Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

1…457910…94

Comments

  • #182
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Says more about the way you’re mind works than mine. Science is nothing like religion

    Exactly. Your previous comment would suggest otherwise.

    Do you have any qualifications in the area of science btw?


  • #183
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    ;)
    Akrasia wrote: »
    it depends entirely on what you're analysing.

    When MT said that there had been a slow down in recent warming, the dataset to use is obviously the most recent data and his analysis may have been correct with the most recent data from 5 years ago, but it's wrong with the most recent data from today. (you can pick any length you like, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 40 years, they would all show accelerating warming.

    The IPCC uses the entire industrialised period as it's baseline and measures current warming against the pre-industrial average (a 30 year average set based on the late 19th century global average temperature).
    They also use often use rolling averages to plot the trends, the best studies will use the most recent and best available data to plot their graphs and analyse trends.

    Scientists are free to set their own benchmark for analysis as long as they can justify their methodology. In the debate on their research, if their methodology is flawed, it will impact the credibility of their research

    The likes of Anthony Watts slice up his data all the time and consistently chooses start and end points that conveniently match his pre-existing bias. For example , He often decides that El Nino's don't count so he'll exclude El Nino years from his data to try and conclude that there has been little or no warming.

    There is absolutely zero justification for excluding El Nino years from analysis other than the fact that he doesn't like the results when they are included.

    And yet again I ask you, what you think of the sometimes vast difference between the different temperature datasets used by the IPCC, which many times disagree by several tenths of a degree? Depending on which one you use. the total warming between now and the "pre-industrial" benchmark (whatever that value actually is) is almost half a degree in disagreement. No denying the overall warming, by the way. Maybe if I post your chart again you might actually answer this time.

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5


  • #184
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I missed this graph, can you link to it or post it again please?

    I posted all four decadal trends in extent since 1980 in this thread a few months ago, but here's a more recent thread too and below are the 4 volume decadal trends. The periods were chosen purely based on the years, dividing the 40-year dataset into 4 equal periods (1980-89, 1990-99, 2000-09, 2010-19) so it was not a case of cherrypicking.

    The chart for annual minimum volume below (and extent) shows a distinct flat trend over the 4th (most recent) decade in the series, following the steep downward trend of the two preceding decades (which has always been widely used to demonstrate the alleged death spiral from which there is no recovery). My only point about it all has been that looking at this current decade, the loss has levelled off . We've pretty much no net loss in volume since the start of the decade. We're no worse off now than we were a decade ago.

    This flattening is something that is never reported now. What instead gets reported now is how this year's value ranks in the overall dataset, which always brings up a ranking in the top 10, given that the trend is flat. Whatever the reason for this hiatus, and for however long it will last (who knows?), it is real and cannot be ignored. My suspicion is it is closely linked to the AMO, like the Greenland melt, as both seem to have responded to the switch to positive AMO in the late 90s and its subsequent levelling off.



    493339.png

    493341.png

    498238.png

    498284.png

    498282.png


  • #185
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    gozunda wrote: »
    Exactly. Your previous comment would suggest otherwise.[\quote]
    No it doesn’t. Not at all
    Do you have any qualifications in the area of science btw?
    yes but that’s not relevant because I’m not challenging the established science. I’m absolutely not qualified to second guess the findings of respected climate scientists.


  • #186
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    ;)

    And yet again I ask you, what you think of the sometimes vast difference between the different temperature datasets used by the IPCC, which many times disagree by several tenths of a degree? Depending on which one you use. the total warming between now and the "pre-industrial" benchmark (whatever that value actually is) is almost half a degree in disagreement. No denying the overall warming, by the way. Maybe if I post your chart again you might actually answer this time.

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5
    The datasets have variations because they are using different methodologies and different instruments and are often measuring different things. The important thing is not that they all record the same absolute temperatures, it’s that they record the same temperature anomalies. They are never going to match exactly, this is the nature of the complex processes involved, Data scientists can analyze these datasets and arrive at a weighted mean of the different datasets and assign a degree of confidence to these conclusions

    Climate science refers to temperature anomalies because you can’t always directly compare temperatures due to variations in local factors, but temperature anomalies show the trend which is what we are interested in


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The datasets have variations because they are using different methodologies and different instruments and are often measuring different things. The important thing is not that they all record the same absolute temperatures, it’s that they record the same temperature anomalies. They are never going to match exactly, this is the nature of the complex processes involved, Data scientists can analyze these datasets and arrive at a weighted mean of the different datasets and assign a degree of confidence to these conclusions

    Climate science refers to temperature anomalies because you can’t always directly compare temperatures due to variations in local factors, but temperature anomalies show the trend which is what we are interested in

    I know about the datasets, but my point is that there is the magic 1.5/2.0 degrees (or whatever) warming point of no return that is the premise for all the hype, yet there is no real agreement on where exactly we stand right now as different datasets give different values, as well as the fact that the pre-industrial starting point is not clearly defined. The HadCRUT, for example, shows the least total warming, whereas the GISTEMP shows more.

