Forum menu
We are looking at the output of a very complex system which we do not fully understand
As opposed to the human brain which we understand in every single detail?
We dont fully understand the human brain either
. Look at how accurate the models are. Hint: Not 100% accurate.
the point was on observe and you mention how we cannot predict 🙄
this is the level of debate with deniers
If 100 million people start smoking I cannot accurately model who gets cancer, where they cluster, when they get it so therefore I can safely assume smoking does not cause cancer
Who is to say that the current obsession with co2 is not diverting attention from other more critical issues. NOx, methane, water vapour etc. NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.
If only the IPCC had thought to look at these issues and say write about them.
As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.
No one says it is as you paint it [ all scientists will be swayed by evidence and date its only the journos/polemics who think and speak like this]but if you wish to counter it it is not unreasonable to ask for
1. Theoretical explanation of why increade C02 and forcing does not lead to a temperature increase
2. that this observation [ and temp is rising] matches observed data and makes predictions
We have neither not even close just a denial without an explanation
we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.
Sometimes despite all this the real human trial results in actual real side effects we neither predicted not knew. Occasionally these are fatal occasionally just birth defects like thalidomide. Its not the perfect ly well understood science you claim it to be and again clearly the human body is an very complicated thing that no one fully understands - would you really like to claim otherwise?
If you must use this "principle" apply it equally to all areas but you will have to dump lots of areas of knowledge by setting the bar this high including areas you keep citing as examples of it.
It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.
We always remain open to this - have you any evidence top support it ? Ps remember to remain open about the areas you are using to defend this view as this statement is just as true when applied to them.
Again true and true of all science but this fact does not make it wrongJust because a lot of people stand behind it, does not make it certain,
In an evidence based discussion of science if all you can do is make weak philosophical points about the limits of science /and/or a consensus* and you cannot cite any evidence its probably because you are wrong and you have no data to support an alternative view..Almost all areas of science has a consensus, evolution, gravity, maths , cancer and smoking....should we distrust all of these or just the one you dont like
* Only in this debate is everyone agrees with you used as some sort of weakness. No one doe sit over cancer, or gravity , or momentum etc because it would be stupid
What we don't do is say, here you go, I've made a model of this compound and it looks okay
Is that what you think they do? No wonder you have such a low opinion of climate scients.
NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.
What you're doing there is confusing ill-informed popular thinking with actual science.
No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world's qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity.
So we never question the scientists who are supporting the consensus?
We don't question why their models don't match recorded data?
We keep pumping them with more money to do more work that doesn't match the data recorded? Do we allow them to continue to make stuff up for UN reports?
Do we continue to use their data to justify technology that actually produces more carbon than it saves?
Sorry but "cui bono" always applies to both sides
molgrips - Member
What you're doing there is confusing ill-informed popular thinking with actual science.
Sorry, can you please explain that? Diesel cars have been heavily encouraged via taxation based on co2. Diesel cars produce more NOx than petrol equivalents.
Junkyard - lazarus
I can't be bothered to split the post up into individual quotes, but I did read it.
I think you are under the misapprehension that I am a 'denier' (I really hate that term). Not the case.
Sorry, can you please explain that? ... Diesel cars produce more NOx than petrol equivalents.
That's perfectly correct, I didn't mean to say that you were wrong. It was a more rhetorical point agreeing with you*.
Scientists are not advising us to drive diesel cars. They have warned us about the likely consequences of high CO2 emissions - science.
The car manufacturers and have jumped on this to get us to buy new cars, and the media have told us to buy diesel cars to save the environment - popular thinking.
* sort of.. it's quite well known what CO2 and NOx do, and whilst NOx is very bad in close quarters ie air quality, CO2 has likely a much worse long term effect. Having said that, it can cost a lot of CO2 to actually make diesel in the first place.. TINAS to the thread please...
So we never question the scientists who are supporting the consensus?
Because as soon as people stop believing what the experts tell them, then we will regress back to the dark ages. You can't possibly have the knowledge and experience to question people who who have spent their whole lives studying 90% of .00000000000010% of human knownledge, you leave it to a number of experts in the field and if almost all of them agree with one another... you run with what they are saying.
We don't question why their models don't match recorded data?We keep pumping them with more money to do more work that doesn't match the data recorded? Do we allow them to continue to make stuff up for UN reports?
Link please. All the models I've seen have pretty accurately matched recorded data and I havn't seen any cases of fraud in UN reports on climate change.
Regardless of whether you agree with the science or not, the proposed path it highlights is 'humans making less of an impact upon the planet', with a possible leap towards 'humans making a positive impact upon the planet'.
So you crack on with your myopic and very ill-informed war with science. Your alternative of 'keep doing what we're doing until you prove it, then we'll change' is short-sighted, very silly and utterly indefensible when compared to 'not taking every natural resource for ourselves and leaving something nice for the kids'.
This is like those who smoked in the 50s, only far worse. The science said smoking killed you, yet that was shouted down by those funded by smoking. By the time it was accepted, it was far too late for a lot of people. yet 'not smoking' wasn't a detrimental path to follow before the non-believers were forced to accept the evidence.
Get over your petty fight and see that the actions it recommends are good no matter what happens. Not doing anything is not a valid option.
We can say with close to reasonable certainty that used within these parameters, this material will take loadings A,B & C and not fail. In drug creation, we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.What we don't do is say, here you go, I've made a model of this compound and it looks okay. Chug this down your neck and let's hope it doesn't paralyse you or cause birth defects in your child.
We absolutely cannot do this at the moment with the climate, it is far too complex to model accurately. I'm not saying that this means we should not try though. It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.
Medicine isn't physics, they don't have phase I through to III trials and never will. They develop models and then try to match it to observable reality, so far these models have been pretty accurate.
Unless of course you are suggesting that we wait 100 years to check to see if our models are correct before we make a decision, which of course would be completely ****ing idiotic.
Seriously hope you're not a doctor, or worse a biologist. I could deal with a doctor having a low intellect....
I havn't seen any cases of fraud in UN reports on climate change.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers
. All the models I've seen have pretty accurately matched recorded data
http://order-order.com/2014/02/11/sketch-peter-lilley-v-tim-yeo/
Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”
Based on the models what is your answer?
not this 1997 shite again.
this is the global temperature record from 1977ish, to 2012ish.
[img] 
[/img]
picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.
picking a fluke year, extrememly unusual in it's warmth, as your benchmark is at best really really really bad science, at worst it's consciously dishonest.
anyone trotting out this 'no warming since 1997' shite, automatically gets one of these:
[img] 
[/img]
That's a non-sequitur. Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time? Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid £70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where's his evidence for this? Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?
This is the "what-about-ary" that climate deniers do. "Yeah but..." For everything but never answer any questions themselves.
I always find it amazing that when scientists design new materials to make lighter bikes but everyone appears to have a PhD when it comes to climate science.
Humans live in years, Earth lives in 100's of millions of years.
I believe there is climate change... Just not the same way Hollywood and the news presents it.
God knows why... People feed of drama drama drama...
[img] 
[/img]
There is a few deniers on this thread. Denying the pause/halt in global warming over the last 15 years. Even the MET Office say it has happened.
July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
It was discussed by the IPCC
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/
Do you know what is meant by "long term trend" IRC?
Deniers also need to look up the difference between energy and temperature. It gets pointed out to them over and over again in these threads yet it's ignored. Funny how deniers do a lot of ignoring.
There is a few deniers on this thread. Denying the pause/halt in global warming over the last 15 years. Even the MET Office say it has happened.
Why not take a look at the graph I just posted? Why have you arbitrarily picked the last 15 years as being a significant period I wonder?
Show me anyone who has used the term pause in relation to anything except temperature?
Long term trend? Well the long term trend since the 19th century is about 0.8C If that trend continues global warming isn't a problem.
The last 15 years have been a pause that the models didn't predict. How much longer has it got to go on before the models are wrong?
Why not take a look at the graph I just posted? Why have you arbitrarily picked the last 15 years as being a significant period I wonder?
The MET Office thought it was significant enough to discuss.
Long term trend? Well the long term trend since the 19th century is about 0.8C If that trend continues global warming isn't a problem.
Only if it's a linear function, which it isn't.
The MET Office thought it was significant enough to discuss.
Yes and note that they also say that it doesn't effect long term trends.
irc - you do realise that all these 'arguments' you're making have been thoroughly debunked many many times?
What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists?
Here you go IRC. Knock yourself out. Written by a - woo - climate scientist, as opposed to blokes on a mountain biking forum.
[url= http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/ ]http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/[/url]
irc - you do realise that all these 'arguments' you're making have been thoroughly debunked many many times?What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists?
[img] 
[/img]
The last 15 years have been a pause that the models didn't predict. How much longer has it got to go on before the models are wrong?
Are the models aiming to predict variations on such a fine scale? I doubt it. Wait 50 years see how well they match.
irc - MemberLong term trend? Well the long term trend since the 19th century is about 0.8C If that trend continues global warming isn't a problem.
er... it'll be a massive problem.
The last 15 years have been a pause
see my last post.
Tom_W1987 - Member
Medicine isn't physics, they don't have phase I through to III trials and never will. They develop models and then try to match it to observable reality, so far these models have been pretty accurate.
Obviously not, and no they haven't. 🙄
Unless of course you are suggesting that we wait 100 years to check to see if our models are correct before we make a decision, which of course would be completely **** idiotic.
Did I say that? No, I said exactly the opposite. Act now, but be prepared to revise opinion.
Seriously hope you're not a doctor, or worse a biologist. I could deal with a doctor having a low intellect....
Hey everyone! There's a badass over here! 🙄 Twit.
I assume you mean MMGW as opposed to climate change,
Seeing as I wrote "climate change, primarily caused by [b][u]anthropogenic activity[/u][/b], that's exactly what I meant. Do try to keep up at the back...
The problem with discussing complex things like climate change with people like irc is that there is no way deniers have the will (or even capacity) to change their stance. Consequently, when the discussion ends, they'll still think they won and are correct because their own position was unchanged
I suppose you could say that about those who agree that humans are changing the climate, but the difference is that all the data is on their side, whereas irc demonstrates a trait of wilful ignorance by cherry-picking one year.
And bigndaft, ask who benefits as much as you like. I answered quite clearly on my earlier post. It's not m fault you failed to read it.
I arrived at a position of agreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change by reading peer reviewed scientific papers and a broad range of the reputable press.
It was notable while at university that my engineering professors also agreed with the scientific consensus. I noticed this because I went to university partly to become part of the solution, working as an engineer in the hydro-electric industry.
I may sound self righteous and smug, but there you go!
I do believe people who deny ACG are up there with flat earthers and creationists.
picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.
I didn't, I asked for an answer to the question
the data shown in the graph shows an anomaly year and a step change rise in the mean level that the "cyclic" variation then moves around but there is a plateau in the rise
what is interesting is why this could be happening, is it CO2 related or other factors.
Hence the question
Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”
is actually a reasonable one and one that any curious person would want to ask, but as pointed out in the sketch the argument is so polarised that to ask the question is to become a "denier"/ heretic
Peter Lilley may get paid by the oil men, Tim Yeo gets paid by the renewables industry "cui bono" still applies
and the witness did not answer the question nor accept that there has been a "pause"
Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time?
how many Chinese coal/gas fired power stations have been commissioned since 1997?
Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid £70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where's his evidence for this?
I imagine if the fact was bogus he would be lynched by the devout, has anyone come out and said his fact is wrong?
epa graph here (to 2008) [img] 
[/img]
Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?
Peter Lilley asked the question of a (on her LinkedIn page) "Expert in the science of weather and climate" she didn't answer him
so as STW is always the font of all knowledge I opened it out to the forum 😉
Obviously not, and no they haven't.
Errr....errrrrrrrrrr.......*looks at feet shiftily*
Oh I'm sorry, what's this....a paper in the esteemed journal Nature that does exactly that... well this can't be on....you said they hadn't.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html
Lilley's question is pretty loaded*. Any reasonable person can see that. His background leads that reasonable person to infer that he's actually just making a point with the question. If he has a point to make, then let him make it with rationale and peer reviewed articles to back himself up. He can do that can't he?
Oh...
I'd suggest he can go on the list of folk who struggle with the difference between temperature and energy. Every thread throws up a few more.
*as is, say, usage of words like "devout" by deniers.
how many Chinese coal/gas fired power stations have been commissioned since 1997?
Typical response. Constantly snipe never answer.
Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted.”
Again - you claimed it, you must back it up. Where's your evidence? For all I know you and your mate Lilley may be right. Or may be wrong. I'm willing to change my mind based on evidence. Where is it?
I have found, since we're doing unsubstantiated graph stuff, the real reason for global warming...
[img] 
[/img]
*as is, say, usage of words like "devout" by deniers.
I'm not a denier, I just think there is a reasonable question being posed. If the climate scientists can't answer it that's one thing. If they won't it's something else. So which one is it?
as an aside:
I was looking at some old local pictures in one of those photo books you get for towns. It showed the 1940 winter when they got 6' of snow. Then it was weather, now it would be climate change.
I'm not a denier, I just think there is a reasonable question being posed. If the climate scientists can't answer it that's one thing. If they won't it's something else. So which one is it?
I'm not racist but....
I was looking at some old local pictures in one of those photo books you get for towns. It showed the 1940 winter when they got 6' of snow. Then it was weather, now it would be climate change.
Get angry with the media.
EDIT: as is usage of the word "devout" [s]by deniers[/s].
Happy?
as an [s]aside[/s] irrelevance
Who knew anything about this shit in 1940?
BignDaft:
Who benefits?
[img] http://prepgenie.com.au/gamsat/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jp g" target="_blank">http://prepgenie.com.au/gamsat/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jp g"/> [/img]
That do it for you, or is it too difficult to read with your head in the sand?
Typical response. Constantly snipe never answer
thought it is a pragmatic observation, do you deny the Chinese are commissioning lots of coal fired power stations?
Again - you claimed it, you must back it up.
where did I claim it? I have asked why Lilley didn't get an answer and wondered why if his fact was wrong he hasn't been challenged
Where's your evidence? For all I know you and your mate Lilley may be right. Or may be wrong. I'm willing to change my mind based on evidence.
he is more likely to be your "mate" than mine
the truth is out there 😉Where is it?
That do it for you, or is it too difficult to read with your head in the sand?
why is it in the sand, I have already stated that chucking lots of rubbish into the atmosphere is a bad idea
big n daft - do you think that we, as humans, should clean up our act a bit and stop making such a mess of the place?
big n daft - do you think that we, as humans, should clean up our act a bit and stop making such a mess of the place?
Because if so, we might finally be getting towards the obvious answer to your own question on who benefits.
As an aside I see a lot of similarity in tactics between the deniers of climate change and the anti-vaccination crowd.
Debate on Newsnight now
"Politicians misusing the science" - what a shock and that's not from a sceptic/denier
Tom_W1987 - MemberErrr....errrrrrrrrrr.......*looks at feet shiftily*
Oh I'm sorry, what's this....a paper in the esteemed journal Nature that does exactly that... well this can't be on....you said they hadn't.
I haven't read it yet, but if your interpretation is correct then that is fantastic, and I wholeheartedly retract what I said.
Unfortunately, a cursory google reveals a criticism of the paper here, which does not sound quite so rosy:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/how-accurate-are-climate-models/
Have you read the paper? Does the criticism ring true, or is it nonsense? If so what specifically is incorrect?