3 ms·

Weird, I thought this article was about a years worth of global weather data. Perhaps you don't understand scale?

by splawn 12y ago

InclinedPlane 12y ago
Let me ask you this, if 2014 were merely an anomalously cold year, would the reporting and commenting be different? Maintaining scientific rigor is difficult in the best of times. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses to try to short cut the process and "prove" their position is correct even though the actual scientific process is slow. One hot year is just one year, as one cold year would be. It's proof of very little. Certainly the validity, or not, of incredibly complex climate models does not rest particularly strongly on one year out of many. Short circuiting the climate debate when a year is warm is no better than when a year is cold, and merely legitimizes the practice.
- splawn 12y ago
  yes it would be different, it would be about how it was a record breaking cold year. If it rained unicorns it would be about it raining more unicorns than normal, but since we live in this universe instead of one of those alternate ones this story is about (yet another) record breaking hot year.
- pistle 12y ago
  Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to see here. I can't live long enough to prove a trend, therefore nobody can with their climate science based on 100's of measurement backed up way more history baked into the geology, etc. To argue the science, at this point, questions the arguers understanding of the process of science or the grasp of the quality of the science at hand. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie." What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    Climate models are complex. The data needed to validate them is also enormous and difficult to get right. Validating a climate model is an enormously challenging prospect, and represents far more work than simply saying "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot." As for the rest, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that isn't present in anything I wrote.
    - splawn 12y ago
      I didn't realize that the current overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming is based on "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot.". If thats not the case, does that count as a strawman in something you wrote?

Weird, I thought this article was about a years worth of global weather data. Perhaps you don't understand scale?

by splawn 12y ago

Weird, I thought this article was about a years worth of global weather data. Perhaps you don't understand scale?

Let me ask you this, if 2014 were merely an anomalously cold year, would the reporting and commenting be different? Maintaining scientific rigor is difficult in the best of times. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses to try to short cut the process and "prove" their position is correct even though the actual scientific process is slow. One hot year is just one year, as one cold year would be. It's proof of very little. Certainly the validity, or not, of incredibly complex climate models does not rest particularly strongly on one year out of many. Short circuiting the climate debate when a year is warm is no better than when a year is cold, and merely legitimizes the practice.

splawn 12y ago
yes it would be different, it would be about how it was a record breaking cold year. If it rained unicorns it would be about it raining more unicorns than normal, but since we live in this universe instead of one of those alternate ones this story is about (yet another) record breaking hot year.
pistle 12y ago
Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to see here. I can't live long enough to prove a trend, therefore nobody can with their climate science based on 100's of measurement backed up way more history baked into the geology, etc. To argue the science, at this point, questions the arguers understanding of the process of science or the grasp of the quality of the science at hand. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie." What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Climate models are complex. The data needed to validate them is also enormous and difficult to get right. Validating a climate model is an enormously challenging prospect, and represents far more work than simply saying "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot." As for the rest, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that isn't present in anything I wrote.
  - splawn 12y ago
    I didn't realize that the current overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming is based on "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot.". If thats not the case, does that count as a strawman in something you wrote?