4 ms·

Demallien - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ Here you go :) I would emphasize that there is

Demallien - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ Here you go :) I would emphasize that there is no more proof that we are headed into an Ice Age than there is that we are headed into a particularly warm period, I only mention the Ice Age because so few people talk about it. Weather is very difficult to model - we can barely model next month's weather accurately, let alone the next hundred years. In particular, here is the major fallacy: Even if weather did sharply rise over a century, there is no telling what that might mean for the following century. In fact, if you look at most temperature spikes, they are usually followed by cool periods. It is like saying that because tomorrow is hot, and the next day hotter, that we must be headed into a really hot period. It simply does not work like this. As for ClimateGate, I'm not really into conspiracies, but it would not surprise me if some scientists had their asses covered. Imagine the people who would look stupid for handing a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Not that hard to pull strings on these so called "investigations" - everyone has a price.

Tichy 15y ago
We learned about the ice ages coming in cycles in school, 25 years ago. It is common knowledge - I think the climate researchers have probably heard about it, too. Honestly, I am so tired of hearing this oh so clever counterpoint.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  I guess we should just ignore all counterpoints, because you are tired of hearing them. That's real science!
  - Tichy 15y ago
    No, because they are invalidated on the grounds of being common knowledge. I think your conspiracy should falter if it's details are being told in high school. What kind of conspiracy would that be?
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    Tichy - I do not think there is any conspiracy around ice ages - all that data is readily available. There is, apparently, willful ignorance though.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Do you have evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?
    - gavanwoolery 15y ago
      Tichy (won't let me reply directly, think its nested too deep) - "Do you have evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?" Yes, actually. If you look at 99 percent of studies, they are based on temperatures from maybe 1500 (at the earliest) to present. In geological time, this is the blink of an eye. Here is a relevant quote from Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
      - Tichy 15y ago
        I don't see any mentioning of ice ages in that quote. If you want to argue that no meaningful science can be done with data from 1500, then of course the answer of the effect of human CO2 output has to wait for a couple of million years. The whole research is then impossible in your opinion. I don't know about that... As for Patterson's claims, I am no climatologist, so I can't comment. I don't think CO2 is generally thought to be the only thing affecting temperatures. Ok, off the top of my head: it is known that ice ages affect temperatures. That must probably be independent of CO2 (ice ages are not driven by CO2 changes), otherwise Patterson's remark would make no sense. So there is clearly at least one other known factor (the one that brings about ice ages), which Patterson conveniently forgets to mention. What do you say?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
demallien 15y ago
That article doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Or at least, the Register, in their usual slip-shod journalistic style, have been very fast and loose about the sources of different pieces of information in the article. NASA notes that their measurements indicate that the Sun is going into a low-activity period. They also note that the last time we saw this, it correlated to the Little Ice Age. They do not make any claim about a causal link between the two, simply noting that it something that is perhaps worth investigating. The Register then go on to wildly speculate that this could mean that we are heading into a Little Ice Age. I hope you don't mind if I don't take the opinion of a journalist at The Register as a serious scientific exposition. There are major problems with this hypothesis. Firstly, it doesn't fit with our reductionist understanding of how the climate interacts with the Sun. For example, this period of 'low activity' corresponds to a drop of just 0.1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) of the Sun's output - a drop that is too small to produce the Little Ice Age all by itself. Secondly, even if the Sun's output of energy drops, there is the question of whether it's lower output can offset the calculated rise in temperature due to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. The answer there is a resounding 'no', based on our current understanding of how greenhouse gases work. So once again, you're trying to argue for an unknown deus ex machina to save the hypothesis. If you haven't noticed, each objection to climate change finishes in that same way - they all rely on some unknown effect changing the results that simulations are currently showing. Not surprisingly, most scientists prefer to wait for some substantial evidence that such an effect exists before throwing out the explanation resulting from all effects known as of today. Also, if you really want to rely on the Sun's output to save us from global warming, I have to note in passing that a) we can't control the Sun, and b) we can't even predict the Sun very well (no one anticipated the latest minimum, so we have no idea when it's going to change). You can poke at anomolies all you like, but unless you can upset the basic reductionist science that I outlined in my original post, you aren't doing science, you're doing politics.
kaybe 15y ago
As science is done in big teams I'd say it would take a lot to cover someones ass. You usually have a professor, some scientists and a heckload of students of all levels, all interested in finding out the truth (more or less I guess). I'm in climate research (as a Bachelor candidate, granted) and I wouldn't let anything like that slip, and I know I'm not the only one.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Like I have pointed out several times - there is no (known) truth. There are only hypotheses. You can easily cover up bad data, but you can't easily prove that someone covered up that data.
  - kaybe 15y ago
    You say it's easy. I don't think so, for several reasons: - If you collect raw data, everyone in the group knows. You can claim instrument failure, of course, but then you'd have everyone around trying to help. - From the raw data alone it's hard to say what to dismiss. So you'd have to do the long-term analysis first and then decide what to ditch - harder then because your data will be on backup, and you will probably have talked about things with people - because it's a group. - You're most probably not the only person using this data. As I said, there are students doing some work for you, other scientists in your group using your data.. and everyone would be happy to find something new. - Additionally, I cannot think of a single professor who wouldn't love to find that global warming is not true.. but I could have misjudged here, of course. demallien has already pointed out what we know and what we think, so I won't go into this.
gavanwoolery 15y ago
Demaillien: I completely agree with you on this: "If you haven't noticed, each objection to climate change finishes in that same way - they all rely on some unknown effect changing the results that simulations are currently showing. Not unsurprisingly, most scientists prefer to wait for some substantial evidence that such an effect exists before throwing out the explanation resulting from all effects known as of today." We can create all sorts of models but the harsh truth is that they are all very rough estimates. We know that solar fluxations cause temperature change, we know that CO2 does, etc. The problem lies with the measurements. We cannot accurately measure our future CO2 levels, we don't know exactly how much CO2 is getting transformed by trees and at what rate, and we do not know how much CO2 is coming from under-sea vents and how much methane from cow farts. In fact, our models have already been proven wrong many times over, inside and outside of climate research. In fact, 60 percent of all scientific studies done have been wrong. We have a tendency (as humans) to make invalid assumptions and jump to conclusions about data without accounting for all of the dependent and independent variables. There are a ton of variables, and no accurate way to measure all of them yet. Arguing for or against climate change is like trying to tell a religious person that God does not exist. You cannot prove or disprove it, so it is kind of fruitless either way. At the end of the day, there is one take-away: differentiating facts from hypothesis. We have a lot of hypotheses, but very few facts.
- vacri 15y ago
  In fact, 60 percent of all scientific studies done have been wrong. 84% of all statistics are pulled from thin air.
  - Fliko 15y ago
    This is why we have statistical inference

Tichy 15y ago

We learned about the ice ages coming in cycles in school, 25 years ago. It is common knowledge - I think the climate researchers have probably heard about it, too. Honestly, I am so tired of hearing this oh so clever counterpoint.

gavanwoolery 15y ago
I guess we should just ignore all counterpoints, because you are tired of hearing them. That's real science!
- Tichy 15y ago
  No, because they are invalidated on the grounds of being common knowledge. I think your conspiracy should falter if it's details are being told in high school. What kind of conspiracy would that be?
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Tichy - I do not think there is any conspiracy around ice ages - all that data is readily available. There is, apparently, willful ignorance though.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Do you have evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    Tichy (won't let me reply directly, think its nested too deep) - "Do you have evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?" Yes, actually. If you look at 99 percent of studies, they are based on temperatures from maybe 1500 (at the earliest) to present. In geological time, this is the blink of an eye. Here is a relevant quote from Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
    - Tichy 15y ago
      I don't see any mentioning of ice ages in that quote. If you want to argue that no meaningful science can be done with data from 1500, then of course the answer of the effect of human CO2 output has to wait for a couple of million years. The whole research is then impossible in your opinion. I don't know about that... As for Patterson's claims, I am no climatologist, so I can't comment. I don't think CO2 is generally thought to be the only thing affecting temperatures. Ok, off the top of my head: it is known that ice ages affect temperatures. That must probably be independent of CO2 (ice ages are not driven by CO2 changes), otherwise Patterson's remark would make no sense. So there is clearly at least one other known factor (the one that brings about ice ages), which Patterson conveniently forgets to mention. What do you say?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

demallien 15y ago

That article doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Or at least, the Register, in their usual slip-shod journalistic style, have been very fast and loose about the sources of different pieces of information in the article. NASA notes that their measurements indicate that the Sun is going into a low-activity period. They also note that the last time we saw this, it correlated to the Little Ice Age. They do not make any claim about a causal link between the two, simply noting that it something that is perhaps worth investigating. The Register then go on to wildly speculate that this could mean that we are heading into a Little Ice Age. I hope you don't mind if I don't take the opinion of a journalist at The Register as a serious scientific exposition. There are major problems with this hypothesis. Firstly, it doesn't fit with our reductionist understanding of how the climate interacts with the Sun. For example, this period of 'low activity' corresponds to a drop of just 0.1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) of the Sun's output - a drop that is too small to produce the Little Ice Age all by itself. Secondly, even if the Sun's output of energy drops, there is the question of whether it's lower output can offset the calculated rise in temperature due to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. The answer there is a resounding 'no', based on our current understanding of how greenhouse gases work. So once again, you're trying to argue for an unknown deus ex machina to save the hypothesis. If you haven't noticed, each objection to climate change finishes in that same way - they all rely on some unknown effect changing the results that simulations are currently showing. Not surprisingly, most scientists prefer to wait for some substantial evidence that such an effect exists before throwing out the explanation resulting from all effects known as of today. Also, if you really want to rely on the Sun's output to save us from global warming, I have to note in passing that a) we can't control the Sun, and b) we can't even predict the Sun very well (no one anticipated the latest minimum, so we have no idea when it's going to change). You can poke at anomolies all you like, but unless you can upset the basic reductionist science that I outlined in my original post, you aren't doing science, you're doing politics.

kaybe 15y ago

As science is done in big teams I'd say it would take a lot to cover someones ass. You usually have a professor, some scientists and a heckload of students of all levels, all interested in finding out the truth (more or less I guess). I'm in climate research (as a Bachelor candidate, granted) and I wouldn't let anything like that slip, and I know I'm not the only one.

gavanwoolery 15y ago
Like I have pointed out several times - there is no (known) truth. There are only hypotheses. You can easily cover up bad data, but you can't easily prove that someone covered up that data.
- kaybe 15y ago
  You say it's easy. I don't think so, for several reasons: - If you collect raw data, everyone in the group knows. You can claim instrument failure, of course, but then you'd have everyone around trying to help. - From the raw data alone it's hard to say what to dismiss. So you'd have to do the long-term analysis first and then decide what to ditch - harder then because your data will be on backup, and you will probably have talked about things with people - because it's a group. - You're most probably not the only person using this data. As I said, there are students doing some work for you, other scientists in your group using your data.. and everyone would be happy to find something new. - Additionally, I cannot think of a single professor who wouldn't love to find that global warming is not true.. but I could have misjudged here, of course. demallien has already pointed out what we know and what we think, so I won't go into this.

gavanwoolery 15y ago

Demaillien: I completely agree with you on this: "If you haven't noticed, each objection to climate change finishes in that same way - they all rely on some unknown effect changing the results that simulations are currently showing. Not unsurprisingly, most scientists prefer to wait for some substantial evidence that such an effect exists before throwing out the explanation resulting from all effects known as of today." We can create all sorts of models but the harsh truth is that they are all very rough estimates. We know that solar fluxations cause temperature change, we know that CO2 does, etc. The problem lies with the measurements. We cannot accurately measure our future CO2 levels, we don't know exactly how much CO2 is getting transformed by trees and at what rate, and we do not know how much CO2 is coming from under-sea vents and how much methane from cow farts. In fact, our models have already been proven wrong many times over, inside and outside of climate research. In fact, 60 percent of all scientific studies done have been wrong. We have a tendency (as humans) to make invalid assumptions and jump to conclusions about data without accounting for all of the dependent and independent variables. There are a ton of variables, and no accurate way to measure all of them yet. Arguing for or against climate change is like trying to tell a religious person that God does not exist. You cannot prove or disprove it, so it is kind of fruitless either way. At the end of the day, there is one take-away: differentiating facts from hypothesis. We have a lot of hypotheses, but very few facts.

vacri 15y ago
In fact, 60 percent of all scientific studies done have been wrong. 84% of all statistics are pulled from thin air.
- Fliko 15y ago
  This is why we have statistical inference