3 ms·

Eric, I assume you don't want to do the work, or you don't want to allocate time doing so. So I'll close this out. First, I want to be clear about the context

Eric, I assume you don't want to do the work, or you don't want to allocate time doing so. So I'll close this out. First, I want to be clear about the context for my challenging that slide you pointed me to located at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence -- I am not challenging whether climate change is real or not, and I'm not challenging whether humans are or aren't the cause of it. I am challenging the specific evidence you point to, and not blindly accepting a graph without questioning what data it is based on and how that data was analyzed. The problem with providing a slide like that to people as evidence is that it fits what they already believe, and so no one questions the source that generated these results. Slapping an atmospheric CO2 value in ppm onto a graph taken from a study that measures CO2 values in ppmv from ice cores isn’t science. The slide you point to on that page shows a graph from the study mentioned in the graph’s caption, and purports to show historical atmospheric CO2 over the past 800,000 years, to measurements of the actual CO2 taken from actual current atmosphere. I have read and annotated the study, and I’ll accept that data as accurate for now and won’t challenge what is in that study. However: 1. The graph you point to is not the graph that the referenced study supplied -- it is that graph with a portion added on the end that did not come from the study. It looks like someone took the graph from the study, and tacked on the ‘1950 on’ CO2 levels measured from the actual atmosphere (which are from the NOAA Mauna Loa measurements). 2. The “1950s on” label is inaccurate. The study states that accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 did not begin until 1958. It’s minor, but it’s important to be accurate here. 3. How do we know that the CO2 in an ice core can be directly compared to a measurement taken of actual, live atmosphere? How do we know there isn’t some process whereby the CO2 in an ice core shows up as lower than an actual atmospheric measurement? That may be in the end notes of the study, but I’m not going to do the work to dig through that now. It’s something that needs to be validated, if it hasn’t already, before being accepted as fact. 4. The study says that CO2 levels and arctic temps are strongly coupled (correlated). Correlation isn’t causation. Correlation is correlation. We see that two things are correlated, and our brain immediately sees a causal connection. STOP DOING THAT. Cholesterol is correlated with coronary heart disease, but it is not a cause of CHD. 5. Despite the study stating that CO2 levels and arctic temps are strongly coupled (correlated), it also states that there were significant deviations between Temperature and CO2 levels multiple times over that period, meaning that there were multiple times where the CO2 levels were not correlated with arctic temperatures. Clearly then, CO2 levels are not always in line with what you would expect temps to be if CO2 were driving the temps higher -- what mechanism is causing temps to be what they were despite CO2 levels suggesting the temps should be different? Maybe CO2 levels were higher, but the temps stayed lower, meaning that more CO2 was released from some other mechanism -- or maybe something else prevented temps from going higher despite increases in CO2. 6. Let’s assume that there is a strong correlation in the evidence of the study’s data that actually points to there being a true cause and effect result between CO2 levels and temperature levels. You still have to prove what is causing what, not just that one causes the other. You have to show whether temperature rise is the result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, OR increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of increasing temperatures. Even if CO2 increases show up prior to temperature rises, it still doesn’t mean CO2 is causing the temperature rises. CO2 could be a leading indicator of future temperature increases, not a cause of them, meaning that whatever mechanisms are increasing the temperature, they are first triggering increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. That could mean that both CO2 levels and temperature rises are both caused by a something else. 7. By far the biggest error I find in the slide you pointed to: They used different unit measurements!!! The ice cores measure CO2 in ppmv, the NOAA atmospheric measure of CO2 is in ppm. They are not the same! It is quite possible that if you could convert the ppm of the NOAA data into ppmv units, it might fit right in to the study’s graph! I haven’t proven anything, I’m saying it’s now an open question, that the slide you pointed me to is a result of someone tacking together two separate graphs of data that is measured in two different units. You cannot compare them directly. See here: http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-ppm-and-ppmv/ http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between... I wouldn’t be surprised if you can convert the 400 ppm CO2 value into ppmv and that it comes out to around the 280 ppmv CO2. Try these calculators: https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/ppm/converter-parts-per-million.htm https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/ppm/converter-parts-per... http://www.aresok.org/npg/nioshdbs/calc.htm http://www.aresok.org/npg/nioshdbs/calc.htm That could make the NOAA data comparable to the units of the study’s data, and plot that and it might fit the study graph perfectly, and not the slide you showed me. Even if it doesn’t, it’s not proof of the opposite. The CO2 in the ice cores is in water; the CO2 in the NOAA measurements is in gaseous form. That alone might account for the difference, but still, I question whether CO2 measurements in water can be compared to CO2 measurements in air without some conversions and adjustments for units, or other factors. So I’ve poked holes in that graph you provided as evidence. It isn’t proof that climate change isn’t happening, and it isn’t proof that humans are not to blame -- it is simply showing that the evidence in that graph you provided has serious problems, and should not be used as ‘evidence’ until those problems are resolved. But it will be passed around and people will believe it is evidence and not question it, because they've already decided what the truth is and aren't interested in challenging evidence that fits their already selected belief. I highly recommend watching Michael Crichton’s talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIAQJVlg54E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIAQJVlg54E Over and out.

