Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Variomatic said:
hairykrishna said:
I think the observed temperatures are still within two standard deviations of the model predictions, no?
I think that NH sea ice is still within two standard deviations of the average, no?
hairykrishna said:
Just outside 2 std devs at the moment it appears. This years minimum is likely to be well outside.
what are you smoking ? have a look at the multi year sea ice extent ,on second thoughts no,let us have a bet,you predict a minimum ,then i will predict a minimum,if we think our predictions are a decent amount apart,say 1 million square km,we could have 100 quid on it.plunker said:
I didn't say minor.
Here's the model comparison that appeared in the AR5 draft report that some got upset about being replaced in the final report because the obs are centred lower in this version so it looks 'worse':
The obs only run up to 2011 but nothing dramatic has happened in the last couple of years so from that I would say there's a low-side deviation starting around 2006.
Here's the one that appeared in the final report that has the obs centred a little higher:
apart from the fact that there are serious issues coming to light with the "data" sets used for observed temperature (observed,rotflmfao,reason : since when do you need a fHere's the model comparison that appeared in the AR5 draft report that some got upset about being replaced in the final report because the obs are centred lower in this version so it looks 'worse':
The obs only run up to 2011 but nothing dramatic has happened in the last couple of years so from that I would say there's a low-side deviation starting around 2006.
Here's the one that appeared in the final report that has the obs centred a little higher:
king algorithm to read a thermometer) it turns out that :"the fact that the modelers had to double the observed rate of warming of sea surface temperatures over the past 31 years to get the modeled and observed land surface temperatures to align with one another"
from here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-ho... and before anyone gets uppity about it being watts,see the link within to the link to mcintyre who has the same issues with the ipcc moving the goal posts yet again ,and there are no practising climatologists that will argue with mcintyre when it comes to stats,not successfully anyway.
in other words,if the same model ensembles from ar4 had been used it would have been a visual disaster for the ipcc . no wonder they do not want to proceed to ar6.
Or, for those who believe having Watts even mentioned makes the underlying argument automatically false, here's Judith Curry's take on the graphs:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-cli...
Remember, Curry is one of those rarest of beasts - a practicing climate scientist who agrees with the fundamental hypothesis of AGW (though not necessarily the alarmism that surrounds it) but is not afraid to point out errors or call foul when needed.
In other words, a true scientist, and she finds those graphs "misleading" at best.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-cli...
Remember, Curry is one of those rarest of beasts - a practicing climate scientist who agrees with the fundamental hypothesis of AGW (though not necessarily the alarmism that surrounds it) but is not afraid to point out errors or call foul when needed.
In other words, a true scientist, and she finds those graphs "misleading" at best.
Variomatic said:
Or, for those who believe having Watts even mentioned makes the underlying argument automatically false, here's Judith Curry's take on the graphs:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-cli...
Remember, Curry is one of those rarest of beasts - a practicing climate scientist who agrees with the fundamental hypothesis of AGW (though not necessarily the alarmism that surrounds it) but is not afraid to point out errors or call foul when needed.
In other words, a true scientist, and she finds those graphs "misleading" at best.
"Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy"http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-cli...
Remember, Curry is one of those rarest of beasts - a practicing climate scientist who agrees with the fundamental hypothesis of AGW (though not necessarily the alarmism that surrounds it) but is not afraid to point out errors or call foul when needed.
In other words, a true scientist, and she finds those graphs "misleading" at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fa...
Would be nice to see an AGW example in there.....and wondering how long it would last?
bona fide evidence that the climate "science" community most definitely do not practice science. it would seem a large part of the climate science academic community know mann,s work is bogus,but appear to suppress the knowledge .
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-...
utterly shameful
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-...
utterly shameful
Why do you guys bother?
I checked out of the debate (and this thread) many moons ago, realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science. Or the blogs about the science. Ok, you can sort of make some sense of some of it, and form an opinion by looking for evidence to support the belief you had before looking at any of this, but by then the data has been so regurgitated and reworked that you can't trust it anyway. I find it laughable that sceptics can sit there claiming the warmists manipulate data and don't consider that means surely people of the other side could be doing just the same. Likewise some warmists seem so entrenched in their belief it would take two centuries of cooling to convince them the world isn't warming.
