Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Retroman said:
The only thing that can prove climate change science wrong is ..... more science 
If it's not peer reviewed, it's probably not worth reading.
Peer review isn't the end all. It just means it's passed the first stage of proper scrutiny.
If someone sees an error with a peer reviewed paper, they're welcome to explain and demonstrate the problems with said theory, then submit their hypothesis for peer review also.
If it can't pass peer review, then it can't pass the one of the first stages of scientific scrutiny
That is indeed how peer review was meant to work.If it's not peer reviewed, it's probably not worth reading.
Peer review isn't the end all. It just means it's passed the first stage of proper scrutiny.
If someone sees an error with a peer reviewed paper, they're welcome to explain and demonstrate the problems with said theory, then submit their hypothesis for peer review also.
If it can't pass peer review, then it can't pass the one of the first stages of scientific scrutiny
From what I am told by friends in academe, sometimes and in some subjects it still does, up to a point. That can depend greatly on interpersonal rivalries when the field is small and the number of possible peers is tiny. They have to publish though - funding and tenures depend on it. Of course these are well established areas of science where boundaries are being pushed and so there is at least some kno0wledge with a history to compare to.
Climate Science isn't that. To create the concept of climate science a lot of people from different "disciplines" have come together, many likely to be self selecting by their association with the principles of the cause.
There is, pretty much, no proven and well understood aspect of their work areas and undoubtedly none with a complete and rounded view of the whole topic. That makes the concept of "peer review" rather challenging in the context.
Using so many areas of specific knowledge is a clever political construct for the academic industry bureaucracy and its relationship to the business and the political spheres. Whether it is also a truly scientific approach is probably something that should be peer reviewed.
LongQ said:
Well, I was trying to work out where the quoted observation to my previous post was coming from and heading to.
As the responding poster does not seem to have further responded (unless such a response is invisible to me ;-) ) are you able to enlighten me?
Water vapour, in any form, is not really invisible but may not be very obvious to a human observer in all situations. After all, our eyesight, measured by the standards of nature and the measurements achievable in Physics, is not really that great.
Contrails are an amplification effect. Nothing to do with original creation.
Tell me I'm totally wrong?
Water vapor is invisible to the human eye*. The air around you has water in it, can you see it?As the responding poster does not seem to have further responded (unless such a response is invisible to me ;-) ) are you able to enlighten me?
Water vapour, in any form, is not really invisible but may not be very obvious to a human observer in all situations. After all, our eyesight, measured by the standards of nature and the measurements achievable in Physics, is not really that great.
Contrails are an amplification effect. Nothing to do with original creation.
Tell me I'm totally wrong?
Contrails are artificially created clouds. Clouds consists of a mass of water droplets, either in liquid or frozen form, which is why they are visible.
*The differing refractive index to air may cause visible effects however.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 25th June 16:51
mondeoman said:
Want $10k?? Fill yer boots...
Pure publicity stunt.Apargt from anything else, I'm not aware of a single serious sceptic who claims that "human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change" because it obviously is. Just waking up in the morning still breathing will have an effect on climate, as will waking up dead and being buried or cremated.
A living person will make infinitessimally small changes to the composition of the atmosphere, will make tiny changes to wind patterns by standing in the way of them, and will be continually giving off heat to warm the atmosphere. A dead person will rot, producing gasses (again altering the atmosphere), be plant food (thus altering land cover) and give off less heat than when he was living (so leading to a minute cooling effect). The effect in both cases will be far too small to ever quantify, but it will be there none the less.
What serious scepics say is that the effect from "our activities" is very minor, not dangeroous, and likely inseparable from the noise and measurement errors.
Variomatic said:
Pure publicity stunt.
...
What serious scepics say is that the effect from "our activities" is very minor, not dangeroous, and likely inseparable from the noise and measurement errors.
And the $10k challenge is to prove your last sentence is true, or to prove the AGW theory is false. Seems like a reasonable test to me....
What serious scepics say is that the effect from "our activities" is very minor, not dangeroous, and likely inseparable from the noise and measurement errors.
durbster said:
And the $10k challenge is to prove your last sentence is true, or to prove the AGW theory is false. Seems like a reasonable test to me.
Err, no, the challenge is this:Keating said:
The challenge issued by Dr. Christopher Keating, a professor who previously taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, according to a news release, will award prize money to anyone who uses the scientific method to prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change.
(my bold).He isn't offering it for showing no significant effect - he's only going to pay up if you prove no effect. Which is a nonsense and absolutely not what any serious sceptics assert.
As I said, pure stunt.
109er said:
I thought the ice age/ocean conveyor link was proposed many years ago and was linked to reducing salinity?durbster said:
Variomatic said:
Pure publicity stunt.
...
What serious scepics say is that the effect from "our activities" is very minor, not dangeroous, and likely inseparable from the noise and measurement errors.
