Jump to content

Climate Change. Threat to the World?


Paul6754
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advert:


13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

So, I did a little research into your newspaper cuttings and it's just as I thought.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"This article by two climatologists from The University of Alabama, Huntsville climate unit (Which is well know and considered a quality facility) describe climate forecasting as having gross deficiencies."

HH, Climate scientists did predict that polar bears would be extinct and the Maldives would be under water by now due sea level rise but they're still there.

Again science isn't done by consensus but is based on reproducible data, the data shows between 1950 and 1980 the temperature on average didn't rise over that time span so probably prompted the comments. 

13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Really? There are 6 global temperature datasets, 5 of them match and 1 (UAH) gives different results. Their methods have been checked and found wanting.  On what basis are you calling them a quality facility?

 I've come across their work and seen it referenced, members of the faculty have been members of the US EPA so I will stick with what I posted.

https://www.uah.edu/science/departments/atmospheric-science

13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

There are a few problems with what you wrote.

  1. We don't live in the Mid-Troposhere. We live on the surface.
  2. RSS  (another satellite  dataset) disagrees with UAH about Mid-Troposhere temperatures, RSS matches the Mid-Troposhere models more closely.
  3. The Surface (where we live) models match reality very well.
  4. You've previously stated that you prefer "direct thermometer or whatever meter readings were used without alteration". UAH doesn't use thermometers and they are currently on version 6 of their analysis.

Apart from that you make some valid points.

I know we live on the surface but that's not the point. The point is what was predicted by the models does not match the actual readings, the models over predicted.

Any scientist would prefer direct measurements from instruments untouched by the human mind for obvious reasons.

13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

First bit. No it's not misleading. Most people get it, especially when made aware of the change to the distribution curve. 

If we're talking about climate models we're implicitly talking about mean temperature, as mean temperature is an emergent property of the climate models and is how we calculate sensitivity.

If you're going to criticise something you should make an effort to understand it. He explains the scenarios quite clearly. Google is your friend. 

Just take the Hansen graph at face value, a layman/politician or someone not used to looking at graphs glimpsing or taking a quick look at that graph would get the impression there is a large temp increase over time when in effect there is an approx 1oC temp  over 60 years, it's misleading.

I get your point about mean temperature but we may or may not be talking about it.

13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

First thing I'd say is that's just an argument from incredulity.

I differ on this as the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it not being a very potent GHG are two fundamental and important points in challenging that CO2 is the control knob of the climate, they can't be dismissed.

13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Secondly, to actually address your problem. Increasing co2 creates an energy imbalance and introduces stronger positive feedbacks. Increased water vapour, melting ice, lowering of albedo, release of methane etc etc.  If you don't think co2 is the control knob then rock weathering rates don't make sense any more. How do you explain that? Also, if co2 is not the control knob then why would you think that sensitivity is above 1oc?

It may not be just CO2 that increases and causes any energy imbalance, it may be or include water vapor, a much stronger and abundant GHG. Methane contributes less than CO2 as a GHG.

This is a much more fundamental question than rock weathering as CO2 is the pertinent molecule right now.

13 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

I'm just interested in the science and would actually prefer it if the scientific literature said that everything is going to be fine, nothing to worry about. The fact that it doesn't say that doesn't mean that we should ignore it.

By the same token there's no evidence to prove man made CO2 is the control knob of the earth's climate and no evidence that if net zero emissions are reached that the climate will stop doing what it's doing.

I'm all for Nuclear energy in non earthquake zones and R&D on new technology and introducing new technology but as a way to preserve precious fossil fuels that have enabled man to largely transform this earth. I don't think there is an imminent climate crisis, do yo?

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HH, Climate scientists did predict that polar bears would be extinct and the Maldives would be under water by now due sea level rise but they're still there.

Again science isn't done by consensus but is based on reproducible data, the data shows between 1950 and 1980 the temperature on average didn't rise over that time span so probably prompted the comments. 

I'm sure you can find individual scientists that'll say anything.

Science isn't done by consensus but a consensus will emerge and policies will be created based on scientific consensus.

As an example.

The National Academy of Science in The USA was founded during the Civil War by supporters of The Union. A problem was recognised in that arms manufacturers were making claims about their products that didn't hold up when they were used. So scientists would evaluate different weapons, come to a consensus on what were the best and make recommendations to The Government. It worked and The NAS has been doing the same ever since.

