My critique is of the IPPC and it’s based on critiques made by climatologists. The predictions are based in the assumption that nothing changes. That’s ridiculous. They are also calculated in sequential fashion. That’s inappropriate for chaotic systems. The bureaucracy is fudging the scientific results with unscientific methods. That’s the truth. Even the modeling with computational systems is being harshly critiqued by climatologists.
When one predicts the position of a specific body in a solar system there is a degree of accuracy to consider. This is because newtons equations are only accurate with two bodies exerting force on one another. With the introduction of a third body the system begins to become chaotic. This increases as the number of actors increases.
Maybe best to ask the low lying communities who are already loosing their lands, homes and cultures to rising sea levels. Or communities ravaged by drought, desertification and failed crops.
When the mass migrations start revisit this thread, oh that’s right… http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/I don’t want to get involved with the pedantic posts in this thread but really?
It doesn’t look like the film is still streaming and I missed it, but what specific predictions are you skeptical about? Most predictions I’ve heard seem reasonable cause and effect assumptions. Increased drought, rising sea levels, increased acidity in ocean water, things of that nature.
Actually, thanks to recent papers like “pause buster”, the discrepancy between different climate datasets is quite pronounced now and is set to only become greater as new adjustments are made.
Their satellite based dataset shows a temperature trend that is markedly lower than the heavily adjusted set used by NOAA (and a trend that is far lower than model projections). I will also note that NOAA makes heavy use of interpolation algorithms due to the coverage limits of ground-based stations. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/october2015/102015_tlt_update_bar.png
Truth be told, there will probably be another temperature spike in that set due to the ongoing El Nino, but the real story will be revealed what happens as a result of the inevitable La Nina that follows such events.
If everyone on the planet made little changes in their lifestyles towards a more carbon neutral existence those many small changes will collectively blossom into something much greater.
Everyone is important, every positive action towards a healthier planet, no matter how small, is important. Sometimes you need to think small to achieve big things.
That’s how i see it, why would anyone not want to protect their home? It’s the most natural thing to do and yet we loose sight of the real important issues surrounded by walls of concrete and car fumes.
xrg you are right and I apologize for that. If I had caught that it would have been in the post. Damn just forty eight hours for some reason.
Now what to do. I will leave the thread in place for several days while looking around. In the mean time once again I apologize. Hell I sent the link to my daughters with the suggestion to save the link for some free time.
Here’s a scenario I came up with and it is, admittedly, quite conspiracy theorist and I in no way endorse this theory, just something that popped into my head a while back that I thought was kinda interesting.
Let us say, for instance, global temperatures are rising and in the not too distant future this rise in temperature will cause all the worst of what is predicted, major metropolitan areas will be under water causing unfathomable amounts of damage. Wealthy countries such as the United States stand to be knocked down a few pegs as their biggest sources of income are washed away almost over night. The political and economic landscape of the world is turned on its head while lush and fertile areas turn barren and harsh tundras become life sustaining havens.
In order to maintain their dominant position in the world the worlds most powerful countries need to stop this from happening and the only way to do so is to geoengineer the world’s climate, but in a time where people clamour for all natural and organic products the public at large would not stand for such drastic intervention by their governments.
The solution? Make it appear as though this shift in climate is caused by mankind. Therefore any intervention would not be mankind trying to control the climate, but instead mankind trying to return the climate to its natural state.
Yes that would be ridiculous which is just one of the reasons that climate scientists don’t do that.
They are also calculated in sequential fashion. That’s inappropriate for chaotic systems.
Yeah that’s not how the climate scientists do it. Yes it’s we are dealing with a chaotic system which makes climate science a complex system science. As such as in medical science, we don’t understand every single interaction in the system but after decades of research by 1000s of researchers we have a pretty good idea of the overall probability space.
The bureaucracy is fudging the scientific results with unscientific methods. That’s the truth. Even the modeling with computational systems is being harshly critiqued by climatologists.
I am willing to bet that you know nothing of the actual process the IPCC goes through and the qualifications of the people involved. I assume that is what you are talking about. Which results have been tampered with by a bureaucracy.
When one predicts the position of a specific body in a solar system there is a degree of accuracy to consider. This is because newtons equations are only accurate with two bodies exerting force on one another. With the introduction of a third body the system begins to become chaotic. This increases as the number of actors increases.
See: Chaotic Systems
The predictions warrant skepticism.
You need to check what the climate scientists are actually saying and the methodologies that they actually use. The video I posted in my first comment on this thread is a good primer. I chose it for three reasons.
It’s a talk by a (now diseased) climate scientist who worked in the field since the 1970’s
The speaker makes an effort to seperate his own biases from the science.
Unlike most scientists the speaker is a half decent public communicator.
[edit] add link to the video because not everybody wants to hunt through old posts - talk starts about 5 mins in[/edit] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4
Yes, also because what they are trying to extract from the data is a possible long term global trend. You short term or very localized climate fluctuations aren’t that useful in providing this.
Last time there was a discrepancy between the ground data and the satellite data it was because due to slow changes in the satellite’s orbit which weren’t corrected for. It’s also important to realize that the satellites don’t measure temperature directly but model temperature using indirect measurements. For these reasons the ground station measurements are generally considered more reliable.
Yeah the same La Nina cycle that has been dominant over the period that contrarians were calling the global warming pause? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The UAH data has been adjusted several times since its inception (I believe they’re on version 6 now). However, the difference is that the adjustments are not near as large as the recent adjustments to the GISS data. It’s also not the only dataset derived from satellites.
In fact, the GISS data actually appeared to roughly follow the satellite data (with a slightly higher long term trend) before the recent paper.
I don’t think anyone is trying to explain away the idea that temperatures has risen (you can’t hide that), but the skeptical argument is that we are only in the latest of a string of warm periods that go back thousands of years (which include periods that were warmer than today). The other part of the argument is that, simply put, climate shifts occur all the time at varying speeds (I’ve heard of some studies that even suggest the pace of change we’re seeing is actually not unprecedented). Other events like the melting of ice on Greenland is also not unprecedented as the retreat is actually revealing the remains of viking farms.
I am pretty sure that somebody here was arguing that we can’t see a warming trend and somebody else that we couldn’t demonstrate human activity as the likely culprit but anyways lets go with that.
We have quite a bit of research into what is called paleoclimatology and using proxy records we are pretty confident that there have been large shifts in temperature in past and we have built up a pretty good timeline of when and where those shifts occurred. The hockey stick is for instance one of the least interesting aspects of Micheal Mann’s work.
What tends to get confused is regional vs global warming. We have proxy data from many places around the planet and we get a pretty good indication that warming events in previous centuries happened in some regions at the same time as cooling events in other regions without much change in the overall energy budget. Until the industrial revolution that is.
It would be a different story if the contrarians had a plausible alternative mechanism that matched the fingerprinting and other observations and were publishing papers in support of this mechanism. What natural mechanism would you propose, The Sun? we are measuring that with satellites, also doesn’t match the fingerprinting. Changes in orbit? We are measuring that and that will take us into a colder period in about 10000s of years time but not any time soon. Cosmic Rays? doesn’t match the fingerprinting. Massive increase in vulcanism? That would match the fingerprinting but major volcanic events leave a signature in the temperature record that we are not seeing.
The issue is that scientists believe they’re so certain that CO2 is the main driver of climate that they don’t seem to think that there’s any possible undiscovered variable or anything else we can learn that could ultimately debunk it. One of the biggest hazards in science (in my view) is basically proclaiming “the debate is over” while there’s still a number of things to learn.
Ever since that was first proposed, we keep finding new puzzle pieces that we previously did not know existed (and we learn more about how the existing pieces work). We could try to point to the paleoclimatology records, but one issue is that a lot of proxies can be affected by more than just temperature and (perhaps) rainfall. Also, the site I linked to has previously done a study called the Medieval Warm Period project which used studies to show that it was a global event much like the current period (it has concluded some time ago, but it can be found in their subject index).
Looks to me like a guy with a degree in Geology and Meteorology that doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate or statistics and probability maths work.
To to explain by way of analogy.
Imagine we are in a casino at the roulette table, we could use physics calculations to predict where the ball starts, it’s speed, what it will collide with and where it will end up. If we tried doing this over multiple spins it would get harder and harder to the point where what ever calculations we were able to make wouldn’t be sufficient.
Imagine instead we are trying to figure out if the roulette wheel itself is perfectly balanced. We don’t need to do physics calculations to do this we just have to keep spinning the wheel and keep track of the results and look at the distribution of the spins. If we see that the results are clustering in one area of the wheel then the wheel might be unbalanced but then again we could arrive at those results completely by chance the more spins we record the less likely that is however.
So it is with the climate system. Predicting long term trends takes a completely different approach to predicting individual weather events.
My other criticism of the speaker is that mainstream climate science is doing a lot more than just modelling. There is a shitload of gathering proxy records, observation of biological systems. About all I can say about the speaker got right is that climate science isn’t meteorology.
It’s not specific predictions that I’m skeptical about. It’s our ability to make accurate predictions and the manner in which the predictions are being made.
Climate is a chaotic system. It’s extremely difficult to predict even in the short term. The butterfly effect is something that we haven’t yet learned to tract, even with computer models if it’s even possible. There is also the issue of not trying to predict social change with the climate data. If the already near impossible predictions aren’t accompanied by expected changes in our influence (and they’re not), the predictions become even more unreliable. It’s probably silly to assume that we’ll be using fossil fuels primarily in 50yrs. much less 100. Predicting the outcome of a chaotic system to 100yrs. is a fools errand to begin with. It’s just political sooth saying. The predictions aren’t based in solid science like the interpretation of the raw data. Sure we’re influencing it; but no one knows what will happen in even a decade.
Again the speaker is a Dr. of Climatology of 50 years. If you think that statistical analysis can predict the future then you’ve obviously never heard of Emergence. Your “explanation” did nothing but show that you don’t even understand the arguments. Gambling is a perfect example of how chaotic systems can’t be predicted. Too many variables. <— that is a fact.
This conclusion has been reached after decades of debate within the scientific community by a large number of scientists. At every step there have been people arguing AGW vs scientists arguing natural variation on any given detail. Consensus within scientific community was for the most part reached by about 1990s.
As I mentioned before the pattern of warming is what makes CO2 overwhelmingly look like the main culprit. Of course this reasoning is probabilistic and it is entirely possible that for some reason CO2 doesn’t cause the warming that our calculations predict and that simultaneously some other so far unknown process is causing the warming we see, It’s just that with all the data that has been collected this looks like a very low probability outcome.
Yep you better believe that climate scientists are aware that proxies don’t always follow temperature - this depends on the region and what is limiting seasonal growth. This isn’t a new discovery however, it’s been around really since before the field became part of climate research. The nuts and bolts of what these researchers do to get around these problems and how they demonstrate that their results are significant is quite interesting.
With the medieval warming period are you referring to a peer reviewed article. From what I can tell this problem has been looked at my quite a few independent teams that have peer reviewed published and fairly clearly demonstrated regional vs global variation.
Yeah that’s what the sign in the video says that but that is not what an internet search of the professor in question reveals. If somebody can find peer reviewed papers he has published in climate research then I will take this back.
Isn’t that more or less what I said in my analogy - only the problem isn’t trying to predict what number the ball will land on in 40 spins it’s trying to figure out how balanced the wheel itself is by looking at the statistical distribution of spins of the wheel. This is a fundamentally different type of problem with a different approach. This is the how the house approaches gambling and how they can guarantee that very close to 1/37th of the money that goes through that roulette table will go to them.