Author Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)  (Read 368476 times)

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #200 on: November 10, 2012, 09:49:03 pm »
Just had a close look at your code. You've not provided the temperature trends over the period - you've provided the slope between your two end points of the time range. Your analysis is completely invalid.



No Bio, it's a least squares fit over the time period.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #201 on: November 10, 2012, 10:51:25 pm »
Arguing with science again, deggsie?

Fiddling the math to fit your argument!? Shame on you, deggsie  ;D

Back to this again, I suppose:



You can't have it both ways - arguing that modern records are too few to support long term projections, then cherry picking short time frames to evidence your climate science denial - and fixing the math to cook your answer!! The shame! One might thing you were being disingenuous...

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #202 on: November 10, 2012, 10:56:04 pm »


No Bio, it's a least squares fit over the time period.


It would've helped if you'd given the whole data, but I guess that would've made your post even longer.  My fault though, I should've checked sooner as the '#Number of samples: 2' made no sense, so I apologise.

The discrepancy between our data probably comes from the end points used by the calculators. To illustrate this, I used the Wood For Trees UAH dataset, to compare with your picture, but only used the past 168 months (14 years), and this yields quite a different graph:



One year less of data, and quite a difference. Which highlights the point of not focusing on short-term data to draw any conclusions.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 11:26:23 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #203 on: November 10, 2012, 10:59:58 pm »
Arguing with science again, deggsie?

Fiddling the math to fit your argument!? Shame on you, deggsie  ;D

Back to this again, I suppose:

You can't have it both ways - arguing that modern records are too few to support long term projections, then cherry picking short time frames to evidence your climate science denial - and fixing the math to cook your answer!! The shame! One might thing you were being disingenuous...

To be fair, he didn't fiddle the maths - he just didn't include the whole analysis in his post. I should've checked for myself sooner.

But why didn't I think of The Escalator?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 11:02:17 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #204 on: November 10, 2012, 11:31:34 pm »
No math fiddled? Just being selective with the evidence.

So disingenuous then?  ;)

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #205 on: November 10, 2012, 11:55:59 pm »
No math fiddled? Just being selective with the evidence.

So disingenuous then?  ;)

I guess cherry picking is a bit like fiddling? It all boils down to definitions in the end, and since English isn't my mother tongue, I'll defer to you on this one ;)

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #206 on: November 11, 2012, 06:27:27 pm »
Might need some clarification of the data you entered in WoodForTrees, Derek. I was intrigued by the difference between your estimated average trend and mine, so I did some calculations using WfT and the SkS Trend Calculator. When I used the same datasets (Gistemp, HadCRUT4, RSS and UAH) and end points (1997-2012), the trends were quite similar - 0.0645şC/decade for WfT and 0.0655şC/decade for the Trend Calculator. Pretty similar, and I assume most of the difference is due to the fact that the Trend Calculator hasn't updated its Gistemp dataset, while WfT doesn't seem to be using the right UAH data.

I then focused on WfT since it's what Derek used. I recalculated the trend but substituted the HadCRUT4 dataset with the HadCRUT3 dataset. The trend was 0.053şC/decade now. So using HadCRUT3 instead of HadCRUT4 introduces a cooling bias, as expected due to the known limitations of HadCRUT3 and the fact that it was updated to HadCRUT4 to overcome these limitations.

Now's the point I'd need some clarification - when drawing the trend line, did you (Derek) use the Means (sample) processing step? This is the impression I got from the code you included. I re-calculated the trend on the 12-sample average running mean and got an average trend of 0.045şC/decade, which is closer to what Derek got (0.026şC/decade) but still some way away. Could you tell me how you got your figures please, Derek?

Offline DontKopbelieving

  • "I tend to just see things in a simplistic way." No kidding... "rich unthinking twat"
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #207 on: November 12, 2012, 11:47:07 am »
I just wish it was hotter where I am right now!

Offline TLW 84

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #208 on: November 12, 2012, 11:55:56 am »
I just wish it was hotter where I am right now!
Remember where you last holidayed and hold on to the feeling.

Offline DontKopbelieving

  • "I tend to just see things in a simplistic way." No kidding... "rich unthinking twat"
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #209 on: November 12, 2012, 12:14:58 pm »
Remember where you last holidayed and hold on to the feeling.