A second example.

If you have an illness there will be a medical consensus on what treatment you should take, and in all likelihood you will take this advice. You could probably find some medical 'Galileo' with a different view but it would be a bold move to ignore the scientific consensus and go with the maverick.

The fundamental problem we have now is that the scientific consensus is leaning towards policies that a lot of people (like yourself) really don't like, so the science gets attacked. Ultimately, of course, this will fail as reality is fairly stubborn. What it can do though is to cause enough delay to make some of the nicer solutions unviable. 

I've come across their work and seen it referenced, members of the faculty have been members of the US EPA so I will stick with what I posted.

There are 5 main global climate datasets.

GISS, Hadley and NCDC concern surface temperature

RSS and UAH concern lower-mid troposphere temperature

The 3 surface temperature datasets are in broad agreement.

The 2 satellite datasets differ. RSS is closer to the models for the low-mid troposphere but is still running cooler.

UAH is out on it's own.

RSS used to be included in 'climate sceptics' blogs but has been dropped because 1, the latest version show more warming and 2, one of it's developers is on record as saying he doesn't think RSS data is as accurate as surface data.

So it's like we've got 4 compasses pointing west and one pointing north and you've chosen the north one. 

The obvious question is why the preference?

I know we live on the surface but that's not the point. The point is what was predicted by the models does not match the actual readings, the models over predicted.

Any scientist would prefer direct measurements from instruments untouched by the human mind for obvious reasons.

The models match. Of course you can always cherry pick weird start and end dates, use a short time scale when a longer one is available, use the one dataset that disagrees with every other...

Say you have a weather station that used to take it's readings at lunch time but now takes them in the morning. 

If that weather station has 4 other weather stations in the vicinity that have always taken their readings in the morning you can compare the historical readings for all 5 stations and adjust the old lunch time readings downwards.  The methods are openly discussed and available to anyone for scrutiny. This is exactly what happens. Not just for time reading changes but also when weather stations are moved or when there's an obvious malfunction at a particular site. It's all done openly.

It may not be just CO2 that increases and causes any energy imbalance, it may be or include water vapor, a much stronger and abundant GHG. Methane contributes less than CO2 as a GHG.

This is a much more fundamental question than rock weathering as CO2 is the pertinent molecule right now.

What causes water vapour to increase if not CO2? Water vapour is a feedback of CO2 levels. This is well known and accepted. You are trying to separate two things that are intrinsically linked.

Rock weathering rates are also dependent on CO2.

By the same token there's no evidence to prove man made CO2 is the control knob of the earth's climate and no evidence that if net zero emissions are reached that the climate will stop doing what it's doing.

Yes there is. You can go back to 2010.

Lacis, A.A, G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth's temperature. Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653.

I don't think there is an imminent climate crisis, do yo?

It's already happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/08/2021 at 05:03, hillmanhunter said:

I'm sure you can find individual scientists that'll say anything.

The Ice age commeth, extinction of polar bears and disappearance of the Maldives and many predicions were made by climate scientists in their attempts to scare people, they were wrong on these and many similar events.

On 24/08/2021 at 05:03, hillmanhunter said:

Science isn't done by consensus but a consensus will emerge and policies will be created based on scientific consensus.

As an example.

The National Academy of Science in The USA was founded during the Civil War by supporters of The Union. A problem was recognised in that arms manufacturers were making claims about their products that didn't hold up when they were used. So scientists would evaluate different weapons, come to a consensus on what were the best and make recommendations to The Government. It worked and The NAS has been doing the same ever since.

A second example.

If you have an illness there will be a medical consensus on what treatment you should take, and in all likelihood you will take this advice. You could probably find some medical 'Galileo' with a different view but it would be a bold move to ignore the scientific consensus and go with the maverick.

The fundamental problem we have now is that the scientific consensus is leaning towards policies that a lot of people (like yourself) really don't like, so the science gets attacked. Ultimately, of course, this will fail as reality is fairly stubborn. What it can do though is to cause enough delay to make some of the nicer solutions unviable. 

HH, I'm unsure what science you do but no science is or ever has been done by consensus, none, never. 

Laws and theories underpin science and neither are based on consensus. Laws are based on reproducible data/observations, laws explain what happens. A theory provides the most logical explanation for a set of data/observations, multiple theories can be used to explain the same data/observations, one theory may be more popular than another. A theory explains how or why something happens.

