The Climate Change Thread

[Rock Lobster]

The bulk of your post is simply an arguement to authority & a reliance on the so called "consensus". That 97% of scientists figure often thrown around is one of the biggest furphy's in this debate & a complete nonsense that has been totally discredited. Regardless, science is about evidence not consensus & there is no evidence that weather extremes are increasing or outside the area of natural variability. There is no evidence these weather extremes are the result of AGW. To date, it still remains, as you acknowledge, a theory. Not so long ago the scientific "consensus"/theory was that stress caused stomach ulcers, however, scientific evidence has since proved that was not the case.

The 16, going on 17 year figure is relevant because that is how long the temperature has failed to rise. Yes the temperature was increasing up until 1997/98 but since then it has stalled. NASA & the IPCC acknowledge this. Yes, 2000-2010 was warmer than 1990-2000 but that doesn't change the fact it has not warmed any further in that last decade. I was taller in my twenties than I was in my teens but that doesn't mean I'm still getting taller.

The "theory" that all this heat/energy is hiding in the ocean is just another "theory" thrown up by blokes like Trenberth who can't explain why the temperature rise has stalled. ARGO data shows no recent warming of the ocean.

The 16 year stall doesn't turn the AGW theory on it's head but surely it should make you question it & there are hundreds of scientists who do. It is not just journalists. I suggest you check out some of Judith Curry's work or Roy Spencer, John Christie et al, there are plenty of them.

 

[Pusser]

People in the middle ages who were wrong about the earth being flat, or in the centre of the solar system turned out to be wrong, but not by much. The progress of science is interesting, give this a read: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

People in the Middle Ages did not think the world was flat. The flat earth society started in the USA in the 19thC as a reaction to Darwins theories of evolution. While many landlocked people may have thought it was flat people on the coast knew it wasn't as did most sailors. In 276 BC the Greek Geographer, astronomer and mathematician Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth and the tilt of the planets axis. He also invented the leap day to adjust the calendar. This knowledge was part of western classical education until recent history and therefore known to science. It was well known to the Arabs as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Oh look the well rehearsed rhetoric of an internet critic of AGW. We haven't seen this before!

The bulk of your post is simply an arguement to authority & a reliance on the so called "consensus".

No it isn't, I don't mention that word once. When I refer to professionals in the field I'm talking about the CSIRO, BOM and the major university science faculties in Australia.

No it'sThat 97% of scientists figure often thrown around is one of the biggest furphy's in this debate & a complete nonsense that has been totally discredited.

Well done on destroying an argument that I never said. The crowd are going wild!

Regardless, science is about evidence not consensus & there is no evidence that weather extremes are increasing or outside the area of natural variability.

Science is about a consensus of data and experiments. But this is now ridiculous, did I even say weather extremes were increasing?

There is no evidence these weather extremes are the result of AGW.

I'm shaking in my boots, this totally destroys everything I've had to say about this topic! Oh wait I never said anything remotely resembling this argument. Are you in the right thread? Sometimes climate change critics have several tabs open at the same time and get confused when arguing on different fronts.

To date, it still remains, as you acknowledge, a theory. Not so long ago the scientific "consensus"/theory was that stress caused stomach ulcers, however, scientific evidence has since proved that was not the case.

I'm going to stop here, that is by far the worst assessment I've seen of the scientific standing of anthropogenic global warming (that it's "just a theory"). Karl holds nothing to that, you really should be proud.

If you actually believe these statements I'm not going to bother engaging with you. They stem from a lack of understanding of the scientific process.

Like I said before, if you think all the universities in this country have got it wrong by publishing articles that support the AGW theory, then send in an application to study post graduate atmospheric physics at your local university, so you can put all your effort into actually contributing to the field, rather than typing obscure rants about it on the internet.

 

[No4918]

What people believed 500 years ago has zero relevance to this debate.
Then turning it around because it is a 'theory' shows a lack of scientific understanding. I will grant that just because there is consensus among scientists should also not be used to show it is correct, my theory (not in the scientific sense) is that this is used due to lack of education among the general public as an easier means of convincing people it is real. Science has long had a problem in selling itself.

Even if you do not believe the anthropogenic influence, it is fact that carbon levels and other gases such as methane are rising. It is naive to look at the world and not think that the impact humans have had will have devestating impact on natural systems. Thousands of years ago when climate variations had no human impact there not millions of people in the path of flooding. It was also possible for species to adapt and move range as the process was slower than it is now. This will not be possible next time the world warms.

Also, can't remember who was talking about outliers but here is an interesting point. When looking at the hole in the ozone layer the outliers were ignored as they could not be explained. Turned out they were very relevant pieces of data when they started to show up more regularly and could no longer be rationalised out of the data. Oops.

 

[Sully]

frankly the only reason I come into this thread is because I'm a mod, but I have a question. What is consensus in terms of the climate change debate? If someone puts up there work for peer review what percentage of scientists need to agree before there is consensus? As far as I know no one has disproves the climate change theory and that's why we see the consensus card played so often. We all know that when you get tens of thousands of any type of group looking at a subject there is never going to be consensus. We also know that the vast majority of scientists agree that the climate change theory is correct. so what would be considered a consensus?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[boyo]

frankly the only reason I come into this thread is because I'm a mod, but I have a question. What is consensus in terms of the climate change debate? If someone puts up there work for peer review what percentage of scientists need to agree before there is consensus? As far as I know no one has disproves the climate change theory and that's why we see the consensus card played so often. We all know that when you get tens of thousands of any type of group looking at a subject there is never going to be consensus. We also know that the vast majority of scientists agree that the climate change theory is correct. so what would be considered a consensus?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Some people (who aren't scientists) don't believe the scientists, most people do.

 

[Pusser]

frankly the only reason I come into this thread is because I'm a mod, but I have a question. What is consensus in terms of the climate change debate? If someone puts up there work for peer review what percentage of scientists need to agree before there is consensus? As far as I know no one has disproves the climate change theory and that's why we see the consensus card played so often. We all know that when you get tens of thousands of any type of group looking at a subject there is never going to be consensus. We also know that the vast majority of scientists agree that the climate change theory is correct. so what would be considered a consensus?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

A theory is not a consensus. Nor is it a fact: it is far more powerful. A scientific theory is developed to account for the known data and if it fits the known data then it can be used to predict data not yet observed. As new data is observed the theory can be tested to see if it is valid or needs changing. Einstein's theory of relativity led to the generation of the ideas of gravitational lenses and black holes long before they could be observed. When the capacity to make observations was available lots of money and effort was spent to make the observations to verify the theory. The early 20th century theories on the structure of the atom predicted elements not yet known but have since been found.

This is how science advances. A known piece of data without a theory to give it context is not much use. Theories predict and are testable. They are the most powerful tool available to science. To say it is just a theory is to admit you don't understand science. Climate warming is not in doubt, even by most of those scientists who do not support the idea that it is accelerated by human activity.

It is the human contribution that causes the debate and passion by non climate specialists as the implication is that we should do something about it and that would disrupt our comfortable life. It is no accident that the bulk of opposition originates in high standard of living countries and those dependant on fossils fuels. Under these circumstances general consensus is highly unlikely whatever the theory predicts and whatever data supports it. The predictions are unpalatable and require hard decisions that will not reap benefits until well outside the electoral cycle of western governments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Sully]

A theory is not a consensus. Nor is it a fact: it is far more powerful. A scientific theory is developed to account for the known data and if it fits the known data then it can be used to predict data not yet observed. As new data is observed the theory can be tested to see if it is valid or needs changing. Einstein's theory of relativity led to the generation of the ideas of gravitational lenses and black holes long before they could be observed. When the capacity to make observations was available lots of money and effort was spent to make the observations to verify the theory. The early 20th century theories on the structure of the atom predicted elements not yet known but have since been found.

This is how science advances. A known piece of data without a theory to give it context is not much use. Theories predict and are testable. They are the most powerful tool available to science. To say it is just a theory is to admit you don't understand science. Climate warming is not in doubt, even by most of those scientists who do not support the idea that it is accelerated by human activity.

It is the human contribution that causes the debate and passion by non climate specialists as the implication is that we should do something about it and that would disrupt our comfortable life. It is no accident that the bulk of opposition originates in high standard of living countries and those dependant on fossils fuels. Under these circumstances general consensus is highly unlikely whatever the theory predicts and whatever data supports it. The predictions are unpalatable and require hard decisions that will not reap benefits until well outside the electoral cycle of western governments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Okay I understand what you're saying but I'm absolutely certain you could have said it a lot simpler than that.

But. I keep hearing about how there is no consensus among scientist about climate change although I think that if most agree then that's pretty much enough for me.

 

[Pusser]

Okay I understand what you're saying but I'm absolutely certain you could have said it a lot simpler than that.

But. I keep hearing about how there is no consensus among scientist about climate change although I think that if most agree then that's pretty much enough for me.

Sorry for length. Will put my soapbox away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Ruggo]

Pusser

I think you have a theory confused with a hypothesis.

I also think the key word in the climate change debate is anthropogenic and the inclusion or exclusion of it can completely change the hypothesis being tested. Skeptics run and hide from it in my view. We all know the climate has changed many times over its history and there is consensus of that. It is the human impact over a minutely smaller time scale that is the concern to proponents.

These differences have been flogged to a point of sensationalism in the public and political spheres and it is detracting away from the genuine scientific debate. It is a massive problem as it is influencing the global population who at the end of the day are the ones who's actions determine the solution.

I think another overlying problem is the peer review process's ability to cope with the digital age. It has never been easier to spread misinformation to a wide audience.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

frankly the only reason I come into this thread is because I'm a mod, but I have a question. What is consensus in terms of the climate change debate? If someone puts up there work for peer review what percentage of scientists need to agree before there is consensus? As far as I know no one has disproves the climate change theory and that's why we see the consensus card played so often. We all know that when you get tens of thousands of any type of group looking at a subject there is never going to be consensus. We also know that the vast majority of scientists agree that the climate change theory is correct. so what would be considered a consensus?

A consensus among scientists doesn't mean much for a hypothesis. What does matter, is a consensus of experiments, where the large body of evidence collected supports the hypothesis - that is when it gets referred to as a theory.

So when all the satellite data, meteorological data, marine data and geological data show significant changes that cannot be explained by chance, it correlates with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, you can account for this change with the greenhouse effect, and you can start making predictions. It becomes referred to as a well supported theory.

The byproduct of this is that a massive majority of scientists will agree the theory looks sound and should be taken seriously.

So I think the answer to your question is to look at what the experiments being published are supporting. When the huge body of evidence supports an idea, then the scientific consensus supports that idea. The problem is that we need generally scientists to interpret these results, hence why those focused on public policy would refer to the majority of scientists supporting a theory, not the experiments themselves.

 

[Pusser]

Pusser

I think you have a theory confused with a hypothesis.

I also think the key word in the climate change debate is anthropogenic and the inclusion or exclusion of it can completely change the hypothesis being tested. Skeptics run and hide from it in my view. We all know the climate has changed many times over its history and there is consensus of that. It is the human impact over a minutely smaller time scale that is the concern to proponents.

I am not confused. Have the facts, form a hypotheses, testfit and if the fit is ok you have a theory. That is why we have the theory of general relativity, the theory of evolution and not a hypothesis of general relativity or a hypothesis of evolution. Other than that I agree with you and that was in part my point. To accept the human impact is to accept the need to do something and that is what the debate is really about.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Ruggo]

I have always learnt, have the model (thought or idea), form the hypothesis (including the null hypothesis) to test the model including a sound experimental design, collect the data and analyse to accept or reject the null hypothesis. Synthisize through peer review and alternate testing before a theory can be recognized. Scientific fact is only recognised when a theory has been tested and synthesized and becomes scientific law ie Newtons Law of Gravity.

These processes can take long periods of time which become problematic in the climate change debate. The scientific method is truly being tested like never before.

I don't claim to be right or wrong but that is how I have been taught.

 

[Pusser]

I have always learnt, have the model (thought or idea), form the hypothesis (including the null hypothesis) to test the model including a sound experimental design, collect the data and analyse to accept or reject the null hypothesis. Synthisize through peer review and alternate testing before a theory can be recognized. Scientific fact is only recognised when a theory has been tested and synthesized and becomes scientific law ie Newtons Law of Gravity.

These processes can take long periods of time which become problematic in the climate change debate. The scientific method is truly being tested like never before.

I don't claim to be right or wrong but that is how I have been taught.

We really agree except nothing really becomes a final scientific fact or Law. Despite its name, Newton's law of gravity is a theory useful in predicting the interactions between masses in non relativistic space.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Gnostic]

Okay I understand what you're saying but I'm absolutely certain you could have said it a lot simpler than that.

But. I keep hearing about how there is no consensus among scientist about climate change although I think that if most agree then that's pretty much enough for me.

The problem for me with "consensus" type statements is they are used by Politicians and other interested parties (read:- those who are there to make big dollars from some scheme) to squash genuine scientific debate and review of new evidence, and even for the search for data that is not supportive. They (statements) have also used such evidence to narrow the focus and action by said Politicians, who then fund supportive research to justify their actions or lack thereof.

