Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Anaxogoras]

Alright, I see where you're going with that.  All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude.  You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science.  If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.

How comparable is it to the stock market?  That's an interesting question.  I heard an interview with an economist, an AGW skeptic, and he had this proposal:

Link taxation of greenhouse gasses to global temperature.  If the climate scientists are right, temperature will increase, and we'll have to pay.  If the climate scientists are wrong, and global temperature does not increase, then no greenhouse taxation.  Additionally, investors could "gamble" on the future with their investments based on whether they are convinced by the climate scientists.

[CAP1]

Alright, I see where you're going with that.  All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude.  You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science.  If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.

How comparable is it to the stock market?  That's an interesting question.  I heard an interview with an economist, an AGW skeptic, and he had this proposal:

Link taxation of greenhouse gasses to global temperature.  If the climate scientists are right, temperature will increase, and we'll have to pay.  If the climate scientists are wrong, and global temperature does not increase, then no greenhouse taxation.  Additionally, investors could "gamble" on the future with their investments based on whether they are convinced by the climate scientists.

 I THINk they're already trading carbon credits in chigago. if that's the case, in the long run, we're already gonna pay.

 

[CptTrips]

This quote came from a scientist?

Not in my opinion.  Only a "Climatologist".  

Which sounds a lot like "Scientologist" if you ask me.  Coincidence?  You be the judge.

 ,
Wab

[Strip]

I'm a green-hearted person.  I support green initiatives, and I for one believe our society is on a consumption path of the worlds natural resources that will destroy our planet in the near future.  I drive cars that are fuel efficient. And I recycle as much as possible (although I think recycling the way we're doing it is complete bunk). I try to have as little impact on our planet as possible.

However, the science of climatology is so incredibly complex, no one, not even climatologist really know how it works.  It's why meteorologists have difficulty predicting the temperature tomorrow to 100% accuracy. They're close, and sometimes they're completely wrong 100%. It's why they call forecast just that - a best guess on the data they have.  And most meteorologists only can only predict the weather with this same accurately up to 2 weeks.  The sun and how it works, the planet, global air and sea currents, and trees and vegetation all play a mix climatology. And yes, it's all about Energy. It's also a very new science - newer than nuclear in fact.

How climatologists can predict a flux in temperature and blame it on pollution is an interesting proposition based on correlation methodologies which is not following proper scientific methodologies.  Science is based on cause-and-effect.  

I.e. - two science methods.  One is physics, the other is climatology.

a.  I push 30 newtons against a block weighting 25kilos. Resistance is 5 newtons. The block moves 5 meters (not exact - but to get to a point). I have a formula that can guess the results within near 100% accuracy every time every time I do this experiment.

b. CO2 levels are at X. Because back in 1200BC when CO2 was X and temperature dropped 2 Celsius, I predict that if CO2 remains at X, temperature will drop 2 Celsius.  

A is science.  Measurable, with formulas that work, and repeatable in all kinds of different situations with similar results with the same formula.
B is not science. It's speculation - like guessing the price of a stock two years from now.  There is no formula or mesaurable results that can be tested (if they ever shared their forumlas to begin with). If there is a formula, no one but the person who did the testing has it.

And people wonder why scientists like myself hate climatologists.

The theories with the propagation of light have various formulas you can actually use. For example on how Planck's law tries to explain electromagnetic radiation - there's an actual formula. Also depends whether or not you view light as a wave or a particle... and that's a whole lotta discussion on a different topic.

The challenge with climate predictions is that there are no 'roaming formula theories' to view and discuss. I.e. if average global temperature is X, CO2 is Y, gulf stream current temperature is Z, global forestation % is W, etc etc.

I'm not discounting that the Earth is warming up.  I'm accusing the climatologists of shoddy science methodologies that does science a disservice to the point that most of their evidence and data is poorly supported and easily disputed.  If they came out with a theory and formula/test results to prove their right and is easily reproducible - HURRAY!  What a day for science and humanity!  

But they don't and it makes me question their scientific integrity as a scientist.  And as long as they continue down this path, the harder it will be for society and countries to change how they interact with our planet.  

As Dr. Evil once said: "Throw me a frickin' bone here!  I'm the boss!  Need the info!"

Without that info, everything they show in graphs and charts is IMHO scientific bunk worthy of a shoddy convenience store toilet.  Which is very sad because they may be right.

This quote came from a scientist? Since when do scientists view their work as unapproachable, un-reviewable, and without criticism? No scientist would hold onto his work and data like a 3 year old does with jelly beans.  If this person was a real scientist, he/she would produce their results in Science (journal for the American Association for the Advancement of Science) - along with their formulas, how they collected their data, the results of the data, and the conclusions they're making on the data.  And then the debate can begin!

This kind of anti-scientific bunk makes me

Well said MisterFork, I share very similar sentiments....

 

Strip

[Mister Fork]

Not in my opinion.  Only a "Climatologist". 

Which sounds a lot like "Scientologist" if you ask me.  Coincidence?  You be the judge.

 ,
Wab

Werd on that. 

[RTHolmes]

Alright, I see where you're going with that.  All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude.  You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science.  If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.

indeed.

I'm accusing the climatologists of shoddy science methodologies that does science a disservice to the point that most of their evidence and data is poorly supported and easily disputed.  If they came out with a theory and formula/test results to prove their right and is easily reproducible - HURRAY!  What a day for science and humanity!

you need to be specific here, just because you dont understand it doesnt necessarily make it invalid. your A/B example earlier suggests you havent grasped the magnitude of the problem. this is not a simple system like A which a smart schoolkid could predict using Newtonian mechanics, it is a vastly complex dynamic system. the models will necesarily be magnitudes more complex too.


part of an earlier reply sums up most contributions to this thread quite nicely "... a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested."

[Penguin]

Feeling left out, Penguin now accuses me of hijacking my own thread.... I'm sure it must be past his bedtime.


My regards,

Widewing

By definition you did. (And yes, it was past my bedtime ) 

But it's irrelevant whether the thread was started by you or not.  Your post was a red herring, helpful elsewhere, but irrelevant here nonetheless.  At the time of writing, it is not past my bedtime, so consider me able to think things through.

-Penguin

[Widewing]

By definition you did. (And yes, it was past my bedtime ) 

But it's irrelevant whether the thread was started by you or not.  Your post was a red herring, helpful elsewhere, but irrelevant here nonetheless.  At the time of writing, it is not past my bedtime, so consider me able to think things through.

-Penguin

Penguin, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is entitled to a bowel movement too. Where it begins to get fuzzy is when observers cannot readily tell the difference.


My regards,

Widewing

[bozon]

All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude.  You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science.  If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.

This is perfectly valid and fine, science is always about probabilities and intervals, never about exact values. BUT science goes to great lengths to define the accuracy of its result. You can say that exact science is science that can tell exactly by how much it is wrong... Now these confidence intervals of the results is something that never gets quoted and explained to the public when it comes to the climate issue. The only true scientific talk I attended about climate simulations gave +2 degree prediction in the next 50 (or was it 100?) years with a "one sigma" error of 2. I think their error estimate is very optimistic, after I heard how they calculate it, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is 50% chance that the effect will be LESS than 2 degrees. More over, it means about 15% chance (1/6) that not only we will not experience warming, but experience cooling instead.

This is very fine and the correct way to present scientific results, but this is not the way the public hear about it. Politics, media and dishonest publicity hungry scientists turn it into a True/False statement: The models (that they have to run many times and take a mean of the results because the solution does not converge) predict 2 degree warming!!!

The even bigger mystery in such complex calculations is the error due to what is not in the model. Errors due to simplification of equations, partial data, calculation "short cuts" etc. can be estimated and included in the final uncertainty. What you don't know is if there are processes that are important and were not even considered, or done in a wrong way. This latter source for unknown error is the real core of a good scientific discussion. The public discussion got stuck way before that.

The media feed on such crap like flies on shee(i)t. Dis-informing the public is an art form now. I remember about two years ago a big headline about research revealing that proximity to certain factories DOUBLES(!) the chances to develop some kind of tumor. Sounds scary indeed. But when you check the absolute numbers (not quoted in the media report of course), it increased it from 1/80,000 to 1/40,000. Better not leave the house then, it is not safe anymore.

[RTHolmes]

very true, there is a big problem with the way science is presented to the public who for the mostpart cant understand it. science reporters and editors generally arent doing their jobs properly, and some scientists dont help much by neglecting to make abstracts easily available that the public can digest.

Ben Goldacre discussed this with Lord Drayson recently, webcast here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html

Goldacre is a bit of a nerd icon, does great work, see http://www.badscience.net
Drayson is our science minister, has only one eye and races Aston Martins in the ALMS

[Kev367th]

It's all based on the number of pirates.

Last few hundereds of years there were more pirates so temperatures stayed low.
As pirates were killed or they 'retired' piracy decreased therefore temperature increased.
Piracy has been on the increase recently, hence the levelling off or slight decrease in temps the last 10 years.

Once goverments sort out those pesky pirates I am sure temps will start to increase again.



Sure a 'hockey' stick graph could be produced to prove it .... LOL.

[Angus]

The newest news of GW is that the sun is finally kicking in after a very long inactivity cycle, - 2 years or so overdue. So, in the next 5-7 years, especially at the 7th or so, the GW theory either will rest as a theory, or settle as a rather bad thing. For most, but not all....

[batch]

so in other words the next 7 years should each follow the last as being the warmest years on record?

2011 7th warmest on record
2012 6th warmest on record
2013 5th warmest on record
2014 4th warmest on record
2015 3rd warmest on record
2016 2nd warmest on record
2017 warmest on record

otherwise?

[CAP1]

The newest news of GW is that the sun is finally kicking in after a very long inactivity cycle, - 2 years or so overdue. So, in the next 5-7 years, especially at the 7th or so, the GW theory either will rest as a theory, or settle as a rather bad thing. For most, but not all....

you are once again bringing it back to the sun....not man. 

sun inactive=cooler
sun active=warmer. 

[Anaxogoras]

you are once again bringing it back to the sun....not man. 

sun inactive=cooler
sun active=warmer. 

Not really cap.  What he's saying is that temperatures were mostly stable while the sun was in a cool phase.  Now you put two and two together.