On 24/08/2021 at 05:03, hillmanhunter said:

There are 5 main global climate datasets.

GISS, Hadley and NCDC concern surface temperature

RSS and UAH concern lower-mid troposphere temperature

The 3 surface temperature datasets are in broad agreement.

The 2 satellite datasets differ. RSS is closer to the models for the low-mid troposphere but is still running cooler.

UAH is out on it's own.

RSS used to be included in 'climate sceptics' blogs but has been dropped because 1, the latest version show more warming and 2, one of it's developers is on record as saying he doesn't think RSS data is as accurate as surface data.

So it's like we've got 4 compasses pointing west and one pointing north and you've chosen the north one. 

The obvious question is why the preference?I

I have no preference for UAH, I just said they are a well respected Climate facility which they are. I didn't mention global datasets or anything similar.

On 24/08/2021 at 05:03, hillmanhunter said:

The models match. Of course you can always cherry pick weird start and end dates, use a short time scale when a longer one is available, use the one dataset that disagrees with every other...

How are the start and end dates weird, there is the same data going back to ca 1880 and to 2020, why has Hansen's analysis only been done on data from 1960 to 2010 (?), doesn't it predict/work if you go back earlier. You can't cherry pick which data is used in a correlation analysis, it's a basic rule of correlation analysis. We should agree to disagree on this.

 

On 24/08/2021 at 05:03, hillmanhunter said:

Rock weathering rates are also dependent on CO2.

But also dependent on many other phenomena.

On 24/08/2021 at 05:03, hillmanhunter said:

It's already happening.

So what crises are currently happening that can be definitively attributed to rising CO2 levels alone and have never happened before on the planet.

Show the direct evidence that man made CO2 causes global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

The Ice age commeth, extinction of polar bears and disappearance of the Maldives and many predicions were made by climate scientists in their attempts to scare people, they were wrong on these and many similar events.

 

Genuinely interested in when and where climate scientists predicted polar bear extinction and disappearance of the Maldives. I'm assuming these climate scientists predicted both of these things to happen before 2021 or you wouldn't be able to say they got it wrong yet surely? 

Edited by WV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


The Ice age commeth, extinction of polar bears and disappearance of the Maldives and many predicions were made by climate scientists in their attempts to scare people, they were wrong on these and many similar events.

Let's see these predictions.

 

HH, I'm unsure what science you do but no science is or ever has been done by consensus, none, never. 

Laws and theories underpin science and neither are based on consensus. Laws are based on reproducible data/observations, laws explain what happens. A theory provides the most logical explanation for a set of data/observations, multiple theories can be used to explain the same data/observations, one theory may be more popular than another. A theory explains how or why something happens

This is a reply to 

"Science isn't done by consensus but a consensus will emerge and policies will be created based on scientific consensus." - Underline added for emphasis.

You're arguing with something I explicitly didn't say.

I have no preference for UAH, I just said they are a well respected Climate facility which they are. I didn't mention global datasets or anything similar.

UAH is a global dataset. They are not well respected. 

How are the start and end dates weird, there is the same data going back to ca 1880 and to 2020, why has Hansen's analysis only been done on data from 1960 to 2010 (?), doesn't it predict/work if you go back earlier. You can't cherry pick which data is used in a correlation analysis, it's a basic rule of correlation analysis. We should agree to disagree on this.

Hansen has used the same models to reconstruct temps going back 3 million years.

Ok, let's try another way. You say the models are inaccurate. So show us examples of this. I've shown you an example of where the one of the earliest models matches reality very well.

 

"Rock weathering rates are also dependent on CO2."

But also dependent on many other phenomena.

I'm pretty sure that no alternative explanation for rock weathering rates has been found, so please explain.

So what crises are currently happening that can be definitively attributed to rising CO2 levels alone and have never happened before on the planet.

This is such a poor question. It shows that you really fail to understand the probabilities involved.

Look again at the graph showing the changes that occur when the average temperature increases.

 

IMG_0353.thumb.JPG.3d9d2eb651d62c9f50c33cb80965ac52.JPG

See the distribution curve for current climate?

Do extreme weather events happen in the current climate? Yes they do. Just not as often as in the new climate.

Let me try an analogy. If I give a random Olympian a course of steroids prior to his event.  Can I prove that the steroids will make him win? No.

