[Misc] Global Warming

[clapham_gull]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this.

How does that make you an expert on climate change / global warming ?

Sorry misread -

The sign of a 'Real Scientist' is one who has an open mind to all possibilities and looks at the evidence from the various models and experts. Sadly, the way you bound terms around like Forams and Milankovitch Cycles around (Geology 101 terms, easily extractable from any climate change denier site), your 'f**k you all' attitude and the fact that you claim everyone who disagrees with you as idiots, comes across less as a scientist, more as the arrogant IT jerk in The Office.

Just for context, I too have a PhD, in Geology, and 30 yrs in the dirty old Oil Industry. Now, being in my early 50's and working in the fossil fuels business would in theory put me in the classic Climate Change denier venn diagram centre, but strangely no. The company I work for, and specifically the large technical team I manage does a lot of work with palaeo-climate models back to 300 mya, modelled using our input and proxy data (including your forams) by academic groups in the UK, USA and Scandanavia. I'm not at the coal face of climate modelling, but certainly in the mine. You are correct in saying the earth was much hotter and colder at times compared to today, about the only thing you've said that makes sense. Anyway, the main tasks of these various academic groups is actually forward climate modelling (they just apply them with modifications to deep time for us), and all of them have simulations, which we have seen, showing that man-made climate change is very, very real. The post-industrial rate of temperature rise is much higher than anything that could even be seen wothin the resolution of geological evidence (100s of years compared to at the very least 10s of 1000s of years), so your rapid heating/cooling arguement for a start is moot.

Is driving your land rover and taking long hauls flights going to change anything in the long or short term, no, so carry on (although I'm surprised your not worried about falling off the edge of the flat earth!), but dismissing peer reviewed science and calling those at least attempting to make some sort of change as idiots doesn't really win you the arguement does it?

He's clearly had enough of experts.

 

[Zeberdi]

You can't do that as it is massive academic and moral misconduct. If you exclude data you need an absolutely solid reason for doing so and state it clearly wherever the data is presented.
As for the other stuff, well, that is is just misconduct on a higher level.

Like those who start with confirmation bias which basically means seeking raw data and then manipulating it in a way that will confirm existing personal biases and beliefs while ignoring data that doesn’t - when taken to its extreme, we get presented with outlandish conspiracy theories about the climate, vaccines and hollow moons etc that as ‘scientific endeavours’ are quite useless

 

[HeaviestTed]

But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also.

have you got any examples of rapid warming/cooling that can’t have been caused by humans?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1880.

www.climate.gov

Looks odd to me.

Correlation does not mean causation. I'm not persuaded we know what we are dealing with, still.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Like those who start with confirmation bias which basically means seeking raw data and then manipulating it in a way that will confirm existing personal biases and beliefs while ignoring data that doesn’t - when taken to its extreme, we get presented with outlandish conspiracy theories about the climate, vaccines and hollow moons etc that as ‘scientific endeavours’ are quite useless

If you continue to persist on posting balanced thoughtful comment on NSC I may have to come round your house and shoot you. Enough is enough. We need firmly held opinion, not substantiated fact. So help me, now. FFS.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

Yes, yes it is.

oh, another one.

 

[chip]

Looks odd to me.

View attachment 172298


Correlation does not mean causation. I'm not persuaded we know what we are dealing with, still.

I agree, change the axes units and that could be blood glucose or blood flux. Relatively simple compared to modelling climate but not possible to do deterministically so no surprise that models not always accurate. The real problem in science with modelling has been that people study a model and assume that it relates to reality in some way, especially when it shows what you expect. With CC models they are only descriptive, you can't really do experiments to excite/insult the system in some known way to identify dynamics, too many of which are unobservable, have very different time constants and have multiple feedback paths, just like physiology. So, I'm inclined to agree that we know not what we are dealing with to any depth but humans have a part in it. If we could go back sufficient million years, would we see tree-mediated climate cooling?

 

[chip]

You can't do that as it is massive academic and moral misconduct. If you exclude data you need an absolutely solid reason for doing so and state it clearly wherever the data is presented.
As for the other stuff, well, that is is just misconduct on a higher level.

quite a lot of people do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents

Many papers have errors in them, particularly statistical errors in medical journals ~.~ https://www.science.org/content/art...cs-major-medical-journal-sets-record-straight

 

[American Seagle]

quite a lot of people do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents

Many papers have errors in them, particularly statistical errors in medical journals ~.~ https://www.science.org/content/art...cs-major-medical-journal-sets-record-straight

Oh I know it happens but they get retractions or erratas which is not a good look.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree, change the axes units and that could be blood glucose or blood flux. Relatively simple compared to modelling climate but not possible to do deterministically so no surprise that models not always accurate. The real problem in science with modelling has been that people study a model and assume that it relates to reality in some way, especially when it shows what you expect. With CC models they are only descriptive, you can't really do experiments to excite/insult the system in some known way to identify dynamics, too many of which are unobservable, have very different time constants and have multiple feedback paths, just like physiology. So, I'm inclined to agree that we know not what we are dealing with to any depth but humans have a part in it. If we could go back sufficient million years, would we see tree-mediated climate cooling?

Thanks for that. Sensible comment.

There are 'records' of global temperature that go back millions of years (clearly with diminishing precision and accuracy the further back in time you go). In that great scheme of things the last 150 years looks somewhat un-dramatic. Till you see the slope of the line.

As a scientist, my job involves attempting to falsify hypotheses. All that said, I don't need a hypothesis to be proven (or repeatedly failed to be disproven - I am a Popper acolyte) to consider that action is advisable. I am strongly in favour of 'net zero' (or even net negative) with the UK 'leading' by example. And (more importantly) I am strongly in favour of incentivizing the Great net positives (America, India, China and Brazil) to sort themselves out. Jaw-jaw, not war-war. The UK government has done the square root of bugger all in that regard, sadly, with its introspective obsessions with Brexit and 'woke'.

None of this is advanced, in my enormous opinion, by 20 students super-gluing themselves to the Clock Tower on a busy Saturday, or by 'Just Top Oil' building an ever bigger echo chamber.

 

[zefarelly]

oh, another one.

I'm an engineer, a bit like scientists, we deal in facts, not fashionable in certain circles I know, but they are bonafide.

THey don't always rise to the top as some people shout bullshit a lot louder.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I'm an engineer, a bit like scientists, we deal in facts, not fashionable in certain circles I know, but they are bonafide.

THey don't always rise to the top as some people shout bullshit a lot louder.

I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but I haven't seen a verifiable fact in about 10years.
Lots of sweeping assumptions, best guesses, models and "engineering judgement", but no facts. Can't be having with those.

 

[Creaky]

I don't understand what difference the cause makes to climate change.

There is, as I understand it, factual evidence that the average temperature on Earth is increasing. There also seems to be a consensus that this not a "good thing".

IF that is the case then taking steps that will slow down that rise, whatever the cause, can only be beneficial.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't understand what difference the cause makes to climate change.

There is, as I understand it, factual evidence that the average temperature on Earth is increasing. There also seems to be a consensus that this not a "good thing".

IF that is the case then taking steps that will slow down that rise, whatever the cause, can only be beneficial.

depends what you're being asked to give up, if you have to make the sacrifices that will make a real benefit.

 

[chip]

I don't understand what difference the cause makes to climate change.

There is, as I understand it, factual evidence that the average temperature on Earth is increasing. There also seems to be a consensus that this not a "good thing".

IF that is the case then taking steps that will slow down that rise, whatever the cause, can only be beneficial.

It's relatively easy to develop a prediction model and test it, but has little value if you do not know what parameters to manipulate. Science essentially seeks explanation and the causal relationship between the actors in a system. In this case what human activities are influencing the climate. Unlike Harry Wilson, I'm more of a Feyerabend scientist albeit with a strong Popper leaning. There isn't really a single scientific method.

However, I think that biohomogeneity and loss of species will be a bigger threat to human existance than "just" climate change.

 

[zefarelly]

I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but I haven't seen a verifiable fact in about 10years.
Lots of sweeping assumptions, best guesses, models and "engineering judgement", but no facts. Can't be having with those.

Well, I don't work on a farm or in IT, that's not engineering.

As I said previously, engineers usually deal in facts, whether recently or previously proven is irrelevant.

If I'm fitting a seat in my race car , I'll happily go with proven previous and use 4 x 12.9 grade M8 socket cap screws, it's been calculated proven, tried, and tested. . .

If I design a new product at work and it changes structurally, even a little bit . . .we'll recalculate it structurally. That's what we do. We're not in the business of killing people. Quite the opposite, the company I work for is in the business of protecting people.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Well, I don't work on a farm or in IT, that's not engineering.

As I said previously, engineers usually deal in facts, whether recently or previously proven is irrelevant.

If I'm fitting a seat in my race car , I'll happily go with proven previous and use 4 x 12.9 grade M8 socket cap screws, it's been calculated proven, tried, and tested. . .

If I design a new product at work and it changes structurally, even a little bit . . .we'll recalculate it structurally. That's what we do. We're not in the business of killing people. Quite the opposite, the company I work for is in the business of protecting people.

My point, such as it was, is that a lot of engineering falls under best practice, design codes, reasonable estimates, rather than actual solid facts.
Obviously it varies according to discipline. Somebody designing a plane has a lot more confidence in the details of what they're doing than a geotechnical engineer designing a set of piles.

But it's all a long way from a scientist's search for "truth". If I have to have a load of anchor bolts tested, I generally only care whether they meet the design proof load. What they would actually go on to fail at is not normally something that concerns me.

I should clarify, thaf I originally replied while waiting on the platform at Doncaster Station on my way home after the game yesterday. I'm not madly committed to an argument about the finer differences between engineering and science.

 

[A1X]

 

[lasvegan]

View attachment 172353

A better world for nothing? 150 trillion according to the UN.

UN Demands $150 Trillion to End Bad Weather | Frontpage Mag

(also known as 150% of the world's GDP)

www.frontpagemag.com

 

[Brent Partridge]

. . .