Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[Parihaka]

I have one question though - Why is it being assumed by you/others that CO2 levels would be higher and missed by that measurement?

We're not. We're assuming that it is both higher and lower. As you pointed out, each sample equates to thousands of years because of the physics of the way the gas is trapped within the ice. Therefore the sample is an average over thousands of years. Think of daily temperature measurements plotted over thousands of years. Spikes both up and down everywhere. Hence averaging, to show trend. The ice cores, Vostok, GISP, GISP 2 are all already naturally averaged. The Moana Lea samples are not.

While not all ice core datasets have a timescale as large as that of the one measure by Petit et all, a lot of them do go back a fair distance ~10000 years (some even longer) with a much better resolution in time and fill some of the gaps. Also, there is an easy way of checking for carbon spikes (pre-industrialization) - volcanic activity.

They do not have a better resolution in time. The time taken to trap gas in ice in Antartica is the same taken to trap gas in ice in Greenland is the time taken to trap gas in ice in my refrigerator. It's basic natural science, irrespective of global position or depth of ice core.

[dalem]

Well welcome back.

Thanks! Probably just auditing, not for credit.

-dale

[dalem]

OOooooooohhh KnowNothingggggg...

-clink-clink-clink-

Come out and play---ayyyyyyyy...

-dale

[gunnut]

PS Getting into a pissing contest with me is only going to end up making you look like an idiot (more than now) but the moderator has asked to desist and so I will.

I don't know... Between you and OOE, I'm gonna take his word 7 days a week and twice on sundays.

[Doktor]

I don't know... Between you and OOE, I'm gonna take his word 7 days a week and twice on sundays.

He is oh so chewed, he ain't coming back.

[dalem]

It's been so long since I had a chew toy here, I may just weep.

-dale

[gunnut]

So....it's that time of the year again. We are 10 years after Katrina. There's the FIRST hurricane forming in the Atlantic, and only the fourth named storm of the season, Danny.

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PREDICSIONS OF MORE FREQUENT AND STRONGER STORMS after Katrina made landfall?

WHERE ARE THEY?

Don't tell me "global climate change" makes storms stronger and weaker at the same time, more frequent and less frequent at the same time...

Some "scientists" fucking lied and they should be held accountable.

[SteveDaPirate]

Some "scientists" fucking lied and they should be held accountable.

How dare you fail to predict the future!

Seriously though, the meteorologists on TV don't seem to have more than a general idea of what the weather will be until it is practically on top of you.

I won't fault scientists for failing, that is literally their job. Someone comes up with a plausible hypothesis and then scientists try their damndest to disprove it until either someone succeeds and it is disproven, or nobody can convincingly debunk it, and it becomes an accepted theory.

When the guy on the news says that science has proven that "blah blah blah" what that actually means is someone came up with an idea or model that appears to explain things well and nobody has been able to disprove it yet.

Something as complex as modeling the climate for an entire planet is bound to have guys making errors with data, models, theories, the whole bit. There will never be an objective truth, just "to the best of our knowledge" at any given time.

[Doktor]

How dare you fail to predict the future!

Seriously though, the meteorologists on TV don't seem to have more than a general idea of what the weather will be until it is practically on top of you.

I won't fault scientists for failing, that is literally their job. Someone comes up with a plausible hypothesis and then scientists try their damndest to disprove it until either someone succeeds and it is disproven, or nobody can convincingly debunk it, and it becomes an accepted theory.

When the guy on the news says that science has proven that "blah blah blah" what that actually means is someone came up with an idea or model that appears to explain things well and nobody has been able to disprove it yet.

Something as complex as modeling the climate for an entire planet is bound to have guys making errors with data, models, theories, the whole bit. There will never be an objective truth, just "to the best of our knowledge" at any given time.

The Earth is flat, just because it looks like it, was never a science.

Science is coming up with something and being able to defend your theory, not waiting someone to dismantle it.

[SteveDaPirate]

Science is coming up with something and being able to defend your theory, not waiting someone to dismantle it.

I disagree. Science gains as much from figuring out which hypotheses are likely to be wrong as it does from figuring out which are supported by the evidence.

1. Observation

I turned on my desk light, but nothing happened.

2. Form a hypothesis

I think the Filament in the bulb is broken, preventing the flow of current, causing the filament not to glow with heat.

3. Use the hypothesis to predict the results of new observations.

If the bulb is placed in a fixture known to be working, then no light will be produced.

4. Performance of experimental test by several independent experimenters.

The bulb did not light up in a fixture that was known to work.

This does not prove the hypothesis correct, but lends more confidence to the hypothesis after the test. It could still be wrong however. If the hypothesis passes test after test, you can be more certain of the hypothesis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say the bulb did work in the second fixture.

This disproves the hypothesis and now the scientist must try a different hypothesis and repeat steps 2, 3, and 4.

New hypothesis:
The bulb might have a dirty contact which prevents current from flowing.

In this scenario the scientist has "failed" in the sense that his original hypothesis was incorrect, but he still gained valuable information in the process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The way scientists support a hypothesis or theory is by trying different methods to disprove it and failing. Their job is NOT to defend their pet theory, that's politics.

Note that this isn't the same as saying you can come up with any old explanation and have it taken seriously because it hasn't or can't be disproven. For example:

The bulb didn't light up because an invisible genie steals all the light before it gets out.

This can not be disproved by any test; it is a CONSTRUCT. It is worthless as a hypothesis. You learn nothing about bulbs, nothing about genies, nothing about anything.

You aren't going to get much traction in the scientific world by presenting theories that either haven't been rigorously tested, or aren't testable.

[Wooglin]

I won't fault scientists for failing, that is literally their job. Someone comes up with a plausible hypothesis and then scientists try their damndest to disprove it until either someone succeeds and it is disproven, or nobody can convincingly debunk it, and it becomes an accepted theory.

That's a great 5th grade science textbook explanation, but it does not describe reality unfortunately. There's been over 2.5 billion spent by the government on climate research just in the US, and just in the last year. How much of that funding went to studying natural causes and trying their damndest disprove the theory? How many climate scientists do you think are earnestly trying to disprove the theory that brings them billions in funding every year?

How does this attitude from a leading, heavily government funded, climate scientist fit into your process?

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Doesn't sound to me like he's very interested in having his work validated or disproven. That's the reality that the few scientists trying to validate have to deal with. The scientific method is not applied in climate science.

[Wooglin]

Iow:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40065[/ATTACH]

[SteveDaPirate]

Sounds like a guy who is more concerned with his legacy than advancing the field. Very unfortunate.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that climate scientists would be opposed to trying to disprove current theories for fear of losing funding. Successfully disproving currently accepted climate science ideas doesn't mean the climate isn't shifting, just that the current models don't explain it adequately.

As the world continues to become more heavily populated and developed, the impact of climate and weather is increasingly important. If a tornado ripped through a corn field 50 years ago nobody but the farmer is impacted, if another one follows the same path today, it could flatten neighborhoods and industrial districts having an impact on the whole region.

I just can't see funding for climate science significantly declining no matter what the specific mechanism of action happens to be, (man's fault, natural cycle, etc.) if only because of the increasing impact climactic and weather conditions are having on anything from local catastrophes to geopolitics.

[Wooglin]

Sounds like a guy who is more concerned with his legacy than advancing the field. Very unfortunate.

What it sounds like the motivation may be is irrelevant. What it is is a climate scientist subverting the scientific method, and it's hardly the only example. It's not science. It's advocacy and politics.

I just can't see funding for climate science significantly declining no matter what the specific mechanism of action happens to be, (man's fault, natural cycle, etc.) if only because of the increasing impact climactic and weather conditions are having on anything from local catastrophes to geopolitics.

What if it's not?

[SteveDaPirate]

What if it's not?

What I'm arguing is that in most cases a disaster is more of a social phenomenon than a natural one.

If a tornado rips up a field or a tsunami hits uninhabited coastline, it isn't a disaster, its just a curiosity. When that same event hits a heavily populated area, NOW it is a disaster.

Even if we were to agree that the climate isn't undergoing any significant change and we will stay at the status quo for the foreseeable future, the rate of climate and weather related disasters will continue to increase as the world becomes more populated and infrastructure becomes ever more widespread. Whatever the controversy surrounding climate science, there is no doubt that the planet's population is growing, infrastructure is expanding, and the world is becoming increasingly interconnected.

A mud and grass hut that washes away in a flood might wipe out a month's worth of effort by a family, while a flood that destroys a couple refineries suddenly has a regional impact that lasts for years.

The climate doesn't have to change in order for its effects to become increasingly important as time marches forward. Funding to figure out how the climate operates in order to mitigate negative effects will continue to become ever more important whether the climate changes or not.