if a given current global climate model is so good, then why not check the quality by putting in today's measured data and run it backwards to see what the model says 2005 looked like?
Because most models don't run backwards. Not just climate models, but models in general. There's actually a substantial amount of computational theory about "reversible computing," which you are welcome to check out if it interests you, but the field is of very limited practical application because in order for a model to be useful, you typically want to put in a huge amount of data and get a very small amount of data out, but for a model to be reversible, the inputs and outputs need to have the same amount of information.
You can see that with a very simple example, rolling dice. I can make a model of what will happen if I roll a hundred dice and add them up (I'll get about three hundred and fifty pips, and I can formalize "about" in terms of probability distributions), but I can't make a useful model of what rolls will yield 347 pips. The reason for this is that addition loses information: if you know that x+y = z, knowing x and y automatically gives you z, but knowing z gives you neither x nor y.
Or, in Pathfinder terms, I can run combat simulations that give me a likelihood of winning any specific encounter -- but knowing that "I have a 65% chance of winning" doesn't tell me much about the encounter.
Of course, if you think this would be a useful thing (a reversible climate model), I suppose that's something that research money could be spent on. <roll eyes>
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let them put 1990 data in, run it and see what the model output looks like at 25 years of model time compared to 2015 actual data.
Funny, that's what they HAVE been doing. That is, in fact, how you build (and refine) models. What you just suggested they do is modeling research.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is you can't model non-linear systems very well with linear equations.
And, as usual, your point is simply wrong. It's very easy (and accurate) to do this if you use linear approximations over a short enough time period and then repeat the model for the next time period.
It's not like this is a particularly sophisticated technique, either. This is basically called "calculus 1." Look at the Newton-Raphson method of finding the zeros of a function.
Except for that when modeling chaotic systems it's your first cycle that causes the problems. The error starts, and goes uncorrected, right from the very first calc-cycle.
Which is why researchers are developing both better models and better data quality to put in to the models.
Then why are they always surprised at how our actual climate is changing?
So let them put 1990 data in, run it and see what the model output looks like at 25 years of model time compared to 2015 actual data.Funny, that's what they HAVE been doing. That is, in fact, how you build (and refine) models. What you just suggested they do is modeling research.
Because the models aren't yet perfect, which is why the climate researchers are pushing for funding to improve the models.
You don't get to have it both ways. If your complaint is that the existing models aren't good enough, then it's appropriate to improve them. If your complaint is that the models are so good we don't need develop resources to improve them, then why are you raising issues about the quality of the models?
Climate modeling is a hellishly complex field, so it's not surprising that it's not yet a solved problem. And, as you point out, it has chaotic elements, so if you run the models out far enough, you'll get nonsensical results. You don't, however, actually understand the previous sentence.
Planetary dynamics (the so-called three-body problem) is also a chaotic system, but it's well-enough understood that we can predict planetary behavior for the Solar System to within a kilometer or two over the next million or so years, and we are confident that, barring unpredictable external events, there will be no collisions or ejections over the next several billion years So while the system is formally chaotic, our models are rock-solid over a human scale.
We haven't yet hit that level of solidity with climate science, but the fact of global warming is well-established within any sort of reasonable error tolerance. The problem is that the mere fact of global warming does not necessarily provide us with enough information about the specific ways to mitigate it or specific timescales over which the mitigation has to happen (your puerile nonsense about "efficiency" notwithstanding). It's not clear, for example, how far carbon levels would need to drop over what time scale, because (for example), the current amount of heat storage in the oceans is not known in detail. That would be something that would be nice to know, as well as more details about the ocean-to-atmosphere transfer.
Which is to say, better models.
You've (as usual) completely misinterpreted the Australian position. They have stated that they are no longer interested in building models to determine whether or not the climate is warming (it is). They are, however, explicitly interested in questions of mitigation, which will of necessity involve building new models to look at the predicted effects of specific proposed mitigation techniques. You suggested, for example, several proposed mitigation techniques, including reduced population growth, reduced reliance on coal power, and reduced deforestation. One obvious research question is what the relative effectiveness of each will be, because if population growth is the major short-term driver, it is probably cheaper, easier, and more effective to make contraception generally available than it is to enforce wholesale changes in Brazil's economy.
But this will, of course, require better models than we have today to answer this specific question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do not understand the nature of chaotic systems.
I'm afraid I do, better than you do. I've taught classes in the subject at the postgraduate level. Although, as I said, merely having passed calculus 1 should allow a person of reasonable intelligence to avoid many of your mistakes.
Ah, but in the beginning, Irontruth, was ExxonMobil big? No. Everything starts small. In 50 years, will climate mitigation be big business? I can't tell you. Compared to BP, ExxonMobil, and such now, you're absolutely right. It's not. Maybe if those companies move into that arena, they'll be the big payday down the road. Maybe some other companies will. It's a long-term question for the futurists to work out.
So, basically you want to make the claim that it's about money, but you refuse to acknowledge who is actually making the most money.
Sounds like b+#&$&!& to me.
Ah, but in the beginning, Irontruth, was ExxonMobil big? No. Everything starts small. In 50 years, will climate mitigation be big business? I can't tell you. Compared to BP, ExxonMobil, and such now, you're absolutely right. It's not. Maybe if those companies move into that arena, they'll be the big payday down the road. Maybe some other companies will. It's a long-term question for the futurists to work out.So, basically you want to make the claim that it's about money, but you refuse to acknowledge who is actually making the most money.
Sounds like b~&#@@~! to me.
I'm going to be wandering about quite a bit in this post. I'm not taking one side or the other...merely commenting on multiple posts with thoughts on them off the top of my mind right now.
On the above...
This is a tough argument.
I'm not sure if where that 96 BILLION amount came from, but if that really is the amount of the industry...for researchers...that is possibly one of the HIGHER AMOUNTS OF money in a tenuous research field (albeit, much of that is dealing with the industries I would imagine...but if accounting for things like the Deutsch promotions and other national investments...there's actually a LOT more money out there than 96 Billion in regards to those companies).
In that instance, there is probably a HUGE industry working to try to get grants and a piece of that 96 Billion dollars (are you absolutely certain on that number...that seems...rather high). In fact, from a College or university side, that's probably a HUGE money thing right there.
However, I have no idea where you got that number? What is included in it? Are you certain the actual Climate Change science is that big of an industry?
If you include renewables and items like that under the category (so lightbulbs, cars, etc) the money is far more. If you are only saying it's the research...it would seem far less.
In truth, depending on WHAT you include in that figure, it can vary immensely...from really low to really high. For example...someone twisted numbers to say this...
Climate Change industry now at 1.5 Trillion
Looking specifically for the 96 Billion...I DID find an article
Climate Change costs US 96 Billion
that had the 96 Billion in it.
NOW...In all honesty...I VOLUNTEER. I get paid NOTHING. In fact, it might actually cost me something...as I have to bring my own stuff, help pay for gas...etc.
Most of the professors or other professional are not actually making a LOT of money from this...or if they are...they have kept it hidden from me.
In fact, many seem to be underfunded most of the time.
I do this because my spouse is doing stuff out here, I am done with my normal stuff in the legal profession, and it gives me something to do.
In all honesty...I DO CURRENTLY HAVE some connections to the renewable energy sector...but I consider that unrelated to my volunteer stuff.
Climate Change industries dealing with industries that try to affect the environment have an opportunity to explode in the future. If I were someone wanting to look for investment opportunities...I'd see what the EU and the West is going to do (but not the rest of the world, that's probably not going to go well from what I've seen thus far). They want to invest TRILLIONS into the industry. IEA stated something like 13.5 Trillion dollars is going to be needed to invest if the goals set recently will be met....
13.5 Trillion, yes...that's Trillion dollars needed
So, there is potentially a HUGE business and industry out there...depending on how you twist the numbers.
I don't see any reason to hide this or argue this, or even say it's going to be one way or the other...or this is black and white. When NASA got Billions of Dollars, did that dilute the science in anyway? When you invest more money into something (let's say the military, which the US has a HUGE and massive military) does that weaken it typically, or does the influx of money actually promote things to be better overall?
On another note...from somewhere up in the thread.
I also find it ingenius to try to use the amount of mass (number of scientists) who supposedly agree (and as I've repeatedly said, most of those numbers of everyone agreeing are twisted to basically be made up). There are a LOT of different theories out there in regards to WHY and HOW (though I probably would say all of them DO agree in regards to climate change...personal opinion without any real source to back that up).
Someone mentioned Galileo or Copernicus...who spoke against the current science of their day when it was possible that actually a majority really DID agree, and it was NOT in their favor typically. (Copernicus's school of thought was tossed aside for many years and argued against...even while gaining some popularity...until Galileo was placed under life arrest [house arrest] for adhering to it somewhat...if I recall).
To present those as examples of modern day CC...I'm not so sure that is apt. However, science today is supposedly NOT about mass or mass agreement as it was in those days, nor is it supposed to be something where a majority rules.
Anyone who has actual hard evidence and facts can make a plausible argument and hypothesis...in fact, many do. Just because one's own opinion does not seem to be the reigning political champion at the moment, does NOT in any fashion indicate that they have been scandalized or put aside by the scientific community. Real science does NOT WORK in that fashion.
another topic...
Science itself is NEUTRAL. There is no this side or that side. POLITICS is where you have sides. Unfortunately, Climate Change is seen too much about politics these days, and NOT enough about the actual science of it.
Anyone seeing Climate Change as a united theory or unified field is NOT dealing with the scientists. IT is ANYTHING BUT unified in my opinion. AS I have stated in the past, they MIGHT be able to agree Climate change is occurring, but after that there are so many ideas, theories, opinions, and thoughts on the WHY AND HOW...I'd say it is actually rather fractured in some ways.
The science itself is a fascinating and thrilling field. It is constantly changing and being updated. I'd say technology these days is moving faster than it has ever before. You see changes in less than a decade, in some areas less than a year...that took over a hundred (or several hundred) previously. With science moving that fast...of course you will see a LOT of changes in current theories, changes in thoughts and opinions, and revolutionary evidence that changes entire outlooks. I'd put the blame a LOT on that with how many different opinions and ideas there are currently out there. In some ways it's moving faster than we can digest it. Evidence in regards to Climate Change and the HOW and WHY is coming in at a furious rate, to the point that evolving one's theories in regards to the incoming evidence can create changing opinions on almost a yearly basis at times.
That doesn't mean ignore it by any means...quite the opposite. There's so much variance because some CAN'T ignore it. When one's house is on fire, there may be a TON of disagreements on who started it, how it started, and why it's going on...but everyone probably can see, if they don't do something to either put out the fire or get out of the house...they're all going to die.
Ah, but in the beginning, Irontruth, was ExxonMobil big? No. Everything starts small. In 50 years, will climate mitigation be big business? I can't tell you. Compared to BP, ExxonMobil, and such now, you're absolutely right. It's not. Maybe if those companies move into that arena, they'll be the big payday down the road. Maybe some other companies will. It's a long-term question for the futurists to work out.So, basically you want to make the claim that it's about money, but you refuse to acknowledge who is actually making the most money.
Sounds like b~&#@@~! to me.
I'm going to be wandering about quite a bit in this post. I'm not taking one side or the other...merely commenting on multiple posts with thoughts on them off the top of my mind right now.
On the above...
This is a tough argument.
I'm not sure if where that 96 BILLION amount came from, but if that really is the amount of the industry...for researchers...that is possibly one of the HIGHER AMOUNTS OF money in a tenuous research field (albeit, much of that is dealing with the industries I would imagine...but if accounting for things like the Deutsch promotions and other national investments...there's actually a LOT more money out there than 96 Billion in regards to those companies).
In that instance, there is probably a HUGE industry working to try to get grants and a piece of that 96 Billion dollars (are you absolutely certain on that number...that seems...rather high). In fact, from a College or university side, that's probably a HUGE money thing right there.
However, I have no idea where you got that number? What is included in it? Are you certain the actual Climate Change science is that big of an industry?
If you include renewables and items like that under the category (so lightbulbs, cars, etc) the money is far more. If you are only saying it's the research...it would seem far less.
In truth, depending on WHAT you include in that figure, it can vary...
The IEA is an estimate, not a fact. It could come true, it might not. It's also an estimate of what's needed, not what will be.
The 10 largest oil companies combine to be worth $2.9 Trillion dollars. That's just the 10 largest, not the entire industry btw.
Lastly, all references to the $1.5 trillion come from one source, a San Diego business journal. There are a couple of sites that reference it, but mostly blogs with the only journalist site being the Washington Times, a newspaper that was started in 1989 "to combat communism". It's an overtly conservative newspaper trying to put forward a conservative viewpoint.
The problem with climate models as they stand is a basic issue with making models that can predict the future: You need to choose between historical accuracy or predictive power, because you can't have both. And of course, choosing predictive power means your historical data gets wonky, but doesn't change the fact that the future is uncertain.
Whatever you choose, you will not find a system that can be used to input 1990 data and yield perfect results from 1990-2015. Nor will the system give you sensible values for the 1960s if the data fits today. This is the reason for all the new predictions made all the time.
But with politicization of the field, this is not something they can admit. It would look like a weakness in their models (which it is, sort of, just the sort that can not be avoided). So they make a hard distinction between current data and historical data. The ice cores, tree ring data, etc etc etc, have been their answer to historical data, tacked on just before current climate science began.
Any moron can claim that given a current average temperature, it's likely to shift by +/- some value at maximum per year from there. But predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with climate models as they stand is a basic issue with making models that can predict the future: You need to choose between historical accuracy or predictive power, because you can't have both.
This would be really unfortunate if there were a shred of truth in it. I'm rather glad to say that it's not unfortunate.
Sure, Orfamay. Show me a predictive model that has a perfect history as well as a perfect prediction track record. Please.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, Orfamay. Show me a predictive model that has a perfect history as well as a perfect prediction track record. Please.
Show me any evidence that improved prediction means a worse track record. Hell, show me anything suggesting you know anything about data science. Anything at all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, Orfamay. Show me a predictive model that has a perfect history as well as a perfect prediction track record. Please.
Ummm... there aren't any models that are "perfect" in either direction. Indeed, perfect recreation of the past is impossible given that we don't have perfect records of the past to compare against. However, in general, greater accuracy in representing the past correlates with greater accuracy in predicting the future.