I've stated before I'm about 70% on the warming side, with some doubts, but looking at a recent poll of scientists this is about right. If I were not in "engineering" and maybe say a panel beater, I'd be less inclined to agree with the consensus and hover about the 50/50 mark. However if I were a proper scientist and not an engineer I might get to about 80/20 or a weather related scientist about 90/10 or a real climate scientist about 95/5. It seems more like it's not what you know, but who you are makes the biggest difference. That obviously applies to the general population though - notable exceptions would be panel beaters who like reading climate blogs, and engineers who like V8s ;-)
Strangely that survey is a bit like saying we need to educate people to get them to "believe" in climate science. But that's surely a but of a crap way to put it. It's not a belief any more than it is to say if we educate people more they would believe in the weak force, gravity and quarks. All proposed by theory and experimentation, but the common man has no knowledge (or frankly any need to know). Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists. I don't really think after all these pages there's been any change in viewpoints. Apart from mine as I used to be 80/20 ;-)
The thing for me, does it really make any difference what people on Piston heads think? It's not going to change the mainstream science or the opinions of daily mail readers posting on here. Your all wasting your time.
But feel free to carry on - I'll check back in a couple of months and see if there's anything notable worth reading. Perhaps someone could PM me if they find out for certain one way or another. something like all the ice has melted and average global temperatures are up 1 degree since el nino stopped cooling the pacific. I'd be just as happy to hear the ice is all back, and thicker than ever, and temps are down 2 degrees since solar output started dropping.
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be (Telsa Model III) but in the mean time I'm at a quandary deciding what to get next... a used XF-S/Merc Vito or Ford Fiesta (for the Mrs). I'm hanging on till 2017 to get me a used 5.0 XKR for the weekends as I expect prices of V8s by then will hit rock bottom and fuel prices will be on the way up.
I checked out of the debate (and this thread) many moons ago, realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science. Or the blogs about the science. Ok, you can sort of make some sense of some of it, and form an opinion by looking for evidence to support the belief you had before looking at any of this, but by then the data has been so regurgitated and reworked that you can't trust it anyway. I find it laughable that sceptics can sit there claiming the warmists manipulate data and don't consider that means surely people of the other side could be doing just the same. Likewise some warmists seem so entrenched in their belief it would take two centuries of cooling to convince them the world isn't warming.
I've stated before I'm about 70% on the warming side, with some doubts, but looking at a recent poll of scientists this is about right. If I were not in "engineering" and maybe say a panel beater, I'd be less inclined to agree with the consensus and hover about the 50/50 mark. However if I were a proper scientist and not an engineer I might get to about 80/20 or a weather related scientist about 90/10 or a real climate scientist about 95/5. It seems more like it's not what you know, but who you are makes the biggest difference. That obviously applies to the general population though - notable exceptions would be panel beaters who like reading climate blogs, and engineers who like V8s ;-)
Strangely that survey is a bit like saying we need to educate people to get them to "believe" in climate science. But that's surely a but of a crap way to put it. It's not a belief any more than it is to say if we educate people more they would believe in the weak force, gravity and quarks. All proposed by theory and experimentation, but the common man has no knowledge (or frankly any need to know). Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists. I don't really think after all these pages there's been any change in viewpoints. Apart from mine as I used to be 80/20 ;-)
The thing for me, does it really make any difference what people on Piston heads think? It's not going to change the mainstream science or the opinions of daily mail readers posting on here. Your all wasting your time.
But feel free to carry on - I'll check back in a couple of months and see if there's anything notable worth reading. Perhaps someone could PM me if they find out for certain one way or another. something like all the ice has melted and average global temperatures are up 1 degree since el nino stopped cooling the pacific. I'd be just as happy to hear the ice is all back, and thicker than ever, and temps are down 2 degrees since solar output started dropping.
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be (Telsa Model III) but in the mean time I'm at a quandary deciding what to get next... a used XF-S/Merc Vito or Ford Fiesta (for the Mrs). I'm hanging on till 2017 to get me a used 5.0 XKR for the weekends as I expect prices of V8s by then will hit rock bottom and fuel prices will be on the way up.
TransverseTight said:
Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists.
I think that would be unwise. Their livelihoods depend on global warming being mostly man made and a huge threat.They are selling a product, and the politicians are buying it, and attempting to sell it to the masses.
durbster said:
TransverseTight said:
Why do you guys bother ...