Just remember that Thalidomide was pronounced safe and significant scientific evidence had been gathered to prove that it was so. That was the consensus at the time and the drug was approved for use. Along came McBride and proved it wasn't so. This is the basis of scientific research, we must give voice to the negative views and assess their evidence with the same objective mind, to do less is to invite a situation that can only lead to a total loss of faith in scientific review.

 

[Braveheart81]

The problem for me with "consensus" type statements is they are used by Politicians and other interested parties (read:- those who are there to make big dollars from some scheme) to squash genuine scientific debate and review of new evidence, and even for the search for data that is not supportive. They (statements) have also used such evidence to narrow the focus and action by said Politicians, who then fund supportive research to justify their actions or lack thereof.

Just remember that Thalidomide was pronounced safe and significant scientific evidence had been gathered to prove that it was so. That was the consensus at the time and the drug was approved for use. Along came McBride and proved it wasn't so. This is the basis of scientific research, we must give voice to the negative views and assess their evidence with the same objective mind, to do less is to invite a situation that can only lead to a total loss of faith in scientific review.

I think the whole consensus argument is manipulated more from the negative side than from the viewpoint of those who you could say are forming the consensus.

Climate change deniers/sceptics use the word consensus to belittle the accepted scientific stance that climate change is real and human induced by making out as if a consensus was reached by a group of scientists getting together and coming up with a collective decision. This is such a misrepresentation of the truth.

A consensus has been achieved because vast numbers of scientists have conducted independent research and by and large have achieved results that are in agreement.

The majority of the climate change sceptic arguments revolve around specific bits of evidence or research which in isolation support their claims. When this evidence is collated with the rest of the whole body of research and evidence, the sceptical arguments are quickly debunked.

I think the reality of the situation is that the negative view has been given a voice in the public sphere far outweighing the support it actually had within the scientific community.

 

[Gnostic]

I think the whole consensus argument is manipulated more from the negative side than from the viewpoint of those who you could say are forming the consensus.

Climate change deniers/sceptics use the word consensus to belittle the accepted scientific stance that climate change is real and human induced by making out as if a consensus was reached by a group of scientists getting together and coming up with a collective decision. This is such a misrepresentation of the truth.

A consensus has been achieved because vast numbers of scientists have conducted independent research and by and large have achieved results that are in agreement.

The majority of the climate change sceptic arguments revolve around specific bits of evidence or research which in isolation support their claims. When this evidence is collated with the rest of the whole body of research and evidence, the sceptical arguments are quickly debunked.

I think the reality of the situation is that the negative view has been given a voice in the public sphere far outweighing the support it actually had within the scientific community.

I am saying that the consensus view is being manipulated by all those with vested interests. I know how the consensus view has been achieved. Genuine scientists do not take absolute views. Even when something is "proved" they should retain the ability to question and review that proving. That is my point. The "deniers" and I hate that term because those who retain that questioning mind and see merit in some "negative" arguments get lumped in with outright disbelievers, gain more traction from the vested interests who supress actively supress some evidence through labelling and derisive means.

The narrowing of the debate does nothing to improve the response to climate change and could indeed lead to issues with the response not addressing some significant contributing factor because it has been missed or downplayed.

As I said in my Thalidomide example McBride was the only researcher at the time questioning the impact of the drug. He went against the consensus, and there are many such examples through history in both theoretical and applied fields. This is my point we need to keep an open mind to all arguments and assess all evidence on its merits and not just deride evidence and sources.

I am totally convinced that the climate has changed and have been a proponent of sea level rise since the 1980s when I saw the Primary and secondary dunes at my local beach disappear an not replaced in the last 30 years. I do not however accept that C02 is the only significant contributor. The system is extremely complex with a huge number of inputs into the system, and some of those inputs have largely been ignored by the "deniers" and the vest interests as well, even though the primary research is there.

 

[Gnostic]

Of interest for this thread.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ho-when-it-comes-to-combating-climate-change/

 

[Rassie]

I have only one thing to add to this thread. When/If it actually happens and we cook like a Chicken Licken 2 piece special on payday, I will be long dead by then so its not my problem.

 

[Braveheart81]

I have only one thing to add to this thread. When/If it actually happens and we cook like a Chicken Licken 2 piece special on payday, I will be long dead by then so its not my problem.

That seems to be policy of the Coalition in Australia.