"All models are wrong. Some are useful."
Ah, but in the beginning, Irontruth, was ExxonMobil big? No. Everything starts small. In 50 years, will climate mitigation be big business? I can't tell you. Compared to BP, ExxonMobil, and such now, you're absolutely right. It's not. Maybe if those companies move into that arena, they'll be the big payday down the road. Maybe some other companies will. It's a long-term question for the futurists to work out.So, basically you want to make the claim that it's about money, but you refuse to acknowledge who is actually making the most money.
Sounds like b~~@%@#~ to me.
I acknowledge who is making the most money now. I merely wish that it was other people making that money. And that isn't happening. I didn't spend my time in grad school working on a project regarding carbon storage and sequestration in urban forests vs. "natural" forests just for curiosity and fun, after all. I fear the situation is more like the normal "he who has the money, makes the rules" regarding climate change mitigation. Your big oil companies have the money, and use it to make the rules.
I acknowledge who is making the most money now. I merely wish that it was other people making that money. And that isn't happening.Ah, but in the beginning, Irontruth, was ExxonMobil big? No. Everything starts small. In 50 years, will climate mitigation be big business? I can't tell you. Compared to BP, ExxonMobil, and such now, you're absolutely right. It's not. Maybe if those companies move into that arena, they'll be the big payday down the road. Maybe some other companies will. It's a long-term question for the futurists to work out.So, basically you want to make the claim that it's about money, but you refuse to acknowledge who is actually making the most money.
Sounds like b~~@%@#~ to me.
Nor will it, probably. In the event that climate change mitigation becomes important, it will be important only as part of the energy delivery system, which means that ExxonMobil and ConEd will still be making the bulk of the money, and the costs of climate change mitigation will simply be rolled into the price that consumers pay.
We've seen this play out already, for example, with lead-free gasoline and catalytic converters. Forcing car manufacturers to reduce tailpipe emissions didn't change the major players in the game. Similarly, removing CFCs from aerosol cans didn't put any of the major deodorant manufacturers out of business; they simply substituted new chemicals (and adjusted their prices accordingly). If the US FDA were to mandate cage-free chickens tomorrow, the major producers like Perdue Farms would simply start following the mandate and chicken would cost more in the store.
Now, it's true that the person who held the basic patent on the catalytic converter probably made a fair sum when that mandate went through, and there are certainly a few small companies that make decent profits manufacturing converters for the various large automotive manufacturers, but that's also true for the people who invent and make brake shoes.
And in general, the inventors (the scientists) don't make much money in any case, because the actual money is generally in producing and selling a product, not in research. I could invent a toothpaste additive that provides a complete, vaccine-like immunity to cavities, and I'd still not make more than a couple of million off of it. Unless, of course, I were to actually go into the toothpaste business myself and start selling toothpaste off the shelves of every 7-11 in the world. I'm not going to do that, though, because that's hard work, and it's not clear that I'd be able to compete against Colgate-Palmolive for shelf space even with that kind of a technical advantage. I'd be much better off (personally) selling C-P the rights to my additive for ten million dollars and live in comfort the rest of my life.
Something else to consider is that no sensible business planner tries to make money fifty years from now. If it's going to be fifty years until climate mitigation technology becomes big business, that means no one will invest in it today. Goodness, fifty years from now, many of us won't even be around.... and those of us who will be around would probably be better served just buying stock index funds with our money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, #3 on that list isn't a problem already.
Birth rates
India 2.5
China 1.7
United States 1.9
India's birth rate was 2.9 just 10 years ago and in 1991 it was 4.0. The global replacement rate is 2.33, and averaging these three countries, even weighted by population, puts 1/3 of the global population at a declining population rate. If you add in Europe, which brings us close to just under half the world population, the birth rate continues to be lower.
Even Indonesia (2.5) and Malaysia (2.0) aren't contributing to the problem any more.
The countries with the highest birth rate are those hardest hit by violence and disease, so they also have a higher mortality rate. Places like Afghanistan and Somalia. They also tend to have moderate to small populations.
The great majority of world population increase over the next 50 years is going to come from longer life expectancy. All evidence and statistics on the subject bear this out. Global population is on track to either stabilize or decline over the course of the next 100 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me how a core emphasis on fiddling with global climate model parameters will help us with even item 1 listed above.
Changing the flat tire on my car doesn't solve those problems either, does that mean I shouldn't do it?
Just because something doesn't solve a specific problem that you want to focus on, doesn't mean it isn't useful or help solve a different problem.
The problem I have with your argument is it assumes that we already know everything we will ever know about the topic, therefore we shouldn't ask any more questions or investigate it an further. We don't know everything about how climate change is going to impact us, or even how it's going to progress. As the problem gets worse, we're going to need every piece of information we can get our hands on, which is why I don't like your suggestion. It assumes that there's nothing left to find.
|
|
The topic has already appeared to moved past this point but I love paying Devil's Advocate so here's my best attempt to repeat anti-warming/conspiracy arguments I've heard.
1a & 1b are false (i.e. the vast majority of climate models are openly available and the vast majority of their predictions have been accurate within the margins of error), and thus the 1c conclusion based on them has no foundation.
2a, 2b, and 3 are also false. 4 is false in the vast majority of cases and, as you note, mostly nonsense even in the few cases where it is true.
There's also been some stink lately about temperature data for older years being revised downward and temperature comparisons not accounting for heat island effects but I'm not as up to speed on that argument.
Yep, that's all nonsense too. The urban heat island thing in particular has been dis-proven repeatedly for over a decade now.
The topic has already appeared to moved past this point but I love paying Devil's Advocate so here's my best attempt to repeat anti-warming/conspiracy arguments I've heard.
I'd strongly advise not playing Devil's Advocate simply for the sake of creating an argument, especially when the arguments that you've "heard" have already been disproven.
By "Devil's Advocate" do you mean lying?
I'd strongly advise not playing Devil's Advocate simply for the sake of creating an argument, especially when the arguments that you've "heard" have already been disproven.It's not just for the sake of creating an argument anymore than this whole thread is. It's just a fun topic to discuss with people.
Its frustrating because the conspiracy theories make NO sense. At all. Its like trying to nail a cube of jello to the wall.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The topic has already appeared to moved past this point but I love paying Devil's Advocate
You know what, if someone wants to play Devils Advocate, I think it's more effective if one posts some sort of source to back their arguments up. Post the actual article or new item or research.
Vice Versa...instead of someone saying...nanny nanny boo boo, I don't believe you...
And saying someone is wrong...
Post the actual EVIDENCE and source of the information.
I find it would be far more convincing on both sides of the debate if someone actually posted something substantial supporting their claims.
The only evidence I saw supporting either side in the past 7 posts was ManeuverMoose who at least had an article explaining why the DA request was denied. (though it dealt more with something I'm not so sure I am wanting to verify in regards to the original DA request several posts above when it states...
Our records indicate that you have requested to play devil’s advocate for either “just a second here” or “just a minute here” over fourteen times in the last financial quarter. While we appreciate your enthusiasm, priority must be given to those who have not yet played the position. We would like to commend you for the excellent work you have done in the past year arguing for positions you have no real interest or stake in promoting, including:
•Affirmative Action: Who’s the Real Minority Here?
•Maybe Men Score Better In Math For A Reason
•Well, They Don’t Have To Live Here
•I Think You’re Taking This Too Personally
•Would It Be So Bad If They Did Die?
•If You Could Just Try To See It Objectively, Like Me
Just my preference in a DA argument.
Right now all I see is one person claiming one thing, and another claiming something else, with neither side having anything more than an
I said, you said...
Thing going on.
Don't DA discussions normally have someone laying a preponderance of evidence with the response being another preponderance of evidence?
When someone presents zero evidence to back up their claims, we're allowed to say "we don't believe you" with nothing else added.
On the flip side, I know I've been referencing this article for about 8-9 months, and no one has disputed anything about it yet.
Seeing I have some relatives and friends working at the Lab, don't know anything I'd have against that particular article currently. It does bring about some personal perusal on the media presentation of articles like your though.
Not really pertinent to the things brought up by either side on the discussions above that I can see though.
Unfortunately, the full information on it (the one you posted is the media one, media unfortunately occasionally has a bias, and doesn't report the discussions or problematic discrepancies that are mentioned in the reports typically, which answers any skeptics questions on how they were dealt with...whilst the media version you list normally leaves a few holes that the skeptics can raise) is behind a pay wall.
I am hesitant to repost it here...as I think that technically could qualify as plagiarism, especially as I can't find the full version for free. (Nature has a pretty good posting of a journal rundown on the stuff [research is actually lengthier than that, but Nature probably doesn't want to post the minutia of each and every research point in it I imagine] but that is also behind a paywall). More probably have that than the actual research journal with the minutia though...Nature link is here
unless you have as subscription Irontruth's article shows more
An interesting thing, unfortunately, while the media articles hit the main ideas, they miss some of the more in depth items that are addressed. Where the full research answers any concerns most would bring up about the research, the media article leaves it wide open.
For example, In fact, the very issues some bring up about it
were actually addressed in the research, which would quell some of the problems they actually point out. Unfortunately, that research isn't exactly freely available on the internet, with the stuff being abridged by the media. The points brought up by the skeptics I think are explained in the actual research done(IMO).
I suppose this is a difficulty with CC. Many scientists are fascinated with the stuff, and work on what they will at the lab, but at the same time avoid political viewpoints (I'm not even sure if they are allowed to get in the media or political game for that matter by regulations at the lab in this instance, common sense in my spouses) as they really can't afford to upset politicians on any side of the coin (Republican, Democrat, etc).
Instead, they release reports which are normally in journals behind paywalls, which are picked up and consolidated for the public consumption and released in other journals and magazines (sometimes behind a paywall), which are in turn picked up by the media.
The initial idea and report is in there, but the full accounting inclusive of deviations, accounting for those, and other issues normally do not (plus, with some of the math and other items, most of the public would either be lost at that point, or lose interest).
An unfortunate side of dumbing it down so the public will read or understand some of it, which in return leaves some holes which some will more than eagerly point out as the slimmed down versions hit major ideas, but don't address the minutia which the actual research does.
When someone presents zero evidence to back up their claims, we're allowed to say "we don't believe you" with nothing else added.
On the flip side, I know I've been referencing this article for about 8-9 months, and no one has disputed anything about it yet.
Psh. Berkeley lab. Bunch of hippies, probably mixed up ice cores with bongwater.
Or something.
Different research paper on a different subject (those who approach it in the wrong way may think it addresses the same issue, but it is a different issue)...for an example of papers in a journal
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the
U.S. Southern Great Plains
It's old, from several years ago, so see it for what it is. It is an example of what a more full research article can look like (minus the research)...which is probably far too long for youth to stick with it (even though this one is short, at around 12 pages, 13 with references) and one reason why these things aren't published in full in shorter media presentations.
This is a great spot for those interested in the journals dealing with this threads subjects...unfortunately many have a paywall to read them.
Many are rather inexpensive (comparatively) such as $35 and such for 30 days...if any are so inclined.
American Metrological Society Journals
Specifically this one
Which deals with
Climate research concerned with large-scale variability of the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface, including the cryosphere; past, present and projected future changes in the climate system (including those caused by human activities); climate simulation and prediction.
When someone presents zero evidence to back up their claims, we're allowed to say "we don't believe you" with nothing else added.
On the flip side, I know I've been referencing this article for about 8-9 months, and no one has disputed anything about it yet.
Psh. Berkeley lab. Bunch of hippies, probably mixed up ice cores with bongwater.
Or something.
You'd be surprised. I know quite a few who are EXTREMELY conservative in regards to their political stances in those Labs. (actually, to tell the truth I don't think I know any that are hippies or were hippies in their youth in the actual Lab portions...but then, I don't even know a tenth of the people there...much less being in the know about all their political beliefs...). I also know those who are pretty liberal as well, but the hippies I think are more on the college campuses and such IMO. :)
|
|
Vice Versa...instead of someone saying...nanny nanny boo boo, I don't believe you...
And saying someone is wrong...
Post the actual EVIDENCE and source of the information.
There is a method of argument, sometimes called a 'Gish gallop', where one participant in a debate throws out false information without any supporting backup as fast as they can... thus making it impossible for the 'other side' to counter all of their claims with evidence in any reasonable amount of time.
Or to quote Churchill, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Now, reasonable people might think that showing even one such evidence free claim to be clearly false would lead people to dismiss all claims from that source as suspect. However, studies have shown (and the continued existence of global warming denial directly demonstrates), that people are more likely to accept and retain the brief factoids, even the ones proven false, than the detailed evidence to the contrary.
Finally, many climate denier claims are constructed such that they CANNOT be refuted by evidence in any reasonable time frame. For example, what simple counter could possibly be supplied to disprove swoosh's claim that there is concrete evidence of climate scientists having fabricated data? The only way to disprove such a claim would be to conduct a comprehensive review of all climate science which has been conducted over the past two hundred years or so.
Thus, no the 'vice versa' DOES NOT apply. When someone makes wild claims without evidence they can and should be denounced as simply false. If they want to defend their position they need to specify details which can be corroborated.
Of course, that is the point at which climate change denial withers up and dies so instead they continue with rapid fire nonsense that cannot be substantiated... because social science and history have proven that it works. Many people are perfectly willing to accept and believe lies rather than face reality.
Hmmm.. ice core bongs... *gets fostner bit*
Vice Versa...instead of someone saying...nanny nanny boo boo, I don't believe you...
And saying someone is wrong...
Post the actual EVIDENCE and source of the information.
There is a method of argument, sometimes called a 'Gish gallop', where one participant in a debate throws out false information without any supporting backup as fast as they can... thus making it impossible for the 'other side' to counter all of their claims with evidence in any reasonable amount of time.
Or to quote Churchill, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Now, reasonable people might think that showing even one such evidence free claim to be clearly false would lead people to dismiss all claims from that source as suspect. However, studies have shown (and the continued existence of global warming denial directly demonstrates), that people are more likely to accept and retain the brief factoids, even the ones proven false, than the detailed evidence to the contrary.
