• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Visage said:
That makes no sense. You cant prove that climate science is wrong by making spurious claims about meteoroligy. Especially when the limitations of the models used in weather forecasting are well known - just look at all the caveats on that forecast you linked to.



The models are not only verifiable, but that verification happens continuously. This is because there isnt one single 'climate model'. All climatologists around the world have access to the same raw data provided by the many geosensing systems out there. They all have their own way of processing taht data to come up with testable hypotheses. And all of them, without fail, suggest that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in mean global temperatures. When compared against historical data we can see that, at the same time as mankind has increased Co2 levels, temperatures have risen. So the outcome is in line with the models. But not just one model, which would not be expecially significant, but with every model, suggesting that the techniques are sound.



If they're as scientifically worthless as the last time, dont bother.
Click to expand...

Why would the meteorology models be less accurate than the climate models? At least the former are verifiable in almost real time. Why do the model predictions (combined or otherwise) continue to diverge from empirical measurements despite ever increasing CO2 emissions? If you were so desperate to mitigate CO2 emissions how would you go about it? Short of invading China and India I can't see you doing much about it. Models cannot possibly predict processes that they do not know about, to suggest otherwise is absurd. Physics still surprises me.
BTW my links were left on the old thread.

You also forget that CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere which in turn is a tiny part of the Earth system, there is one hell of a lot of iron and water to consider not counting the incoming/outgoing radiation. You require an extremely unstable system to have a sensitivity to the supposed 40ppm increase in CO2 within atmospheric gases. If the system was that sensitive I would suggest that we wouldn't have evolved beyond worms.
Oh and many would argue that CO2 lags temperature due to the oceans degassing.
 
Last edited:
 
Im sure you could. But do you have any links that have actual science in them, rather than just blog posts or editorials?

If I wanted vague rants I'd ask my kids. Im looking for *evidence* that AGW isnt real.
 
I ain't a great debater but I'm pretty sure we are currently enjoying the wettest drought in the history of the world.
 
Visage said:
Im sure you could. But do you have any links that have actual science in them, rather than just blog posts or editorials?

If I wanted vague rants I'd ask my kids. Im looking for *evidence* that AGW isnt real.
Click to expand...

I posted a mix of links that might be more accessible to others. I draw your attention to the link to Prof. Richard Lindzen's seminar in parliament. I should have posted the links to other parts and his work. I doubt that you could dispute his credentials given that he has done work for the IPCC.
If we can agree that the temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 of itself is 1 Celcius, the IPCC industry standard. We now have to find feedbacks which are hugely positive to cause catastrophy, which imply a very unstable system. Lindzen argues that the net feedbacks are slightly negative.
Surely radiative forcings can only be important at the top of atmosphere with convection dominating at the surface.
Even Jones, Mann et al. cannot explain the lack of warming predicted since 1998, hence the brand name changing.
As for the Met Office, they claim climate change expertise while admiting that the feedbacks are poorly understood.
I'll be posting more but I would appreciate you reciprocate with something other than assertion. You will agree that good science should be open to scrutiny and that is how we develop it.
Whatever challenges we face we also need solutions that work without shutting down the economy.
At no point have I presented rants either by myself or others I'm just testing whether the climate alarmists' product is any good, if it is any good then you will not get many returns.
 
Last edited:
The Saturday Boy said:
More Lindzen stuff

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, it just shows that the debate is alive and well provided people do not go ad hominum. Filtering this stuff takes some work, if you do not want to upset certain sensibilities. I do not like the polarisation of the debate however, especially with the political undertones. The political certainty when there a so many unknowns in a complex chaotic system disturbs. The reliance on unverifiable models is just plain stupid, modelling in my work only gets me so far in relatively well understood systems. Remember the empirical evidence in climate is fairly close to noise and could easily be attributed to natural variation such as the emergence from the little ice age. Correlation does not mean cause. The simple truth is that measurements have different coverage and instrumentation over centuries so therefore the data has to be adjusted to this, the adjustment is opinionated and certainly subjective.
The relatively well measured (though not well distributed temperature record) northern hemisphere with a high proportion of land mass and an oceanic pole is quite different to the southern hemisphere with a land mass centred on the pole that has a less dense measurement record.
Extracting signals from the noise requires a decent filter that might catch your intended culprit but then you might have missed the real one or others.
 
Last edited:
t3ch said:
Is climate change happening? Yes.
Are humans contributing in any significant way? Unknown.

Anyone who says otherwise is not interesting in having an honest conversation about the issue. Now, you could phrase the question in other ways. Are there things we can do better as a species? The answer to that is a definite yes.
Click to expand...

There is much more of a legitimate debate on your side of the pond and Congress does not seem so keen to sell its soul. The Canadians dumped Kyoto. In the UK we just need to dump the Climate Change Act (2008) but we are still subject to EU targets. The tories are trying to squinny out of it and would likely bin it if it wasn't for the LibDem minority control of energy policy.

A move to China does not seem too bad after all.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
There is much more of a legitimate debate on your side of the pond
Click to expand...

We don't know what we're doing over here any more than anyone else does.

HAzelGroveWolf said:
and Congress does not seem so keen to sell its soul. The Canadians dumped Kyoto. In the UK we just need to dump the Climate Change Act (2008) but we are still subject to EU targets. The tories are trying to squinny out of it and would likely bin it if it wasn't for the LibDem minority control of energy policy.

A move to China does not seem too bad after all.
Click to expand...

Now this is debatable. ; )
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Another engineer's perpective:

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

The winner of the X-prize no less, he clearly explains the difference between a scientist and an engineer. It is probably as close to my own position at this time, written in accessible language, is comprehensive and deserves to be read in full.
Click to expand...

That's just noise, a jumble of facts shouted in bright colours. There may be a good hypothesis in there, but if there is, it's very well hidden. If one of my engineers (or scientists) produced a report like that he'd be told to come back with something more structured, containing robust experimental data, that people could actually read and draw conclusions from. As for this engineers are better than scientists crap, grow up, or at least get a chip on each shoulder.
 
Considering that the two thrusts of HGW's arguments seem to be about trusting ones own knowledge rather than being simply told, and the importantce of empirical data over models, I am surprised he hasnt yet furnished us with his own empirical research into climate change.
 
Visage said:
Considering that the two thrusts of HGW's arguments seem to be about trusting ones own knowledge rather than being simply told, and the importantce of empirical data over models, I am surprised he hasnt yet furnished us with his own empirical research into climate change.
Click to expand...

I'm asking legitimate questions that I would ask in my own work. If my product doesn't work nobody buys it. It is a bit more complex than that but success depends on an open mind.
I did request some persausive arguements that the 'consensus' is correct. None has been seen here so far.
I use modeling in my work but I know the limitations within well understood physics/engineering. Models are useful for approximating well understood systems. Arrogant assertion that climate models are correct when they are unverifiable is just daft.
Persuade me that Rutan's arguements don't hold water piece by piece. I have respect for you Vis but you have yet to venture anything credible that asserts climate catastrophe or solutions that are anything but laughable.
 
Last edited:
Why do you have faith in the 1% of models that cast doubt on man made climate change, but distrust the 99% that dont?

Whats the difference between the models? Whats the difference that convinces you that the former are correct, while the latter are not? Because so far all the points youve made apply to both sides. So why swing one way?
 
Doctor Doog said:
That's just noise, a jumble of facts shouted in bright colours. There may be a good hypothesis in there, but if there is, it's very well hidden. If one of my engineers (or scientists) produced a report like that he'd be told to come back with something more structured, containing robust experimental data, that people could actually read and draw conclusions from. As for this engineers are better than scientists crap, grow up, or at least get a chip on each shoulder.
Click to expand...

He does not denigrate science but appreciates that exploration of ideas is indeed a good thing. Basing policy on blue sky research is however, without an engineering eye, dangerous.
In any case the Rutan stuff is very clear to anyone that can read a graph and comprehend english.
Which bit didn't you understand?
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
Why do you have faith in the 1% of models that cast doubt on man made climate change, but distrust the 99% that dont?

Whats the difference between the models? Whats the difference that convinces you that the former are correct, while the latter are not? Because so far all the points youve made apply to both sides. So why swing one way?
Click to expand...

No model has predicted the utterly pointless concept of global average temperature since 1998. Models are largely untestable and how do you fix the bugs? It rapidly becomes a curve fitting exercise to the past. Mr Rutan explains this for you. You have yet to put anything in front of us that convinces us to wreck the economy for the purposes of having no influence whatsoever on the well being of the planet.
 
Last edited:
So we should continue to base our economy on a dwindling resource that will soon run out, but be subject to ever more dramatic increases in price until it does?

Yeah - that will be great for the economy.
 
I saw a programme a while back where Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize-winning geneticist, discussed climate change with those in both camps and looked at the evidence. I imagine he has a passing familiarity with the scientific method and had the humility to note that he was a geneticist not a climatologist so he couldn't claim to fully understand the science behind it all.

His question to one particular well-known blogger was this:

Imagine you have a particularly nasty cancer. The vast majority of cancer specialists around the world agreed on both the diagnosis and the most appropriate treatment, but there were a few dissenting voices, some of them cancer specialists, some people who come from other spheres but had a different idea on what should be done. Some people even suggested you should do nothing about it.

What would you do? Have the treatment as recommended by the specialists, or follow one of the alternative paths?

And let's be clear - man made climate change *is*accepted by the vast majority of climatologists. Are there doubts and questions? Of course. Are they sufficient to warrant us ignoring the diagnosed problem? I'd say not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top