Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[robinessex]

Rhyolith said:

robinessex said:

Ok. Proove it. And the create the opposite, a 1ºC drop. And assess the impacts of that. I know which I prefer. And we're going to get one or the other, because the planets temperature isn't fixed. Oh bugger !! Create more CO2? No, hang on, lets create less!! Oh st, no ones knows. Let's go down the pub for a beer instead!

You really have no faith in science at all do you...

Best non answer so far. This is the science thread. Supply the answers and proof. And I've noticed you've not read the PH political climmate thread either. Are you Durbster idelogical twin?

Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 9th November 15:23

[Toltec]

plunker said:

You can't do a direct comparison between temperature change in ice core records and global temps because ice cores are regional temperature proxies and there's higher variation at the regional level (especially at high latitudes) than the global average.

That leaves you looking at the controversial area of global temperature reconstructions that are derived from multiple proxy sources with weighting methods etc but you aren't going to find one with the resolution you want.

Marcott et al 2013 is a recent one and is I think the first to attempt a reconstruction of the entire holocene (11k yrs).

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004...

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 9th November 13:54

Thanks, I'll take a proper look tonight, too difficult to read on a phone.

I used to work in a calibration lab so have an aversion to dodgy measurement methodology.

[Rhyolith]

Jinx said:

If your resolution is in 100 year chunks then you have no evidence of the changes within those hundred years.
So all you have is an average over 100 years (your resolution) . You need to average the last 100 years temperature record to then compare (a single point of data) - now compare that with the historic 100 year resolutions......

No, we have limited evidence, but its still evidence. And if all the limited evidence we have points towards something, surely thats what we should believe until more comes to light?

plunker said:

Marcott et al 2013 is a recent one and is I think the first to attempt a reconstruction of the entire holocene (11k yrs).

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004...

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 9th November 13:54

Thanks for that. I think they conclude that the climate is warming and that prior to the last century it was cooling for 5000 years, but I only skimmed it so take that with a pinch for salt (and read it rather than relaying on my interpretation).

---

Terminator X said:

Sea levels are tied to glacial periods aren't they? We're still coming out of the last one so sea levels are on the rise and have been for 20,000 (?) years.

TX.

If the inter-glacial cycle continues to follow the pattern it was been, I believe we should be heading into another glacial advance not retreat. I think this is one of the first things that got scientists looking at human induced warming in particular, because the ice 'should' have been advancing when its was retreating.

And again, the evidence suggests that rapid change we are currently seeing does not happening 'naturally'.

robinessex said:

This is the science thread. Supply the answers and proof.

There is no "proof" in science. The reason for this is a follows: "Proof" would be an interpretation made with 100% certainty, which simply does not exist because there is always some conflicting evidence and some conflicting interpretations. Take Gravity for example, its universally accepted it exists, but we cannot identify the "graviton" particle that makes it work, the lack of this "graviton" could be interpreted as evidence that goes against the existence of gravity... thus meaning there is some scientific un-certentity, even if its tiny. There is no scientific theory with 100% certainty.

[robinessex]

There is no scientific theory with 100% certainty. Agreed. Still no good reason to follow hook, line and sinker the st CC bks though. Enough contrary evidence if it was allowed to be accepted in an objective manner, rather then 'CC denial' rants.

[Rhyolith]

robinessex said:

There is no scientific theory with 100% certainty. Agreed. Still no good reason to follow hook, line and sinker the st CC bks though. Enough contrary evidence if it was allowed to be accepted in an objective manner, rather then 'CC denial' rants.

I think the problem here is not the science, but the way its presented. The media often present CC as being totally proven (which does not exist as previously discussed) and provide us with a different CC related apocalypse every other week (probably more often...). Everyone understandably just gets tired of the silly claims and stops taking it seriously.

The reality is that scientists generally agree that human activity is warming up the globe with the evidence thats currently available, and the certainty on this part is quite high. There is a lot more uncertainty surround the likely effects of the warming, such has will it cause more flooding? Or will it melt the ice caps?

In my view the issue is effective communication of the research. Scientific papers are hard to interpret (and even get hold of) if your not a scientist and the media misses out massive chunks of information and massively exaggerates others (to the point of borderline lying really).

Edited by Rhyolith on Thursday 10th November 12:56

[Lotus 50]

This pretty much sets out why we should be concerned - and gives some more examples of where extreme weather events may be attributed to human induced climate change (and where some may be less extreme as a result of CC).

http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wm...

In my view, it's not apocalyptic, but could possibly be if some of the most unlikely scenarios pan out. Basically we need to understand the effects of the change and the consequences to make sure we're managing them in the most cost-effective way and, if possible, minimising the impact on ecosystems etc.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 9th November 18:33

[LongQ]

Rhyolith said:

"The qualifications of the author don't make it a scientific paper, ..."

and other stuff.

Thank you for that lecture in which you display either a complete lack of understanding of my points or you have decided just to use it to make statements that are unrelated to them.

Either way it hardly matters.

No more to be said about that.

Just like climate science where the climate scientists and their supporter and advisers have long claimed that "the science is settled".

Presumably that is why this thread has been so quiet for so long.

[mondeoman]

Lotus 50 said:

This pretty much sets out why we should be concerned - and gives some more examples of where extreme weather events may be attributed to human induced climate change (and where some may be less extreme as a result of CC).

http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wm...

In my view, it's not apocalyptic, but could possibly be if some of the most unlikely scenarios pan out. Basically we need to understand the effects of the change and the consequences to make sure we're managing them in the most cost-effective way and, if possible, minimising the impact on ecosystems etc.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 9th November 18:33

So, basically, no matter what happens, its all out fault. That comes across as an extremely scientific study.

[Ian Geary]

Rhyolith said:

I think the problem here is not the science, but the way its presented. The media often present CC as being totally proven (which does not exist as previously discussed) and provide us with a different CC related apocalypse every other week (probably more often...). Everyone understanding just gets tired of the silly claims and stops taking it seriously.

The reality is that scientists generally agree that human activity is warming up the globe with the evidence thats currently available, and the certainty on this part is quite high. There is a lot more uncertainty surround the likely effects of the warming, such has will it cause more flooding? Or will it melt the ice caps?

In my view the issue is effective communication of the research. Scientific papers are hard to interpret (and even get hold of) if your not a scientist and the media misses out massive chunks of information and massively exaggerates others (to the point of borderline lying really).

From scanning both the political and science thread, I think this is a really helpful view point.

I think a lot of the "non scientific" opponents of the climate change have picked up on, and are resisting the symptoms you've observed in your last sentence.

And articles that come out today like this, which are basically just a vehicle to bash Trump (as if another one is needed), don't help the cause much either.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-...

And to a lesser extent, I think some scientific opponents are rejecting the idea that scientifiy theory has become gospel, when clearly no-ones in a position to say beyond doubt.

This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for a) the sheer volume of money being required based on these findings and b) the venom directed by "believers" at "deniers"




Ian

[Rhyolith]

LongQ said:

Thank you for that lecture in which you display either a complete lack of understanding of my points or you have decided just to use it to make statements that are unrelated to them.

I made a concerted effort to understand your points and respond to them, I don't really know what else I could have done... if your genuinely bothered by this give me one of the examples of a point I responded too poorly in your opinion and show me how, in your view I should have responded. I will draw the line at blindly agreeing with whatever point you make.

---

mondeoman said:

So, basically, no matter what happens, its all out fault. That comes across as an extremely scientific study.

"Fault" is a strong word... I think "Responsibility" is more appropriate... but that kinda belongs in the politics thread I think.

---

Ian Geary said:

... This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for a) the sheer volume of money being required based on these findings and b) the venom directed by "believers" at "deniers"

Ian

I am always dubious about economic arguments, for example: "We will loose X no. of ££ if we do this!" because the evidence is so hazy and easy to twist.

Like in any "debate" I think both "sides" are responsible for unnecessary jabs at each other (aka, insults). However this is certainly not unique to CC arguments (don't mention the B word! ). The only thing that Irritates me is people choosing a view point before they have any solid information on the topic (again both sides do this), this is almost more the "fault" of the media and scientists in not communicating the research well enough as it is the individuals not understanding it.

Edited by Rhyolith on Thursday 10th November 13:10

Edited by Rhyolith on Thursday 10th November 13:11

Edited by Rhyolith on Thursday 10th November 13:14

[durbster]

Ian Geary said:

Rhyolith said:

In my view the issue is effective communication of the research. Scientific papers are hard to interpret (and even get hold of) if your not a scientist and the media misses out massive chunks of information and massively exaggerates others (to the point of borderline lying really).

From scanning both the political and science thread, I think this is a really helpful view point.

I think a lot of the "non scientific" opponents of the climate change have picked up on, and are resisting the symptoms you've observed in your last sentence.

I agree with that. The way science is and has been reported in the mainstream press is where most of the blame lies here, particularly with climate change which has all sorts of angles for them to play with.

Let's face it, most science is about small steps forward in understanding which is, frankly, a bit boring and not very newsworthy. So only the most extreme bits get reported. Instead of saying, X is expected but the error bars are X±Y, the story becomes, "scientists say Y is going to happen".

It means science is continuously undermined by the press, and the wider public's perception, confidence and expectation has become massively distorted.

It's not just the research itself either. There also seems to be a highly unrealistic expectation of scientists themselves and climate scientists in particular are treated in a way that no other disciplines are. I don't really know why that is - maybe because their work means we must confront a difficult or frightening reality?

Adding to the mess you have numerous people who quickly figured out that you can generate a lot of web traffic by feeding people's confirmation bias and conspiracy theory fears. One frustrating thing about the internet is that you can usually find somewhere that offers safe sanctuary for your views, that will feed you with comforting nuggets of information to keep you coming back.

It all means people become emotionally invested in their position, and will clearly go to tremendous lengths to hang on to it, to the point where they will concoct increasingly complex and implausible narratives rather than change their mind.

And it seems some are absolutely furious with you for presenting them with information that challenges that position.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

I agree with that. The way science is and has been reported in the mainstream press is where most of the blame lies here, particularly with climate change which has all sorts of angles for them to play with.

Let's face it, most science is about small steps forward in understanding which is, frankly, a bit boring and not very newsworthy. So only the most extreme bits get reported. Instead of saying, X is expected but the error bars are X±Y, the story becomes, "scientists say Y is going to happen".

It means science is continuously undermined by the press, and the wider public's perception, confidence and expectation has become massively distorted.

It's not just the research itself either. There also seems to be a highly unrealistic expectation of scientists themselves and climate scientists in particular are treated in a way that no other disciplines are. I don't really know why that is - maybe because their work means we must confront a difficult or frightening reality?

Adding to the mess you have numerous people who quickly figured out that you can generate a lot of web traffic by feeding people's confirmation bias and conspiracy theory fears. One frustrating thing about the internet is that you can usually find somewhere that offers safe sanctuary for your views, that will feed you with comforting nuggets of information to keep you coming back.

It all means people become emotionally invested in their position, and will clearly go to tremendous lengths to hang on to it, to the point where they will concoct increasingly complex and implausible narratives rather than change their mind.

And it seems some are absolutely furious with you for presenting them with information that challenges that position.

I would suggest that very few writers, even in the Scientific Press, have a thorough understanding of most of the subjects about which they will need to write.

In the "mainstream" press there is the chance of no understanding at all.

So they are left to regurgitate press releases, picking out the elements of the release that the release's author(s) have provided and especially those elements given extra weight. In some case, perhaps many in the CC field, various additional actors will provide their own view and interpretation of the science and will offer "quotes" to the press or, perhaps, make themselves available for interview.

I very much doubt that, absent misunderstanding or a slip of a sub-editor's pen, many science articles in the mainstream press (or most of the specialist press) are incorrectly presenting the messages the authoring teams wish to be heard.

Whether those messages are as originally intended by the researchers may be debatable. Sometimes.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 11th November 02:53

[Toltec]

LongQ said:

I would suggest that very few writers, even in the Scientific Press, have a thorough understanding of most of the subjects about which they will need to write.

In the "mainstream" press there is the chance of no understanding at all.

So they are left to regurgitate press releases, picking out the elements of the release that the release's author(s) have provided and especially those elements given extra weight. In some case, perhaps many in the CC field, various additional actors will provide their own view and interpretation of the science and will offer "quotes" to the press or, perhaps, make themselves available for interview.

I very much doubt that, absnet misunderstanding or a slip of a sub-editor's pen, many science articles in the mainstream press (or most of the specialist press) are incorrectly presenting the messages the authoring teams wish to be heard.

Whether those messages are as originally intended by the researchers may be debatable. Sometimes.

I read the paper Plunker pointed out to me above, what stood out was how cautious they were about drawing any concrete conclusions. I could follow the paper at a basic level, but I can see the temptation to skim read it, pull a few sentences and a graph then present it as solid facts rather than results with some provisos.

If anything it is the lack of uncertainty with which the CC message is pushed when it is a field that relies heavily on statistical analysis of inferred and interpolated data that makes me reject it as snake oil. I really don't have time to study the field sufficiently to be able to examine and understand the research directly. All I can go on is the information processed down for public consumption and what I see I don't find trustworthy, it feels more like dogma and politics than science.

