Frozen Britain - NASA Satellite image Jan. 7

[Space Commander Travis]

You do see, though, why people treat their prognostications with some skepticism. If they can't even get such a generalisation as whether a summer is going to be hot or wet right, over a few months, how can they expect people to believe their claims that the global temperature will rise by an average of 4 degrees over 20 years, or whatever they say? Surely, if such a number of unforeseen variables can affect something over the short term, anything could happen over the long term. And if they say that it'll all average out in the long term and these blips will be smoothed out, then how can they predict that temperatures will rise by the precise figures that they talk about? It's surely got to all be just averages, estimates, projections, guesswork, surely?

[Startraveler]

But if their predictions for even relatively local, relatively short-term conditions are so all over the place, how do we know to have faith in them for the bigger picture?

If I offered to either predict for you the outcome of a single coin toss or I offered to predict for you the trend in outcomes of 10,000 coin tosses, which do you think I'm more likely to get correct?

Or, put another way, which of my predictions is more likely to be washed out by myriad chaotic variables?

[Moon Monkey]

After 2 cold years in 3 in the UK we are just as able to call it a trend as when some look at 150 years out of 4 billion in a few, not very carefully chosen, places and say that is a trend. Might be worth a look at what solar activity has been like in the last couple of years.

Without having read the entire thread I have a prediction......I predict Mattshark has called people stupid, unintelligent and that their points are not worth answering because they don't understand the issues and complexities as fully as a 4th year undergrad animal-ologyist.

[Space Commander Travis]

If I offered to either predict for you the outcome of a single coin toss or I offered to predict for you the trend in outcomes of 10,000 coin tosses, which do you think I'm more likely to get correct?

Or, put another way, which of my predictions is more likely to be washed out by myriad chaotic variables?

yes.... but the average of a 50/50 outcome is arguably a little easier than the outcome of such a tremendous variety of minutely variable factors as affects climate on a global scale. Perhaps average temperatures will rise, indeed they might; but can the experts say that they know for sure what might ensue, and that life on earth will be devastated as a result? You see, that's what they're saying; that it will do this, and this will happen; and what will happen will invariably be dramatic; not "it might if present trends continue, and a whole range of other variables fall into place".

[Mattshark]

yes.... but the average of a 50/50 outcome is arguably a little easier than the outcome of such a tremendous variety of minutely variable factors as affects climate on a global scale. Perhaps average temperatures will rise, indeed they might; but can the experts say that they know for sure what might ensue, and that life on earth will be devastated as a result? You see, that's what they're saying; that it will do this, and this will happen; and what will happen will invariably be dramatic; not "it might if present trends continue, and a whole range of other variables fall into place".

Well we can never know anything 100% for sure ever. We can predict the most likely trend though and that is easier to do than predict the local weather over a short period.

But not knowing something 100% doesn't mean we should not act or acknowledge. It is also erroneous to dismiss climatology on the grounds of meteorology.

[Moon Monkey]

Well we can never know anything 100% for sure ever. We can predict the most likely trend though and that is easier to do than predict the local weather over a short period.But not knowing something 100% doesn't mean we should not act or acknowledge. It is also erroneous to dismiss climatology on the grounds of meteorology.

Rubbish. The MET office is very happy with its short term forecasts ( a week or so ), is tossing a coin for its medium term forecasts ( seasons ) and as climate is the weather over the globe over a 'long' period of time and therefore climate predictions are an extrapolation of very long term forecasts based on useless models, they have not got a clue. The don't put error bars on their 'BBQ summer' and 'mild winter' predictions do they. To suggest otherwise is unscientific and simply an act of faith, but I would expect no more of you.

[Startraveler]

yes.... but the average of a 50/50 outcome is arguably a little easier than the outcome of such a tremendous variety of minutely variable factors as affects climate on a global scale.

Let me rephrase what I said in a weather-related way. I don't know with any great confidence whether tomorrow is going to be colder or warmer than today (or if next week will be colder than this one). There are a great many factors at work, as you point out, that affect day-to-day temperatures. But I can say with great confidence (how close that is to 100% I'll leave up to you) that the trend between today and August 9 will be one of rising temperatures. The reason I can say that is--despite the numerous chaotic factors that influence day-to-day or even week-to-week averages--I know what the dominant forcing between now and August is going to be and I know the general effect that will have: increasing insolation in my hemisphere as the planet moves around the Sun is going to drive temperatures up.

Does the fact that there are so many chaotic variables that I've completely neglected threaten to overturn my prediction that August in my neck of the woods will be warmer than January? Not really. On a short timescale, those factors are important, maybe even dominant. Which is why I can't say next Saturday will be warmer than this one. But I'm very, very confident that the second Saturday in August will be warmer than today.

Perhaps average temperatures will rise, indeed they might; but can the experts say that they know for sure what might ensue, and that life on earth will be devastated as a result?

No, they can't say for sure. But absolute certainty is rare in any field

Edited January 9, 2010 by Startraveler

[Caesar]

Well we can never know anything 100% for sure ever. We can predict the most likely trend though and that is easier to do than predict the local weather over a short period.

But not knowing something 100% doesn't mean we should not act or acknowledge. It is also erroneous to dismiss climatology on the grounds of meteorology.

Yeah, and you should go to Church every Sunday and get closer to God.

[Moon Monkey]

But I'm very, very confident that the second Saturday in August will be warmer than today.

However what are your confidences that 9th Jan next year will be warmer than today...or 9th Jan 2020...and so on ?.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Moon Monkey

[acidhead]

After 2 cold years in 3 in the UK we are just as able to call it a trend as when some look at 150 years out of 4 billion in a few, not very carefully chosen, places and say that is a trend. Might be worth a look at what solar activity has been like in the last couple of years.

Without having read the entire thread I have a prediction......I predict Mattshark has called people stupid, unintelligent and that their points are not worth answering because they don't understand the issues and complexities as fully as a 4th year undergrad animal-ologyist.

LOL

[IamsSon]

"We thought we knew everything about everything, and it turned out that there were unknown unknowns." - Richard Fisher, Director of NASA's Heliophysics Division

Before I accept that some highly educated but quite fallible guy with a model can tell me what's going to happen with global climate in 3, 5, 10, 50, or 100 years, I want assurance that he actually knows without a doubt that there are no "unknown unknowns." If he can't, and we all know there is no way anyone can, I will remain properly unconvinced.

Edited January 9, 2010 by IamsSon

[Lord Umbarger]

Just as a little side note, I have friends from all over the U.S. that are complaining about the amount of "Global Warming" that is piled up in their drives and walkways. It seems that a lot of folks are pretty tired of having to shovel this overly abundant "Global Warming" off of their walkways and driveways.

A friend of mine in Kansas currently has eight inches of "Global Warming" covering her yard and home.

Personally, I have ice in the front yard and I live in SouthWest Georgia. I'd have never thought that "Global Warming" could be so cold.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Lord Umbarger

[Moon Monkey]

Just as a little side note, I have friends from all over the U.S. that are complaining about the amount of "Global Warming" that is piled up in their drives and walkways. It seems that a lot of folks are pretty tired of having to shovel this overly abundant "Global Warming" off of their walkways and driveways.

A friend of mine in Kansas currently has eight inches of "Global Warming" covering her yard and home.

Personally, I have ice in the front yard and I live in SouthWest Georgia. I'd have never thought that "Global Warming" could be so cold.

What you and your friends are experiencing is simply "Weather" if it was unusually warm it would be "Global Warming", it is very difficult for us stupid lay people to tell the difference but if you have faith, just trust and believe all will be made clear, possibly in about 20,000 years or so.

[Mattshark]

Yeah, and you should go to Church every Sunday and get closer to God.

Seems like a complete waste of a Sunday to me.

[Startraveler]

However what are your confidences that 9th Jan next year will be warmer than today...or 9th Jan 2020...and so on ?.

Zero. The point I was making in that post is that any given day can go any which way. People who think a multi-decade warming trend implies it's never going to snow again in the winter are missing the point.

You know, they say the MLB postseason is a crapshoot. Winning a 7-game series (and certainly any given game) isn't necessarily contingent on being the better team. But getting into the playoffs over a 162 game season does generally require being a better team than those that don't make the cut. So buying up all the top talent doesn't necessarily mean you'll win the World Series but it greatly helps your chances of making the postseason, which is a necessary first step. So if you'd asked me a year ago after the Yankees acquired CC Sabathia if I was confident they were going to win their first game of the 2009 postseason, I certainly couldn't say yes. But I could say that I thought they had a good chance of improving their regular season record over the previous year (which they ultimately did, with 14 additional wins).

No one can tell you what's going to happen on a given day next year, nor can they tell you who will win a given baseball game next year.

[Moon Monkey]

Zero. The point I was making in that post is that any given day can go any which way. People who think a multi-decade warming trend implies it's never going to snow again in the winter are missing the point.

By multi-decade do you mean 15 ? It seems to me that an awful lot is being staked on a questionable 15 decade trend.

[Mattshark]

"We thought we knew everything about everything, and it turned out that there were unknown unknowns." - Richard Fisher, Director of NASA's Heliophysics Division

Before I accept that some highly educated but quite fallible guy with a model can tell me what's going to happen with global climate in 3, 5, 10, 50, or 100 years, I want assurance that he actually knows without a doubt that there are no "unknown unknowns." If he can't, and we all know there is no way anyone can, I will remain properly unconvinced.

You can never mitigate for every unknown, that is not a feasible notion. Nothing in science is ever 100% and is always subject to change. That doesn't mean we should reject what we do know on the basis of future unknowns. That would be foolish of us.

[Moon Monkey]

You can never mitigate for every unknown, that is not a feasible notion. Nothing in science is ever 100% and is always subject to change. That doesn't mean we should reject what we do know on the basis of future unknowns. That would be foolish of us.

You mean 'what we think we know' or more probably 'what we are told we know', unless you are talking about animalology....but even then I wouldn't take your 'specialist' word on it.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Moon Monkey

[IamsSon]

You can never mitigate for every unknown, that is not a feasible notion. Nothing in science is ever 100% and is always subject to change. That doesn't mean we should reject what we do know on the basis of future unknowns. That would be foolish of us.

I agree, but then that does mean that the proper thing to do is not to trust a model to tell us with any real degree of certainty what will happen in 50 years.

[Mattshark]

I agree, but then that does mean that the proper thing to do is not to trust a model to tell us with any real degree of certainty what will happen in 50 years.

Well that is why we give probability, usually at 95% confidence for acceptance.

It will always be a case of what is likely to happen rather than what will for sure happen.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Mattshark

[IamsSon]

Well that is why we give probability, usually at 95% confidence for acceptance.

It will always be a case of what is likely to happen rather than what will for sure happen.

Frankly, to me anything higher than a 50% confidence seems to still require more faith/trust than it deserves.

[Mattshark]

Frankly, to me anything higher than a 50% confidence seems to still require more faith/trust than it deserves.

Well if it was only 50% we wouldn't accept it, it was 94% we wouldn't accept it. We accept 95%, meaning there is a 5% chance that we are incorrect as a minimum. Science is never absolute.

[Space Commander Travis]

"We thought we knew everything about everything, and it turned out that there were unknown unknowns." - Richard Fisher, Director of NASA's Heliophysics Division

I had a Rumsfeld flashback there.

[Moon Monkey]

Frankly, to me anything higher than a 50% confidence seems to still require more faith/trust than it deserves.

If you rolled 2 sixes you could say with 97% confidence that the dice were loaded. Anything above a toss of the coin chance in climate arguments means the data is loaded, and as they don't have any future data and the climate models are a joke any confidence at all in future predictions is severely misplaced and based on faith, not science. Ask Mattshark to show you any future climate (or seasonal weather) prediction that has come true to within a 95% confidence band.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Moon Monkey

[The Silver Thong]

Ok I have a question. We keep saying that the CO2 levels in the past have been as much as 10 times higher then they are now that I don't dispute as it's a fact. However when we keep looking into the past as far as global cooling and warming goes man has zero effect and I agree with that as well.

The one thing that seems to be ignored or not looked at as in the past the oceans have remained rich with life hence supplying us (life) with a counter balance of oxygen to CO2.

Never in the history of the planet has the ocean been stagnant. What happens when the Oceans are so stagnant they no longer supply us with the O2 we so much need. If man kind kills off what the oceans supply are we not screwed even worse.

I will say that man is not the cause of global climate change but never in the history of the planet has the Oceans been so polluted that they can not be a counter balance.

So I have to ask this question as this topic is far to difficult for my little brain but what happens when we turn the oceans of our planet into waste dumps killing off all oxygen giving life forms. That to me says we better start treating our oceans better because this is the first time in history that the oceans have started to die and become stagnant. It's the first time ever the Oceans no longer work in favor of the planet but against it due to our killing it.

Again I really don't know much about climate change but I do know the Oceans have been fertile and full of life till now.

Combine dead oceans with higher CO2 and we have a first time in earths history of it happening. Due to man. It's not the CO2 we need to worry about but the dead oceans.