Good post. Well said.Then TransverseTight spoiled it when he said:
Your all wasting your time
Then TransverseTight spoiled it all over again when he said:
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be
Tut...
PS....Do a bit more reading, old boy. Read about the scientists' misconduct and incompetence, then come back here and explain why you trust them.
TransverseTight said:
Why do you guys bother?
I checked out of the debate (and this thread) many moons ago, realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science. Or the blogs about the science. Ok, you can sort of make some sense of some of it, and form an opinion by looking for evidence to support the belief you had before looking at any of this, but by then the data has been so regurgitated and reworked that you can't trust it anyway. I find it laughable that sceptics can sit there claiming the warmists manipulate data and don't consider that means surely people of the other side could be doing just the same. Likewise some warmists seem so entrenched in their belief it would take two centuries of cooling to convince them the world isn't warming.
I've stated before I'm about 70% on the warming side, with some doubts, but looking at a recent poll of scientists this is about right. If I were not in "engineering" and maybe say a panel beater, I'd be less inclined to agree with the consensus and hover about the 50/50 mark. However if I were a proper scientist and not an engineer I might get to about 80/20 or a weather related scientist about 90/10 or a real climate scientist about 95/5. It seems more like it's not what you know, but who you are makes the biggest difference. That obviously applies to the general population though - notable exceptions would be panel beaters who like reading climate blogs, and engineers who like V8s ;-)
Strangely that survey is a bit like saying we need to educate people to get them to "believe" in climate science. But that's surely a but of a crap way to put it. It's not a belief any more than it is to say if we educate people more they would believe in the weak force, gravity and quarks. All proposed by theory and experimentation, but the common man has no knowledge (or frankly any need to know). Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists. I don't really think after all these pages there's been any change in viewpoints. Apart from mine as I used to be 80/20 ;-)
The thing for me, does it really make any difference what people on Piston heads think? It's not going to change the mainstream science or the opinions of daily mail readers posting on here. Your all wasting your time.
But feel free to carry on - I'll check back in a couple of months and see if there's anything notable worth reading. Perhaps someone could PM me if they find out for certain one way or another. something like all the ice has melted and average global temperatures are up 1 degree since el nino stopped cooling the pacific. I'd be just as happy to hear the ice is all back, and thicker than ever, and temps are down 2 degrees since solar output started dropping.
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be (Telsa Model III) but in the mean time I'm at a quandary deciding what to get next... a used XF-S/Merc Vito or Ford Fiesta (for the Mrs). I'm hanging on till 2017 to get me a used 5.0 XKR for the weekends as I expect prices of V8s by then will hit rock bottom and fuel prices will be on the way up.
Well done. The highlighted bit is what I've also been saying. We need a 'real' climate scientist or institution to pass comment on what the sceptics on here are saying I believe but of course if nobody is going to put the point to them then we'll never get that reply I checked out of the debate (and this thread) many moons ago, realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science. Or the blogs about the science. Ok, you can sort of make some sense of some of it, and form an opinion by looking for evidence to support the belief you had before looking at any of this, but by then the data has been so regurgitated and reworked that you can't trust it anyway. I find it laughable that sceptics can sit there claiming the warmists manipulate data and don't consider that means surely people of the other side could be doing just the same. Likewise some warmists seem so entrenched in their belief it would take two centuries of cooling to convince them the world isn't warming.
I've stated before I'm about 70% on the warming side, with some doubts, but looking at a recent poll of scientists this is about right. If I were not in "engineering" and maybe say a panel beater, I'd be less inclined to agree with the consensus and hover about the 50/50 mark. However if I were a proper scientist and not an engineer I might get to about 80/20 or a weather related scientist about 90/10 or a real climate scientist about 95/5. It seems more like it's not what you know, but who you are makes the biggest difference. That obviously applies to the general population though - notable exceptions would be panel beaters who like reading climate blogs, and engineers who like V8s ;-)
Strangely that survey is a bit like saying we need to educate people to get them to "believe" in climate science. But that's surely a but of a crap way to put it. It's not a belief any more than it is to say if we educate people more they would believe in the weak force, gravity and quarks. All proposed by theory and experimentation, but the common man has no knowledge (or frankly any need to know). Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists. I don't really think after all these pages there's been any change in viewpoints. Apart from mine as I used to be 80/20 ;-)
The thing for me, does it really make any difference what people on Piston heads think? It's not going to change the mainstream science or the opinions of daily mail readers posting on here. Your all wasting your time.
But feel free to carry on - I'll check back in a couple of months and see if there's anything notable worth reading. Perhaps someone could PM me if they find out for certain one way or another. something like all the ice has melted and average global temperatures are up 1 degree since el nino stopped cooling the pacific. I'd be just as happy to hear the ice is all back, and thicker than ever, and temps are down 2 degrees since solar output started dropping.
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be (Telsa Model III) but in the mean time I'm at a quandary deciding what to get next... a used XF-S/Merc Vito or Ford Fiesta (for the Mrs). I'm hanging on till 2017 to get me a used 5.0 XKR for the weekends as I expect prices of V8s by then will hit rock bottom and fuel prices will be on the way up.
mybrainhurts said:
PS...KK, you are still not accepting email. Thought you'd fixed that?
I did fix it, you didn't send anything so I changed it back a couple of days later.I don't really want a flood of e-mails from people who disagree with me on various threads but if you want to send something I'll lower the drawbridge for you temporarily, no problem at all.
KareemK said:
TransverseTight said:
Why do you guys bother?
I checked out of the debate (and this thread) many moons ago, realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science. Or the blogs about the science. Ok, you can sort of make some sense of some of it, and form an opinion by looking for evidence to support the belief you had before looking at any of this, but by then the data has been so regurgitated and reworked that you can't trust it anyway. I find it laughable that sceptics can sit there claiming the warmists manipulate data and don't consider that means surely people of the other side could be doing just the same. Likewise some warmists seem so entrenched in their belief it would take two centuries of cooling to convince them the world isn't warming.
I've stated before I'm about 70% on the warming side, with some doubts, but looking at a recent poll of scientists this is about right. If I were not in "engineering" and maybe say a panel beater, I'd be less inclined to agree with the consensus and hover about the 50/50 mark. However if I were a proper scientist and not an engineer I might get to about 80/20 or a weather related scientist about 90/10 or a real climate scientist about 95/5. It seems more like it's not what you know, but who you are makes the biggest difference. That obviously applies to the general population though - notable exceptions would be panel beaters who like reading climate blogs, and engineers who like V8s ;-)
Strangely that survey is a bit like saying we need to educate people to get them to "believe" in climate science. But that's surely a but of a crap way to put it. It's not a belief any more than it is to say if we educate people more they would believe in the weak force, gravity and quarks. All proposed by theory and experimentation, but the common man has no knowledge (or frankly any need to know). Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists. I don't really think after all these pages there's been any change in viewpoints. Apart from mine as I used to be 80/20 ;-)
The thing for me, does it really make any difference what people on Piston heads think? It's not going to change the mainstream science or the opinions of daily mail readers posting on here. Your all wasting your time.
But feel free to carry on - I'll check back in a couple of months and see if there's anything notable worth reading. Perhaps someone could PM me if they find out for certain one way or another. something like all the ice has melted and average global temperatures are up 1 degree since el nino stopped cooling the pacific. I'd be just as happy to hear the ice is all back, and thicker than ever, and temps are down 2 degrees since solar output started dropping.
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be (Telsa Model III) but in the mean time I'm at a quandary deciding what to get next... a used XF-S/Merc Vito or Ford Fiesta (for the Mrs). I'm hanging on till 2017 to get me a used 5.0 XKR for the weekends as I expect prices of V8s by then will hit rock bottom and fuel prices will be on the way up.
Well done. The highlighted bit is what I've also been saying. We need a 'real' climate scientist or institution to pass comment on what the sceptics on here are saying I believe but of course if nobody is going to put the point to them then we'll never get that reply I checked out of the debate (and this thread) many moons ago, realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science. Or the blogs about the science. Ok, you can sort of make some sense of some of it, and form an opinion by looking for evidence to support the belief you had before looking at any of this, but by then the data has been so regurgitated and reworked that you can't trust it anyway. I find it laughable that sceptics can sit there claiming the warmists manipulate data and don't consider that means surely people of the other side could be doing just the same. Likewise some warmists seem so entrenched in their belief it would take two centuries of cooling to convince them the world isn't warming.