Id rather not - it was Gt Yarmouth  :'(

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,663
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #210 on: November 13, 2012, 04:07:37 pm »
basically i regard anyone who discounts Global Warming as the same as the Flat Earth Society members.
A world were Liars and Hypocrites are accepted and rewarded and honest people are derided!
Who voted in this lying corrupt bastard anyway

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #211 on: November 13, 2012, 10:29:25 pm »
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/everyone-agrees-with-us-on-climate-change-especially-when-were-wrong/

Everyone agrees with us on climate change—especially when we're wrong

By just about every measure, the vast majority of scientists in general—and climate scientists in particular—have been convinced by the evidence that human activities are altering the climate. However, in several countries, a significant portion of the public has concluded that this consensus doesn't exist. That has prompted a variety of studies aimed at understanding the large disconnect between scientists and the public, with results pointing the finger at everything from the economy to the weather. Other studies have noted societal influences on acceptance, including ideology and cultural identity.

Those studies have generally focused on the US population, but the public acceptance of climate change is fairly similar in Australia. There, a new study has looked at how societal tendencies can play a role in maintaining mistaken beliefs. The authors of the study have found evidence that two well-known behaviors—the "false consensus" and "pluralistic ignorance"—are helping to shape public opinion in Australia.

False consensus is the tendency of people to think that everyone else shares their opinions. This can arise from the fact that we tend to socialize with people who share our opinions, but the authors note that the effect is even stronger "when we hold opinions or beliefs that are unpopular, unpalatable, or that we are uncertain about." In other words, our social habits tend to reinforce the belief that we're part of a majority, and we have a tendency to cling to the sense that we're not alone in our beliefs.

Pluralistic ignorance is similar, but it's not focused on our own beliefs. Instead, sometimes the majority of people come to believe that most people think a certain way, even though the majority opinion actually resides elsewhere.

As it turns out, the authors found evidence of both these effects. They performed two identical surveys of over 5,000 Australians, done a year apart; about 1,350 people took the survey both times, which let the researchers track how opinions evolve. Participants were asked to describe their own opinion on climate change, with categories including "don't know," "not happening," "a natural occurrence," and "human-induced." After voicing their own opinion, people were asked to estimate what percentage of the population would fall into each of these categories.

In aggregate, over 90 percent of those surveyed accepted that climate change was occurring (a rate much higher than we see in the US), with just over half accepting that humans were driving the change. Only about five percent felt it wasn't happening, and even fewer said they didn't know. The numbers changed only slightly between the two polls.

The false consensus effect became obvious when the researchers looked at what these people thought that everyone else believed. Here, the false consensus effect was obvious: every single group believed that their opinion represented the plurality view of the population. This was most dramatic among those who don't think that the climate is changing; even though they represent far less than 10 percent of the population, they believed that over 40 percent of Australians shared their views. Those who profess ignorance also believed they had lots of company, estimating that their view was shared by a quarter of the populace.

Among those who took the survey twice, the effect became even more pronounced. In the year between the surveys, they respondents went from estimating that 30 percent of the population agreed with them to thinking that 45 percent did. And, in general, this group was the least likely to change its opinion between the two surveys.

But there was also evidence of pluralistic ignorance. Every single group grossly overestimated the number of people who were unsure about climate change or convinced it wasn't occurring. Even those who were convinced that humans were changing the climate put 20 percent of Australians into each of these two groups.

In the end, the false consensus effect is swamped by this pluralistic ignorance. Even though everybody tends to think their own position is the plurality, those who accept climate change is real still underestimate how many people share their views. Meanwhile, everyone overestimates the self-labelled "skeptic" population.

The authors suggest that this could, in part, be a result of the media's tendency to always offer two opposing opinions, even on issues where one is a fringe belief. They also point out that it would be good to perform a similar study in other nations where the dynamics of public belief are different.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,341
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #213 on: December 2, 2012, 10:58:25 am »
basically i regard anyone who discounts Global Warming as the same as the Flat Earth Society members.

Quite true. The temperature of the Earth has remained stable for 4 billion years. It's only the last 14 years that it's changed in any way.

Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #214 on: December 2, 2012, 11:47:50 pm »
basically i regard anyone who discounts Global Warming as the same as the Flat Earth Society members.

There are some people who discount it but the majority of the debate is around Anthropomorphic Global Warming - ie human contribution to it, the consequences and what we can practically do to change matters if required.

As may have been previously mentioned on here average surface temperature on Mars, Pluto, Jupiter and Triton has increased too - presumably not due to aliens driving their 4x4s around everywhere.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #215 on: December 3, 2012, 01:52:35 am »

Offline BFM

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Compulsive hyperbolic exaggerator
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #216 on: December 3, 2012, 05:29:39 am »
There are some people who discount it but the majority of the debate is around Anthropomorphic Global Warming - ie human contribution to it, the consequences and what we can practically do to change matters if required.
Not really. What do you consider a majority? 5% if that? It's larger than the percentage of deniers, but the evidence of climate change (global warming is a misnomer) from disparate sources is so overwhelming, you'd be better served debating if the contraceptive pill prevents pregnancy. No serious climate scientist debates the effects of human activity on the climate. There is some debate re: whether we can do anything about it or whether it's already too late. It's a matter of optimism at this stage
If you are first you are first. If you are second you are nothing.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #217 on: December 3, 2012, 10:34:57 am »

As may have been previously mentioned on here average surface temperature on Mars, Pluto, Jupiter and Triton has increased too - presumably not due to aliens driving their 4x4s around everywhere.

The problem with the argument 'Other planets are warming' is that it must answer two basic questions:

1. What factor is causing warming on all the planets?
2. Are there any measurements that show that this factor is causing the observed warming?

The only common factor between planets when it comes to climate is the sun. Yet we have measurements that show that total solar irradiance hasn't changed much in the past few decades, and it may even have decreased slightly. So it's unlikely to be that.

Also when you scratch the surface of this argument you notice a few things. In the case of Mars, the claim that it has been warming is based on two snapshots. One was taken in 1977 after a dust storm had deposited dust over the southern latitudes, thereby increasing albedo and cooling the planet. The other was taken in 1999 when the surface of Mars was darker, i.e. it had a lower albedo. This means that the observed warming was due to the change in albedo between two endpoints. In other words, it tells us nothing about trends and shows that dust and albedo are the key factors in the climate of Mars.

As far as Jupiter goes, no warming has actually been observed. The argument that it is warming is based on model projections which claim that the equator will warm whilst the poles will become cooler. Jupiter's climate is very different from what we have on Earth. Jupiter only receives 4% of the solar radiation the Earth gets, and it emits twice as much heat as it receives from the sun. Temperatures are fairly uniform on Jupiter as a result of chaotic mixing of heat and airflow from vortices which transports heat from the equator to the poles. However, between 1998 and 2000, three vortices merged into one and lost the ability to mix the air. This is where the projection comes in: warm air from the equator will no longer be transported to the poles in the absence of these vortices, creating the projected pattern.

As for Pluto, the warming is not really understood. It has a 248-year orbit, its orbit is far more elliptical than other planets and its rotational axis is flipped by a large angle, so a lot more work is needed before we can claim that the climate is changing there, especially as the warming is based on a 14-year period of observation. It could simply be a change in seasons.

So not only is there currently no common mechanism that could explain warming on all planets, a closer look shows that there are actually question marks over the claims that other planets are warming. Whereas we have huge amounts of data and observations that support the major role played by humans on Earth's climate change.


Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #218 on: December 3, 2012, 02:18:40 pm »
/snip/

So you don't know what factor accounts for other planets warming therefore ignore them. Yet the same process could be affecting Earth's temperature yet you want to ascribe it to human effect because we have more data about humans.

Do you see the basic error here?

This is why the "Flat Earth Society" tag can fit both sides so easily - you already have your mind made up and will bend the available data to fit - unless you can't in which case it gets ignored.

Weird how "what the majority of climate scientists say" is so important concerning the Earth's temperature yet when we look at other planets , and it doesn't support  your beliefs, the majority scientific opinion suddenly has all sorts of holes in the data, don't you think?
« Last Edit: December 3, 2012, 02:21:46 pm by Carlos Qiqabal »
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,341
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #219 on: December 3, 2012, 02:31:57 pm »
The only common factor between planets when it comes to climate is the sun. Yet we have measurements that show that total solar irradiance hasn't changed much in the past few decades, and it may even have decreased slightly. So it's unlikely to be that.

Er. No. We aren't as a solar system floating through 'nothing' now are we? We are actually a system which is part of a bigger system which is part of a bigger system still. There are also plenty of energetic things out there that could potentially alter our solar system without the sun being involved.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #220 on: December 3, 2012, 03:20:46 pm »
So you don't know what factor accounts for other planets warming therefore ignore them. Yet the same process could be affecting Earth's temperature yet you want to ascribe it to human effect because we have more data about humans.

Do you see the basic error here?

This is why the "Flat Earth Society" tag can fit both sides so easily - you already have your mind made up and will bend the available data to fit - unless you can't in which case it gets ignored.

Weird how "what the majority of climate scientists say" is so important concerning the Earth's temperature yet when we look at other planets , and it doesn't support  your beliefs, the majority scientific opinion suddenly has all sorts of holes in the data, don't you think?