    So your point about a surge of 0.2 degrees in the last 5 years could be more or less than that, depending on who you believe. The most recent points on that curve are showing a discrepancy of around 0.12 degrees by my reckoning.


  • #188
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I know about the datasets, but my point is that there is the magic 1.5/2.0 degrees (or whatever) warming point of no return that is the premise for all the hype, yet there is no real agreement on where exactly we stand right now as different datasets give different values, as well as the fact that the pre-industrial starting point is not clearly defined. The HadCRUT, for example, shows the least total warming, whereas the GISTEMP shows more.

    So your point about a surge of 0.2 degrees in the last 5 years could be more or less than that, depending on who you believe. The most recent points on that curve are showing a discrepancy of around 0.12 degrees by my reckoning.
    My point about the surge by .2c was not my point, it was reported by the WMO

    If you want to know their methodology it’s in their report

    https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=21522#.Xf_MqcDp2Ec


  • #189
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    My point about the surge by .2c was not my point, it was reported by the WMO

    If you want to know their methodology it’s in their report

    https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=21522#.Xf_MqcDp2Ec

    And still you've avoided the question.


  • #190
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No it doesn’t. Not at all
    yes but that’s not relevant because I’m not challenging the established science. I’m absolutely not qualified to second guess the findings of respected climate scientists.

    Well its relevant where someone is making pronouncements about science being immutable - as in your comment. Something a qualified scientist would never claim.

    Aligning your own interpretation of science as being unquestionable places that belief in the realms of religous dogma with those who question anything being akin to heretics or what you refer to as 'deniers'.

    A dangerous misinterpretation of scientific reasoning


  • #191
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    And still you've avoided the question.

    Why don’t you ask the WMO or read the report to find out how they arrived at this conclusion?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    gozunda wrote: »
    Well its relevant where someone is making pronouncements about science being immutable - as in your comment. Something a qualified scientist would never claim.

    Aligning your own interpretation of science as being unquestionable places that belief in the realms of religous dogma with those who question anything being akin to heretics or what you refer to as 'deniers'.

    A dangerous misinterpretation of scientific reasoning
    I never ever said science was immutable.


  • #193
    Naggdefy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭Naggdefy


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I never ever said science was immutable.

    'The science is the science'.. it tends to suggest that current thinking can't be challenged. That's how I read it.


  • #194
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Why don’t you ask the WMO or read the report to find out how they arrived at this conclusion?

    You usually have an answer for everything, but it seems this is one topic you're unable to give your own opinion. Maybe you hadn't spotted the problem before. Their uncertainty of +/- 0.1 degree in the total warming seems a little too tight, given their own data, but how and ever, we'll keep on going and see what the next few years bring.


  • #195
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    'The science is the science'.. it tends to suggest that current thinking can't be challenged. That's how I read it.

    I said that to distinguish between the science and the politics. Of course science is not immutable. We should base our beliefs on the best available evidence, but this does not preclude a new discovery coming at any time that can take research in a whole new direction.


  • #196
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    How would it identify someone? That very person was asking for MT's credentials, which were given. Coles obviously has none, which is fine too.
    Lol!

    What credentials does anyone need to say "listen to the science"?


  • #197
    Mr Bumble
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Mr Bumble


    fits wrote: »
    Why on earth would anyone post credentials here that could identify them almost immediately.
    The OP is known to all here and is not hiding behind a tag. Why would anyone want to hide behind a tag when this is so important. This is clearly evangelical work, for the righteous. Why not be honest?

    Coles has rubbished the OP's theory and called him out about his expertise. The OP responded. Coles has not. In my eyes, he has no credibility.


  • #198
    Pa ElGrande
    Registered Users Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Coles wrote: »
    Lol!

    What credentials does anyone need to say "listen to the science"?

    People often repeat this mantra, what they really mean is that you should listen to the evidence they tell you to listen to and ignore all the rest. The phrase "listen to the science" really makes no sense especially when you look into the technical aspects of the subject as meteorologists do and realise that meteorologists do not "listen to the science", they have to understand all aspects of the science and have confidence that the science is repeatable and useful enough to make good predictions. Otherwise meteorologists are just winging it and winging it is not forecasting it's gambling.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • #199
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Coles wrote: »
    Lol!

