Right-wing vs Left-wing science
11 Apr 2011, 11:19 am
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll agree that GR and unified field theory may be more mathematically elegant than a big clunky climate model, but that doesn't mean that atmospheric science is not based on real physics.
Badly based, because it does not weigh ALL possible climate drivers properly. Cosmic Rays which affect cloud formation are not properly factored in. Also the variations in earth orbit and earth axis tilt are not factor in properly.
Don't be ridiculous. Variations in orbit and axial tilt affect the climate on time scales much too long to be relevant on a decadal time scale.
Also, it can be shown that decadal scale signals in solar output have a small input on climate compared to variations in greenhouse gas on the same time scale. You don't even have to rely on the sophisticated dynamical models to show it. You can just use physical reasoning and observe the relative sizes of the numbers. Also, the decadal scale solar output trends don't align at all with the climate trend over the past century. The level of radiation entering the top of the atmosphere has been decreasing since roughly 1940 while the overall climate has been warming. The numbers just don't hold up for that theory to hold any water.
Quote:
Also the underling dynamics is chaotic dynamics which is not modeled properly by mathematics. Chaotic systems are for the most part mathematically intractable and cannot be simplifield faithfully with linear models.
This is only half true. Chaotic systems are not totally unpredictable at all time and space scales. Certain aspects of a system can be chaotic on certain scales while other aspects have predictability. The thing is you really have to look at the time and space scale at which small errors grow. In the sun + earth/ocean/atmosphere sytem Local errors (i.e. weather systems + small eddies) grow at a much faster pace than global errors (i.e. changes in the global atmospheric heat budget).
Another way of looking at it... You don't have to build a computer model that accurately predicts the turbulent convection and chaotic formation of vapor bubbles in a boiling pot of water to predict how long it will take the water to completely evaporate.
Quote:
Bottom line: there is no "climate science". There are only climate models which are fitted to the political landscape to get the most funding.
Comparing climate science to theoretical physics is comparing apples to oranges. Climate science is an applied science.
As for the unfounded accusations that climate models are fitted to the political landscape. This is just another example of when people who are opposed to certain environmental policies decide to shoot the messenger. Most climate scientists do not make decisions on environmental policy. Politicians do that.
People also confuse media-hype and political environmentalist op-eds on climate change with actual science. Al Gore is not a politician, not a climate scientist, so attacking him does not invalidate the real scientists.
11 Apr 2011, 2:45 pm
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll agree that GR and unified field theory may be more mathematically elegant than a big clunky climate model, but that doesn't mean that atmospheric science is not based on real physics.
Badly based, because it does not weigh ALL possible climate drivers properly. Cosmic Rays which affect cloud formation are not properly factored in. Also the variations in earth orbit and earth axis tilt are not factor in properly. Also the underling dynamics is chaotic dynamics which is not modeled properly by mathematics. Chaotic systems are for the most part mathematically intractable and cannot be simplifield faithfully with linear models.
Bottom line: there is no "climate science". There are only climate models which are fitted to the political landscape to get the most funding.
ruveyn
The problem with that, Ruveyn, is that the predictions made by climate scientists decades ago are now coming to fruition with startling frequency. You may not like their methods, but accurate predictions are the best indicator of a successful model.
11 Apr 2011, 4:43 pm
LKL wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll agree that GR and unified field theory may be more mathematically elegant than a big clunky climate model, but that doesn't mean that atmospheric science is not based on real physics.
Badly based, because it does not weigh ALL possible climate drivers properly. Cosmic Rays which affect cloud formation are not properly factored in. Also the variations in earth orbit and earth axis tilt are not factor in properly. Also the underling dynamics is chaotic dynamics which is not modeled properly by mathematics. Chaotic systems are for the most part mathematically intractable and cannot be simplifield faithfully with linear models.
Bottom line: there is no "climate science". There are only climate models which are fitted to the political landscape to get the most funding.
ruveyn
The problem with that, Ruveyn, is that the predictions made by climate scientists decades ago are now coming to fruition with startling frequency. You may not like their methods, but accurate predictions are the best indicator of a successful model.
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
The earth has not yet become like the planet Venus and if the North Atlantic halocline disappears because of fresh-water melt Europe will become much cooler than it is.
The average temperature has not risen as high as the "hockey stick" fanatics predicted.
Nor have the oceans risen 100 meters to flood the coasts.
I am still waiting for a disaster. Where is it?
ruveyn
11 Apr 2011, 4:55 pm
marshall wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The only science is physical science which is not political.
Everything else is either stamp collecting or tiddlywinks.
ruveyn
Everything else is either stamp collecting or tiddlywinks.
ruveyn
Except for climate science I suppose. Climate models are not at all designed on the basis of physics, fluid dynamics, and mathematics. The sciences of fluid dynamics and radiative energy transfer have a definite liberal bias.
Radiative energy transfer? That sounds like a typical Commie redistribution of wealth scheme
You mean like a typical Pinko Stinko Commie redistribution scheme? I guess that would depend on whether the energy is transported upward or downward in the atmosphere.
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
11 Apr 2011, 5:01 pm
ruveyn wrote:
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
Real Climate wrote:
The global cooling myth
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/
11 Apr 2011, 5:09 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
Real Climate wrote:
The global cooling myth
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/
The climate debate is really too complicated to explain in one thread. I spent a good year or so doing a few courses about climate change/environmental geography. Don't expect to convince anybody with a few paragraphs. Its one of those things that are tl;dr to most people yet they are still willing to assert that its phoney without doing the hard research those who support it (those who aren't blindly supporting it, that is) do
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
11 Apr 2011, 5:14 pm
Vigilans wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
Real Climate wrote:
The global cooling myth
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/
The climate debate is really too complicated to explain in one thread. I spent a good year or so doing a few courses about climate change/environmental geography. Don't expect to convince anybody with a few paragraphs. Its one of those things that are tl;dr to most people yet they are still willing to assert that its phoney without doing the hard research those who support it (those who aren't blindly supporting it, that is) do
11 Apr 2011, 5:18 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
Real Climate wrote:
The global cooling myth
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/
The climate debate is really too complicated to explain in one thread. I spent a good year or so doing a few courses about climate change/environmental geography. Don't expect to convince anybody with a few paragraphs. Its one of those things that are tl;dr to most people yet they are still willing to assert that its phoney without doing the hard research those who support it (those who aren't blindly supporting it, that is) do
Even after committing a lot of time to it I am still skeptical of some claims. Its always healthy to be skeptical. For instance I find it annoying that the time-scale that is often asserted (100 years? 20 years? 10,000 years?) doesn't seem to be consistent among many climate scientists. On the other hand, most of the skeptic scientists research is really not very good, and I don't trust oil companies to do honest research on the subject in general. Honestly I feel that a lot of the doomsaying is coming from media outlets putting words into scientists' mouths or using claims out of context- (conveniently also funded by oil companies, in many cases), because I have read many interviews with the leading proponents and they seem pretty calm about the whole thing
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
11 Apr 2011, 5:27 pm
Vigilans wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Yeaahh I've done some google searches on climate change/global warming and I dunno wtf to think at all. There's way too many factors involved. But apparently there's an overwhelming scientific consensus on it being true.
Even after committing a lot of time to it I am still skeptical of some claims. Its always healthy to be skeptical. For instance I find it annoying that the time-scale that is often asserted (100 years? 20 years? 10,000 years?) doesn't seem to be consistent among many climate scientists. On the other hand, most of the skeptic scientists research is really not very good, and I don't trust oil companies to do honest research on the subject in general. Honestly I feel that a lot of the doomsaying is coming from media outlets putting words into scientists' mouths or using claims out of context- (conveniently also funded by oil companies, in many cases), because I have read many interviews with the leading proponents and they seem pretty calm about the whole thing
11 Apr 2011, 5:31 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Yeaahh I've done some google searches on climate change/global warming and I dunno wtf to think at all. There's way too many factors involved. But apparently there's an overwhelming scientific consensus on it being true.
Even after committing a lot of time to it I am still skeptical of some claims. Its always healthy to be skeptical. For instance I find it annoying that the time-scale that is often asserted (100 years? 20 years? 10,000 years?) doesn't seem to be consistent among many climate scientists. On the other hand, most of the skeptic scientists research is really not very good, and I don't trust oil companies to do honest research on the subject in general. Honestly I feel that a lot of the doomsaying is coming from media outlets putting words into scientists' mouths or using claims out of context- (conveniently also funded by oil companies, in many cases), because I have read many interviews with the leading proponents and they seem pretty calm about the whole thing
I think it was meant to be more accurate. Some parts of the globe are supposed to become cooler, others not so much affected. I suppose they'll call it something new in a few years- 'atmospheric temperature gradient transition' (ATGT) or something
they really like their abbreviations. It hurts my head, personally, to think of all the abbreviations I have had to memorize in the past in regards to this
Btw, when I mentioned media outlets taking their words out of context- I admittedly have an anti-Fox bias, but I am also against most other corporate media. Right wing media tends to out-context them in a negative light, while left wing media tends to do it in a positive light. Either side is doing the whole thing a disservice though.
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
11 Apr 2011, 5:32 pm
Vigilans wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
Real Climate wrote:
The global cooling myth
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record Paleoclimate— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/
The climate debate is really too complicated to explain in one thread. I spent a good year or so doing a few courses about climate change/environmental geography. Don't expect to convince anybody with a few paragraphs. Its one of those things that are tl;dr to most people yet they are still willing to assert that its phoney without doing the hard research those who support it (those who aren't blindly supporting it, that is) do
I realize that providing ruveyn a source which says his bogus claim about "most 1970s scientists were global cooling believers" isn't going to suddenly convince him that anthropogenic climate change is happening. But the fact of that matter is that ruveyn and others have made this nonsense claim WAY TOO MANY TIMES and, for any impressionable third parties out there, I think it's useful to show that its a BS claim. On another web forum, in 2007, there were a bunch of BS claims about Obama being a Muslim going on the internet. While I didn't think I'd be able to convince people to vote Obama, I did find it useful to link to the Snopes page that showed the "Obama is a Muslim" claim to be bogus.
11 Apr 2011, 5:33 pm
Yeah, you're right. I've had my fill of the climate debate over the past few years so excuse me for my negative attitude. Its like trying to nail jello to a wall
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
11 Apr 2011, 5:34 pm
ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll agree that GR and unified field theory may be more mathematically elegant than a big clunky climate model, but that doesn't mean that atmospheric science is not based on real physics.
Badly based, because it does not weigh ALL possible climate drivers properly. Cosmic Rays which affect cloud formation are not properly factored in. Also the variations in earth orbit and earth axis tilt are not factor in properly. Also the underling dynamics is chaotic dynamics which is not modeled properly by mathematics. Chaotic systems are for the most part mathematically intractable and cannot be simplifield faithfully with linear models.
Bottom line: there is no "climate science". There are only climate models which are fitted to the political landscape to get the most funding.
ruveyn
The problem with that, Ruveyn, is that the predictions made by climate scientists decades ago are now coming to fruition with startling frequency. You may not like their methods, but accurate predictions are the best indicator of a successful model.
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
The earth has not yet become like the planet Venus and if the North Atlantic halocline disappears because of fresh-water melt Europe will become much cooler than it is.
The average temperature has not risen as high as the "hockey stick" fanatics predicted.
Nor have the oceans risen 100 meters to flood the coasts.
I am still waiting for a disaster. Where is it?
ruveyn
That is totally inaccurate. In the 1970s there was no consensus on the direction that climate was heading. Unlike today. In 1975 the NAS noted the many (majority of) papers claiming that global warming was coming and the smaller number that noted that an ice age was due and said that no conclusion was currently possible and that more data was required. Today the NAS supports conclusions about global warming. You've been reading too much creationist style propaganda that has no basis in reality.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
11 Apr 2011, 5:48 pm
ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll agree that GR and unified field theory may be more mathematically elegant than a big clunky climate model, but that doesn't mean that atmospheric science is not based on real physics.
Badly based, because it does not weigh ALL possible climate drivers properly. Cosmic Rays which affect cloud formation are not properly factored in. Also the variations in earth orbit and earth axis tilt are not factor in properly. Also the underling dynamics is chaotic dynamics which is not modeled properly by mathematics. Chaotic systems are for the most part mathematically intractable and cannot be simplifield faithfully with linear models.
Bottom line: there is no "climate science". There are only climate models which are fitted to the political landscape to get the most funding.
ruveyn
The problem with that, Ruveyn, is that the predictions made by climate scientists decades ago are now coming to fruition with startling frequency. You may not like their methods, but accurate predictions are the best indicator of a successful model.
The "climate scientists" predicted an other little ice age back in the 1970s
The earth has not yet become like the planet Venus and if the North Atlantic halocline disappears because of fresh-water melt Europe will become much cooler than it is.
The average temperature has not risen as high as the "hockey stick" fanatics predicted.
Nor have the oceans risen 100 meters to flood the coasts.
I am still waiting for a disaster. Where is it?
ruveyn
You don't believe that the climate science is real because things haven't gotten vastly worse than the climate models predicted for this point in time? Do you understand how illogical that is?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
| The Science Behind the "Spinach Mouth Phenomenon" |
09 Apr 2024, 9:30 pm |