Maybe he would've won anyway. Will the steroids increase the probability of him winning. Yes.

If I load a dice will it roll a six because it's been loaded? No. Unloaded dice roll sixes too. Will the chance of a six being rolled increase. Yes.

So it's very difficult to ascribe a particular climate disaster to climate change. BUT. We would expect to see more climate disasters as the distribution curve in the above graph shifts to the right. We are seeing more climate disasters.

 

Show the direct evidence that man made CO2 causes global warming.

What are you looking for here? Evidence of Earth's energy imbalance? Measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) over time compared to Solar incoming? Evidence for the greenhouse effect? Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're increasing how much is in the atmosphere? Paul, this stuff is so nailed down I'm not sure where to start and I'm not sure what of the above you're sceptical about. It's basically the first law of thermodynamics.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Let's see these predictions.

You've been given links to predictions, go and look at them, you can access the original articles if you have access to the original journals or the abstracts if you have access to CAS.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

"Science isn't done by consensus but a consensus will emerge and policies will be created based on scientific consensus." - Underline added for emphasis.

You're arguing with something I explicitly didn't say.

Consensus never emerges from any science and policies (what ever they are in this context) are never created based on any scientific consensus because there's no such thing as a scientific consensus. 

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

UAH is a global dataset. They are not well respected. 

UAH is a well respected Climate facility based at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Al, it contains faculty who've held prominent positions at the US EPA, nothing to do with global data sets. If you don't respect it that's your prerogative.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Hansen has used the same models to reconstruct temps going back 3 million years.

So what, what did they show, did he use them to predict other temp. data or correlate with CO2 levels or something.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Ok, let's try another way. You say the models are inaccurate. So show us examples of this. I've shown you an example of where the one of the earliest models matches reality very well.

I didn't say they were inaccurate at all, what I said was he only vaguely defined what senarios A,B and C were he gave himself a large leeway to claim a prediction. I also questioned why the data only went back to 1960 when there is similar "thermometer" data going back to ca 1880.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

I'm pretty sure that no alternative explanation for rock weathering rates has been found, so please explain.

Water, acid rain from strong and weak acids, wind, sea etc all weather rock and it depends on the type of rock.  You should let the jeanie out of the bottle and disclose exactly what rock your talking about and where it is, even post an article.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

This is such a poor question. It shows that you really fail to understand the probabilities involved.

I understand probabilities quite well as I spent a lot of my working life discovering trends and correlations/probabilities but I'm no expert.

What is very apparent when climate scientists or politicians make a prediction it usually goes something like, "Sea levels may rise by 5cm by the end of 2021" (totally made up senario), they never say, "Sea levels may or may not  rise by 5cm by the end of 2021" which is what they mean and with indicates they don't know sea levels are going to rise or not and there is a high degree of uncertainty in what they are saying.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Look again at the graph showing the changes that occur when the average temperature increases.

 

IMG_0353.thumb.JPG.3d9d2eb651d62c9f50c33cb80965ac52.JPG

See the distribution curve for current climate?

Do extreme weather events happen in the current climate? Yes they do. Just not as often as in the new climate.

Let me try an analogy. If I give a random Olympian a course of steroids prior to his event.  Can I prove that the steroids will make him win? No.

Maybe he would've won anyway. Will the steroids increase the probability of him winning. Yes.

If I load a dice will it roll a six because it's been loaded? No. Unloaded dice roll sixes too. Will the chance of a six being rolled increase. Yes.

So it's very difficult to ascribe a particular climate disaster to climate change. BUT. We would expect to see more climate disasters as the distribution curve in the above graph shifts to the right. We are seeing more climate disasters.

But you only expect, you're not sure of your prediction but you expect the world to go and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on something that may or may not happen.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

What are you looking for here? Evidence of Earth's energy imbalance? Measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) over time compared to Solar incoming? Evidence for the greenhouse effect? Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're increasing how much is in the atmosphere? Paul, this stuff is so nailed down I'm not sure where to start and I'm not sure what of the above you're sceptical about. It's basically the first law of thermodynamics.

HH but it's not nailed down, the science isn't settled, there is a theory which some scientists/people believe and unfortunately it's been said so often now that may people believe it and consider it dogma.

Yes CO2 is a GHG but how much does man made CO2 contribute to global warming, there are much more potent and abundant GHG's than CO2 which heat up the atmosphere. CO2 being the control knob of the earth's climate isn't a law, far from it, there isn't even any solid evidence for it, if there is please post it. It isn't even a solid theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been given links to predictions, go and look at them, you can access the original articles if you have access to the original journals or the abstracts if you have access to CAS.

Mostly they're opinion pieces, but this one stood out as I've seen it before.

23.thumb.gif.7633e94ca95ee70b8e62c9c885091990.gif

It's a mistake in Salon. The journalist asked Hansen what to expect in 40 years with a doubling of CO2. 

Consensus never emerges from any science and policies (what ever they are in this context) are never created based on any scientific consensus because there's no such thing as a scientific consensus. 

I gave you 2 examples of scientific consensus, you've ignored them.  

Maybe the explanation in Wikipedia helps

Scientific Consensus

Or maybe The National Academy of Science's mission statement

http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/

Or maybe Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse's Richard Dimbleby lecture from 2012

"It is impossible to achieve complete certainty on many complex scientific problems, yet sometimes we still need to take action. The sensible course is to turn to the expert scientists for their consensus view. When doctors found I had blockages in the arteries around my heart I asked them for their expert view as to what I should do. They recommended a bypass, I took their consensus advice, and here I am. That is how science works."

Feel free to ignore these examples again.

UAH is a well respected Climate facility based at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Al, it contains faculty who've held prominent positions at the US EPA, nothing to do with global data sets. If you don't respect it that's your prerogative.

Let me tell you about UAH's satellite data. Early on they got their equations so wrong (I think they'd typed a minus instead of a plus somewhere) that it actually showed cooling. This had to be pointed out to them by others. The reason they didn't believe they were wrong is because their results matched weather balloon data and they assumed that the weather balloon data was good. So someone else checked the weather balloon data for them and found that that was also bad (I can explain in detail if needed). I could go on, but I think that'll do for now. If you choose to still respect it, that's your prerogative.

So what, what did they show, did he use them to predict other temp. data or correlate with CO2 levels or something.

He ran them against proxies, they matched. This is mostly why there's some caution over the recent >4.5oC sensitivity models. It's hard to match them with paleoclimate proxies.

I didn't say they were inaccurate at all, what I said was he only vaguely defined what senarios A,B and C were he gave himself a large leeway to claim a prediction. I also questioned why the data only went back to 1960 when there is similar "thermometer" data going back to ca 1880.

Uncertainty ranges are well explained. Already answered the 2nd bit several times.

Water, acid rain from strong and weak acids, wind, sea etc all weather rock and it depends on the type of rock.  You should let the jeanie out of the bottle and disclose exactly what rock your talking about and where it is, even post an article.

Rock weathering as a thermostat

What is very apparent when climate scientists or politicians make a prediction it usually goes something like, "Sea levels may rise by 5cm by the end of 2021" (totally made up senario), they never say, "Sea levels may or may not  rise by 5cm by the end of 2021" which is what they mean and with indicates they don't know sea levels are going to rise or not and there is a high degree of uncertainty in what they are saying.

But you only expect, you're not sure of your prediction but you expect the world to go and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on something that may or may not happen.

No! Different different projections are given because the inputs to the models WILL change depending on human behaviour. You're confusing prediction with projection and also not understanding why different projections are given.

 

HH but it's not nailed down, the science isn't settled, there is a theory which some scientists/people believe and unfortunately it's been said so often now that may people believe it and consider it dogma.

Yes CO2 is a GHG but how much does man made CO2 contribute to global warming, there are much more potent and abundant GHG's than CO2 which heat up the atmosphere. CO2 being the control knob of the earth's climate isn't a law, far from it, there isn't even any solid evidence for it, if there is please post it. It isn't even a solid theory.

Here.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

"Plain Language Summary

Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past."

My question to you is this. If Rising GHGs are not the cause of recent warming then what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2021 at 02:26, WV said:

Genuinely interested in when and where climate scientists predicted polar bear extinction and disappearance of the Maldives. I'm assuming these climate scientists predicted both of these things to happen before 2021 or you wouldn't be able to say they got it wrong yet surely? 

Many of these claims/predictions were made in the 60's and 70's and were reported in newspapers which referenced the original articles.

https://polarbearscience.com/2020/07/20/new-model-of-predicted-polar-bear-extinction-is-not-scientifically-plausible/

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798

The claims about a coming ice age made  in the 70's were also made around the same time that the world was warming claims were made which shows that climate prediction is not an exact  science. The link below collates many failed predictions, most with a reference to the original article.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Mostly they're opinion pieces, but this one stood out as I've seen it before.

23.thumb.gif.7633e94ca95ee70b8e62c9c885091990.gif

It's a mistake in Salon. The journalist asked Hansen what to expect in 40 years with a doubling of CO2. 

 

The articles that appear in newspapers/blogs etc from the 60's & 70's showing claims that never happened contain references to the original article, you can't just dismiss them unless you can access the original article/data. Let it go.

3 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

I gave you 2 examples of scientific consensus, you've ignored them.  

Maybe the explanation in Wikipedia helps

Scientific Consensus

Or maybe The National Academy of Science's mission statement

http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/

Or maybe Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse's Richard Dimbleby lecture from 2012

"It is impossible to achieve complete certainty on many complex scientific problems, yet sometimes we still need to take action. The sensible course is to turn to the expert scientists for their consensus view. When doctors found I had blockages in the arteries around my heart I asked them for their expert view as to what I should do. They recommended a bypass, I took their consensus advice, and here I am. That is how science works."

Feel free to ignore these examples again.

Science is not done by consensus period. It is a fact that certainty can often be achieved in science which leads to the Laws of Science. The law of conservation of mass says, matter is neither created or destroyed in the course of a chemical reaction, it's definitive.  Tt does not say, matter may be created..... 

When certainty can't be achieved theories are used to explain a set of data/observations. If there is more than one theory then more people may favor one theory over another and the number supporting each theory may change when new data appears.

What he's describing is obtaining consensus ADVICE on how to treat a condition. The theory is a bypass is recommended over possible other treatments for his particular condition based on the data they have from clinical trials based on outcomes. The data shows the bypass is the best option.

3 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

I see what you're getting at now, let me digest it.

3 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Here.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

"Plain Language Summary

Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past."

My question to you is this. If Rising GHGs are not the cause of recent warming then what is?

The same processes that have  changed the temperature and climate of the planet for billions of years, why should they have simply just stopped. The climate alarmists are fixated with man made CO2. 

Show the evidence that man made CO2 drives or is correlated with global temperature. I'll give you the answer now there is none else it would be visible everywhere.

Man made CO2 may be playing some role but it's not known how  much. There is simply insufficient quantities of CO2 for it to be the sole cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


I don't think we're getting anywhere with your newspaper cuttings. Unless there are any you particularly like that you'd want to discuss.

Science is not done by consensus period. It is a fact that certainty can often be achieved in science which leads to the Laws of Science. The law of conservation of mass says, matter is neither created or destroyed in the course of a chemical reaction, it's definitive.  Tt does not say, matter may be created..... 

When certainty can't be achieved theories are used to explain a set of data/observations. If there is more than one theory then more people may favor one theory over another and the number supporting each theory may change when new data appears.

What he's describing is obtaining consensus ADVICE on how to treat a condition. The theory is a bypass is recommended over possible other treatments for his particular condition based on the data they have from clinical trials based on outcomes. The data shows the bypass is the best option.

I think you're getting it. If any country is going to enact policy based on science then that's how they should do it. Based on consensus advice. That's how The NAS, for example,  has been doing it for hundreds of years.

 

The same processes that have  changed the temperature and climate of the planet for billions of years, why should they have simply just stopped. The climate alarmists are fixated with man made CO2. 

Show the evidence that man made CO2 drives or is correlated with global temperature. I'll give you the answer now there is none else it would be visible everywhere.

Man made CO2 may be playing some role but it's not known how  much. There is simply insufficient quantities of CO2 for it to be the sole cause.

I don't get what you want here. On Aug 20th you wrote

"The current estimated climate sensitivity of 3oC +/- 1oC. Given the current data it looks like the climate sensitivity value could be closer to 2oC, hopefully the climate activists will be pleased by that."

That sounded to me like you accept the concept of climate sensitivity, which is a way to quantify the effect of CO2 on temperature.

I think I need to know exactly what climate science you accept and what you dismiss (and the reasons why would be nice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/09/2021 at 06:03, hillmanhunter said:

I don't think we're getting anywhere with your newspaper cuttings. Unless there are any you particularly like that you'd want to discuss.

