5 ms·

You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as it applies to climate change. Firstly, here are the undisputable facts - facts that can be reproduced in

You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as it applies to climate change. Firstly, here are the undisputable facts - facts that can be reproduced in a laboratory without relying on simulations. a) Sunlight bouncing off the Earth's surface is red-shifted. b) CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb red light more than other forms of light, which they re-emit, often back towards the ground / lower atmosphere. c) The amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, as directly measured d) this increase correlates with calculations associated with how much CO2 we are emittting through the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Those are the facts. Looking at those facts, it seems pretty clear that the null hypothesis for climate change is that the temperature of the lower atmosphere should be increasing. We would expect the temperature to rise, unless there is some process that we don't know about that is affecting the numbers When we put the hypothesis to the test - is the temperature increasing? - we see that it is indeed increasing, which confirms the model. Now, about those simulations. Yes, they are not as reliable as the science I just when through above. We know that. But they all agree with the null hypothesis that the temperature will rise if we keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you want to throw that result into dispute, you need to show that there is some process going on that we didn't know about, and hence haven't been included in the models, or you need to show that the simulations themselves are actually wrong. What you can't do, if you want to be scientific about, is just state that you are skeptical about the simulations, and therefore we shouldn't act/create policy based on those simulations. I mean, sure, you can hold to that, but you have to admit that you are just being irrationally skeptical, and not scientific at all if that's the position you wish to hold.

gavanwoolery 15y ago
You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as well. Take hugh3's example and throw out anthropogenic global warming. Do the facts still hold? The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us. No one is questioning whether or not humans or CO2 have an impact - we all know that we do. The question is whether or not we have a SIGNIFICANT impact. That is, enough of an impact that we should actually give a damn, given we probably wont be using fossil fuels in 100 years anyway. If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason.
- demallien 15y ago
  "The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us." Ok, what you're trying to do here, in the context of my first post, is make a case for one of those 'unknown processes' that I talked about. Now, I'm all for that, I'm not closing any doors, but if you want me to accept that there is some other, natural, process going on, you're going to have to show some evidence for it. Show me that the sun's output has changed and is causing the rise in temperature, or that the real culprit is volcano emissions, or amoeba farts, or whatever. "If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate?" There have been I don't know how many independant investigations (about 5 or so at last count) into "ClimateGate", and they have all cleared scientists of lying or falsifying data. So I throw your question back to you - if this is all a big put on by scientists, why can we never catch them lying/falsifying the data? I mean, we should be able to if this is a coverup, right? "Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason." Well, the reason that we don't talk about it is because there isn't any evidence that we're heading back into a mini Ice Age. But again, apply the scientific process to this. Your hypothesis is that we are heading back into a mini Ice Age. Well, the last time that happened, we saw a drop in CO2 levels, which is what you would expect to see according to modern climate models. This time round, CO2 is rising and temperatures are rising. Bearing in mind the facts from my first post, I don't see how you can possibly expect that we are about to head into another mini Ice Age, unless you are once again proposing some mysterious cause that we haven't yet detected that is going to force the climate into a colder state. Once again, I'm willing to listen, but you're going to have to back your position up with some evidence if you want me to accept the hypothesis.
- epistasis 15y ago
  >why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? You've repeated this accusation several times in this thread. Can you back this up? I've asked people many times, nobody ever produces anything. They just assume that it was proved, without ever actually checking their hypotheses. Here's an example of what scientific misconduct looks like, from my field: http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 The researchers screwed up through basic sloppiness, then refused to correct their errors after they were pointed out. Has there been anything this bad in the the leaked climate emails? BTW, as a scientist I know that "trick" has more than one meaning, particularly when it comes to problem solving, so if you think that the use of the word "trick" is rock-solid proof, please explain how deception was perpetrated rather than clever problem solving.
rimantas 15y ago
If only those four factors would affect climate, you'd have a point. Alas, weather is extremely complex system, and it is pretty difficult to say for sure what is correlation, what is causation. And I am pretty sure, that by tweaking some variables in your models you can get any outcome you want.
- demallien 15y ago
  I don't think you have understood my point at all. I am not claiming that this is a demonstration of human-caused global warming. I'm explaining why scientists now consider human-caused global warming to be the null hypothesis. Which is to say that unless some currently unknown factor comes into play, they expect the planet to continue to warm as we release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Why is that important? Well, it basically means that if you want to claim that something other than substantial global warming is going to occur, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is some other process in play that the current model has failed to take into account. So sure, there may be other other major factors that affect climate. I have no problem with that possibility. But those factors are a bit like those old maps with "Here Be Dragons" marked when the map-maker didn't know what was really there. As we explored more and made better maps, those blank areas disappeared until there were none left (and we never did find any dragons!) Maybe this time we will find dragons, and there really is some other factor that balances out our increased CO2 emissions. But for the time being, no-one has discovered any such factor. Is it really reasonable to base public policy on the bet that this time, we really will find dragons?
  - krschultz 15y ago
    But you have completely hand waved the argument and its consequences. You have made an argument that CO2 means that it is likely to be warmer. So? What's the problem? I like the summer. Obviously the problem is not that it will be slightly warmer. The problem is that ice caps will melt, the weather will change, sea levels will rise, farm land may be harder to come by, species may die, etc etc etc. All of that could end up being very bad. If it is that bad then it is worth preventing. But how do you go from 'CO2 traps heat' to 'We're screwed!'. That's the part people disagree with. All of these effects are way harder to show in an experiment than simply that CO2 absorbs heat. How do you do a full-scale experiment with cloud formation or the increased hurricanes we're supposedly going to see? You simply can't do an experiment. This is not to say the models are wrong, just that saying CO2 can be shown to trap heat is not the answer people are looking for. That is well understood. The 2nd and 3rd order effects are what really get called into question.
Fliko 15y ago
Thank you for being rational rather then being distorted to one view or the other.