__d 7y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here. Ok, Eric is not a climate scientist (or if they are, they're perhaps not a very good one). And one graph that they've pointed to as demonstrating what actual climate scientists are concerned about has some problems too. Fine. But really --- for many (most?) questions, many (most?) people are unable to evaluate the evidence themselves, and instead fall back to the consensus of actual experts. And I think that's perfectly reasonable behavior: being an expert in everything is impossible. In this case, there are plenty of people who are experts. Trained, experienced, knowledgeable people. And by an overwhelming majority, they think there's a big problem here. Now there are cases where orthodoxy in science, in part worsened by cultural or religious factors, has led to a consensus that was subsequently shown to be unsupported by later, better, evidence and analysis. It's possible that this is the case here, and your skeptical approach is not entirely unwarranted. But the consensus view of the probable outcomes is pretty dire. And that's probably a quite conservative prediction, because those scientists who have risked the backlash of talking about what they personally think is likely, paint a significantly worse picture. At what point should we, as humanity, decide that the risk is worth altering our behavior, if not now?
- meretext 7y ago
  The point? Eric asked me: "...what do you make of this chart shown on the nasa.gov page? It shows the cycles that you're talking about, but then it shows how our situation is incredibly different from any other cycles over thousands of years. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ So given evidence like that, what is your reaction?" I responded that based on my assessment, this is not good evidence to support a claim that climate change (e.g. global warming) is 'real' and is human caused, and I specifically laid out why. That's it. That was the point. If you want to respond to any or all of those specific items, and show where I might be mistaken, great. Note that I did not make any claims as to whether climate change (e.g. global warming) is or isn't 'real', nor whether humans are or are not involved or the cause. If that's what you got from my reply to Eric, then you're reading more into my response than I wrote. I think we should be analyzing and challenging all evidence, supporting any claims and any position. That's what science is supposed to be about, IMO. I made that clear: "First, I want to be clear about the context for my challenging that slide you pointed me to located at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence -- I am not challenging whether climate change is real or not, and I'm not challenging whether humans are or aren't the cause of it." I do think we should be working on renewable energy sources that are cleaner, reducing environmental pollution, and so on, because that really makes sense regardless of what's going on with the climate. In response to your other comments: I'm not a climate scientist either, but I don't think you need to be one to analyze data and evidence. Read the study and the NOAA data that the evidence Eric pointed me to is based on, and see for yourself. As for whether most people have the time, I agree, most probably don't, but Eric specifically asked me to look at this data; I think it fair to ask him to do the work to analyze it as well. Your comment along the lines of "most climate scientists believe X" doesn't really say anything other than that most climate scientists believe X. So? Most experts used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. As I've said prior, consensus is not evidence. That many experts believe something is presented as evidence may be very true. But that doesn't say anything about whether what they believe is actually true. "An argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to the people') is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so. Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for 'agreement of the people'),[10] democratic fallacy,[11] and mob appeal.[12]" (From WikiPedia I think). As for the consequences being dire, we'll see. I recommend you watch the Michael Crichton talk I gave the link for. /s.

__d 7y ago

I'm not sure what your point is here. Ok, Eric is not a climate scientist (or if they are, they're perhaps not a very good one). And one graph that they've pointed to as demonstrating what actual climate scientists are concerned about has some problems too. Fine. But really --- for many (most?) questions, many (most?) people are unable to evaluate the evidence themselves, and instead fall back to the consensus of actual experts. And I think that's perfectly reasonable behavior: being an expert in everything is impossible. In this case, there are plenty of people who are experts. Trained, experienced, knowledgeable people. And by an overwhelming majority, they think there's a big problem here. Now there are cases where orthodoxy in science, in part worsened by cultural or religious factors, has led to a consensus that was subsequently shown to be unsupported by later, better, evidence and analysis. It's possible that this is the case here, and your skeptical approach is not entirely unwarranted. But the consensus view of the probable outcomes is pretty dire. And that's probably a quite conservative prediction, because those scientists who have risked the backlash of talking about what they personally think is likely, paint a significantly worse picture. At what point should we, as humanity, decide that the risk is worth altering our behavior, if not now?

meretext 7y ago
The point? Eric asked me: "...what do you make of this chart shown on the nasa.gov page? It shows the cycles that you're talking about, but then it shows how our situation is incredibly different from any other cycles over thousands of years. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ So given evidence like that, what is your reaction?" I responded that based on my assessment, this is not good evidence to support a claim that climate change (e.g. global warming) is 'real' and is human caused, and I specifically laid out why. That's it. That was the point. If you want to respond to any or all of those specific items, and show where I might be mistaken, great. Note that I did not make any claims as to whether climate change (e.g. global warming) is or isn't 'real', nor whether humans are or are not involved or the cause. If that's what you got from my reply to Eric, then you're reading more into my response than I wrote. I think we should be analyzing and challenging all evidence, supporting any claims and any position. That's what science is supposed to be about, IMO. I made that clear: "First, I want to be clear about the context for my challenging that slide you pointed me to located at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence -- I am not challenging whether climate change is real or not, and I'm not challenging whether humans are or aren't the cause of it." I do think we should be working on renewable energy sources that are cleaner, reducing environmental pollution, and so on, because that really makes sense regardless of what's going on with the climate. In response to your other comments: I'm not a climate scientist either, but I don't think you need to be one to analyze data and evidence. Read the study and the NOAA data that the evidence Eric pointed me to is based on, and see for yourself. As for whether most people have the time, I agree, most probably don't, but Eric specifically asked me to look at this data; I think it fair to ask him to do the work to analyze it as well. Your comment along the lines of "most climate scientists believe X" doesn't really say anything other than that most climate scientists believe X. So? Most experts used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. As I've said prior, consensus is not evidence. That many experts believe something is presented as evidence may be very true. But that doesn't say anything about whether what they believe is actually true. "An argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to the people') is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so. Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for 'agreement of the people'),[10] democratic fallacy,[11] and mob appeal.[12]" (From WikiPedia I think). As for the consequences being dire, we'll see. I recommend you watch the Michael Crichton talk I gave the link for. /s.