Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Toltec]

Gandahar said:

PRTVR said:

It explains that if we are just starting to understand something that covers 2/3 of the earth's surface we have little chance of understanding totally how the climate works.

Totally agree.

Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.

It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.

Very much a work in progress hence why the people that keep saying it is settled science are equally wrong.

I see one of the main issues being that you cannot really create experiments to try to disprove the theory so it cannot be tested that way, you have to see if ongoing measurements of the system match the predictive models. Given that the measurements themselves are non-trivial, the subject of much research and really need to span decades this is very much in its infancy as a science that provides results of low uncertainty.

[robinessex]

Toltec said:

Gandahar said:

PRTVR said:

It explains that if we are just starting to understand something that covers 2/3 of the earth's surface we have little chance of understanding totally how the climate works.

Totally agree.

Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.

It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.

Very much a work in progress hence why the people that keep saying it is settled science are equally wrong.

I see one of the main issues being that you cannot really create experiments to try to disprove the theory so it cannot be tested that way, you have to see if ongoing measurements of the system match the predictive models. Given that the measurements themselves are non-trivial, the subject of much research and really need to span decades this is very much in its infancy as a science that provides results of low uncertainty.

So, basically, we have no bloody idea at all then, scientifically speaking, about the climate, and how it all works, so sod it, let’s predict (guess) what’s happening, and make a CC bandwagon lots can jump on.

[LongQ]

I stumbled across this article about misleading theoretical evidence that coincidentally gave results that were, at the time, apparenlty good enough to use.

https://theconversation.com/the-misleading-evidenc...

I thought people might appreciate it so here it is.

I take it as it is written and have not attempted any sort of verification.

[Toltec]

robinessex said:

So, basically, we have no bloody idea at all then, scientifically speaking, about the climate, and how it all works, so sod it, let’s predict (guess) what’s happening, and make a CC bandwagon lots can jump on.

It is untrue to say we have no idea there is a lot of effort going into the science and it is real science if you dig beneath the CC soundbites, however the system is extremely complex, even chaotic, not amenable to simple measurements and works on very long timescales.

[robinessex]

Toltec said:

robinessex said:

So, basically, we have no bloody idea at all then, scientifically speaking, about the climate, and how it all works, so sod it, let’s predict (guess) what’s happening, and make a CC bandwagon lots can jump on.

It is untrue to say we have no idea there is a lot of effort going into the science and it is real science if you dig beneath the CC soundbites, however the system is extremely complex, even chaotic, not amenable to simple measurements and works on very long timescales.

So no SOLID science to backup CC and AGW then ? Just a belief and faith

[Toltec]

robinessex said:

So no SOLID science to backup CC and AGW then ? Just a belief and faith

There appears to be some good science behind historic climate analysis, however AGW seems to be based on there being no precedent for CO2 rises leading temperature rises. I think there is some solid scientific effort going into understanding climate change, however it is not as yet particularly well understood. Those are entirely my opinions as a reasonably well educated and intelligent individual not to be taken as any solid proof.

[Terminator X]

Genuine question for the scientists - it is quite clear that the weather can't be predicted for more than a few days ahead so why are we expected to "believe" when the very same people predict 100 years ahead or more re climate? Apologies if asked before or considered a stupid question.

TX.

[Toltec]

Terminator X said:

Genuine question for the scientists - it is quite clear that the weather can't be predicted for more than a few days ahead so why are we expected to "believe" when the very same people predict 100 years ahead or more re climate? Apologies if asked before or considered a stupid question.

TX.

Look at it this way, statistics will allow you to make a pretty good guess about how many people will die on the roads next year, however predicting where, when and to whom it will happen is practically impossible.

[durbster]

Terminator X said:

Genuine question for the scientists - it is quite clear that the weather can't be predicted for more than a few days ahead so why are we expected to "believe" when the very same people predict 100 years ahead or more re climate? Apologies if asked before or considered a stupid question.

TX.

That's a matter of resolution. Predicting the behaviour of an individual wave is incredibly difficult, but it's still possible to know when the tide will come in.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

That's a matter of resolution. Predicting the behaviour of an individual wave is incredibly difficult, but it's still possible to know when the tide will come in.

Yet the current crop of climate predictions ignore the cyclic nature of the Earths climate system instead claiming CO2 is now running the show (except when it isn't - see latest "temperatures may drop soon but it doesn't contradict the narrative" nonsense). So the current predictions are akin to "the tide will only ever come in from now on."

[Lotus 50]

LongQ said:

I stumbled across this article about misleading theoretical evidence that coincidentally gave results that were, at the time, apparenlty good enough to use.

https://theconversation.com/the-misleading-evidenc...

I thought people might appreciate it so here it is.

I take it as it is written and have not attempted any sort of verification.

Not sure what posting this is trying to show but the last two paras are interesting in this context (given the level of scepticism esp on the Politicks thread):

"...Despite the fact that later evidence proved these theories wrong, I don’t think we should say the scientists involved made mistakes. They followed the evidence and that is precisely what a good scientist should do. They weren’t to know that the evidence was leading them astray.