Come on now, that's not in any way a fair representation of what Bio said. She was talking about uncertainty, and the pitfall of looking at uncertainty and trying to fill gaps with assumptions that lack evidence. There is no bending of data here, at least not on Bio's side, she is simply demonstrating that the evidence isn't there. Which it isn't, ten minutes on Google makes that clear. An unexplained anomaly cannot undermine a well researched theory unless we know the cause of the anomaly (or if it even exists). It's basic scientific method.

Please show me the evidence of other planetary warming that is supported by "the majority of scientific opinion".


Andy, your 'energetic things' theory of planetary warming is intriguing. Please tell me more, preferably with full citations to peer reviewed literature ;)

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #221 on: December 3, 2012, 03:27:29 pm »
Come on now, that's not in any way a fair representation of what Bio said. She was talking about uncertainty, and the pitfall of looking at uncertainty and trying to fill gaps with assumptions that lack evidence. There is no bending of data here, at least not on Bio's side, she is simply demonstrating that the evidence isn't there. Which it isn't, ten minutes on Google makes that clear.

/snip/


So assign the same methodology to earth and climate change ocurring here.

Actually, better still, simply tell us all all what the weather will be like in your neighbourhood in exactly one year's time.

If you can't do that (accurately) then please have the humility to admit to admit that long term changes in climate cannot currently be modelled.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #222 on: December 3, 2012, 03:38:00 pm »
So assign the same methodology to earth and climate change ocurring here.

Actually, better still, simply tell us all all what the weather will be like in your neighbourhood in exactly one year's time.

If you can't do that (accurately) then please have the humility to admit to admit that long term changes in climate cannot currently be modelled.

With 100% certainty? No. To increasingly high degrees of probability? Yes. That's science, I really don't know what more to tell you.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #223 on: December 3, 2012, 03:43:21 pm »
So you don't know what factor accounts for other planets warming therefore ignore them. Yet the same process could be affecting Earth's temperature yet you want to ascribe it to human effect because we have more data about humans.

Do you see the basic error here?

This is why the "Flat Earth Society" tag can fit both sides so easily - you already have your mind made up and will bend the available data to fit - unless you can't in which case it gets ignored.

Weird how "what the majority of climate scientists say" is so important concerning the Earth's temperature yet when we look at other planets , and it doesn't support  your beliefs, the majority scientific opinion suddenly has all sorts of holes in the data, don't you think?

Devon Red has done a good job at showing what I actually said. The point is this: what common mechanism is causing the alleged warming on several planets? Are there any data that support this hypothesis? The answer to both these questions at this moment in time is no.

Also when you look closely at what the science tells us, it turns out that the evidence other planets are warming is limited and questionable. For Mars, we only have two endpoints which tell us that it was changes in albedo which were the more likely factors behind the warming. There's no data on Jupiter's alleged warming - we're talking about model projections. And for Neptune, we have a few years' worth of data and little understanding of its seasons and climate. On the other hand, there is a huge body of converging evidence that shows the role humans are playing in changing our climate. Until we have data that show conclusively that other planets are warming, and what mechanism can explain this warming, it's nothing but an interesting, untestable hypothesis.

So assign the same methodology to earth and climate change ocurring here.

Actually, better still, simply tell us all all what the weather will be like in your neighbourhood in exactly one year's time.

If you can't do that (accurately) then please have the humility to admit to admit that long term changes in climate cannot currently be modelled.

What other methodology are scientists supposed to carry out? They have tested their hypotheses many, many times, they have looked at other factors which were involved in past climate change, they have made predictions based on established physical principles and those predictions have been verified. All observations are consistent with what you'd expect from an enhanced greenhouse effect, and data show that other, i.e. natural, factors cannot explain recent warming. I'm not sure what more they're supposed to do.

Also predicting the weather in one year's time is not the domain of climate science. No climate scientist claims to know what the climate will be like exactly in a few years or decades. There are caveats and uncertainties which are widely discussed in the scientific literature. But all the data, from models, past climate change and observations, paint a consistent picture, and the uncertainties are declining.

« Last Edit: December 3, 2012, 03:45:05 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #224 on: December 3, 2012, 03:53:09 pm »
Er. No. We aren't as a solar system floating through 'nothing' now are we? We are actually a system which is part of a bigger system which is part of a bigger system still. There are also plenty of energetic things out there that could potentially alter our solar system without the sun being involved.

The key word here is potentially. It's an interesting idea, but the absence of a testable hypothesis means it's highly unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely, and certainly not enough to overturn decades of research.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #225 on: December 3, 2012, 04:09:02 pm »
The point is this: what common mechanism is causing the alleged warming on several planets? Are there any data that support this hypothesis? The answer to both these questions at this moment in time is no.

Also when you look closely at what the science tells us, it turns out that the evidence other planets are warming is limited and questionable. For Mars, we only have two endpoints which tell us that it was changes in albedo which were the more likely factors behind the warming. There's no data on Jupiter's alleged warming - we're talking about model projections. And for Neptune, we have a few years' worth of data and little understanding of its seasons and climate. On the other hand, there is a huge body of converging evidence that shows the role humans are playing in changing our climate. Until we have data that show conclusively that other planets are warming, and what mechanism can explain this warming, it's nothing but an interesting, untestable hypothesis.


Also predicting the weather in one year's time is not the domain of climate science. No climate scientist claims to know what the climate will be like exactly in a few years or decades. There are caveats and uncertainties which are widely discussed in the scientific literature. But all the data, from models, past climate change and observations, paint a consistent picture, and the uncertainties are declining.

1. As you said yourself it may be the SUn, it may be a mechanism we have no idea of yet.

2. Support what hypothesis? the hypothesis that planets are warming independent of human action - yes there is evidence - the same evidence that you were critiquing above.

As you say the data is converging - agreed. Humans have an impact on the climate - agreed. Predicting the weather is not the domain of climate science - agreed.

But what I don't agree with is that our modelling systems for weather, climate or even something as simple as the financial markets is advanced enough that we can tell with any accuracy what the situation is going to be like in a year let alone in fourty years.

Maybe one day we will be at that stage but we're not there yet. And the real agenda for many people following this work is an anti-growth agenda. The difficulty being it's hard to tell a family walking miles a day for work and living in mud huts that theyre not entitled to the same improvements in life that the rest of us enjoy. All on the basis that they might be contributing to an effect we curently have little understanding of.

Asking people tomake extraordinary sacrifices requires extraordinary proof. We are nowhere near that yet. If you were candid enough to turn your critical eye from the other planets to the data you've presented in this thread regarding climate change on Earth I think you would agree we are light years away from that.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #226 on: December 3, 2012, 05:27:29 pm »
1. As you said yourself it may be the SUn, it may be a mechanism we have no idea of yet.

2. Support what hypothesis? the hypothesis that planets are warming independent of human action - yes there is evidence - the same evidence that you were critiquing above.

As you say the data is converging - agreed. Humans have an impact on the climate - agreed. Predicting the weather is not the domain of climate science - agreed.

But what I don't agree with is that our modelling systems for weather, climate or even something as simple as the financial markets is advanced enough that we can tell with any accuracy what the situation is going to be like in a year let alone in fourty years.

Maybe one day we will be at that stage but we're not there yet. And the real agenda for many people following this work is an anti-growth agenda. The difficulty being it's hard to tell a family walking miles a day for work and living in mud huts that theyre not entitled to the same improvements in life that the rest of us enjoy. All on the basis that they might be contributing to an effect we curently have little understanding of.

Asking people tomake extraordinary sacrifices requires extraordinary proof. We are nowhere near that yet. If you were candid enough to turn your critical eye from the other planets to the data you've presented in this thread regarding climate change on Earth I think you would agree we are light years away from that.

To answer your points:

1. You say it may be an as-yet unknown mechanism, which makes it an unlikely explanation. On the other hand, there is decades of research pointing in one direction, which makes it likely to be correct. One has no supporting data, the other has got thousands of papers supporting it.

2. You have an untestable hypothesis and data that either don't don't support your claims (in the case of Jupiter where there is no evidence of warming), don't support the idea of a common mechanism (in the case of Mars where the warming is the result of changes in albedo) or that don't give us enough information to draw any firm conclusion (in the case of Pluto).

The findings of climate science, which show that some scenarios are more likely than others, mean that we have to carry out risk analyses. It's worth pointing out again that scenarios are not just the result of model runs. Analyses of past climate change and current observations yield the same results as models. This means scientists can make statements with a certain degree of certainty. Uncertainty remains, but knowledge and understanding are improving all the time and adding to the already large body of evidence. Also uncertainty means that the impacts could actually be worse than anticipated.

At the end of the day it's an exercise in risk analysis and management. The threats posed by climate change, some of which are already being observed, are sufficient to justify taking action now, as delaying action will cause those costs to rise considerably. Climate scientists have been broadly correct and the theory needs fine tuning, not a complete overhaul. Until someone shows all this work to be fundamentally flawed, I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand.