I've stated before I'm about 70% on the warming side, with some doubts, but looking at a recent poll of scientists this is about right. If I were not in "engineering" and maybe say a panel beater, I'd be less inclined to agree with the consensus and hover about the 50/50 mark. However if I were a proper scientist and not an engineer I might get to about 80/20 or a weather related scientist about 90/10 or a real climate scientist about 95/5. It seems more like it's not what you know, but who you are makes the biggest difference. That obviously applies to the general population though - notable exceptions would be panel beaters who like reading climate blogs, and engineers who like V8s ;-)
Strangely that survey is a bit like saying we need to educate people to get them to "believe" in climate science. But that's surely a but of a crap way to put it. It's not a belief any more than it is to say if we educate people more they would believe in the weak force, gravity and quarks. All proposed by theory and experimentation, but the common man has no knowledge (or frankly any need to know). Maybe we should leave climate science to the climate scientists instead of arm chair scientists. I don't really think after all these pages there's been any change in viewpoints. Apart from mine as I used to be 80/20 ;-)
The thing for me, does it really make any difference what people on Piston heads think? It's not going to change the mainstream science or the opinions of daily mail readers posting on here. Your all wasting your time.
But feel free to carry on - I'll check back in a couple of months and see if there's anything notable worth reading. Perhaps someone could PM me if they find out for certain one way or another. something like all the ice has melted and average global temperatures are up 1 degree since el nino stopped cooling the pacific. I'd be just as happy to hear the ice is all back, and thicker than ever, and temps are down 2 degrees since solar output started dropping.
Don't think any of these make any affect on what my next new car purchase will be (Telsa Model III) but in the mean time I'm at a quandary deciding what to get next... a used XF-S/Merc Vito or Ford Fiesta (for the Mrs). I'm hanging on till 2017 to get me a used 5.0 XKR for the weekends as I expect prices of V8s by then will hit rock bottom and fuel prices will be on the way up.
Hence the political territory is the main battleground and has been for a while. Regurgitated Science is just regurgitated science. Political activity leads to stuff happening. Sometime any stuff will do.
I have recently asked a few youngish people about their current levels of interest and involvement with the society in which they exist and could be influential over the next two or three decades. Bright people, in work, paying significant taxes and ambitious for their futures in one way or another. The almost universal answer was that they have no interest in such matters at all and have, in effect, handed off Political decisions to those who are willing to take them on. When asked "What will you think if the outcomes turn out to disrupt your live in ways that were not necessary?" they sort of shrug and say something like "it is what it is" which is a phrase that I fully understand but see as unimpressively weak unless one is a complete nihilist.
So TT is probably right even if for the wrong reasons.
Those who will be most affected by the long term issues of today seem not to care so why should anyone else?
I sense that there are many people
KareemK said:
I did fix it, you didn't send anything so I changed it back a couple of days later.
I don't really want a flood of e-mails from people who disagree with me on various threads
I don't really want a flood of e-mails from people who disagree with me on various threads
Don't flatter yourself you've been here two months!! I've spent best part of 12 years and have had about 10 emails sent to me...... 
Edited by dickymint on Tuesday 22 July 13:52
Kawasicki said:
I think that would be unwise. Their livelihoods depend on global warming being mostly man made and a huge threat.
Why does it? Are you suggesting we simply wouldn't be studying the climate at all without the AGW theory?And if that's true, why don't other fields of science invent huge stories to protect their funding?
mybrainhurts said:
PS....Do a bit more reading, old boy. Read about the scientists' misconduct and incompetence, then come back here and explain why you trust them.
I can't think of any field of science - or any industry - that doesn't have its fair share of incompetence and examples of misconduct. I'm curious whether you apply these critical standards consistently across all industries. Presumably you don't trust modern medicine either, for example; a field with plenty of examples of misconduct, incompetence, cover-ups, and even murderous, criminal behaviour?
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
PS....Do a bit more reading, old boy. Read about the scientists' misconduct and incompetence, then come back here and explain why you trust them.
I can't think of any field of science - or any industry - that doesn't have its fair share of incompetence and examples of misconduct. I'm curious whether you apply these critical standards consistently across all industries. Presumably you don't trust modern medicine either, for example; a field with plenty of examples of misconduct, incompetence, cover-ups, and even murderous, criminal behaviour?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff