4 ms·

You are not an expert in this area I presume. You brought up some thoughtful questions and points which could skew measurements. Now if you a non expert can t

by skh 8y ago

You are not an expert in this area I presume. You brought up some thoughtful questions and points which could skew measurements. Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Being able to think of possible ways that a measurement might be bad or skewed indicates a likely gap in your knowledge and is not a reflection on the science. Your statement: ...we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields.... paints you as a troll. The only people who think the scientific consensus on climate change is the result of political beliefs and not scientifically sound reasons are of a certain persuasion.

cs02rm0 8y ago
Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Yes, but. Look, I'm not an expert in this area and so I have to hold my hands up and say I don't have a clue and have to defer to those who think they do. However, in most other areas of research I find people are able to make a simple, clear case with other factors accounted for in a way that climate change seems to lack. I don't know enough about it to know why, maybe it's just the difficulty in ruling out other factors on one planet. But I feel like I've lost count of the number of times a single dataset like that from Mauna Loa is held up, questioned and then... nothing. Well, nothing but pointing out someone isn't an expert. We should probably do a better job of addressing the questions people have given the importance. Or at least, someone who's an expert should probably do better if they want everyone to buy into the argument.
- skh 8y ago
  I propose that the single data point perception comes from the media and not the experts. The writers of articles in newspapers and popular media are not necessarily well informed. Reporters cling to the “single data point” it seems to me because it makes it easier to for them to write their articles. I doubt very much that any expert uses a single data point to make a conclusion. In general when I read about a study done by experts in an area outside of my expertise and I quickly come up with possible objections to the conclusion I assume this says more about my lack of knowledge than it does about theirs. A lot of times I read an article about math in a newspaper and something is just plain wrong in the article but explaining to a layman why it’s wromg is not so easy. I don’t know if the same thing is true for climate scientists but I suspect it is. I’m all for people questioning things and wondering why a given conclusion is right. I want though for laymen to use such questions as the basis for furthering their own study and quest for knowledge in that area instead of stopping at the question and concluding the scientists have it wrong.
  - oldandtired 8y ago
    Let me ask you a question. Do you ask those who have done the study those questions and if so, what were their responses? Did they answer and if they did not, what do you draw from that? I work from the basis of there are no stupid questions. Some are difficult, some are annoying, some of them challenging and some are unanswerable, but none of them are stupid.
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      I also don't like how any question not draped with otherwise agreement is automatically thought of as bigotry. I didn't take the time to read all the comments in this thread but I did not have the impression you were trying to "debunk climate change" to the contrary, you seemed to accept the presence of problems, but desire more open access to the datasets and presumably tutorials and explanations on how to reproduce analysis (think kaggle scripts). You correctly point out the danger of inefficient or insufficient diagnosis and treatment of the problems. In a sense you seem to hint at counterintuitive policies, where the straightforward policy would be more costly (and hence the difference in cost could have been spent otherwise on more monitoring or treatment). Regarding CO2 monitoring on a worldwide scale, it is indeed a problem scientists and engineers are dealing with. None of your downvoters point out any of the found solutions for the problem you visualize, but they do have the time to downvote you, which imho is not entirely fair, so I will take a little time to respond on that front: they use remote sensing of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), molecules have their own spectra (normal spectra or raman spectra), imaging satellites equiped with lasers take "pictures" of the concentrations of the species under study. These need to be callibrated (at least during the start of their program, and probably periodically throughout the satellite's mission). They can use selected ground stations, or airborne labs measuring CO2 levels. Then the whole picture can be interpreted. There's a lot of unhelpful vile, I presume mostly coming from ex-denialists. There's that saying that goes like: at first they laugh at you, then they vehemently oppose you, and then they not only agree, but pretend they were on the side of history all along... These ex-denialists lack the knowledge to help others see the light, but are more than willing to poop "in the name of their new team" on anyonne who seems to be still in denial...
- Latteland 8y ago
  Do you worry or deny that carbon fiber airplanes are safe to fly, do you not use cell phones or gps because you don't believe that physics works? No, you don't. You only want to seek proof for things that are uncomfortable for you.
oldandtired 8y ago
No I am not an expert in the field. Should the experts have seen these questions? Yes. But did they? I don't know. We don't have the data presented to us. Often, the right questions are asked by those who are not experts in that field. Any gap in my knowledge can well be a reflection of the science. The question I asked about the removal of water vapour figures and why is simply not answered here. As a matter of course for publicly disseminated information, the reasoning for this removal should be explicitly available as well as all the graphs related to having the information included as well as what they presented. That is their responsibility if they want buy-in by the general public. As far as calling someone a troll for stating about non-political cooperation, I have worked for many different kinds of companies and organisations over the decades, private, public and government. In all of them, politics was a normal mode of life, except where certain people were able to protect their staff from it. When politics was not involved, we could achieve much and did achieve much. You demonstrate that politics is alive and well by using the word troll. I don't care about consensus, I care about the data and what it indicates for me and all the generations that follow. I am not interested in strategies that will be ineffective. Without the data we just don't know. If you want to believe the experts without them providing their full reasoning and assumptions, fair enough, you are entitled to that. But I want more, a lot more. I want the data so that it can be analysed by many people so that we can see what it shows. I want to know the assumptions made in the data collection and analysis done. I want to see what interactions are occurring that we can measure. I don't expect consensus, I don't expect agreement as to what it means. But I do expect enough people of different persuasions to get together to hammer out possible strategies for moving forward. If all we have is name calling, then we are not going to develop any effective beneficial strategies for moving forward. If questions are asked then they need answered, clearly and in detail. If these questions are not answered then a major problem exists. You don't build confidence in your expertise if you disparage those who are asking difficult or annoying questions. The important thing here is the collection of data and across a very broad range of fields. Without that publicly available data, with many eyes looking at it, do you really think somebody, anybody can come up with the appropriate strategies for the future? Climate change is inevitable, it is very real. What we can do to mitigate the effects effectively is dependent on much more knowledge than is currently available. We need to get that comprehensive data across all sorts of fields and get it fast.

by skh 8y ago

cs02rm0 8y ago

Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Yes, but. Look, I'm not an expert in this area and so I have to hold my hands up and say I don't have a clue and have to defer to those who think they do. However, in most other areas of research I find people are able to make a simple, clear case with other factors accounted for in a way that climate change seems to lack. I don't know enough about it to know why, maybe it's just the difficulty in ruling out other factors on one planet. But I feel like I've lost count of the number of times a single dataset like that from Mauna Loa is held up, questioned and then... nothing. Well, nothing but pointing out someone isn't an expert. We should probably do a better job of addressing the questions people have given the importance. Or at least, someone who's an expert should probably do better if they want everyone to buy into the argument.

skh 8y ago
I propose that the single data point perception comes from the media and not the experts. The writers of articles in newspapers and popular media are not necessarily well informed. Reporters cling to the “single data point” it seems to me because it makes it easier to for them to write their articles. I doubt very much that any expert uses a single data point to make a conclusion. In general when I read about a study done by experts in an area outside of my expertise and I quickly come up with possible objections to the conclusion I assume this says more about my lack of knowledge than it does about theirs. A lot of times I read an article about math in a newspaper and something is just plain wrong in the article but explaining to a layman why it’s wromg is not so easy. I don’t know if the same thing is true for climate scientists but I suspect it is. I’m all for people questioning things and wondering why a given conclusion is right. I want though for laymen to use such questions as the basis for furthering their own study and quest for knowledge in that area instead of stopping at the question and concluding the scientists have it wrong.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  Let me ask you a question. Do you ask those who have done the study those questions and if so, what were their responses? Did they answer and if they did not, what do you draw from that? I work from the basis of there are no stupid questions. Some are difficult, some are annoying, some of them challenging and some are unanswerable, but none of them are stupid.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    I also don't like how any question not draped with otherwise agreement is automatically thought of as bigotry. I didn't take the time to read all the comments in this thread but I did not have the impression you were trying to "debunk climate change" to the contrary, you seemed to accept the presence of problems, but desire more open access to the datasets and presumably tutorials and explanations on how to reproduce analysis (think kaggle scripts). You correctly point out the danger of inefficient or insufficient diagnosis and treatment of the problems. In a sense you seem to hint at counterintuitive policies, where the straightforward policy would be more costly (and hence the difference in cost could have been spent otherwise on more monitoring or treatment). Regarding CO2 monitoring on a worldwide scale, it is indeed a problem scientists and engineers are dealing with. None of your downvoters point out any of the found solutions for the problem you visualize, but they do have the time to downvote you, which imho is not entirely fair, so I will take a little time to respond on that front: they use remote sensing of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), molecules have their own spectra (normal spectra or raman spectra), imaging satellites equiped with lasers take "pictures" of the concentrations of the species under study. These need to be callibrated (at least during the start of their program, and probably periodically throughout the satellite's mission). They can use selected ground stations, or airborne labs measuring CO2 levels. Then the whole picture can be interpreted. There's a lot of unhelpful vile, I presume mostly coming from ex-denialists. There's that saying that goes like: at first they laugh at you, then they vehemently oppose you, and then they not only agree, but pretend they were on the side of history all along... These ex-denialists lack the knowledge to help others see the light, but are more than willing to poop "in the name of their new team" on anyonne who seems to be still in denial...
Latteland 8y ago
Do you worry or deny that carbon fiber airplanes are safe to fly, do you not use cell phones or gps because you don't believe that physics works? No, you don't. You only want to seek proof for things that are uncomfortable for you.

oldandtired 8y ago

No I am not an expert in the field. Should the experts have seen these questions? Yes. But did they? I don't know. We don't have the data presented to us. Often, the right questions are asked by those who are not experts in that field. Any gap in my knowledge can well be a reflection of the science. The question I asked about the removal of water vapour figures and why is simply not answered here. As a matter of course for publicly disseminated information, the reasoning for this removal should be explicitly available as well as all the graphs related to having the information included as well as what they presented. That is their responsibility if they want buy-in by the general public. As far as calling someone a troll for stating about non-political cooperation, I have worked for many different kinds of companies and organisations over the decades, private, public and government. In all of them, politics was a normal mode of life, except where certain people were able to protect their staff from it. When politics was not involved, we could achieve much and did achieve much. You demonstrate that politics is alive and well by using the word troll. I don't care about consensus, I care about the data and what it indicates for me and all the generations that follow. I am not interested in strategies that will be ineffective. Without the data we just don't know. If you want to believe the experts without them providing their full reasoning and assumptions, fair enough, you are entitled to that. But I want more, a lot more. I want the data so that it can be analysed by many people so that we can see what it shows. I want to know the assumptions made in the data collection and analysis done. I want to see what interactions are occurring that we can measure. I don't expect consensus, I don't expect agreement as to what it means. But I do expect enough people of different persuasions to get together to hammer out possible strategies for moving forward. If all we have is name calling, then we are not going to develop any effective beneficial strategies for moving forward. If questions are asked then they need answered, clearly and in detail. If these questions are not answered then a major problem exists. You don't build confidence in your expertise if you disparage those who are asking difficult or annoying questions. The important thing here is the collection of data and across a very broad range of fields. Without that publicly available data, with many eyes looking at it, do you really think somebody, anybody can come up with the appropriate strategies for the future? Climate change is inevitable, it is very real. What we can do to mitigate the effects effectively is dependent on much more knowledge than is currently available. We need to get that comprehensive data across all sorts of fields and get it fast.