These few examples certainly shouldn’t persuade us that science can’t be trusted. It’s rare for evidence to be very misleading and, usually, radically false theories don’t produce successful, accurate predictions (and usually they produce radically false predictions). Science is a process of constant refinement, with a knack for ironing out unhelpful twists and turns in the long run. And we all know that even the most trustworthy can occasionally let us down."

Given that the weight of the available evidence is that: 1: we're increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; 2: that global surface temps are increasing and 3: there's no other plausible cause for the increase in surface temps... This just seems to re-inforce the point that we should be looking to gather more evidence re the make up of the atmosphere, changes in surface temps and the causes therein. It seems to me that scientists are doing exactly what the blog suggests they should do - and the evidence doesn't suggest they are wrong yet.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 9th June 15:44

[grumbledoak]

Lotus 50 said:

and 3: there's no other plausible cause for the increase in surface temps...

Except that big yellow thing in the sky, of course.

[Lotus 50]

grumbledoak said:

Except that big yellow thing in the sky, of course.

Where's the evidence that shows the big yellow thing in the sky has been increasing it's output and driving the change global temps over the last 100 years or so?

[grumbledoak]

Lotus 50 said:

Where's the evidence that shows the big yellow thing in the sky has been increasing it's output and driving the change global temps over the last 100 years or so?

What drove global temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution then? And why did it stop?

[Gandahar]

Jinx said:

Gandahar said:

Totally agree.

Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.

It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.

They are not even close to rough generalisation yet. Given as the underlying principles they use are based on the laws of systems in equilibrium that do not apply in dynamic coupled chaotic systems there is a long way (and a lot of difficult maths - much beyond the skills of glorified geography teachers) to be discovered. Averaging out the cyclical changes and then applying laws that only apply to systems in equilibrium to these averages (because the average looks flat and hence "looks like it is in equilibrium") is so far away from correct it falls into the "not even wrong" category.
We haven't got enough data to determine if there is even a problem yet - never mind quantifying it.

Unfortunately for your point of view this thread is pages long and is on its seconds volume. If it was like you say then we would not be here discussing after all this time. Science can sort out the wheat from the chaff.

So there is a scientific argument one way, one that has not been disproved yet, or confirmed.

So, in summary, you are wrong.

[Gandahar]

Toltec said:

Gandahar said:

PRTVR said:

It explains that if we are just starting to understand something that covers 2/3 of the earth's surface we have little chance of understanding totally how the climate works.

Totally agree.

Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.

It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.

Very much a work in progress hence why the people that keep saying it is settled science are equally wrong.

I see one of the main issues being that you cannot really create experiments to try to disprove the theory so it cannot be tested that way, you have to see if ongoing measurements of the system match the predictive models. Given that the measurements themselves are non-trivial, the subject of much research and really need to span decades this is very much in its infancy as a science that provides results of low uncertainty.

Totally agree. More work needed.

Some of the people on here make the Roman Catholic church v Galileo seem sane.....

[Gandahar]

Terminator X said:

Genuine question for the scientists - it is quite clear that the weather can't be predicted for more than a few days ahead so why are we expected to "believe" when the very same people predict 100 years ahead or more re climate? Apologies if asked before or considered a stupid question.

TX.

Not a stupid question at all.

What you need to remember is that short term spikes are harder to model than long term trends. I am very interested in the polar regions and in that shows that the general trend is more accessible to study than one year uncertainties.

You need to think about it like betting and statistics.

[Gandahar]

The reason I came on here, before getting distracted by some good arguments on other points

There is a big storm going through the Arctic at the moment

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface...

Same like 2012, though that storm was in early August when the ice pack was a lot thinner. So will be interesting to watch.

We may find people jumping on a 2018 bandwagon like that happened in 2012.

Lets see how it rolls though. It has been a fun start to the 2018 melt season.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 9th June 18:33

[Lotus 50]

grumbledoak said:

What drove global temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution then? And why did it stop?

So from your response I take it you've no evidence and concede that there is no convincing evidence to show that anything other than CO2 has cause the temp rises over the last 100 years or so.

In answer to your side-step question, over historic and geological timescales various different factors have caused surface temps to change, including changes in the Earth's orbit, solar output, greenhouse effects, vulcanism etc etc etc. They haven't stopped it's just that the current CO2 effect is super imposed on top of them and at present is over-riding them if they are causing cooling - hence it's still getting warmer.

[grumbledoak]

Lotus 50 said:

hence it's still getting warmer.

Is it? It seems much as it always has been to me.

The scientists/activists seem to change the measurement methodology every time they want a news headline. Between the various natural effects that you admit have not stopped and the constantly changing methodology I am amazed they have demonstrated a statistically significant and causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and measured temperature. And kept so quiet about it.