Finally, many climate denier claims are constructed such that they CANNOT be refuted by evidence in any reasonable time frame. For example, what simple counter could possibly be supplied to disprove swoosh's claim that there is concrete evidence of climate scientists having fabricated data? The only way to disprove such a claim would be to conduct a comprehensive review of all climate science which has been conducted over the past two hundred years or so.
Thus, no the 'vice versa' DOES NOT apply. When someone makes wild claims without evidence they can and should be denounced as simply false. If they want to defend their position they need to specify details which can be corroborated.
Of course, that is the point at which climate change denial withers up and dies so instead they continue with rapid fire nonsense that cannot be substantiated... because social science and history have proven that it works. Many people are perfectly willing to accept and believe...
Actually in science, it ALWAYS applies.
In science, you CANNOT simply say something and have someone accept it, you HAVE to have the evidence.
There is some who want to have theories WITHOUT evidence, however, even in those, these are backed up by Mathematical proofs and math equations.
For example...
Are Scientists ready to embrace theories devoid of evidence?
Currently, theories are not out there without evidence (that includes CC). In the article above, interestingly enough, what they are discussing is that they do not have EVIDENCE as in observable phenomena. They DO have the mathematical equations and proofs already in regards to that, and the math shows such things should exist (which a court would consider evidence, but can be seen by some as different than evidence, I'll explain that below as that can be confusing to some).
What you have are claims...but claims eventually MUST have evidence or something to back them up or they are eventually tossed out.
If someone tosses out something that is easily proven untrue (for example the earth does not circle the sun) than it should be relatively EASY to show otherwise.
Now, evidence does not equal PROOF, but it supports theory.
Science demands evidence headline about one page down in chapter 1
Science Demands Evidence
Sooner or later, the validity of scientific claims is settled by referring to observations of phenomena. Hence, scientists concentrate on getting accurate data. Such evidence is obtained by observations and measurements taken in situations that range from natural settings (such as a forest) to completely contrived ones (such as the laboratory). To make their observations, scientists use their own senses, instruments (such as microscopes) that enhance those senses, and instruments that tap characteristics quite different from what humans can sense (such as magnetic fields). Scientists observe passively (earthquakes, bird migrations), make collections (rocks, shells), and actively probe the world (as by boring into the earth's crust or administering experimental medicines).
In some circumstances, scientists can control conditions deliberately and precisely to obtain their evidence. They may, for example, control the temperature, change the concentration of chemicals, or choose which organisms mate with which others. By varying just one condition at a time, they can hope to identify its exclusive effects on what happens, uncomplicated by changes in other conditions. Often, however, control of conditions may be impractical (as in studying stars), or unethical (as in studying people), or likely to distort the natural phenomena (as in studying wild animals in captivity). In such cases, observations have to be made over a sufficiently wide range of naturally occurring conditions to infer what the influence of various factors might be. Because of this reliance on evidence, great value is placed on the development of better instruments and techniques of observation, and the findings of any one investigator or group are usually checked by others.
So what are some common terms in science? From a text dealing with why evolutionary theory is actually really pretty essential.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Religion requires faith and in many cases you only utilize the spoken word of yourself or others.
Science on the otherhand is FAR more grounded and based upon what we observe in the world around us and the evidences thereof.
If I were someone with no opinion, or who does not know anything about CC...NONE of the arguments thus far are scientific enough to convince me (exception...Irontruth's article).
Simply saying...believe me because it's obvious...is RELIGION...not science.
At least give me witnesses from scientists or other texts that someone else can back up your claims.
You refer to certain elements which one might refer to between those who believe, and scientists...and inherent to the debate...
I think this article...though my spouse and some of the others I know prefer HARDER science than this, I still think the magazine deals aptly with the ideas of faith vs. science.
Common misconceptions about science
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun....
....The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.
Not perfect, and my spouse would probably disagree as she would argue it does not present how strongly theory is supported by evidence, but it gives out the problems between some who doubt science and others...because they want an absolute with absolute evidence...and while the evidence may be VERY strong...science is always evolving and progressing.
I think the article points out a key difference between those who want to BELIEVE and have faith in something (and as I said, far too many sort of religion about some things in CC, which is sort of odd) rather than those who are open to what's out there, and look for evidence to support.
This is VERY BASIC STUFF. It's rather ironic I would be explaining it in regards to science or people claiming they are using science and wondering WHY they need some sort of evidence to back up their claims.
As I said, this applies to BOTH sides of the debate...not one or the other. If one wants to play DA...let them have some evidence (even if it's weak, weak is better then none).
Vice Versa, if those who wish to discourse that person...let them also provide evidence.
Unless, of course, this thread isn't about science, but about debate or faith instead. In that case, I obviously misunderstood the thread...as did a few others I think...but I can only speak for myself on that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, this applies to BOTH sides of the debate...not one or the other. If one wants to play DA...let them have some evidence (even if it's weak, weak is better then none).