Please keep your head in the sand and deny that predictions were made years and years ago about changes in the climate producing catastrophes on earth that didn't materialize and hence were wrong.  The newspaper articles simply reference the original predictions.

On 02/09/2021 at 06:03, hillmanhunter said:

I think you're getting it. If any country is going to enact policy based on science then that's how they should do it. Based on consensus advice. That's how The NAS, for example,  has been doing it for hundreds of years.

Sadly I don't think you are. Advice isn't science, it's ADVICE. Advice is defined as guidance or recommendation for future actions. Consensus in science is irrelevant, reproducible results are relevant in science.  Science is the pursuit of truth not consensus. The consensus thought the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth etc. 

I think you're too mired in the consensus that 97% of climate scientists crap.

On 02/09/2021 at 06:03, hillmanhunter said:

I think I need to know exactly what climate science you accept and what you dismiss (and the reasons why would be nice).

I think your position is that man made CO2 is the sole driver of global warming.

If it is then there should be some evidence, a graph shoowing a correlation between the rise in temperature and a rise in CO2 levels.  So for the umpteenth time just show/post the graph/data. 

It's just two variables, temperature and CO2 levels so it should be simple to produce the evidence if it exists and since you appear so convinced of the relationship you must have seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


On 06/09/2021 at 10:34, hillmanhunter said:

Let's move on from the newspaper clippings and what does consensus mean - we're going around in circles I think.

Here's a nice graph, even if it does implicate cherry trees in the whole conspiracy.

spacer.png

HH, Those graphs clumped together are not very clear, particularly in relation to their axes. It's a little rich you complaining about newspaper articles containing reference to the original article but than posting barely legible data from Sky News without any reference to the original article/data.

Just stick to the temp vs CO2 levels over time for now as the  relationship between them is a key point.

The discussion was that consensus is not and has no place in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, those graphs are perfectly legible. Have you tried enlarging it?

Anyway, here's another. If you don't like this one either then feel free to source your own. Or even visit https://www.woodfortrees.org/ and brew your own.

spacer.png

By the way. The graph I posted previously was not from Sky News. It was created by Professor Ed Hawkins from Reading Univiersity.

Here are the sources for that graph:

Data: CO2: EPICA & Mauna Loa

OHC: Zanna et al.

Sea level: Kopp et al., Church et al. & AVISO

GMST: PAGES2k & HadCRUT5

 Troposphere: RSS TLT

Arctic: Kinnard et al. & NSIDC

Cherry blossom: Aono et al.

Humidity: HadISDH

(with some series coming from the Climate Explorer)

 

"The discussion was that consensus is not and has no place in science."

I've shown you repeatedly why it does using analogies and actual examples. I've nothing more to say to you on that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Paul, those graphs are perfectly legible. Have you tried enlarging it?

Anyway, here's another. If you don't like this one either then feel free to source your own. Or even visit https://www.woodfortrees.org/ and brew your own.

spacer.png

By the way. The graph I posted previously was not from Sky News. It was created by Professor Ed Hawkins from Reading Univiersity.

Here are the sources for that graph:

"The discussion was that consensus is not and has no place in science."

I've shown you repeatedly why it does using analogies and actual examples. I've nothing more to say to you on that matter.

We'll just have to disagree on the role of consensus in science.

So the theory is that increasing CO2 levels directly cause increasing temperatures by the GHG effect.

However in the graph it is seen that from 1880 to 1910 CO2 levels increase whereas temps. goes down, from 1940 to 1978 CO2 levels go up but temp. goes down, from 1980 to 2020 CO2 levels go up and so does temp.

So there is a consistent/steady increase in CO2 levels from 1880 to 2020 but not a consistent/steady rise in temp. So rising levels of man made CO2 cannot be the sole reason/driver for the temperature increase seen since 1880 'til present day. Man made CO2 may play a role but just how much of a role is the major question.

My thoughts are there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere and it is not a potent enough GHG for it to be the sole driver of climate change particularly when water vapor is a much more potent GHG and present in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapor must be playing a role together with the processes that have always changed the climate since the day  the earth was formed, they just haven't stopped or taken a break.

Hence the notion that western countries should destroy their economies in support of a weak theory involving CO2 is just ludicrous, the IPCC is part of the UN which is a political organization intent on wealth redistribution in the world. The Paris accord was an absolute farce and the upcoming jolly in Glasgow will be the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...