The Climate Change Debate Thread (Second Thread)

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,844
A comparison of predictions made by climate scientists since the 1970s, and the predictions made by climate change deniers.


There was an article from last year in the "Sherkin Comment" publication highlighting how there is very little evidence of "warming" using "unadjusted" data going back 50 years from the islands weather station. Indeed the record number of air frosts in one year occured as recently as 2010
 


AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
859
Publishing a paper means that it has passed a minimum standard of quality control .... it does not establish what is in the paper as scientific fact. This paper has been published, but it still has to stand the test of replication by others in the field. Signs are that it will not.





This paper has just been published on Anthony Watts' notorious denial website, and on Infowars. Seriously, Alex Jones' site is now the go-to place for serious science?
I quote below this criticism of the paper. Does anyone else see how flawed this criticism is ? OwedToJoy, can you see the flaw ?

"If you even glance through the article, you see that they assumed a CO2 climate sensitivity value of just 0.24°C (top of page 4). That's an absurdly low value, given that we've already had 1°C of warming and atmospheric CO2 hasn't even increased by 50% yet. Climate models put CO2's climate sensitivity at 2-4°C. "
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
859
I quote below this criticism of the paper. Does anyone else see how flawed this criticism is ? OwedToJoy, can you see the flaw ?

"If you even glance through the article, you see that they assumed a CO2 climate sensitivity value of just 0.24°C (top of page 4). That's an absurdly low value, given that we've already had 1°C of warming and atmospheric CO2 hasn't even increased by 50% yet. Climate models put CO2's climate sensitivity at 2-4°C. "
Hint, the flaw that I see is in the highlighted part.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,522
Publishing a paper means that it has passed a minimum standard of quality control .... it does not establish what is in the paper as scientific fact. This paper has been published, but it still has to stand the test of replication by others in the field. Signs are that it will not.





This paper has just been published on Anthony Watts' notorious denial website, and on Infowars. Seriously, Alex Jones' site is now the go-to place for serious science?
You're the only one citing Alex Jones 🙄
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,701
I quote below this criticism of the paper. Does anyone else see how flawed this criticism is ? OwedToJoy, can you see the flaw ?

"If you even glance through the article, you see that they assumed a CO2 climate sensitivity value of just 0.24°C (top of page 4). That's an absurdly low value, given that we've already had 1°C of warming and atmospheric CO2 hasn't even increased by 50% yet. Climate models put CO2's climate sensitivity at 2-4°C. "
The model is an excellent approach to separating the man made and natural factors. I fully accept your right to argue the toss over the low sensitivity value but you really need to explain more fully why it is as you claim "absurd" and why one assumes you would use a much higher figure. The central argument in the study is that the high sensitivity values in the CC models are often arbitrary and lacking in empirical rigor.
I return to my claim that the scientific debate has been contaminated to such an extent by individuals and groups with vested political and economic interests mainly on the CC side but also sometimes among the so called "deniers" that measured and reasoned research is becoming sidelined and ignored. In many respects this mirrors a worrying trend in liberal society which elevates ideology at the expense of logic. In such an environment the Swedish Princess setting out to save the world in her boat will be listened a lot more intently than two Finish scientists devising math's equations.
 

Bea C

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
23,577
Heard Padraic Fogarty of the Irish Wildlife Trust speak on the topic again last night in Cork.
It's a pity that I couldn't have dragged some Kerry politicians with me.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
859
The model is an excellent approach to separating the man made and natural factors. I fully accept your right to argue the toss over the low sensitivity value but you really need to explain more fully why it is as you claim "absurd" and why one assumes you would use a much higher figure. The central argument in the study is that the high sensitivity values in the CC models are often arbitrary and lacking in empirical rigor.
I return to my claim that the scientific debate has been contaminated to such an extent by individuals and groups with vested political and economic interests mainly on the CC side but also sometimes among the so called "deniers" that measured and reasoned research is becoming sidelined and ignored. In many respects this mirrors a worrying trend in liberal society which elevates ideology at the expense of logic. In such an environment the Swedish Princess setting out to save the world in her boat will be listened a lot more intently than two Finish scientists devising math's equations.
I quoted a criticism of the paper that I thought was nonsense. I do not know for sure what number to use for CO2 sensitivity but all I was saying was: don't listen to that dumbo that argues it should be higher because of the correlation between measured temperature and CO2 concentrations. That is an argument that betrays logical and mathematical ignorance.

His other argument that the climate models use a higher number is also extremely weak, although not as stupid as the first one.

If academic papers are being critiqued by people with no knowledge of science and maths, it is a funny situation. That people are listening to those critiques, that is less funny but probably unavoidable.

I would estimate that less than 5% of the general adult population can spot the flaw in that critique. Those 5% are people that work with numbers or maths.

Take a variable GT - global temperature. It is related to 3 other variables by GT = f(X,Y,Z)

X is CO2 concentration. You observe an increase in GT around the same time as an increase in X. You ignore changes in Y and Z and conclude that CO2 sensitivity is simply the rise in GT divided by the rise in CO2. That's a mistake an honours maths leaving cert student should not make. But screw it you are arrogant enough and stupid enough to make the mistake in a blog and critique a paper that you have no skills to critique.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
859
The model is an excellent approach to separating the man made and natural factors. I fully accept your right to argue the toss over the low sensitivity value but you really need to explain more fully why it is as you claim "absurd" and why one assumes you would use a much higher figure. The central argument in the study is that the high sensitivity values in the CC models are often arbitrary and lacking in empirical rigor.
I return to my claim that the scientific debate has been contaminated to such an extent by individuals and groups with vested political and economic interests mainly on the CC side but also sometimes among the so called "deniers" that measured and reasoned research is becoming sidelined and ignored. In many respects this mirrors a worrying trend in liberal society which elevates ideology at the expense of logic. In such an environment the Swedish Princess setting out to save the world in her boat will be listened a lot more intently than two Finish scientists devising math's equations.
And yes I agree with your diagnosis of non-experts waxing lyrical and being listened to much more than they should be. One could claim that there are no experts in this field in that there is significant uncertainty on the major point. The best experts are those that acknowledge the uncertainty and are skilled enough to make inroads into removing it. The worst experts are the **** sure.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
859
And yes I agree with your diagnosis of non-experts waxing lyrical and being listened to much more than they should be. One could claim that there are no experts in this field in that there is significant uncertainty on the major point. The best experts are those that acknowledge the uncertainty and are skilled enough to make inroads into removing it. The worst experts are the **** sure.
I used what was interpreted as a bad word that is spelt C-o-c-k.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,522
Orsted, dominant lease-holder for U.S. offshore wind, tech failure triggered Britain’s, “unprecedented power outage, with hospitals, airports, rail and road networks – as well as towns and cities across England and Wales – left without electricity.”
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,522
Orsted, dominant lease-holder for U.S. offshore wind, tech failure triggered Britain’s, “unprecedented power outage, with hospitals, airports, rail and road networks – as well as towns and cities across England and Wales – left without electricity.”
We may get used to this if wind ever becomes more than just a handy few million for friends and family of fg/ff 😬
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
859
These guys (the Connolly's) will eventually hit mainstream TV but for now, I give you Gemma O' Doherty interviewing tthem:


This is both informative and kinda cute. Auld Dublin telling new Dublin a few home truths.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top