Vice Versa, if those who wish to discourse that person...let them also provide evidence.
You were doing relatively well until you got to this point. There's a fundamental asymmetry that you are ignoring, one related to the burden of proof.
I can make any statement I like, granted. But saying that others should only refute me with facts and evidence places an undue burden on those others. In essence, it not only allows, but positively encourages the Gish Gallop, where I throw out 101 arguments already known to be spurious, relying on the fact that no one will be able or willing to respond to this torrent of intellectual manure.
Basically, any claim made without evidence can (and should) be dismissed without evidence; indeed, it's incumbent on the claimant to provide something more than a link farm or a flurry of citations as part of the initial evidence (since it's so easy simply to make up citations to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative).
This is doubly true in the present instance, where the poster states frankly that he's only playing Devil's Advocate (a questionable practice at best) and is merely repeating arguments he's "heard."
Seeing I have some relatives and friends working at the Lab, don't know anything I'd have against that particular article currently. It does bring about some personal perusal on the media presentation of articles like your though.
Not really pertinent to the things brought up by either side on the discussions above that I can see though.
Unfortunately, the full information on it (the one you posted is the media one, media unfortunately occasionally has a bias, and doesn't report the discussions or problematic discrepancies that are mentioned in the reports typically, which answers any skeptics questions on how they were dealt with...whilst the media version you list normally leaves a few holes that the skeptics can raise) is behind a pay wall.
I am hesitant to repost it here...as I think that technically could qualify as plagiarism, especially as I can't find the full version for free. (Nature has a pretty good posting of a journal rundown on the stuff [research is actually lengthier than that, but Nature probably doesn't want to post the minutia of each and every research point in it I imagine] but that is also behind a paywall). More probably have that than the actual research journal with the minutia though...Nature link is here
unless you have as subscription Irontruth's article shows more
An interesting thing, unfortunately, while the media articles hit the main ideas, they miss some of the more in depth items that are addressed. Where the full research answers any concerns most would bring up about the research, the media article leaves it wide open.
For example, In fact, the very issues some bring up about it
Did you actually find something wrong with the study?
Or can you find someone online who disputes it (and they're actually using credible evidence, not just "scientists are in a conspiracy" claims).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember the graph by Robert Simmon CO2 concentration at the top and temperature Anomoly at the bottom?
That global 200 years in that scary red line is one (1) degree of global warming....over two centuries!!!
The scale is overt scare tactics and is nothing but a coorellation.
For fun replace the top CO2 graph with any other increasing phenomenon like methane for example and viola coorellation as well!!
No, I don't remember it. Care to produce evidence?
But I will say this: No graph shows anything but correlation. All a graph is is a couple of numbers and their relation.
But that's irrelevant because we also have a well-developed and tested theory that explains the causation - the Greenhouse effect.You don't remember this....
linkThe basis of hysteria which shows in horrible scaling a 0.5 degree increase in temperature per century, or 0.9 degrees over two centuries....
If you are not familiar with the data how are you so well versed in the science?
Now let me play devils advocate and say global warming is caused by the greenhouse gas methane, which actually correlates better than CO2....
Hey look the methane levels reached a sustained concentration at the same time the warming went on hiatus!
You do know that humans are the leading source of methane emissions into the atmosphere right? Much of which is related to same factors behind the increase in CO2. Not to mention that no scientist denies that Methane plays a role in climate change and the greenhouse effect. You also DO realize that Methane quickly decomposes in the atmosphere to...guess what...CO2
So I am not sure what exactly you are hoping to prove with these statements?
|
|
Remember the graph by Robert Simmon CO2 concentration at the top and temperature Anomoly at the bottom?
That global 200 years in that scary red line is one (1) degree of global warming....over two centuries!!!
Hmmm? 200 years? Nope, don't know which graph you are talking about then. However, it should be noted that 1 degree warming over a mere two centuries is incredibly rapid warming... indeed, so rapid that you can only be talking about the most recent 200 years, because nothing else in the climate record shows warming that fast.
The scale is overt scare tactics and is nothing but a coorellation.
How is a scale 'scare tactics'? You're frightened of a graduated series of values?
For fun replace the top CO2 graph with any other increasing phenomenon like methane for example and viola coorellation as well!!
Ummm, no... no that's clearly false.
A graph showing a x = y (where y is the years elapsed) would not correlate at all with one showing x = y^3. Both would be increasing, but one would have a fixed slope and the other a parabolic slope.
In any case, as shown by the Robert Simmon graph I linked... the correlation between CO2 and temperatures runs a good bit longer than 200 years and includes both increasing and decreasing periods.
Which isn't surprising... because the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide was first proven in the 1860s and hasn't been seriously disputed since. Your suggestion that the correlation is merely some kind of coincidence falls into the realm of crackpot 'science'. Causation is a long observed reality in this case.