[Rhyolith]

LongQ said:

I would suggest that very few writers, even in the Scientific Press, have a thorough understanding of most of the subjects about which they will need to write.

In the "mainstream" press there is the chance of no understanding at all.

So they are left to regurgitate press releases, picking out the elements of the release that the release's author(s) have provided and especially those elements given extra weight. In some case, perhaps many in the CC field, various additional actors will provide their own view and interpretation of the science and will offer "quotes" to the press or, perhaps, make themselves available for interview.

I very much doubt that, absent misunderstanding or a slip of a sub-editor's pen, many science articles in the mainstream press (or most of the specialist press) are incorrectly presenting the messages the authoring teams wish to be heard.

Whether those messages are as originally intended by the researchers may be debatable. Sometimes.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 11th November 02:53

Yes, the media exists for most as a means of entrainment. Why it is aloud to continue being labelled as a reliable source of information is, let alone an unbiased one (looking at you BBC), is beyond me... but thats politics and subjective opinions again.

The IPCC was written in part to solve this problem. The summary reports contain simple statements that can be understand by everyone, but state the uncertainty unlike the newspapers. I know a lot of people don't trust it, but if you don't have the time to go through all the actual research (like most of us) then its probably the most accurate summary of Human Induced CC that your going to see.

For me this is moving on to what to do about this problem with the information we have, so I am making another thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Edited by Rhyolith on Friday 11th November 09:14

[Jinx]

Rhyolith said:

Jinx said:

If your resolution is in 100 year chunks then you have no evidence of the changes within those hundred years.
So all you have is an average over 100 years (your resolution) . You need to average the last 100 years temperature record to then compare (a single point of data) - now compare that with the historic 100 year resolutions......

No, we have limited evidence, but its still evidence. And if all the limited evidence we have points towards something, surely thats what we should believe until more comes to light?

No you are missing the point. We have no evidence - the resolution of the past data is such that rates of change far greater than the current post 1950 changes could have happened but we would be none-the-wiser.
The proxy data is poor and given as NOAA have decided even the measurements we do have in the past need changing is there anything we can say with any certainty?
Historians gaze into the past and frequently see their own faces gazing back - climate science looks into the darkness of the past and assumes it is cold.....

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

No you are missing the point. We have no evidence - the resolution of the past data is such that rates of change far greater than the current post 1950 changes could have happened but we would be none-the-wiser.
The proxy data is poor and given as NOAA have decided even the measurements we do have in the past need changing is there anything we can say with any certainty?
Historians gaze into the past and frequently see their own faces gazing back - climate science looks into the darkness of the past and assumes it is cold.....

Aliasing due to sample frequency is an issue, however if there is a large set of samples you can calculate the probability that you have missed outlying values. Having samples from different sites and using different methods also lets you calculate the chances something has been missed.

The paper linked by plunker above goes into some detail about the statistical methods they used to determine the uncertainty of their results. They make it clear that more work is required and their results are not exhaustive.

Of course the values they are using are obtained by proxy so you could dig deeper into the methodology used to obtain them. One thing is clear, they are not trying to say the climate did not change until we put co2 into the atmosphere unlike some of the rabid CC acolytes.

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

Aliasing due to sample frequency is an issue, however if there is a large set of samples you can calculate the probability that you have missed outlying values.

Only by assuming the distribution.

[plunker]

Toltec said:

Jinx said:

No you are missing the point. We have no evidence - the resolution of the past data is such that rates of change far greater than the current post 1950 changes could have happened but we would be none-the-wiser.
The proxy data is poor and given as NOAA have decided even the measurements we do have in the past need changing is there anything we can say with any certainty?
Historians gaze into the past and frequently see their own faces gazing back - climate science looks into the darkness of the past and assumes it is cold.....

Aliasing due to sample frequency is an issue, however if there is a large set of samples you can calculate the probability that you have missed outlying values. Having samples from different sites and using different methods also lets you calculate the chances something has been missed.

The other thing is physical plausibility - how likely is it that the global average temperature in the holocene has spiked up 1C and down again in the space of a couple of hundred years and by what mechanism?

[Kawasicki]

plunker said:

The other thing is physical plausibility - how likely is it that the global average temperature in the holocene has spiked up 1C and down again in the space of a couple of hundred years and by what mechanism?

Dunno the mechanism, though the rate of change is similar to today, so obviously it isn't that unusual.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

The other thing is physical plausibility - how likely is it that the global average temperature in the holocene has spiked up 1C and down again in the space of a couple of hundred years and by what mechanism?

The same one as today that doesn't involve plant food