Accepting the science of climate change doesn't mean you're anti-growth. It simply means that growth has to follow a different path. As far as I'm concerned, since industrialised nations are mainly responsible for the problem, they should be helping industrialising nations reach their goals in a less polluting way. It would also save them having to go through the levels of pollution seen in China now and in industrialising countries when pollution control was non-existent. There are different solutions to the problem - we just need to be creative and flexible. But moving away from a non-renewable source of energy that will eventually run out is just common sense. Better do it before we are forced to but lack the infrastructures to do so.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #227 on: December 3, 2012, 05:56:22 pm »
/snip/

Sorry but I find your post full of weasel words and fudging.

You critique the data but say there is "no" evidence of its existence.

You say the threats posed by climate change ar esufficient to take action now but you cannot say with any certainty what proportion of climate change is due to man-made action and what the effect will be in ten years of altering that component.

You say that you are not anti-growth but "growth has to follow a different path".


And its obvious that you are bending the data to fit your preconceptions. In the case of Mar's surface temperature you've stated that the change is due to changes in albedo. That's it? You've just decided that and now it's fact.

Just as you've decided that there's enough data around now to deprive people who want to make a better life for themselves.

Well the fact is the burden of proof is on you. If you want people to give up on improving their lot you had better have some conclusive evidence to show why it is necessary.

And as much as you have convinced yourself that the evidence is enough - for most people that's not the case.

You say "knowledge and undrstanding are imrpoving all the time" but haven't made the honest admission that some things are way beyond our capacity to model yet. It doesn't matter if you have ten times the amount of data that we do currently you still can't model it - it's because the system is non-linear and small inputs can have huge effects on the output.

The FTSE-100 index is much much easier to model than the climate by a couple of orders of magnitude. So can you or anybody else tell us what the closing level will be by this time tomorrow? And yet you want "growth to take a different path" based on your projections ofr what will happen in 40 years time?

It's nonsense.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #228 on: December 3, 2012, 06:24:44 pm »
Sorry but I find your post full of weasel words and fudging.

You critique the data but say there is "no" evidence of its existence.

You say the threats posed by climate change ar esufficient to take action now but you cannot say with any certainty what proportion of climate change is due to man-made action and what the effect will be in ten years of altering that component.

You say that you are not anti-growth but "growth has to follow a different path".


And its obvious that you are bending the data to fit your preconceptions. In the case of Mar's surface temperature you've stated that the change is due to changes in albedo. That's it? You've just decided that and now it's fact.

Just as you've decided that there's enough data around now to deprive people who want to make a better life for themselves.

Well the fact is the burden of proof is on you. If you want people to give up on improving their lot you had better have some conclusive evidence to show why it is necessary.

And as much as you have convinced yourself that the evidence is enough - for most people that's not the case.

You say "knowledge and undrstanding are imrpoving all the time" but haven't made the honest admission that some things are way beyond our capacity to model yet. It doesn't matter if you have ten times the amount of data that we do currently you still can't model it - it's because the system is non-linear and small inputs can have huge effects on the output.

The FTSE-100 index is much much easier to model than the climate by a couple of orders of magnitude. So can you or anybody else tell us what the closing level will be by this time tomorrow? And yet you want "growth to take a different path" based on your projections ofr what will happen in 40 years time?

It's nonsense.


No, you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not critiquing the data, just your interpretation of it.

I'm saying there's enough evidence to take action now because climate science has made predictions which have been verified, and there's no evidence to suggest that climate science is fundamentally flawed. I don't need to know exactly what the conditions will be like in a few decades, I only need to know that in all likelihood change will continue.

Growth following a different path is not anti-growth - it's anti-growth-following-the-same-path-that-got-us-in-the-current-situation. There's a difference. I'm all for growth, just not growth that produces considerable pollution.

I haven't decided anything with regards to Mars - that's what the data and analysis tell us. All we have is two snapshots which represent endpoints - I should have added probably but the main point stands. You, on the other hand, have provided no mechanism to explain the warming.

Again, following a different growth path doesn't mean I want to deny anyone anything. It means I support a development path which isn't as polluting as the one we, in industrialised countries, have followed.

I have said there are caveats and uncertainties so I'm not sure why you think I believe models can't improve. They can, and they will as processing power and memory increase, and as data collection and analyses improve. But this doesn't mean they are useless - they have made predictions which have been verified. In some instances, such as the Arctic ice and sea level rise, they have underestimated the rate of change. And some of their output is corroborated by actual observations. In other words, they give us a pretty good idea of what to expect, despite their limitations.

Instead of accusing me of things, you'd be better off asking for clarification. Science is about probabilities/likelihoods, and when it tells you that something is becoming likely, particularly in the complete absence of contrary evidence, then it's foolish to dismiss it.


Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,341
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #229 on: December 3, 2012, 10:00:28 pm »
The key word here is potentially. It's an interesting idea, but the absence of a testable hypothesis means it's highly unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely, and certainly not enough to overturn decades of research.

If the "stuff" we're moving through is 'warmer' even by a little bit then that would be one possibility why unrelated planets in disperse orbits could be affected by a temperature change. We know we're in a galaxy. We know that it's moving. We know that we're moving. We know that everything else is moving. We know there have been and will be supernovas and black hole ejections and other sorts of exotic shit going on. Doesn't really take much imagination to think that some or all of these events could generate unkown levels of heat through our solar system. We haven't got a wall around us after all.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,341
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #230 on: December 3, 2012, 10:01:39 pm »
Andy, your 'energetic things' theory of planetary warming is intriguing. Please tell me more, preferably with full citations to peer reviewed literature ;)

That can be your task for this year. I'm too busy drinking beer and playing Battlefield 3. ;)
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #231 on: December 3, 2012, 10:23:17 pm »
If the "stuff" we're moving through is 'warmer' even by a little bit then that would be one possibility why unrelated planets in disperse orbits could be affected by a temperature change. We know we're in a galaxy. We know that it's moving. We know that we're moving. We know that everything else is moving. We know there have been and will be supernovas and black hole ejections and other sorts of exotic shit going on. Doesn't really take much imagination to think that some or all of these events could generate unkown levels of heat through our solar system. We haven't got a wall around us after all.

[A@ALogic]
It's not the thing for which we have complete scientific consensus, and overwhelming evidence to back up.

It must be another thing for which we have no evidence, and don't even know what it even is.
[/A@ALogic]

Is Donald Rumsfeld advising you?

Offline MHLC

  • My Horse Likes Cheese
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #232 on: December 3, 2012, 10:23:31 pm »
Doesn't really take much imagination to think that some or all of these events could generate unkown levels of heat through our solar system. We haven't got a wall around us after all.

Andy,

With all politeness and respect, can I ask if you believe in God?

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #233 on: December 3, 2012, 10:23:58 pm »
Andy, with all politeness and respect can I ask if you believe in God?

Don't ask!  ;D

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,341
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #234 on: December 3, 2012, 10:47:32 pm »
[A@ALogic]
It's not the thing for which we have complete scientific consensus, and overwhelming evidence to back up.

It must be another thing for which we have no evidence, and don't even know what it even is.
[/A@ALogic]

Is Donald Rumsfeld advising you?

You've got a limited amount of evidence from a limited amount of time. It might be 100% spot on and you might be 100% right.

If you are, or are not then there's bugger all that will change. Developing countries won't take kindly to being told to fuck off back to the dark ages. Developed countries are too set in their ways and too greedy to stop now. When Oil is gone there will be something else. The temperature might go up, the temperature might go down but there is a disaster around the corner regardless. Unlimited growth across the planet is clearly something that one day - whether that's next year or in 500 years - will tip the balance.

One thing I'm sure about is that the Earth isn't as 'fragile' as people believe. We know that it was a pile of rocks and shit floating about in space for Aeons, bumping into other bits of shit that then formed into a planet. From that stage we got life. If you or anyone would suggest that the current problems of the Earth would wipe out all life then I'd react with a hint of scepticism. Life finds a way and it would again.

Our span here is finite as well in other ways. The chances of a meteor or asteroid or comet collision are good within the next x thousand years. The 'switching' of the North/South magnetism that we've seen in rocks might prove interesting if that leads to our magnetic protection going tits up. The Sun being a bit overactive or a nearby supernova going off are other - but not all possibilities. Then you've got the more mundane stuff going on.

As I've said all along - we should be recycling and green and doing the 'right' thing for the planet anyway. But it won't be enough.

But when we've gone, I'm sure something else will toddle along. Until the sun expands past the orbit of the Earth then, I'm afraid, no matter how many cans you crush and bits of paper you re-use, that's the end..
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #235 on: December 3, 2012, 11:21:10 pm »
You've got a limited amount of evidence from a limited amount of time. It might be 100% spot on and you might be 100% right.

Regarding climate change? All of the scientific evidence points towards human causation. Limited evidence? How about, all of the evidence. There is none that runs counter to human causation - None that has escaped scientific scrutiny.

When you say limited, you actually mean everything we have.

If you are, or are not then there's bugger all that will change. Developing countries won't take kindly to being told to fuck off back to the dark ages. Developed countries are too set in their ways and too greedy to stop now. When Oil is gone there will be something else. The temperature might go up, the temperature might go down but there is a disaster around the corner regardless. Unlimited growth across the planet is clearly something that one day - whether that's next year or in 500 years - will tip the balance.

Not like you to be doom and gloom, eh?!

One thing I'm sure about is that the Earth isn't as 'fragile' as people believe. We know that it was a pile of rocks and shit floating about in space for Aeons, bumping into other bits of shit that then formed into a planet. From that stage we got life. If you or anyone would suggest that the current problems of the Earth would wipe out all life then I'd react with a hint of scepticism. Life finds a way and it would again.

Humans are fragile. Selfish of us and all, but the planet will survive many things that exterminate us. What is your point?

Our span here is finite as well in other ways. The chances of a meteor or asteroid or comet collision are good within the next x thousand years. The 'switching' of the North/South magnetism that we've seen in rocks might prove interesting if that leads to our magnetic protection going tits up. The Sun being a bit overactive or a nearby supernova going off are other - but not all possibilities. Then you've got the more mundane stuff going on.

Humans have been in present state for 10,000 years plus, give or take. We are talking about timescales (re climate change) of 50-100 years ahead.

Yes, the sun might go supernova, but in the lifetimes of people alive today? You are just scattergunning out things that have zero relevance to the debate at hand. 

As I've said all along - we should be recycling and green and doing the 'right' thing for the planet anyway. But it won't be enough.

But when we've gone, I'm sure something else will toddle along. Until the sun expands past the orbit of the Earth then, I'm afraid, no matter how many cans you crush and bits of paper you re-use, that's the end..

Great. What has this got to do with anything?

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #236 on: December 4, 2012, 09:36:07 am »
If the "stuff" we're moving through is 'warmer' even by a little bit then that would be one possibility why unrelated planets in disperse orbits could be affected by a temperature change. We know we're in a galaxy. We know that it's moving. We know that we're moving. We know that everything else is moving. We know there have been and will be supernovas and black hole ejections and other sorts of exotic shit going on. Doesn't really take much imagination to think that some or all of these events could generate unkown levels of heat through our solar system. We haven't got a wall around us after all.

Again Andy, it's an interesting idea but nothing more. Until there is some actual observations that such a mechanism is causing warming on different planets, this idea is nowhere near equally as valid as a theory built on thousands of published papers from many disciplines over decades. Your mechanism would have to explain not only global warming, it would also have to explain other observations, such as a cooling effect on the stratosphere, the pattern of ocean warming, the interception of some of the infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space, the increase in downward longwave radiation, etc. You would also have to explain how all of a sudden this mechanism is causing warming when it's been around for a long time, i.e. why is the warming only manifesting itself now? Shouldn't we have seen continuous, progressive warming over long periods of time?

The reason people focus on climate change is not because they want to save the planet, it's because they want to minimise the impacts that come with it. There have been three reports published recently - one by the WMO, one by the World Bank and one by the European Environment Agency - that should really be making us take the problem more seriously than we have. The worst of these impacts could be reduced if we took appropriate action - and that's what it all boils down to. Not whether the planet will survive, as it will. It's about ensuring food production and access to freshwater, preventing unusually severe floods, droughts and heatwaves, and keeping sea-level rise to levels that won't lead to mass migration.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #237 on: December 4, 2012, 10:05:52 am »

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,341
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #238 on: December 4, 2012, 10:22:54 am »
Regarding climate change? All of the scientific evidence points towards human causation. Limited evidence? How about, all of the evidence. There is none that runs counter to human causation - None that has escaped scientific scrutiny.

When you say limited, you actually mean everything we have.

Not like you to be doom and gloom, eh?!

Humans are fragile. Selfish of us and all, but the planet will survive many things that exterminate us. What is your point?

Humans have been in present state for 10,000 years plus, give or take. We are talking about timescales (re climate change) of 50-100 years ahead.

Yes, the sun might go supernova, but in the lifetimes of people alive today? You are just scattergunning out things that have zero relevance to the debate at hand. 

Great. What has this got to do with anything?

The climate has changed up and down many times before we arrived. It will change up and down many times after we have been well gone.

Er. Our sun has no chance of going supernova. None whatsoever.

So - humans are fragile. The climate has changed many times without any human intervention. For billions of years, in fact.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Roady

  • Streety's long lost brother. AKA the Shit Buhunt.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,409
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #239 on: December 4, 2012, 10:23:19 am »
Is it too simplistic of me to butt in here and say i think its scaremongering on a mass scale.
Giant sponges. That is the answer for flooding.