Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Add me to that too. There's very little point getting into heated arguments about the science with people who know as little as I do about the subject.

I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.

You need to get out more and meet some scientists.

[KareemK]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Add me to that too. There's very little point getting into heated arguments about the science with people who know as little as I do about the subject.

I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.

You need to get out more and meet some scientists.

Surely he's meeting plenty on here?

[durbster]

Jinx said:

You need to get out more and meet some scientists.

Why?

[Jinx]

KareemK said:

Surely he's meeting plenty on here?

I was referring to in the flesh as opposed to words on a screen. Some you may even find in pubs drinking Guinness....

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Why?

Because you will then realise that they are just people who have built up a knowledge of a different subject than yourself but in all other ways are the same. With the same prejudices, bias and prone to making similar errors of judgement. Able to act in protectionist ways and suffer the same frustrations as every other soul.
Believing the press releases of the "trade unions for scientists" is a gullible as believing Government press releases.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Art0ir said:

I think he's in the same position as me; neither the time or inclination to familarise myself with the nuances of climate science, certainly not to the extent that I can draw any hard conclusions from the data available.

Add me to that too. There's very little point getting into heated arguments about the science with people who know as little as I do about the subject.

I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.

I've not read much that could be described as heated argument.

I'm sceptical of black and white issues. It's how I was brought up. I have a healthy disrespect for authority.

noun: layperson
1.
a non-ordained member of a Church.
"a council of laymen and priests"
2.
a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.
"the book seems well suited to the interested layman"

Are you referring to meaning 1 or 2?

[LongQ]

durbster said:

I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.

I'm sure they will just as they always have done.

Do you feel entirely comfortable with that?

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Because you will then realise that they are just people who have built up a knowledge of a different subject than yourself but in all other ways are the same. With the same prejudices, bias and prone to making similar errors of judgement. Able to act in protectionist ways and suffer the same frustrations as every other soul.
Believing the press releases of the "trade unions for scientists" is a gullible as believing Government press releases.

Erm, yes, but the bold part is rather significant. I feel the same way about surgeons when I had knee surgery.

Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to learn enough to understand. Believe it or not I listened to three hours of creationist podcasts last week to try and understand why anyone would believe it (spoiler alert - creationists really don't understand what evolution is at all).

Willingly sitting through that bks shows I'm perfectly willing to consider all sides of an argument.

The problem with the climate change debate is that the waters are so muddied that it needs somebody with experience and knowledge to filter through it.

Also, I've changed my stance on it once already - I used to think it was nonsense - and this was from experience rather than arguments on the internet. For example, seeing a retreating glacier right there in real life does make it difficult to say global warming isn't happening.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

The problem with the climate change debate is that the waters are so muddied that it needs somebody with experience and knowledge to filter through it.

Also, I've changed my stance on it once already - I used to think it was nonsense - and this was from experience rather than arguments on the internet. For example, seeing a retreating glacier right there in real life does make it difficult to say global warming isn't happening.

How can global warming be happening when temperatures have not risen for 17 years?

Retreating glaciers? They've been retreating since the ice age. Have you not noticed the record high level of Antarctic sea ice just lately? Probably not, because it's too inconvenient for MSM to report.

[durbster]

mybrainhurts said:

How can global warming be happening when temperatures have not risen for 17 years?

Retreating glaciers? They've been retreating since the ice age.

Yes they retreat but they're retreating at a hell of a rate now. Here's the glacier I was referring to:

mybrainhurts said:

Have you not noticed the record high level of Antarctic sea ice just lately? Probably not, because it's too inconvenient for MSM to report.

Have you noticed the record low level of Arctic ice just lately? Probably not because it's not what you're looking for.

[dickymint]

KareemK said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Add me to that too. There's very little point getting into heated arguments about the science with people who know as little as I do about the subject.

I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.

You need to get out more and meet some scientists.

Surely he's meeting plenty on here?

Surely you have absolutely no clue as to the academia of many of the posters on this site! What is your definition of "a scientist" by the way?

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Have you noticed the record low level of Arctic ice just lately? Probably not because it's not what you're looking for.

Huh?

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Huh?

What do you mean "huh?"
Your graph backs up what I said. You see the red line? It's lower than the dotted lines.

[Art0ir]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Then there is a simple way to separate the wheat from the chaff in this debate.

