Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
PRTVR said:
But it is not science in the normal understanding of the word, a lot of it is opinions and theory's, measurements are taken, but it can be only over a short timescale, take the scientists on the BBC this morning, talking about polar ice, and how things are changing rapidly, they were talking as if it was a danger, but turbobloke posted a news article that was from a ships captain in the 1800s reporting the lack of ice in the artic along with talk of a Northwest passage, these things have happened in the past, collecting the data is not the problem its when the cause and effect theory's are produced that the bias comes in,
it could even be a problem before the data is collected, the expedition was probably to study the effects of climate change on the artic, setting out expectations even before any data is collected.
Turbobloke is a PR man so I'm sure he did post that and probably accompanied it with a snappy soundbite, but do you really think a 200 year old news article about a report by a ship's captain is just as valid as decades of Arctic research?it could even be a problem before the data is collected, the expedition was probably to study the effects of climate change on the artic, setting out expectations even before any data is collected.
durbster said:
Turbobloke is a PR man so I'm sure he did post that and probably accompanied it with a snappy soundbite, but do you really think a 200 year old news article about a report by a ship's captain is just as valid as decades of Arctic research?
Are you seriously trying to deny historical facts now? ETA- I suspect we all know the answer. Like the Medieval Warm Period, you didn't see me, right?
durbster said:
Turbobloke is a PR man so I'm sure he did post that and probably accompanied it with a snappy soundbite, but do you really think a 200 year old news article about a report by a ship's captain is just as valid as decades of Arctic research?
If ice loss and growth are on multi-decadal time scales both the old news article and recent arctic research are merely anecdotes compared to the cycle length.More data required before trends can be identified.......
grumbledoak said:
Are you seriously trying to deny historical facts now?
ETA- I suspect we all know the answer. Like the Medieval Warm Period, you didn't see me, right?
Erm no. I'll dismiss the point that "news article" is not necessarily "historical fact", but you can throw anecdotal stories to make pretty much any statement you like, but it doesn't prove anything. And whether it's true or not (I also searched but couldn't find anything), it's like saying a single warm day from last winter is proof there was no winter at all. Nobody has ever said the climate was absolutely consistent until recently.ETA- I suspect we all know the answer. Like the Medieval Warm Period, you didn't see me, right?
Jinx said:
If ice loss and growth are on multi-decadal time scales both the old news article and recent arctic research are merely anecdotes compared to the cycle length.
More data required before trends can be identified.......
You can always argue that more data is required. Science will always be based on what we know so far. More data required before trends can be identified.......
durbster said:
Nobody has ever said the climate was absolutely consistent until recently.
No, but we do hear a lot of use of the word 'unprecedented'. A ship's captain (or several) with no axe to grind, just a cargo to carry quickly, reporting a passage through the polar ice 200 years ago, where none exists now, puts the lie to stories of 'unprecedented' melting of that same ice - Don't you think?durbster said:
Erm no. I'll dismiss the point that "news article" is not necessarily "historical fact", but you can throw anecdotal stories to make pretty much any statement you like, but it doesn't prove anything. And whether it's true or not (I also searched but couldn't find anything), it's like saying a single warm day from last winter is proof there was no winter at all. Nobody has ever said the climate was absolutely consistent until recently.
Are you deliberately missing the point? Or have I started one of those arguments where I am going to be beaten by your experience?The old news of the opening of the Northwest Passage (well reported, as it was potentially very lucrative) shows that any recent retreat of polar ice is not unprecedented, nor can it automatically be blamed on recent human activity. It is only a small point, but it is quite an important one.
grumbledoak said:
Are you deliberately missing the point? Or have I started one of those arguments where I am going to be beaten by your experience?
The old news of the opening of the Northwest Passage (well reported, as it was potentially very lucrative) shows that any recent retreat of polar ice is not unprecedented, nor can it automatically be blamed on recent human activity. It is only a small point, but it is quite an important one.
And why wasn't the lucrative Northwest Passage opened? Because it was blocked by ice, apparently.The old news of the opening of the Northwest Passage (well reported, as it was potentially very lucrative) shows that any recent retreat of polar ice is not unprecedented, nor can it automatically be blamed on recent human activity. It is only a small point, but it is quite an important one.
Therefore this particular story is not relevant because the ice being clear at that particular time was clearly an anomoly.
durbster said:
Turbobloke is a PR man so I'm sure he did post that and probably accompanied it with a snappy soundbite, but do you really think a 200 year old news article about a report by a ship's captain is just as valid as decades of Arctic research?
10 years is just the blink of the eye in earth terms, to ignore history and only concentrate on modern events is short sighted, but it does fit in with keeping to the agenda. 
The picture above is the USS skate in 1958 at the north pole,
Note the lack of ice.
Toaster said:
Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat
The low-lying Pacific nation of Kiribati is negotiating to buy land in Fiji so it can relocate islanders under threat from rising sea levels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australi...
Kiribati?The low-lying Pacific nation of Kiribati is negotiating to buy land in Fiji so it can relocate islanders under threat from rising sea levels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australi...
Really?
Compensation central, a place with a relatively short human occupation history by any measure (and based on the ever advancing technological achievements that humanity became capable of developing - seafaring in this case) and you offer it as a example of scientific credibility?
I think you should take this to the Political thread - it has nothing useful for the Science debate.
LongQ said:
Toaster said:
Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat
The low-lying Pacific nation of Kiribati is negotiating to buy land in Fiji so it can relocate islanders under threat from rising sea levels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australi...
Kiribati?The low-lying Pacific nation of Kiribati is negotiating to buy land in Fiji so it can relocate islanders under threat from rising sea levels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australi...
Really?
Compensation central, a place with a relatively short human occupation history by any measure (and based on the ever advancing technological achievements that humanity became capable of developing - seafaring in this case) and you offer it as a example of scientific credibility?
I think you should take this to the Political thread - it has nothing useful for the Science debate.
plunker said:
thats why the Russians like to use the north pole they can hide under the Ice break through launch their ICBM'splunker said:
Interesting, you posted a picture that reinforced what I was saying, how thin must the ice be to punch a hole through with a sail of a sub, is there a date connected to the pictures?PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Interesting, you posted a picture that reinforced what I was saying, how thin must the ice be to punch a hole through with a sail of a sub, is there a date connected to the pictures?plunker said:
See link - March 1959. The fact it was in March, close to the sea-ice maximum, underlines that the thin ice they broke through was a re-frozen lead in the ice they chanced upon. Sorry but this is just duff mis-info that you've bought into - tells you nothing about the state of the arctic ice in 1959.
So, knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago, either way, the usage of the word "unprecedented", related to almost anything, might be somewhat misleading?plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Interesting, you posted a picture that reinforced what I was saying, how thin must the ice be to punch a hole through with a sail of a sub, is there a date connected to the pictures?Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Interesting, you posted a picture that reinforced what I was saying, how thin must the ice be to punch a hole through with a sail of a sub, is there a date connected to the pictures?Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
plunker said:
LongQ said:
So, knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago, either way, the usage of the word "unprecedented", related to almost anything, might be somewhat misleading?
The 'knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago' part looks an unsceptical premise to me.In that case it seems reasonable to be sceptical about all information attributed to Arctic Ice in that period and, on that basis, we should be sceptical about any comparisons between then and what we think we understand now since there is no obvious sound comparative method with any useful degree of accuracy that could be attributed to it.
IMO.
LongQ said:
plunker said:
LongQ said:
So, knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago, either way, the usage of the word "unprecedented", related to almost anything, might be somewhat misleading?
The 'knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago' part looks an unsceptical premise to me.In that case it seems reasonable to be sceptical about all information attributed to Arctic Ice in that period and, on that basis, we should be sceptical about any comparisons between then and what we think we understand now since there is no obvious sound comparative method with any useful degree of accuracy that could be attributed to it.
IMO.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff