312 replies to this topic

[cyclonic happiness]

full_frontal_occlusion, on 18 October 2011 - 12:40 , said:

Apologies. it means:

"After this therefore because of this"

i.e. arriving at a conclusion based solely on the sequence of events.

For example, the fallacy is evident in the statement: 'because we had two or three cold winters then global warming must be proven false.

Scientifically speaking the statement may be true however, two or three winters evidence is not of any statistical significance whatsoever as it cannot rule out underlying trends nor does it offer any hint at other variables which may cause the same effect.

ffO.

May not be sceientific at all, but we have all noticed a change of rules in the weather patterns over the last 3-4 years, sometimes you have to take a leap of faith rather than rely on scientific 'proof'.

Not doubt I'll be cut down and burned on a very large Co2 emmiting bonfire, I suppose we'll all just have to wait and see shan't we?
One thing's for sure, I've never been less sure about the future than I am at the moment and science doesn't seem to be keeping up with and reassuring this uncertainty.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

4wd, on 18 October 2011 - 11:35 , said:

There's clearly something seriously wrong with the alarmist claims that set the political hi-jack of AGW in motion

Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion however this is exactly an example of statements I referred to as both 'cherry picking' and descendancy into slander through inflammatory comment in post #5.

The Hanson graph you posted was produced in 1988 nearly 24 years ago. The evidence and projections have moved on greatly since then.

This is dissinformation and greatly confuses a general public trying to follow 'good science' and logical reasoning.

ffO.

[loafer]

What an interesting thread.

My view, FWIW, is that it is obvious that humans have influenced the environment, but that the “CO2 is bad” movement is simplistic.

It certainly is hard to see how scientists can focus on the increase of 0.01% in the relative concentration of one of the gases in our atmosphere and ignore the 0.5 Zettajoules of energy used by humans every year and the direct thermal impact that might have or downplay the impact that changes in output from the sun might have.

Overall, I would contend that the correlation between temperature and population growth shows a far more obvious reason for warming, and that the warming itself comes not just from the greenhouse effect of CO2, but from a multitude of effects, from car to boilers, smog to urbanisation.

To also comment on some other contributions;

Shuggee - You said “For me, not agreeing with hypotheses around AGW is about having equally rigorously scientifically-based alternative theories that stack-up”. That is a bizarre approach. When the earth was believed by all to be flat, it didn’t make it any more true then than it is now. Any theory has to stand on its own two feet and just because we don’t know the answer doesn’t make any existing theory “good enough for now”.

Ladyofthestorm - very interesting posts. I think it would be fascinating to see your proposed questionnaire.

Jethro – IMO there is no excuse for overstating AGW for the right reasons. It just gives everyone an excuse to avoid the elephant in the corner of the room - overpopulation.

Edited by loafer, 18 October 2011 - 13:34 .

[full_frontal_occlusion]

cyclonic happiness, on 18 October 2011 - 12:48 , said:

May not be sceientific at all, but we have all noticed a change of rules in the weather patterns over the last 3-4 years, sometimes you have to take a leap of faith rather than rely on scientific 'proof'.

You are referring to one small countries experience over a very short time span and extrapolating that to what's happening on a global scale. 2010 tied with 2005 (within 0.01C) as the two warmest years on record despite the coldest winter in the UK for the last 30 odd years.

Faith should not come into the equation else statements become opinions. The corollary to your statement would be that, sometimes you have to take the scientific 'proof' rather than rely on the 'leap of faith'. Science aside, both statements disturbingly appear to carry the same weight of argument at face value.

However, one is based on limited experiences and the other looks for more than annecdotal evidence.

ffO.

ffO.

[cyclonic happiness]

Something has changed though hasn't it?
Nothing is behaving in the way it's 'supposed' to anymore and why shouldn't a small country's experiences be valid?
And there doesn't seem to be enough reliable data and from a long enough time period to point to anything in particular.

P.S. you must hate people like me

[jethro]

But climate isn't static, it never has been, it never will be.

The AGW theory rests entirely upon saying what we have seen in recent decades cannot be explained by natural cycles alone. That's a brilliant statement, an amazing all encompassing sentence which describes everything and explains nothing.

Trouble is it also entirely hinges upon knowing everything there is to know about natural cycles both present and past, accurately measuring both present and past and then extrapolating it into the future.

In order for the first statement to be true, we have to be certain of the second and we're simply not. Gauging how close we are to the latter being true is impossible as each new discovery over-turns the last - how do we know when we know all we need to know?

As things stand we can only really say that POTENTIALLY we have the power to change the climate, POTENTIALLY we may already have done so, POTENTIALLY we may cause long term and possibly irrevocable harm.

In the drive to both establish the theory and provoke change the word 'potentially' seems to get forgotten about.

[Gray-Wolf]

Whilst I was still fit to work and we were working the Kyoto protacol into the general development plan for my area the 'buzz phrase' was "Think global, act local". We've posts on here saying I can see it (pollution/environmental destruction etc) on a local scale but how does that apply globally? All is connected and so , if it helps the " Think global when you see local"?

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 18 October 2011 - 14:37 .

[greybing]

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 08:42 , said:

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

What change,CO2 reductions ,what?

[greybing]

Gray-Wolf, on 18 October 2011 - 08:54 , said:

I'm just surprised that greybing had the authority to start a thread down here?

I though we ALL had to go to our Mod's a petition for such? apparently not?.

Anyway greybing , odd that Graham Nash could spawn from the same town eh? ( I studied at Eccles 6th form by the well so know your locale very well).

As for piers? well , Ha! Ha! Ha! , nice one! (very funny :-)...)

Can anyone say that we do not alter the environment we live in and that those changes did not enforce change???(greybing, I remember 'Eccles fields' even before the 6th form was built and it was green open country from the East lanc's to Monton......due mainly to the 'black Harry' disused railway taking coal from Agecroft to the mcr ship Canal) . We can see the way we have encroached over (and into?) the lands we live on but the atmosphere is 'clear' and we rely upon 'Science' to measure the changes there. And Change there has been. Would anyone dare stand up and claim to know enough to reassure us that those changes are without consequence, that they are mute?

Debate may rage over how much we are responsible for the changes we have noted over our 'living ' (48 years for me) but 'change' there has been.

I was unaware of any permission needed to post .I also studied at Eccles colege.Why is it odd that someone should come from my neck of the woods?I find the piers comment a little much unless of course you have investigated his methods [as much as that is possible] and find them wrong .I strongly know we have an inpact on our enviroment.And I find it really disheartening that concrete is the new green .Change there has been,certainly this is true ,In terms of the climate/weather, I would like toget to the bottom of the warming trend and any cooling trends that may happen subsequently..For the record I have no argument with global warming ,the evidence for this over the last 30 years or so is undoubtable.I am just unsure whether it is CO2 related and I shall endeavour to find out as much as possible from all sides on this subject,Piers included.

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 14:19 , said:

But climate isn't static, it never has been, it never will be.

The AGW theory rests entirely upon saying what we have seen in recent decades cannot be explained by natural cycles alone. That's a brilliant statement, an amazing all encompassing sentence which describes everything and explains nothing.

Trouble is it also entirely hinges upon knowing everything there is to know about natural cycles both present and past, accurately measuring both present and past and then extrapolating it into the future.

In order for the first statement to be true, we have to be certain of the second and we're simply not. Gauging how close we are to the latter being true is impossible as each new discovery over-turns the last - how do we know when we know all we need to know?

As things stand we can only really say that POTENTIALLY we have the power to change the climate, POTENTIALLY we may already have done so, POTENTIALLY we may cause long term and possibly irrevocable harm.

In the drive to both establish the theory and provoke change the word 'potentially' seems to get forgotten about.

Could not agree more.

Edited by greybing, 18 October 2011 - 16:02 .

[Thundery wintry showers]

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 08:42 , said:

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

I don't think it is, indeed in my opinion it helps to fuel scepticism because some of the cleverer people can spot the difference between what they're being told on one hand, and the actual reality on the other.

Re. the general discussion in the thread, climate has always changed and always will, but the concern is over the impacts that human activity (especially the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation etc) are having on the climate system. It's undeniable that there are impacts, the questions centre on the sign and magnitude of the impacts on the climate, and whether they will tip the balance towards a warmer or colder climate (relative to what we'd have had if we hadn't been churning out lots of gases).

There is a physical science basis behind AGW, for example at first principles there is a logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2. The often-criticised positive feedback with water vapour also has a scientific basis- the warmer the atmosphere, the more water it can hold, and water vapour allows plenty of solar radiation in but intercepts some of the longwave radiation going out. The so-called "greenhouse gases" have the same effect. What we can't do from the science basis is determine climate sensitivity with respect to anthropogenic forcing.

Thus scientists tend to use climate models, and represent the workings of the atmosphere as accurately as possible, then make projections based on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. It isn't a foolproof method by any means, but a large majority of the results point towards further enhanced warming in the 21st century due to human activities, relative to the state we'd end up in via natural variability alone, and that's why the scientific community overwhelmingly believes in at least some degree of AGW. I thought the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report covered the range pretty well with its 1.1 to 6.4C. I maintain hopes that AGW is being predominantly overestimated and that the actual warming will end up nearer 2C rather than 4-6C, but we still have a long way to go before we can substantially narrow down the range of possible values (indeed it has grown with each successive IPCC report) and there remains the possibility that the warming could accelerate significantly during the mid to late 21st century.

[greybing]

What do people think about the 'hockey stick graph ' and the disagreement about whether co2 rose first or temp rose first then temp?

Edited by greybing, 18 October 2011 - 16:51 .

[jethro]

greybing, on 18 October 2011 - 16:49 , said:

What do people think about the 'hockey stick graph ' and the disagreement about whether co2 rose first or temp rose first then temp?

That's a completely different discussion which in science has no definitive answer; let's not spoil this interesting thread by dragging all that up again.

[greybing]

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 16:58 , said:

That's a completely different discussion which in science has no definitive answer; let's not spoil this interesting thread by dragging all that up again.

You are right,my head is a little 'funny' at the moment.

Edited by greybing, 18 October 2011 - 17:09 .

[shuggee]

loafer, on 18 October 2011 - 13:32 , said:

Shuggee - You said “For me, not agreeing with hypotheses around AGW is about having equally rigorously scientifically-based alternative theories that stack-up”. That is a bizarre approach. When the earth was believed by all to be flat, it didn’t make it any more true then than it is now. Any theory has to stand on its own two feet and just because we don’t know the answer doesn’t make any existing theory “good enough for now”.

Bizarre? The approach has a name: It's called Scientific Method (clicky) or click here.

It's thanks to that method that I am able to sit in a warm, watertight, well-lit house, with a laptop typing into a micro processor and communicating with you.

[loafer]

My point was that you don't have to have alternative proven hypotheses to disagree with an existing theory.

[Weather Ship]

loafer, on 18 October 2011 - 19:22 , said:

My point was that you don't have to have alternative proven hypotheses to disagree with an existing theory.

Absolutely correct. All you need is a blog and you can talk a load of rubbish with the certain knowledge that someone will quote it in a forum.

[Alan Robinson]

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 08:42 , said:

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

No, but it is. At the risk of repeating myself, my opinion is that politicians are using the AGW idea to cover up their helplessness over peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak debt, peak this, peak that, exponential increase in world population etc etc. Politicians know full well our lifestyle is unsustainable, they have no attractive practical vision for the future, and so we must all stop burning so much oil, coal and gas. They want us to accept inevitable economic downturn, and offer us environmental excuses as a dummy to suck on.

I am quite sure the basic science about so-called greenhouse gases is correct, but like many others, I consider the overall process most complex. For example, the process of the oceans soaking up heat and carbon dioxide is not fully understood. There remains controversy over the whole business of ice core data and historical atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Science seems wavering over the role of the sun and cosmic rays on cloud, playing down the sun's role, notwithstanding that if it "went out", all life on Earth is done for. And what about the effect of CFC gases on ozone? It seems that has had a considerable effect on stratospheric temperatures and thus parts of our climate mechanism that are most difficult to research practically, and those CFCs are not going away for the next few years. How have they affected global temperatures since, say, 1970?

Given all this, I'd say it is not unreasonable to be moderately skeptical of dogma, whatever its object.

Edited by Alan Robinson, 19 October 2011 - 07:58 .

[Alan Robinson]

loafer, on 18 October 2011 - 19:22 , said:

My point was that you don't have to have alternative proven hypotheses to disagree with an existing theory.

Can I come to your assistance? I'd say that because there is a scientific theory about certain observable phenomena, that theory is not necessarily a panacea. In support of my postulation I give you the conflict between relativity and quantum theory over gravity.

If science has taught us anything at all, it is this; there is always room for improvement in our knowledge.

[loafer]

Your assistance is most welcome.

[jethro]

Another thing which seems to have happened in this era of AGW and the internet is the complete reversal of usual scientific practise. Prior to this period in time if a new scientific theory was discovered or proposed, the onus was upon the scientists involved to show it was correct; if objections or questions were raised, the burden of proof was firmly on the new theory side to answer them and prove their theory to be correct. Nowadays and with this theory in particular, any questions raised are met with demands to 'prove it' or 'lots of us agree so we must be right'.

Doesn't seem like sound scientific practise and I can't see the same process being repeated elsewhere, in other branches of science - why is AGW treated so differently?