Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[ludo]

robinessex said:

LoonyTunes said:

grumbledoak said:

GroundEffect said:

Yet all of science relies on it. And it has this really monotonous ability to work as well. A colossal bore.

All of science? Hardly. And I would happily bet that modern reliance on it is well correlated with the fall in reproducibility.

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment."

You certainly can't do clinical trials without statistics. There are a thousand other crucial uses for statistics in everyday life including Weather Forecasting, Emergency Preparedness, Disease Prediction, Genetics and Quality Testing to name just 5.

However, in the context of data science this might help
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41060-0...

In short anyone dismissing statistical mathematics is a fool.

Use with caution

In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other That "correlation proves causation" is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.

Yawn, we ALL know that. However that doesn't stop climate skeptics from asserting that global warming has stopped because of a lack of statistical significance in the trend. That is an even worse statistical error, and the one that you are trying to bluster away from.

Go back even further to David Hume and you will find we can have no knowledge of causation because we can only observe correlation. This means to assert causation we have to include theory/assumptions (c.f. Kant and others). For climate there is heaps of that, which has been accumulated by the scientific community over the course of a hundred years or so. The idea that correlation is used as the reason to think that CO2 causes warming shows a profound ignorance of the scientific research that has been carried out on this topic.

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

The concept that any science which relies on statistics can be dismissed out of hand is perhaps the best illustration yet of the level of scientific understanding on the sceptic side. The idea is nonsensical.

The concept that one individual somehow represents the entire level of understanding on the sceptic side is perhaps the best illustration yet of the lack of scientific understanding on the believer side...... The idea is nonsensical.

HTH

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

hairykrishna said:

The concept that any science which relies on statistics can be dismissed out of hand is perhaps the best illustration yet of the level of scientific understanding on the sceptic side. The idea is nonsensical.

The concept that one individual somehow represents the entire level of understanding on the sceptic side is perhaps the best illustration yet of the lack of scientific understanding on the believer side...... The idea is nonsensical.

HTH

Then please ask your fellow skeptic to refrain from posting as he's doing you all a disservice posting quotes that every GCSE level student would know let alone research scientists and the like.

[grumbledoak]

hairykrishna said:

The concept that any science which relies on statistics can be dismissed out of hand is perhaps the best illustration yet of the level of scientific understanding on the sceptic side. The idea is nonsensical.

That's either an attempt at a strawman or a very embarrassing reading comprehension fail.

[LoonyTunes]

grumbledoak said:

hairykrishna said:

The concept that any science which relies on statistics can be dismissed out of hand is perhaps the best illustration yet of the level of scientific understanding on the sceptic side. The idea is nonsensical.

That's either an attempt at a strawman or a very embarrassing reading comprehension fail.

Let me remind you how this distraction started

robinessex said:

Statistics. Mathematical guessing. So I was told at the start of my statistics stuff at college many years ago!

You then said

grumbledoak said:

And I would happily bet that modern reliance on it is well correlated with the fall in reproducibility.

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment."

So it's neither of the things you say it is.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Then please ask your fellow skeptic to refrain from posting as he's doing you all a disservice posting quotes that every GCSE level student would know let alone research scientists and the like.

I hate to tell you this but there isn't a conspiracy of sceptics trying to murder Gaia to get profits from oil companies for ermm.. world domination or something.
People are perfectly entitled to their own opinions and whilst many of us share a healthy scepticism of anthropogenic CO2 induced catastrophic climate change (TM) that doesn't mean we are sceptical for the same reasons.
So no there is no disservice to anyone but themselves.

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Then please ask your fellow skeptic to refrain from posting as he's doing you all a disservice posting quotes that every GCSE level student would know let alone research scientists and the like.

I hate to tell you this but there isn't a conspiracy of sceptics trying to murder Gaia to get profits from oil companies for ermm.. world domination or something.
People are perfectly entitled to their own opinions and whilst many of us share a healthy scepticism of anthropogenic CO2 induced catastrophic climate change (TM) that doesn't mean we are sceptical for the same reasons.
So no there is no disservice to anyone but themselves.

Unfortunately due to the cultish behaviour demonstrated by most of the sceptics to Turbobloke you tend to get lumped in together. But outside of that I take your point.

[Kawasicki]

LoonyTunes said:

Unfortunately due to the cultish behaviour demonstrated by most of the sceptics to Turbobloke you tend to get lumped in together. But outside of that I take your point.

Is it a conspiracy?

[deeps]

LoonyTunes said:

Unfortunately due to the cultish behaviour demonstrated by most of the sceptics to Turbobloke you tend to get lumped in together. But outside of that I take your point.

That says a fair bit about you.

[ludo]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Then please ask your fellow skeptic to refrain from posting as he's doing you all a disservice posting quotes that every GCSE level student would know let alone research scientists and the like.

I hate to tell you this but there isn't a conspiracy of sceptics trying to murder Gaia to get profits from oil companies for ermm.. world domination or something.
People are perfectly entitled to their own opinions and whilst many of us share a healthy scepticism of anthropogenic CO2 induced catastrophic climate change (TM) that doesn't mean we are sceptical for the same reasons.
So no there is no disservice to anyone but themselves.

I'm afraid a lot of genuine skeptics would agree with what LoonyTunes said, as pointed out by Fred Singer in his article "Climate Deniers are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name". If you really want to marginalise climate skeptics from having any real influence on the debate, then you could do no better than to cling on to the scientifically illiterate canards that continually circulate in forums like this (even after they have been shown to be wrong, on numerous occasions, e.g. residence time), and then bluster back to politics and conspiracy ideation when the science gets too tough.

[Kawasicki]

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

[Kawasicki]

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

[The Don of Croy]

ludo said:

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is.

Pity no one has told the politico's. Seems like every week there's another end of days claim.

[ludo]

The Don of Croy said:

Pity no one has told the politico's. Seems like every week there's another end of days claim.

Rubbish. The IPCC have told them. This is the science discussion, not the political debate.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

We should expect our climate to rapidly change if we continue pumping GHGs into the atmosphere like we are doing.

Ironically, the reason we're able to do that is highly likely connected to the fact the climate has been relatively stable for the last few thousand years enabling human civilisation to flourish.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

We should expect our climate to rapidly change if we continue pumping GHGs into the atmosphere like we are doing.

Ironically, the reason we're able to do that is highly likely connected to the fact the climate has been relatively stable for the last few thousand years enabling human civilisation to flourish.

Absolutely, I agree with you. But I would add that we should also expect the climate to change if we never pumped GHGs into the atmosphere.

[Kawasicki]

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

The science is quite clear. We are living in a relatively cool interglacial period, and the highest quality data we have indicates that the current rate of change of temperature is unremarkable.

Unless anyone can provide data to the contrary.

Human civilisation and agriculture didn't exist in previous interglacials, so what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer?

What is the relevance of your question? Humans live on planet earth. We should expect our climate to have periods of extremely rapid change, over large temperature amplitudes.

We evolved in previous interglacial periods. When life was tough, and much warmer than today.

Do you expect a constant climate?

The existence of human beings as a species is in no danger whatsoever AFAICS from climate change, and I don't know of any scientific body that claims it is. Thus the temperature of previous interglacials is utterly irrelevant AFAICS.

IIRC the Neanderthals were on their way to extinction before modern humans established themselves in Europe, they didn't survive into the interglacial.

Kawasicki said:

Do you expect a constant climate?

Of course I don't and you know perfectly well that I don't, so that is just cheap rhetoric, rather than a genuine scientific question. That sort of thing is best left to the politics thread.

So, what is the relevance of previous interglacials being warmer to the risks associated with current climate change, as for example set out by the IPCC reports?

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

It isn't the case that "nobody was injured" though, just that humans as a species survived. That is very obviously not at all the same thing.

Our civilisation and agriculture is highly adapted to the climate of this interglacial. Any change from that will require adaption which has a cost. The larger the change, the bigger the cost. As the worlds population has increased very sharply over the last hundred years or so, we don't have the resources to cope with a large increase in global temperatures without there being considerable hardship (mostly not for those in the developed world). We might easily be able to avoid extinction from a 2C increase in temperature, but it will result in hardship (or worse) for some.