Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
DibblyDobbler said:
Yes
cool, perhaps this place has improved since I was last here. 
DibblyDobbler said:
... but it's really a side issue to the main argument isn't it?
No, not really. I was responding toJinx said:
[cough]
HadCrut4 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy
[/cough]
So it very much is the main argument (at least in this particular branch of the discussion).HadCrut4 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy
[/cough]
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
Interesting to see someone who clearly knows what they are talking about posting in here.
How are you able to deduce that? Your CC qualifications are ?Your CC qualifications to argue against the scientific establishment and consensus are?
Oh, don't bother, we know they're zero.
ludo said:
So it very much is the main argument (at least in this particular branch of the discussion).
Fair enough - I was seeking to broaden things out 
I'm comfortable that the planet appears to be slowly warming but is it 100% caused by us... 0%... somewhere in between? That, for me at least, is the main issue.
DibblyDobbler said:
Fair enough - I was seeking to broaden things out
I'm comfortable that the planet appears to be slowly warming but is it 100% caused by us... 0%... somewhere in between? That, for me at least, is the main issue.
It isn't slowly warming. Can you give examples of when it has warmed by a similar amount (or more) at a faster rate?I'm comfortable that the planet appears to be slowly warming but is it 100% caused by us... 0%... somewhere in between? That, for me at least, is the main issue.
gadgetmac said:
...being able to understand that when 97% of scientists agree and only a fringe element don't that it's almost certainly true..
consensus isn't inviolable though, in the past prevailing paradigms have existed and then got changed when more info was found out.I don't know about climate change, I read this thread to see if I can understand it better.
Halb said:
consensus isn't inviolable though, in the past prevailing paradigms have existed and then got changed when more info was found out.
I don't know about climate change, I read this thread to see if I can understand it better.
You would be better off reading a book (e.g. Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of climate change", which is also available online https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm is a good starting point). This thread contains much that is, err, "unreliable".I don't know about climate change, I read this thread to see if I can understand it better.
ludo said:
You would be better off reading a book (e.g. Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of climate change", which is also available online https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm is a good starting point). This thread contains much that is, err, "unreliable".
I feel lost with with the whole thing.This book, has lots of data?
Halb said:
gadgetmac said:
...being able to understand that when 97% of scientists agree and only a fringe element don't that it's almost certainly true..
consensus isn't inviolable though, in the past prevailing paradigms have existed and then got changed when more info was found out.I don't know about climate change, I read this thread to see if I can understand it better.
Jasandjules said:
What data or evidence do you have to support any statistical warming?
As long as you evaluate the trend over a long enough period for the result not to depend on internal climate variability (e.g. ENSO), then you can find a statistically significant warming trend. The WMO recommend 30 years as being sufficient for climate. Note that a lot of people on climate skeptic blogs don't understand statistical significance and argue that a lack of warming over a period that is too short to expect a significant result means that there is no warming. See here for a detailed explanation of why that is not the case.
Halb said:
I feel lost with with the whole thing.
This book, has lots of data?
You need to understand the physics before data is helpful. If you want the data, everything you need is publicly available, and easy to find using Google (e.g. RealClimate Data Page).This book, has lots of data?
Edited by ludo on Saturday 16th February 11:59
ludo said:
Halb said:
I feel lost with with the whole thing.
This book, has lots of data?
You need to understand the physics before data is helpful. If you want the data, everything you need is publicly available, and easy to find using Google.This book, has lots of data?
Halb said:
ludo said:
Halb said:
I feel lost with with the whole thing.
This book, has lots of data?
You need to understand the physics before data is helpful. If you want the data, everything you need is publicly available, and easy to find using Google.This book, has lots of data?
Anyone new to these threads should note that "Real Climate" http://www.realclimate.org is very much the establishment climate scientists (Mann, Schmidt, et. al.) and "Skeptical Science" https://www.skepticalscience.com/ is not as it's name suggests.
As to posters linking to these while rubbishing other sources as propaganda, I trust PHers to draw their own conclusions.
As to posters linking to these while rubbishing other sources as propaganda, I trust PHers to draw their own conclusions.
grumbledoak said:
Anyone new to these threads should note that "Real Climate" http://www.realclimate.org is very much the establishment climate scientists (Mann, Schmidt, et. al.) and "Skeptical Science" https://www.skepticalscience.com/ is not as it's name suggests.
As to posters linking to these while rubbishing other sources as propaganda, I trust PHers to draw their own conclusions.
yawn, ad-hominems (attacks on the source of the argument in place of attacks on the content) are O.K. in politics, but not in science where the only thing that matters is the validity of the argument and the support from the observations/experiment.As to posters linking to these while rubbishing other sources as propaganda, I trust PHers to draw their own conclusions.
DibblyDobbler said:
ludo said:
It isn't slowly warming. Can you give examples of when it has warmed by a similar amount (or more) at a faster rate?
...Umm... I'm off back to the photography forum
DibblyDobbler said:
I'm comfortable that the planet appears to be slowly warming but is it 100% caused by us... 0%... somewhere in between? That, for me at least, is the main issue.
Perhaps this forum hasn't improved after all...ludo said:
grumbledoak said:
Anyone new to these threads should note that "Real Climate" http://www.realclimate.org is very much the establishment climate scientists (Mann, Schmidt, et. al.) and "Skeptical Science" https://www.skepticalscience.com/ is not as it's name suggests.
As to posters linking to these while rubbishing other sources as propaganda, I trust PHers to draw their own conclusions.
yawn, ad-hominems (attacks on the source of the argument in place of attacks on the content) are O.K. in politics, but not in science where the only thing that matters is the validity of the argument and the support from the observations/experiment.As to posters linking to these while rubbishing other sources as propaganda, I trust PHers to draw their own conclusions.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff