Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

The big climate-change myth


  • Please log in to reply
359 replies to this topic

#121    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,373 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 21 September 2013 - 08:28 PM

View PostElfin, on 21 September 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

It's like a religion. Self-appointed "experts" inventing jargon to back up their claims, labelling the rest of us as ignorant.
The experts I deal with on a daily basis all have the letters:  Ph.D. after their names.  It takes four-to-ten years of study to earn a Ph.D. in climatology or environmental science and another two or three years in postdoc positions learning how research is done.  One does not need a Ph.D, to do good work in science; there's one scientist who didn't graduate from high school and there are several who have only a bachelor's.  But they all put in the effort to learn what they're talking about.  Most of the posters I see here haven't even read an introductory text on climate change.  They're not stupid, but they choose ignorance.  Those who choose ignorance SHOULD be labeled as ignorant.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#122    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,838 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:36 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 21 September 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Would you accept a treatment for breast cancer from someone who hadn't done research showing a Statistically meaningful correlation between the treatment and a cure.

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#123    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,838 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:40 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 21 September 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Those who choose ignorance SHOULD be labeled as ignorant.
Doug

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.

Edited by DieChecker, 21 September 2013 - 10:40 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#124    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 21 September 2013 - 11:47 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 September 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.
You've created a big straw man there for yourself.


#125    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,838 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:40 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 21 September 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

You've created a big straw man there for yourself.
Exaggeration perhaps, but aren't we hearing the same responses over and over?

I've tried talking about outliers and short term trends and been told (basically) to "Shut Up".

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#126    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,373 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 22 September 2013 - 04:00 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 September 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.
Anybody who wants to double-check the work can do so.  That's what these arguments between scientists are:  somebody checked the work and didn't come to the same conclusion.  One does not have to be a scientist to check; one only needs to know what one is doing.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#127    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,373 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 22 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 September 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.
I don't ask you to trust my work.  But somebody out there is going to check it, I have no doubt.  I am using chronologies developed by other scientists.  When I find something in one of them, the original author's reaction is usually:  "Gee.  I didn't know that."  And his next step is to review my work to see if it's true.  As I don't want to get raked over the coals by REAL experts, I'm pretty careful to make sure it's accurate.  One doesn't want to look like a fool in front of his colleagues.

One other thought:  my chronologies are taken in the same general neighborhood as other chronologies.  They'd better show some similarities:  like the winter of 1886.  Or the droughts in 1862, 1881, 1894 and 1896.  Or the short-term June droughts in 1912 and 1952.  If they don't show those things, then something needs explaining.  And that's an opportunity for another research project.

You mentioned outliers and short-term trends.  Outliers are a statistical problem.  In my work, they usually point to a mistake.  If the mistake can be found and fixed, then the outlier usually disappears.  If the mistake cannot be found, then the outlier must be left in the dataset.  That has the result of weakening the conclusion.  If the conclusion is strong enough to survive, then it gets written up for publication.  If not, that's usually the end of the study.

The problem with short-term trends is that they are short term.  Global warming won't destroy the planet in the next twenty years, so what the trend is at the moment doesn't really matter that much.  But even small annual increments can add up to huge changes when taken over centuries.

But where we stand at the moment, even small changes can have serious consequences.  Somewhere I read that over its lifetime, each coal-fired power plant will result in four extinctions.  Since the 1950s, global temps have risen about 0.4 degrees.  Doesn't sound like much, but thanks to that tiny amount, Lake Erie no longer freezes over in the winter and over half of the Arctic ice cap has melted off.  In turn, we are seeing more-intense weather.  The growing season in Arkansas is two weeks longer than it was sixty years ago.  The little things count.

A five-year decline in temps only means that the environmental damage will happen five years later.  So a short-term downward trend is not an excuse to do nothing.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 22 September 2013 - 04:26 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#128    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,838 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 23 September 2013 - 05:44 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 22 September 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Anybody who wants to double-check the work can do so.  That's what these arguments between scientists are:  somebody checked the work and didn't come to the same conclusion.  One does not have to be a scientist to check; one only needs to know what one is doing.
Doug
Aren't you the guy that keeps telling people that someone who is not an expert does not need to be believed? You're an Environmental Scientist, right? So which is it? Do we trust geologists that run the data and come up with something slightly different, or do we only trust those trained in environmental science?

Or, does that directly depend on the results of said scientists??

View PostDoug1o29, on 22 September 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

You mentioned outliers and short-term trends.  Outliers are a statistical problem.  In my work, they usually point to a mistake.  If the mistake can be found and fixed, then the outlier usually disappears.  If the mistake cannot be found, then the outlier must be left in the dataset.  That has the result of weakening the conclusion.  If the conclusion is strong enough to survive, then it gets written up for publication.  If not, that's usually the end of the study.
Thank you for that excellent answer. :tu:

Quote

The problem with short-term trends is that they are short term.  Global warming won't destroy the planet in the next twenty years, so what the trend is at the moment doesn't really matter that much.  But even small annual increments can add up to huge changes when taken over centuries.
But, we have people online here in the forums and all over the world in the Media saying X Hurricanes from 2000 to 2008 means the end of the world.

And many proponents will fight Tooth and Nail to defend those articles and posts. So, why then do scientists let the Media put out crap? Or is the Media off on their own causing trouble? Many proponents that I talk to regularly in the Real World use these Media articles as their ONLY source of data.

Quote

But where we stand at the moment, even small changes can have serious consequences.  Somewhere I read that over its lifetime, each coal-fired power plant will result in four extinctions.  Since the 1950s, global temps have risen about 0.4 degrees.  Doesn't sound like much, but thanks to that tiny amount, Lake Erie no longer freezes over in the winter and over half of the Arctic ice cap has melted off.  In turn, we are seeing more-intense weather.  The growing season in Arkansas is two weeks longer than it was sixty years ago.  The little things count.

A five-year decline in temps only means that the environmental damage will happen five years later.  So a short-term downward trend is not an excuse to do nothing.
Doug
Yeah, yeah. I'm not denying any of that. Those are Facts. Observable by anyone. I'm only conserned with those who are unable to change, regardless of the Facts. Those who take Global Warming into their teeth and fight ferociously in hatred and ignorance. I think environmental scientists should be conserned with those folks too.

Would you trust someone who "shouts" you down? Or call you names? Or who will not discuss strange data unless to use the words "ignorant" or "denier"?

Edited by DieChecker, 23 September 2013 - 05:45 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#129    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:22 AM

Every scientific journal I read (pretty much all the famous ones), and all the respected scientific web sites, say global warming caused by human activity is real and a serious danger.  The only places I see questions raised or counter-arguments offered are on political sites.  That tells me something.

I don't have the competence to judge this on my own, so I don't try, and I think some of the people hereabouts could use a little similar humility.


#130    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 234 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:15 AM

It is obvious that there is no climate change myth as the climate has been changing for thousands of years. The problem is that there's no CO2 ppm increase myth, which means we have to figure out the effects of that on other positive feedback loops, which in turn may affect temp. anomaly. For more details, see the NAS final report on the matter, if not BEST, which was ironically supported by skeptics.


#131    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:32 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 September 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

according to who?

Hoyt uses a multi proxy composite which uses different solar attributes. it may not be an accurate reconstruction of TSI, but it would seem to be a fair representation of solar activity. if we limit discussion to TSI then you might have a point, but my current understanding is that there is more to solar influence that just the TSI and Hoyt combines other solar effects in their reconstruction.
fig 10 is the Hoyt "solar" reconstruction which correlates remarkbly with the arctic temperature as pointed out by the Soon et al graph:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf

What do you mean?

TSI or total solar irradiance is the amount of solar energy that's hits Earths atmosphere. Meaning that its TSI which can change the earth energy budget.

Hoyts figure 10 is a TSI reconstruction.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#132    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:08 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 September 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying don't trust climate scientists because they can, as the church did in old days, hide what their data really shows? If that's the case then you couldn't be more wrong.

A lot of the younger climate scientist would do anything to find data which showed GW or AGW wasn't happening. This is really what science is about, keep on testing a theory and see if it holds. I for one would be jumping up and down in happiness if I found data which showed GW wasn't man made. I;m pretty sure I would be a noble prize winner if I can across data which showed the AGW Theory is not correct.

There is a new generation within climate science and trust me they would do anything they could show the "old-school" climate scientist they got it wrong.  However data shows it will be unlikely.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#133    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:10 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 September 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.

Let's discuss short term trends then.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#134    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:25 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 23 September 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

But, we have people online here in the forums and all over the world in the Media saying X Hurricanes from 2000 to 2008 means the end of the world.

And many proponents will fight Tooth and Nail to defend those articles and posts. So, why then do scientists let the Media put out crap? Or is the Media off on their own causing trouble? Many proponents that I talk to regularly in the Real World use these Media articles as their ONLY source of data.

The Media is full of **** when it comes to reporting Climate Science.

Half of the people reporting on climate science doesn't know what they are writing about and I daily see mistakes.  

Take this article as an example.  http://www.telegraph...scientists.html

Here they are basically saying: "Scientist you were wrong, see the sea ice is increasing!" Yes it increased from last year but what does it say if we use the data of the last 10 years. Then it would show a decline. And if you asked any scientist last year; What do you expect next years data to show a decline or an increase? The majority of scientist would say we would see an increase of next years data.  

And regarding the climate scientists in the media which say extreme weather is on the increase. That cannot be backed by data. We need at least 30 years of data to be able to conclude if extreme weather is increasing due to global warming. So far data doesn't support these statements.

As I said in an earlier post to Little Fish. In theory we should see an increase in hurricanes, However observational data is showing no increasing trend. However what does the media say. They report what should be happening in Theory and when I hurricane does form they jump straight on the wagon and call out climate change as the reason. However most of them is just down to weather.

Don't believe what the Media, IPCC or any scientist is saying. Study/research it yourself and you will discover the truth.

Edited by BFB, 23 September 2013 - 11:29 AM.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#135    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:51 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 September 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.
You are straying firmly back into CT here. They are interpreting the data as it exists and there is remarkable uniformity in the accepted interpretation of that data. There are numerous threads of confirmatory evidence which support the overall conclusion.

Please step out of the CT mindset on this one.

As to your last comment, let me just point out that I have explained at great length that no individual event can be used to support climate change - none. It is by careful collection, classification and analysis of every major event which allows scientists to state empirically whether there is a statistically meaningful trend within the whole data. If you will accept a straw man argument don't be surprised when those who understand how the conclusions are drawn don't rise to the bait.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 23 September 2013 - 12:54 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users