    What credentials does anyone need to say "listen to the science"?

    So what you seem to be saying is that you don't really understand the science but you fully trust those that do (such as the IPCC). If so, then another equally qualified person (e.g. MT) should be given an equal hearing on his theory, as long as it stands up to scrutiny. However you and some other haven't gone that far yet because you're polarised towards the IPCC only and it's done and dusted as far as you're concerned. When unable to analyse the post you instead do what the others do and attack the poster. Not really a mature debate then, is it?


  • #200
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I said that to distinguish between the science and the politics. Of course science is not immutable. We should base our beliefs on the best available evidence, but this does not preclude a new discovery coming at any time that can take research in a whole new direction.

    Not just 'new discovery'. Science is a constantly changing, self-correcting process. It is not set in stone.


  • #201
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Mr Bumble wrote: »
    Coles has rubbished the OP's theory and called him out about his expertise. The OP responded. Coles has not. In my eyes, he nas no credibility.
    I can't expect you to understand the argument, but what I said was that there is already a consensus about the cause of global warming.

    I have no interest in rubbishing the OP's theory, and I certainly welcome his move away from scepticism about the reality of climate change. I wish others could see the data and make the same leap.

    The OP has a theory (as best I understand it from reading it on another forum) that 75% of climate change is driven by the wandering movements of the magnetic north pole. This *might* be true, but the probability is extremely remote. It's not for me to say it's impossible, but it's worth keeping in mind that every respected scientific organisation accepts that climate change is driven by human activities.

    Climate scepticism and conspiracy theories are driven by political and ideological bias. That's a fact. Anyone who reads the opening post will see it.

    I genuinely hope the OP is eventually proved right with his theory, but that's all it is. It's a theory. He has suggested that his theory should become the preferred course ahead of the entire scientific community who support the IPCC! He has suggested flooding land with sea water to forestall rising sea levels, - a ridiculous impractical idea.

    That is completely daft and should be called out.

    I recognise these ideas and arguments. I recognise the political and ideological bias on which they are based. They are discredited.

    Listen to the science.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    So what you seem to be saying is that you don't really understand the science but you fully trust those that do (such as the IPCC). If so, then another equally qualified person (e.g. MT) should be given an equal hearing on his theory, as long as it stands up to scrutiny. However you and some other haven't gone that far yet because you're polarised towards the IPCC only and it's done and dusted as far as you're concerned. When unable to analyse the post you instead do what the others do and attack the poster. Not really a mature debate then, is it?

    MT Cranium's theory does not carry the same weight as the IPCC. Sorry. Do you really need me to explain why?

    You have shown yourself repeatedly to be a duplicitous manipulator of facts in your attempt to spin your conspiracy nonsense.


  • #203
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Coles wrote: »
    MT Cranium's theory does not carry the same weight as the IPCC. Sorry. Do you really need me to explain why?

    You have shown yourself repeatedly to be a duplicitous manipulator of facts in your attempt to spin your conspiracy nonsense.

    Yes, please do explain. That the point of the thread.

    I haven't spun anything in anyone's favour. Your default reply to anything that doesn't at first glance appear to be aligned with your predetermined bias is not based on actually reading what the person has written but instead reseting to the usual catalogue of insults,,throwing in some chart or link that is not at all connected with post. I note too that Akrasia has been in there with quick replies to all posts this evening except mine where I shared the Arctic ice charts. Not sure what this means exactly. It wouldn't be the first time he's quietly put aside a point or question that he has no answer for, but I'll give him time to respond.


  • #204
    SeaBreezes
    Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Sitting here wrapping xmas pressies and after a few glasses of wine so forgive me if this post isn't clear but a few things I have been mulling over.

    MT thank you for the datasets. I am a CC3 er definitely! Thank you for the thread. :-)

    I hope all xmas wrapping is recyclable! To my shame I didn't think about NOT wrapping pressies but next year there will be no wrapping. My bad.

    As the parent of a non verbal son with Autism, I have many friends who are parents of children like Greta. Speaking with them last night (and their kids are mainstream aspergers, but would be vulnerable adults. They understand the anxiety and pressures of aspergers) and while all admire Greta we fear for her dreadfully. She is vulnerable and under intense pressure. And as a focal point of a global movement being used in many ways. Be kind.
    I am a Greta fan. While I might not think we are solely responsible for global warming, we are not treating our planet with the respect it deserves and anyone who can force the change to stop pollution, I approve of, but I think glyphosate, and endocrine disrupters, and mycelium In the soil killers, will kill us faster than CO2.

    And it occurred to me, I don't actually understand the science of WHY CO2 is the warming issue. My bad. I always just accepted the statement,but it's time to educate myself. Can anyone link me to the published papers on why it's CO2 is warming us? (I'm not arguing it is, better minds than mine say it is) I just want to understand something I have accepted as fact.

    And happy xmas everyone! I thoroughly enjoy the debate and love the learning and appreciate the weather forum with years now. Thank you!!


  • #205
    DKO
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭DKO


    I have wondered about those charts showing a slowing or pause in ice loss Volume in the artic and Greenland. I’ve wondered what the science says about the idea that much of the more vulnerable ice may have melted at a quicker rate before the start of the last decade, at least on or about the landmasses. For instance, sea ice or land ice at the ice sheets or glaciers close to the sea. This could leave the more substantial and less vulnerable (possibly) land based ice to melt at a slower rate? Hence the slowing in volume loss over the past decade. I suppose I’m asking if those who have kindly looked at the data on ice volume loss might have also reviewed the reasons postulated and whether this type of idea has been considered (it may not of course, there might be obvious reasons, but I’d be curious to know).


  • #206
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    gozunda wrote: »
    Not just 'new discovery'. Science is a constantly changing, self-correcting process. It is not set in stone.

    Yeah I know


  • #207
    Mr Bumble
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Mr Bumble


    Coles wrote: »
    I can't expect you to understand the argument,

    Listen to the science.
    That's the start and finish of your reply.
    Your argument in a nutshell. Your science is right and anyone offering any other science is dumb.


    Sorry but I can't take you seriously. I don't believe you're here to debate.




    I found this thread very interesting until it was hijacked by the usual suspects who lecture rather than debate and belittle when they can.

    Have a great christmas folks, cant be arsed with this any more. Virtue signalling should be an olympic sport. There's gold medalists here.


  • #208
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    The climate question is bedevilled by the reality that climate change has now become a very large industry. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are now dependent for their livelihoods and careers on this industry. Along with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Tech etc etc, we have to acknowledge Big Climate Change as a major global industry.
    The first priority of any industry is its own preservation. Is anyone, who has a job in this industry, going to talk themselves out of their well-paid public service job.
    I was amazed to discover that the recent COP25 which was hosted in Madrid had 25,000 official delegates. The whole thing smacked of a junket where the ‘great and the good’ in the climate industry could be wined and dined, (at our expense). This COP thing has become an annual jamboree. Anyone who criticises this madness is labelled as a ‘denier’ or an ‘unbeliever’ in good old medieval religious terms. (Luckily, burning at the stake is no longer an option).
    When I hear the term ‘the science is settled‘, I am seriously concerned. The history of science is that it is never settled. If Copernicus or Galileo or Darwin or Einstein had accepted that the science was settled we would not have made much progress over the centuries.


  • #209
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Mr Bumble wrote: »
    That's the start and finish of your reply.
    Your argument in a nutshell. Your science is right and anyone offering any other science is dumb.


    Sorry but I can't take you seriously. I don't believe you're here to debate.




    I found this thread very interesting until it was hijacked by the usual suspects who lecture rather than debate and belittle when they can.

    Have a great christmas folks, cant be arsed with this any more. Virtue signalling should be an olympic sport. There's gold medalists here.

    Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, you could have provided even a single link to some of the ‘other science’ that you find more convincing


  • #210
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    The climate question is bedevilled by the reality that climate change has now become a very large industry. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are now dependent for their livelihoods and careers on this industry. Along with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Tech etc etc, we have to acknowledge Big Climate Change as a major global industry.
    The first priority of any industry is its own preservation. Is anyone, who has a job in this industry, going to talk themselves out of their well-paid public service job.
    I was amazed to discover that the recent COP25 which was hosted in Madrid had 25,000 official delegates. The whole thing smacked of a junket where the ‘great and the good’ in the climate industry could be wined and dined, (at our expense). This COP thing has become an annual jamboree. Anyone who criticises this madness is labelled as a ‘denier’ or an ‘unbeliever’ in good old medieval religious terms. (Luckily, burning at the stake is no longer an option).
    When I hear the term ‘the science is settled‘, I am seriously concerned. The history of science is that it is never settled. If Copernicus or Galileo or Darwin or Einstein had accepted that the science was settled we would not have made much progress over the centuries.

    If the science is never settled, then why aren’t we still debating what the structure of DNA is?

    (I vote for the double helix)

    The great scientists you mentioned were skeptics, but they also built their ideas on the foundations of existing scientific knowledge.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,246 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Link to the most recent synthesis report and shorter summary for policy makers on this page for those of you who haven’t read it.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement