I was taught of the impending ice age as a kid. Are you suggesting the expert scientists were wrong?

Did an expert scientist teach you?

Or did your teacher get that out of some textbook, which was in fact poorly reporting speculation about statistics?

Did they say WHY an ice age was ‘impending’ ?

Was that before or after a huge effort on climate research?

I’m surprised this is still going on. Lifer killed it on the first page IMHO.

Regardless of the number crunching, the vast majority of resulant actions of the whole climate change stuffs is for the good of all.

Oh, and a recent posting on the bad_astronomy blog demolished David Rose’s Arctic ice argument with one graph.

It’s fine for people to disagree with prevailing opinion.

Ageed.

It’s not fine for people to disagree because they WANT to and simply lack a complete understanding.

No. That’s fine too.

Or for people to simply assume that after a few newspaper articles they know more than expert scientists who’ve been studying it their whole careers.

No. That’s also fine.

They may not be right….but ……that’s fine as well.

A simple question:

Can anyone point to a prediction of today’s climate from 10 years ago that is correct? (from any side)

I’m beginning to suspect the science of haruspicy is just as credible, and at least it has the benefit of being able to provide a haggis afterwards.

Did an expert scientist teach you?

Or did your teacher get that out of some textbook, which was in fact poorly reporting speculation about statistics?

Did they say WHY an ice age was ‘impending’ ?

Was that before or after a huge effort on climate research?
The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong. Quite how wrong is open to speculation.

The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong. Quite how wrong is open to speculation.

Newton’s theory of gravity is wrong.

Yet its good enough to put men on the moon.

If we wait for a perfect theory before taking any action we will be screwed

The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong.

Why do you say that?

They may not be right….but ……that’s fine as well.

It’s fine in the ‘I don’t care abotu science’ world, but the problem with assertions about climate is that they are definitely in the science world.

I could bang on and on about 2+2 making 79, legally, but if I waded into a debate about arithmetic with that one, I’d be considered wrong on quite a few levels.

Regardless of the number crunching, the vast majority of resulant actions of the whole climate change stuffs is for the good of all.

Like more expensive food and deforestation because of biofuels?

Europe says its own biofuels policies increase food costs 50%, drive deforestation

Like more expensive heating so more people die in winter?

http://www.eas.org.uk/key_issues_fuel_poverty.php

No, not like those.

That’s just crap policy.

I could bang on and on about 2+2 making 79, legally, but if I waded into a debate about arithmetic with that one, I’d be considered wrong on quite a few levels.

And that would be fine.

You would be wrong, people would tell you, and you would either change your mind, or you wouldn’t.

Define ‘fine’

I’m sure you don’t need my help to know what “fine” means. 🙄

Fine is a subjective term.

Science is all about finding truth. So if you join in a scientific debate but disregard the steps necessary to establish truth, your contributions may not be worth very much. So I would assert that it’s not ‘fine’ to join in a scientific debate without observing the principles of science.

Science is all about finding truth.

Science is more about proving old truths are wrong. Science doesn’t just stop. Luckily as it happens, or we’d all be still preparing for the imminent ice age.

Fine is a subjective term.
Science is all about finding truth. So if you join in a scientific debate but disregard the steps necessary to establish truth, your contributions may not be worth very much. So I would assert that it’s not ‘fine’ to join in a scientific debate without observing the principles of science.

Fine.

this “scientists were telling us we the next ice age was about to descend on us” meme.

Which scientists – I’ve done a admittedly rather brief literature search on google scholar and not turned up much.

…or is someone just getting about confused about timescales and Milankovich-Croll cycles? (which are still running – and will soon (that’s a “geological” soon….not a “human” soon) push earth into another ice age…assuming a few preconditions are met (eg cool enough for summer snow cover persistence across northern hemisphere etc).

Those preconditions themselves may of course be negated by anthropic carbon cycle short circuting.

Science is more about proving old truths are wrong. Science doesn’t just stop. Luckily as it happens, or we’d all be still preparing for the imminent ice age.

Finding new truths and proving old ones wrong, yes – there’s a lot of overlap.

Afaik the only reason for suggesting there was an ice age imminent, incidentally, was that they tend to happen every 100,000 years or whatever the number is (recently) and it’d been about that long since we had the last one. I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.

Which scientists – I’ve done a admittedly rather brief literature search on google scholar and not turned up much.

No idea, I was 7.

There was a documentary on it while back.

Afaik the only reason for suggesting there was an ice age imminent, incidentally, was that they tend to happen every 100,000 years or whatever the number is (recently) and it’d been about that long since we had the last one. I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.

Yeah, that’s the one.

Bloody good job we’re pumping co2 into the air. An ice age would be a lot worse than a bit of warming.*

*Doctor Lovelock says the UK will be fine.

I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.

ah….see…that’s called science that is

No idea, I was 7.

There was a documentary on it while back.

brilliant

considered stand up comedy?

I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,

but like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it

In any case, it’s the pace of change that’s the problem. If/when the natural ice age comes in, it’ll likely take thousands of years, allowing us to adapt.

like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it

No doubt.

I don’t doubt that there’s a 95% chance they’re right.

In any case, it’s the pace of change that’s the problem. If/when the natural ice age comes in, it’ll likely take thousands of years, allowing us to adapt.

No worries. We fixed that problem.

temperatures remain static for the past 15 years!

Static?

Lets have a look at the most reliable, longest set of direct instrumental data we’ve got, something thats pretty much beyond reproach:

Static?

Its only static if you cherrypick your starting year

Otherwise we’re quite clearly on trend for a regression to mean

kimbers – Member

I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,

but like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational ‘Ice Age’ stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

Static?

Lets have a look at the most reliable, longest set of direct instrumental data we’ve got, something thats pretty much beyond reproach:

careful

That’s the CET – and is only valid for a small part of the planet…so you can’t draw planet wide inferences from it(albeit it is the best long period observation sequence we’ve got)

but it is no more valid to cherry pick one small spot on the planets surface than it is for someone to cherry pick eg start and end dates of a sequence…eg why last 15 years and not 20 or 10 years

here’s a better illustration showing the wider context

n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational ‘Ice Age’ stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
There you go. The period I was in primary school.

Quite why climate change was such a big topic is a mystery but at least I was paying attention.

heres the guardian extrapolating from the IPCC data

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive

kimbers – Member

heres the guardian extrapolating from the CET data

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive

I don’t think that’s an extrapolation of the CET – they are simply stating what the likley global mean temp (not Central England Temp) will be as you get older based on a the IPCC projections.

Central England temp may not behave the same as global temp over that time period (why should it in a complex system)

sorry corrected

Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 95% sure its caused by humans! Hmmm…. will it be 90% next year?

I was going to write something a bit more intelligent about statistical interpretation, but then I realised that wasn’t necessary. I can just rewrite the above:

Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 5% sure its not caused by humans!

And:

Fine.

Who let the four year old in the room? Because that’s about the level your ‘fine’ argument is at.

what level of certainty do politicians need to act on anything …bedroom tax/Iraq WMD/parking cameras.

I’m guessing it’s 110%

About climate change? Not going to happen. Not in a democracy.

Climate change may be a priority for lots of people, but it’s not the highest priority. Those high priority things are the ones that will suffer if any government tries to tackle climate change.

He’s right.

some bloke on radio (biz news – really early) made the point that some insurance co’s were now getting shirty re downstream value of fossil fuel companies share prices and were considering selling out…as cost of cleanup weren’t built into fossil fuel share prices…an interesting angle.

It may be that pressure comes from there not politicos.

I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,

Me too

I see Zulu is still mixing up energy and temperature.

Climate change may be a priority for lots of people, but it’s not the highest priority. Those high priority things are the ones that will suffer if any government tries to tackle climate change.

The trouble with this argument is that by the time it becomes the highest priority, it will already be far too late

Proof of global warming scaremongering

Global warming computer models collapse