Has the global average temperature shown any scientifically significant increase in the last 15 to 18 years? The answer is NO.

It is fairly difficult to have global warming without an actual temperature increase. A quick Google search will confirm this. Why this has happened is a whole different kettle of fish, but the naked evidence is there to find.

I've heard as much, but then plenty of people dispute it?

Plenty of people dispute evolution too, but at least I understand it enough to draw my own conclusions.

I too was raised with a healthy dose of scepticism and hold natural suspicion about the motives of influential individuals and institutions. That's why the supposed consensus means little to me; I can see where the money flows.

Edited by Art0ir on Tuesday 15th July 15:40

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Art0ir said:

I've heard is much, but then plenty of people dispute it?

Plenty of people dispute evolution too, but at least I understand it enough to draw my own conclusions.

I too was raised with a healthy dose of scepticism and hold natural suspicion about the motives of influential individuals and institutions. That's why the supposed consensus means little to me; I can see where the money flows.

There is no dispute that the global average temperature has not increased in that timespan, the IPCC, even Phil Jones from the CRU unit in east Anglia agree with those observed values. The reason for this temperature stability is in dispute, but that it is happening is not.

Here you go. One of the biggest and now infamous supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming agreeing with that exact statement in an interview with the BBC. You cannot have global Warming without an actual temperature increase. You cannot have thermoggedon without the "thermo" part, else it is just, normalggedon.

Phil Jones interview.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 15th July 14:30

[Jinx]

durbster said:

What do you mean "huh?"
Your graph backs up what I said. You see the red line? It's lower than the dotted lines.

You may want to read what you wrote and what the dotted lines mean.

[plunker]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Art0ir said:

I think he's in the same position as me; neither the time or inclination to familarise myself with the nuances of climate science, certainly not to the extent that I can draw any hard conclusions from the data available.

Then there is a simple way to separate the wheat from the chaff in this debate.

Has the global average temperature shown any scientifically significant increase in the last 15 to 18 years? The answer is NO.

It is fairly difficult to have global warming without an actual temperature increase. A quick Google search will confirm this. Why this has happened is a whole different kettle of fish, but the naked evidence is there to find.

But it isn't that simple is it. Over short periods natural variation from the likes of ENSO produce peaks and troughs and your chosen start period for trend analysis has got whopping great El Nino in it and ends in a period dominated by negative-neutral ENSO. Your favourite period (18 years) is a cherry-pick and only exists in one particular satellite dataset that has drift issues. You neglect ocean heat content data. I could go on...

QuantumTokoloshi said:

There is no dispute that the global average temperature has not increased in that timespan

Not true - lack of statistically significant warming over short periods is not proof there has been no warming (see Phil Jones interview). Uncertainty runs both ways - not just in the direction you like.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

You may want to read what you wrote and what the dotted lines mean.

Your graph shows there is less ice now than there was in the 1980s, and the three lowest averages were since 2007. I'm not sure what else there is to say.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

mybrainhurts said:

Have you not noticed the record high level of Antarctic sea ice just lately? Probably not, because it's too inconvenient for MSM to report.

Have you noticed the record low level of Arctic ice just lately? Probably not because it's not what you're looking for.

Did you see what the models predicted long ago?....Ice reduction in the Antarctic as global temperature rises.

Probably not because it's not what you're looking for.

I do wish you chappies would stop coming here, protesting that you're sitting on the fence. It's getting so predictable.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

But it isn't that simple is it. Over short periods natural variation from the likes of ENSO produce peaks and troughs and your chosen start period for trend analysis has got whopping great El Nino in it and ends in a period dominated by negative-neutral ENSO. Your favourite period (18 years) is a cherry-pick and only exists in one particular satellite dataset that has drift issues. You neglect ocean heat content data. I could go on...

Not true - lack of statistically significant warming over short periods is not proof there has been no warming (see Phil Jones interview). Uncertainty runs both ways - not just in the direction you like.

Oh KP Ocean heat content? How expansive and reliable is that? And hasn't it also flat-lined in recent years?
Please explain how much energy it would take to raise 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of H2O by 1K and how much additional energy is supposedly being back radiated onto the earth (and this is even before we talk about quantisation and therefore the impossibility of back radiation increasing the temperature of the source) .