There is already a thread for politics. Please go there and stop infecting a great thread started by Wendy.

I don't disagree, but it's a Joey thread that started out kind of political.

 

Hmm.

I see the debate as three problems:
1: Actual temperature and climate data. Lowest probability of error (the earth is getting warmer in recent decades) but still there is the uncertainty of older data due to corrections and extrapolations.
2: Physical theories of greenhouse gasses, forcing functions, feedbacks, etc. The physics of the warming has more uncertainty but the fact that CO2/greenhouse emissions are a large part of the story is clear IMO.
3. Models extrapolating 1 and 2 into the future to predict outcomes. These predictions aren't facts or even 'science'. They are a hypothesis with little actual predictive power to even backcast previous climate changes.

If you're a 'climate change skeptic' based on (3) then it's not arguing about science, it's arguing about what to do about it.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344

 

from NSA's link

Shortly after the study came out, a group of scientists led by Stefan Rahmstorf, an oceanographer at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, publicly refuted the paper and challenged Keenlyside's group to a pair of bets together worth €5,000 (US$6,525) if the predictions bore fruit.

Allright ... a BET. When is the ending date?

“We felt a need to make it publicly known that this was not climate science as such that was predicting a cooling period,” Rahmstorf says.

Self-bias. Nice. Rahmstorf calling Keenlyside a denier.

As suspected, when the data doesn't exist,

modellers must make assumptions for areas without data, including the deep oceans.

Time to restrict the funding.

 

I see the debate as three problems:
1: Actual temperature and climate data. Lowest probability of error (the earth is getting warmer in recent decades) but still there is the uncertainty of older data due to corrections and extrapolations.

Can't argue with that.

2: Physical theories of greenhouse gasses, forcing functions, feedbacks, etc. The physics of the warming has more uncertainty but the fact that CO2/greenhouse emissions are a large part of the story is clear IMO.
3. Models extrapolating 1 and 2 into the future to predict outcomes. These predictions aren't facts or even 'science'. They are a hypothesis with little actual predictive power to even backcast previous climate changes.

Yes, they need more research. I'm sure it gets better every day.

If you're a 'climate change skeptic' based on (3) then it's not arguing about science, it's arguing about what to do about it.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344

I don't think yearly forcasts will ever be any good. There are simply to many variables.

 

I don't think yearly forcasts will ever be any good. There are simply to many variables.

And the variables get less if we go to decades and centuries? The longer the out-take, the variables become uncertain.

 

Can't argue with that.

Yes, they need more research. I'm sure it gets better every day.


I don't think yearly forcasts will ever be any good. There are simply to many variables.

It's the opposite, yearly/short-term forecasts will have small deviations from the present so they will be good just from looking at past trend data but mainly useless for advancing the science of climate prediction. Even if you don't know all the variables the possible changes are small unless there is a natural event much larger than any possible human driven input other than nuclear war.

 

And the variables get less if we go to decades and centuries? The longer the out-take, the variables become uncertain.

And the more you research the better you get.

 

And the more you research the better you get.

This is not necessarily 100% true with systems that are chaotic like weather and climate where small changes in initial conditions cause large changes in calculated outcomes. It's not that they are unpredictable but it's the fact that there are dynamic interactions between the land, oceans and atmosphere unrelated to "forcings" ( greenhouse gases) that cause variability that can limit the absolute range of changes from year to year over decades. So how to you account for the 'chaos' factor? Climate scientists run the models repeatedly with slightly different starting conditions from real data then look at the model results for trends but like a pinball machine if you tilt it slightly in one direction, the drift in the results will be tilted the way you want.

I'm not a anthropogenic climate change 'Skeptic', I'm a complex dynamic computer future prediction model of all kinds Skeptic. That's really true when I hear extreme weather events or the lack of those events being blamed on 'climate change'.

 

This is not necessarily 100% true with systems that are chaotic like weather and climate where small changes in initial conditions cause large changes in calculated outcomes. It's not that they are unpredictable but it's the fact that there are dynamic interactions between the land, oceans and atmosphere unrelated to "forcings" ( greenhouse gases) that cause variability that can limit the absolute range of changes from year to year over decades. So how to you account for the 'chaos' factor? Climate scientists run the models repeatedly with slightly different starting conditions from real data then look at the model results for trends but like a pinball machine if you tilt it slightly in one direction, the drift in the results will be tilted the way you want.

I'm not a anthropogenic climate change 'Skeptic', I'm a complex dynamic computer future prediction model of all kinds Skeptic. That's really true when I hear extreme weather events or the lack of those events being blamed on 'climate change'.

But the more you understand the better you will get. Previously unknown CO2 sinks etc.
The chaos of the system will eventually show up as noise once the true forcing functions are fully understood.

 

But the more you understand the better you will get. Previously unknown CO2 sinks etc.
The chaos of the system will eventually show up as noise once the true forcing functions are fully understood.

That would be a great scientific achievement if verified by future data.

The weather noise factor can swamp yearly climate forcing by a great amount like this years record rain and snowfall in West that erased a multi-year drought trend. It's just impossible to predict today (or in the foreseeable future) if this will happen again even next year. They spent so much time and effort with climate change and drought they almost let the water control dam infrastructure implode in California.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...ias-drought-busting-rain-this-winter/70001068

 

But the more you understand the better you will get. Previously unknown CO2 sinks etc.
The chaos of the system will eventually show up as noise once the true forcing functions are fully understood.

And prior to the "discovery" of the CO2 sinks, they just "assumed" the CO2 only increased.

They sure were quick to jump on the CO2 main contributor bandwagon. Would I like to see them improve their predictions? Sure. What I would not like is to spend an inordinate amount of money of decades on faulty research. Till they can do an annual prediction successfully, the 100 year predictions are light years away.

One can only imagine that General Grove and Robert Oppenheimer would have been drawn and quartered if they didn't get results.

 

And prior to the "discovery" of the CO2 sinks, they just "assumed" the CO2 only increased.

They sure were quick to jump on the CO2 main contributor bandwagon. Would I like to see them improve their predictions? Sure. What I would not like is to spend an inordinate amount of money of decades on faulty research. Till they can do an annual prediction successfully, the 100 year predictions are light years away.

One can only imagine that General Grove and Robert Oppenheimer would have been drawn and quartered if they didn't get results.

How do you expect scientists to improve their research without doing research?

 

How do you expect scientists to improve their research without doing research?

Not starting with a foregone conclusion and devoting all effort to proving that conclusion, would be a place to start.

 

Not starting with a foregone conclusion and devoting all effort to proving that conclusion, would be a place to start.

Another would be not stopping the research.

 

Not starting with a foregone conclusion and devoting all effort to proving that conclusion, would be a place to start.

A lot of what I have found over the long haul in this topic isn't that the overall sciences was bad but rather how it was presented to the public and by who and what their agenda was when and how they did it.

The highly questionable nature of what was presented and how and by whom is where so much of the skepticism comes from regarding those who put more effort into understanding the real aspects of things beyond what every news snippet or screaming scare mongering liberal media fluff piece that belongs in 'The National Inquirer' says.

Unfortunately, it's human nature to initially put more trust in the first thing you hear that creates an emotional response than it's to impartially and objectively validate it before reacting.

Because of that effectiveness if a weakly constructed lie that generated a large negative emotional response was presented first it will make it very hard to convince someone afterwards that what they heard was not true and that's what certain people and organisations thrive on, the fact that the first thing people hear and associate an emotional response to will be believed even if it is completely false.

That's largely what drove things to where they are now and why the believers sect has to continually move the target and keep changing the definitions and their claims of proof of things in order to keep their agenda emotionally charged and running.

If they don't the reality of what is the real impartial science plus the reality of what the planet really is doing (not much beyond the normal statically averages and limits) that runs totally counter to their gloom and doom BS stories will catch up to them and discredit everything they lied about.

Theirs a reason that certain groups throw a holy screaming fit and blow every isolated incidence of a negative weather event into a grossly exaggerated claim of proof of a huge and permanent climatic changes, even when it just the weather doing what it has always done in a highly predictable cycle, while completely ignoring everything else that didn't change or actually has improved.
If they dont they wont be able to keep that negative emotional tie with their followers and their whole agenda and it's credibility and following starts to collapse in on itself.

 

A lot of what I have found over the long haul in this topic isn't that the overall sciences was bad but rather how it was presented to the public and by who and what their agenda was when and how they did it.

The highly questionable nature of what was presented and how and by whom is where so much of the skepticism comes from regarding those who put more effort into understanding the real aspects of things beyond what every news snippet or screaming scare mongering liberal media fluff piece that belongs in 'The National Inquirer' says.

Unfortunately, it's human nature to initially put more trust in the first thing you hear that creates an emotional response than it's to impartially and objectively validate it before reacting.

Because of that effectiveness if a weakly constructed lie that generated a large negative emotional response was presented first it will make it very hard to convince someone afterwards that what they heard was not true and that's what certain people and organisations thrive on, the fact that the first thing people hear and associate an emotional response to will be believed even if it is completely false.

That's largely what drove things to where they are now and why the believers sect has to continually move the target and keep changing the definitions and their claims of proof of things in order to keep their agenda emotionally charged and running.

If they don't the reality of what is the real impartial science plus the reality of what the planet really is doing (not much beyond the normal statically averages and limits) that runs totally counter to their gloom and doom BS stories will catch up to them and discredit everything they lied about.

Theirs a reason that certain groups throw a holy screaming fit and blow every isolated incidence of a negative weather event into a grossly exaggerated claim of proof of a huge and permanent climatic changes, even when it just the weather doing what it has always done in a highly predictable cycle, while completely ignoring everything else that didn't change or actually has improved.
If they dont they wont be able to keep that negative emotional tie with their followers and their whole agenda and it's credibility and following starts to collapse in on itself.

Yeah, and spring is early in North Dakota. That's Yuge!
But still for almost getting thru a post without a degrading comment.

 

Not starting with a foregone conclusion and devoting all effort to proving that conclusion, would be a place to start.

Do you have any peer-reviewed research to support that claim. Note that there are lots of research results in the literature that I would like to dispute but that is part of research. That's it why research gets published - to dispute results of peers, to do better than peers. It is the ultimate in free competition. If you think there is a deep conspiracy behind all science, then I can't help you with that.

 

How do you expect scientists to improve their research without doing research?

The raw research is not where the problem is. The problem is with how its peer reviewed and presented to the general public.

How many huge claims about climate change negatives have we been through now that were presented to the general public that turned out to be nothing but scaremongering nonsense built on dumbed down and hugely misrepresented pseudoscience based on lies and cooked research numbers that proven to have very little honest representations of what the raw data they were made form showed?

The famous Hockey STick Graph by Mann has been thoroughly torn to bits and shown in detail how he manipulated the raw data to make a false representation of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

MIT tears the actual program Mann used apart and find major faults and bias in its setup.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

~400PPM CO2 level claim is not what its made out to be. (localized seasonal peak not planet wide year round)

https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/16/13989590/nasa-3d-video-carbon-dioxide-co2-earth-atmosphere

The planet is getting greener not browner.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

Spring, Summer, fall seasons lengthening adding to and improving growing seasons.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-length-growing-season

Global Annual Mean Temperature value is up but not for the reason we are lead to believe.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

97% of scientists agree claim debunked.

Senate hearing on climate change using real data.

International Climate Change Conference 9 (ICCC9) Lecture.

and

And that's just a few of way too many examples of former high level supposed 'proofs' that totally fell apart once the real underlying data and processes they were built on came out and was properly and correctly peer reviewed.
The problem is not the raw base science behind things but the how and why of who presents it to the public which by far has shown to be the biggest and worst offender in screwing and misrepresenting the facts to fit an agenda that goes counter to what the majority of the real science is showing.

Seems to me the science is being studied and scrutinized more than ever, not less because of so many of past bold claims that were shoved into our faces having fallen so embarrassingly far from their marks time and time again to almost be considered to be the politically agenda driven polar opposite representations of what is really going on in the world and time again.

Do you have any peer-reviewed research to support that claim. Note that there are lots of research results in the literature that I would like to dispute but that is part of research. That's it why research gets published - to dispute results of peers, to do better than peers. It is the ultimate in free competition. If you think there is a deep conspiracy behind all science, then I can't help you with that.

So yea, there's proof. A damn near embossing amount of it all in plain view for anyone to look at and consider.

 

Yeah, and spring is early in North Dakota. That's Yuge!
But still View attachment 125861for almost getting thru a post without a degrading comment.

Skepticism is a good thing when predicting the future.

 

Skepticism is a good thing when predicting the future.

Absolutely. And properly applied it adds to research. For example most of @tcmtech guys have had rebuttals. Those should be hashed out.
Edit:
Others are just bloggers or talk show hosts looking for clicks.