not even a decent percentage of what has happened in the last 50 millennia or so. To claim "settled science" when you can not adequately deal with such a large variable data field is nonsense. It can and will change drastically.

                  Originally posted by Leonhard
                  Plenty of settled things within biology and physics. The theory of general relativity is largely correct, even if we'll one day discover some extreme (likely Big Bang or blackhole related) extreme cases where something different will occur, the fact that GR describes the motion of things in the universe is utterly settled. Ain't gonna budge. No matter what the Einstein haters will say, clocks slow down when things go faster.

                  Too many examples from physics to list.

                  The same with biology.

                  Fundemental revolutions in science are rare.
                  I think you are taking what I am claiming much further than I am. I never stated some things where not well established, I said they weren't settled. Nothing in science is ever settled. If it were, scientists would have no need to still test established theories. That is science. To test and see if they still hold up against new-found data and experimentation. Sometimes they still hold up, other times they do not. Again, science is a process. AGW is not even in the same league of other established theories. But time will tell if I'm right.

                  Originally posted by Leonhard
                  It does to me, because conservatives playing the "global warming is a liberal conspiracy" strategy is a bad game. First of all its wrong, so they'll never have the evidence on their side on it, those politicians who try to play that game will inevitably smell of crank.

                  I say, change the game and beat the liberals on their own turf.

                  Or go on losing. Its up to you guys. At least in Denmark we don't play this game.
                  I can see it matters to you. I am saying it doesn't matter to me. Why would I care what political philosophies have to say about science? Let conservatives and liberals beat each other over the head with silliness. It doesn't effect me one way or the other.
                  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Wrong on the underlined. It's claimed about evolution all the time.
                    Well you got me there . I consider those types no more realistic than the AGW crowd.
                    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1...#disqus_thread

                      Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

                      But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        You don't plan on interacting with anything I say Seer? I did posts like this with someone on this forum who tends to believe conspiracy theories, and it got old since he would post a news segment. I'd analyse it. He wouldn't respond. Another news segment. Rinse repeat.

                        There's a lot of nonsense out there. People should pretty much not buy any news report from the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Huffington post.

                        I'll quickly run through the points, giving a blow by blow and you can ask for more information if you want. This is a letter, not a news article, so its even more dubious. It might as well have been a blog post.

                        RSS is based on satellite measurements yes, but they measure the sea surface temperature, not land temperature which is what we tend to talk about. I don't know about you, but I don't live in the ocean. The temperature of the ocean is fairly complex and controlled by the face that we have two gigantic icecubes on this planet, with currents running between them, we have odd things such as hot water sinking down because for water colder than 4 degrees celcius, getting closer to 4 degrees makes water denser (hence sinking) hence the ocean is heating from the floor up, not the top down.

                        In other words, the RSS data is important (and includes bouyes as well as satellites which the articles doesn't mention either).

                        That article uses unadjusted GISS data as if that's a good thing. I've worked with sensors in the lab, and there were tons of things to adjust for. That's called calibration. On the instruments I worked with, calibration was a straightforward matter, for the microscope you use, have something with a known height and width, adjust software parameters until the measured height and width match the known values. Without that I would sometimes have errors as large as a factor of 2.5. Yes I've taken images of perfectly circular objects, squashed into fat cigar shapes.

                        The article vague arm waves at this being dubious, but doesn't offer up any problem with it. There's nothing for me to critique, because he never points out anything wrong.

                        People have already taken the surface temperature data, and done a complete work over of it, excluding all the station that Watts found to be dubious, doing all the work themselves. Watts infamously said that he'd accept the finding of that group. When it came up with something pretty much matching the GISS results... well, lets just say that they're pariahs now.

                        Until someone can clearly articulate what's wrong with the GISS data, it can be taken as pretty good.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I'm too lazy to go back and read this whole thing.

                          Is this that old argument about the urban heat island (UHI) being responsible for the high readings?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                            I'm too lazy to go back and read this whole thing.

                            Is this that old argument about the urban heat island (UHI) being responsible for the high readings?
                            Personally I was surprised that there wasn't a greater effect when that second group did exactly what Watts wanted.

                            But no not really, seer randomly linked to an article not really connected to the OP, disputing that the average land temperature (GISS) had set a new record. The author in that article first mentioned data from remote sensors indicated something different, failing to mention that those sensors were focused on the surface sea temperature.

                            Secondly the author posts the unadjusted (read uncalibrated) data, and vaguely gestures at there being willful manipulation of the data, but providing no real evidence, or argument in the favor of that, except for some link I didn't follow.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              Personally I was surprised that there wasn't a greater effect when that second group did exactly what Watts wanted.

                              But no not really, seer randomly linked to an article not really connected to the OP, disputing that the average land temperature (GISS) had set a new record. The author in that article first mentioned data from remote sensors indicated something different, failing to mention that those sensors were focused on the surface sea temperature.

                              Secondly the author posts the unadjusted (read uncalibrated) data, and vaguely gestures at there being willful manipulation of the data, but providing no real evidence, or argument in the favor of that, except for some link I didn't follow.
                              Good.

                              I'm glad I didn't waste my time responding to somebody that doesn't know what they're reading.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Good.

                                I'm glad I didn't waste my time responding to somebody that doesn't know what they're reading.
                                I think seer means well, but I don't think I want to continue in this thread if it turns into news blasting. I could play that game all night and post three critical article citations for every citation he came up with. That's not a dialogue though. I could get the same experience just typing words into Google.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X