gavanwoolery 15y ago

You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as well. Take hugh3's example and throw out anthropogenic global warming. Do the facts still hold? The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us. No one is questioning whether or not humans or CO2 have an impact - we all know that we do. The question is whether or not we have a SIGNIFICANT impact. That is, enough of an impact that we should actually give a damn, given we probably wont be using fossil fuels in 100 years anyway. If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason.

demallien 15y ago
"The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us." Ok, what you're trying to do here, in the context of my first post, is make a case for one of those 'unknown processes' that I talked about. Now, I'm all for that, I'm not closing any doors, but if you want me to accept that there is some other, natural, process going on, you're going to have to show some evidence for it. Show me that the sun's output has changed and is causing the rise in temperature, or that the real culprit is volcano emissions, or amoeba farts, or whatever. "If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate?" There have been I don't know how many independant investigations (about 5 or so at last count) into "ClimateGate", and they have all cleared scientists of lying or falsifying data. So I throw your question back to you - if this is all a big put on by scientists, why can we never catch them lying/falsifying the data? I mean, we should be able to if this is a coverup, right? "Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason." Well, the reason that we don't talk about it is because there isn't any evidence that we're heading back into a mini Ice Age. But again, apply the scientific process to this. Your hypothesis is that we are heading back into a mini Ice Age. Well, the last time that happened, we saw a drop in CO2 levels, which is what you would expect to see according to modern climate models. This time round, CO2 is rising and temperatures are rising. Bearing in mind the facts from my first post, I don't see how you can possibly expect that we are about to head into another mini Ice Age, unless you are once again proposing some mysterious cause that we haven't yet detected that is going to force the climate into a colder state. Once again, I'm willing to listen, but you're going to have to back your position up with some evidence if you want me to accept the hypothesis.
epistasis 15y ago
>why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? You've repeated this accusation several times in this thread. Can you back this up? I've asked people many times, nobody ever produces anything. They just assume that it was proved, without ever actually checking their hypotheses. Here's an example of what scientific misconduct looks like, from my field: http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 The researchers screwed up through basic sloppiness, then refused to correct their errors after they were pointed out. Has there been anything this bad in the the leaked climate emails? BTW, as a scientist I know that "trick" has more than one meaning, particularly when it comes to problem solving, so if you think that the use of the word "trick" is rock-solid proof, please explain how deception was perpetrated rather than clever problem solving.

rimantas 15y ago

If only those four factors would affect climate, you'd have a point. Alas, weather is extremely complex system, and it is pretty difficult to say for sure what is correlation, what is causation. And I am pretty sure, that by tweaking some variables in your models you can get any outcome you want.

demallien 15y ago
I don't think you have understood my point at all. I am not claiming that this is a demonstration of human-caused global warming. I'm explaining why scientists now consider human-caused global warming to be the null hypothesis. Which is to say that unless some currently unknown factor comes into play, they expect the planet to continue to warm as we release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Why is that important? Well, it basically means that if you want to claim that something other than substantial global warming is going to occur, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is some other process in play that the current model has failed to take into account. So sure, there may be other other major factors that affect climate. I have no problem with that possibility. But those factors are a bit like those old maps with "Here Be Dragons" marked when the map-maker didn't know what was really there. As we explored more and made better maps, those blank areas disappeared until there were none left (and we never did find any dragons!) Maybe this time we will find dragons, and there really is some other factor that balances out our increased CO2 emissions. But for the time being, no-one has discovered any such factor. Is it really reasonable to base public policy on the bet that this time, we really will find dragons?
- krschultz 15y ago
  But you have completely hand waved the argument and its consequences. You have made an argument that CO2 means that it is likely to be warmer. So? What's the problem? I like the summer. Obviously the problem is not that it will be slightly warmer. The problem is that ice caps will melt, the weather will change, sea levels will rise, farm land may be harder to come by, species may die, etc etc etc. All of that could end up being very bad. If it is that bad then it is worth preventing. But how do you go from 'CO2 traps heat' to 'We're screwed!'. That's the part people disagree with. All of these effects are way harder to show in an experiment than simply that CO2 absorbs heat. How do you do a full-scale experiment with cloud formation or the increased hurricanes we're supposedly going to see? You simply can't do an experiment. This is not to say the models are wrong, just that saying CO2 can be shown to trap heat is not the answer people are looking for. That is well understood. The 2nd and 3rd order effects are what really get called into question.

Fliko 15y ago

Thank you for being rational rather then being distorted to one view or the other.