And the $10k challenge is to prove your last sentence is true, or to prove the AGW theory is false. Seems like a reasonable test to me....
What serious scepics say is that the effect from "our activities" is very minor, not dangeroous, and likely inseparable from the noise and measurement errors.
Can I prove Fairies don't exist? no, and why should I, the onus is on those who state they do because I didn't invent em in the first place
2013BRM said:
[...] the science a bone of contention amongst some very clever people for decades.
The problem is most believers tend to swallow the headlines without actually looking. Sceptics, by the very nature of their position, have to look at what's actually happening.As a quick example, how many believers realise what the "missing" 1.1 million square kms or so of Arctic sea ice (as of 25/06/14) actually "looks" like? The NSIDC can tell you if you care to look:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...
The orange line is where the average for the date sits, the white is how much there is. 1.12 million square km sounds like a lot - and it is. But it's still only a few small patches around the edge of an unimaginably vast ice cube!
Variomatic said:
2013BRM said:
[...] the science a bone of contention amongst some very clever people for decades.
The problem is most believers tend to swallow the headlines without actually looking. Sceptics, by the very nature of their position, have to look at what's actually happening.As a quick example, how many believers realise what the "missing" 1.1 million square kms or so of Arctic sea ice (as of 25/06/14) actually "looks" like? The NSIDC can tell you if you care to look:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...
The orange line is where the average for the date sits, the white is how much there is. 1.12 million square km sounds like a lot - and it is. But it's still only a few small patches around the edge of an unimaginably vast ice cube!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent...
Although you say it's not much actually in real life both the commercial worlds and the military are changing how they work up there, that is a sign that things are changing as those two groups take advantage of things first.
Variomatic said:
2013BRM said:
[...] the science a bone of contention amongst some very clever people for decades.
The problem is most believers tend to swallow the headlines without actually looking. Sceptics, by the very nature of their position, have to look at what's actually happening.As a quick example, how many believers realise what the "missing" 1.1 million square kms or so of Arctic sea ice (as of 25/06/14) actually "looks" like? The NSIDC can tell you if you care to look:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...
The orange line is where the average for the date sits, the white is how much there is. 1.12 million square km sounds like a lot - and it is. But it's still only a few small patches around the edge of an unimaginably vast ice cube!
Check out Steve Goddards blog for examples. It reinforces peoples world view so they grab it with both hands, same on the other side of the coin. It's just a sign of people without enough knowledge getting involved because they are keen amateurs.
Imagine if the internet had been about when Quantum mechanics was going through it's growing pains and working out the correct way? Thank heavens it wasn't though.
Gandahar said:
Also note that it is not just the believers who " tend to swallow the headlines without actually looking"
Check out Steve Goddards blog for examples. It reinforces peoples world view so they grab it with both hands, same on the other side of the coin.
.Check out Steve Goddards blog for examples. It reinforces peoples world view so they grab it with both hands, same on the other side of the coin.
Fair point, although the believeres tend to get away with tarring all sceptics with the same brush, so I don't have too many qualms about doing the same in reverse. For a long time I tried not to but when you get things like that "wager" posted earlier still completely (and one can only presume intentionally) misrepresenting sceptics there comes a point....
Its a kind of fair point about ice at the minimum, but for the (apparently) all important change in albedo, feedbacks, and tipping points this is the time of year which matters most because it's the time of maximum incoming energy in that region. Ice at night doesn't reflect significantly more solar radiation than no-ice at night
Gandahar said:
[...]
Check out Steve Goddards blog for examples. It reinforces peoples world view so they grab it with both hands, same on the other side of the coin. It's just a sign of people without enough knowledge getting involved because they are keen amateurs.[...]
Interestingly, it seems that Steve has hit on a genuine problem this time with the UHSCN dataset:Check out Steve Goddards blog for examples. It reinforces peoples world view so they grab it with both hands, same on the other side of the coin. It's just a sign of people without enough knowledge getting involved because they are keen amateurs.[...]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/more...
Some MSM picked it up but even sceptics like Anthony Watts assumed it was wrong because of his slightly crackpot track record.
But Paul Homewood took a closer look and it appears that he's right:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/...
Valid, measured, data is being routinely replaced with estimates from neighbouring stations and stations that closed years ago are still "reporting" using estimates.
Also, for at least one station, adjustments to the measured readings account for 1.35 deg of the average temperature for 2013 alone! Bear in mind that recent measurements should be the most reliable and require the least adjustment as we've got better at measuring things.
Judith Curry has an interesting take on the technical and "groupthink" aspects of this incident:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-ske...
Variomatic said:
Valid, measured, data is being routinely replaced with estimates from neighbouring stations and stations that closed years ago are still "reporting" using estimates.
There aint no substitute for Manmade warming has been placed in the datasets by man, we should go figure
Puggit said:
Thanks, I missed that on the BBC.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff