Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-swrAyQv92WQ/UKaQK0EtnjI/AAAAAAAAADk/QtkphzCbCog/s400/hansen.gif

 

Now, if they would take the models off of the "water-vapor multiplier" juice and just go with a climate sensitivity of around 1 deg. C / doubling (as empirical analysis is tending to demonstrate) then they might not get anywhere near 4 deg. C but then they wouldn't be able to scare anyone, would they?

[Cascade]

This is not how climate science works.

 

Climate scientists make models trying to predict future climate. Any such model is a huge simplification. They have to use their judgment to determine which simplifications still yield valid results. This judgment isn't completely subjective - it can be tuned based on past data, the results can be compared with other models, etc. But there is still enough judgment involved that a smart well-trained scientist with idiotic judgment may get wrong results. His paper showing "If we make the following assumptions, an increase in CO2 emissions will result in global cooling." could still be worth publishing, because, well maybe its true that a model with these simplifications predicts global cooling. This isn't physics where you can make hundreds of experiments - there i s only one climate, and experiments on its reaction to large scale greenhouse emissions cannot be run very frequently.

 

Your argument is a bit like saying "10 weather forecasters predict rain tomorrow, one predicts sun, so we can't conclude anything". Or "10,000 doctors claim I should quit smoking, but 20 think it increases my health, so there is nothing I can do until about my health until I have understood why each of these 20 doctors is wrong".

 

1. I thought we were constantly reminded that the science is settled.

 

2. Powell didn't claim that 13926 were in favour of AGW and 24 were against he simply claimed based on a strict standard that 24 rejected AGW and made no claim about the other 13926. I suspect if he used a similarly strict criteria that there wouldn't be many of the others in the 'prove AGW' category or whatever is the opposite of 'reject AGW'.

 

So I would argue that my claim is nothing like what you suggest. Science is not a popularity vote its about establishing the facts. If there are 13949 who make certain claims and 1 that provides a legitimate counter example to those claims then it is necessarily the case that the 13949 are wrong and the one is right. That is one legitimate, substantiated, valid objection is enough to expose a flaw in any theory no matter how popular it is. If you say "all balls are blue" and I produce one red ball your theory is exposed. Similarly if the climate scientists say "the science is settled" and someone finds one thing that they have overlooked and that will have an impact then the science is not settled.

[Daniel1960]

This is not how climate science works.

 

Climate scientists make models trying to predict future climate. Any such model is a huge simplification. They have to use their judgment to determine which simplifications still yield valid results. This judgment isn't completely subjective - it can be tuned based on past data, the results can be compared with other models, etc. But there is still enough judgment involved that a smart well-trained scientist with idiotic judgment may get wrong results. His paper showing "If we make the following assumptions, an increase in CO2 emissions will result in global cooling." could still be worth publishing, because, well maybe its true that a model with these simplifications predicts global cooling. This isn't physics where you can make hundreds of experiments - there i s only one climate, and experiments on its reaction to large scale greenhouse emissions cannot be run very frequently.

 

Your argument is a bit like saying "10 weather forecasters predict rain tomorrow, one predicts sun, so we can't conclude anything". Or "10,000 doctors claim I should quit smoking, but 20 think it increases my health, so there is nothing I can do until about my health until I have understood why each of these 20 doctors is wrong".

It really is not one or the other. There is an entire range of possible scenarios that could exist. These range from the no warming attributed to CO2 (i.e the 24) up to large warming (perhaps there are only 24 is this range also). The difficulty is distinguishing the CO2-forced warming from other contributors. There are several different models that have been fine tuned to past results, but show vastly different projections. Which is correct? Unfortunately, we do not know yet. Although, I think we can discard any model that shows an increase in CO2 results in global cooling.

[Al_U_Card]

Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided

 

 

This is not a reasonable risk to take, even if one expects the brunt to be taken by future generations.

 

We are talking about the World Bank....and we do know who benefits from the international exchange of carbon credits and the like.

[Zelandakh]

This is not how climate science works.

Too right. One of the main things against climate science is the lack of proof of the level required for physical sciences. If we take the Mann modelling technique for example, it uses a well-established mathemtaical process but throws out the key statistical test used to decide of the resulting data is meaningful, replacing it with a different test. Why? Because using the standard statistic says that the data is not meaningful. In the same vein, if you take only Northern hemisphere temperature records included in the modelling proxies you would probably expect a large LIA and MWP since both of these are reported in several regions. And yet, the dominance of the Urals data flattens out the resulting data to nothing within this period. I understand the argument that the Southern hemisphere data removes these "local" effects, but taking only Northern hemisphere data too? Come on, even ardent supporters of AGW must be able to see something is wrong there.

 

 

Climate scientists make models trying to predict future climate. Any such model is a huge simplification. They have to use their judgment to determine which simplifications still yield valid results. This judgment isn't completely subjective - it can be tuned based on past data, the results can be compared with other models, etc. But there is still enough judgment involved that a smart well-trained scientist with idiotic judgment may get wrong results. His paper showing "If we make the following assumptions, an increase in CO2 emissions will result in global cooling." could still be worth publishing, because, well maybe its true that a model with these simplifications predicts global cooling. This isn't physics where you can make hundreds of experiments - there i s only one climate, and experiments on its reaction to large scale greenhouse emissions cannot be run very frequently.

The way the models are produced, with forcings and feedbacks, provides a very wide array of possibilities that match the past data record. One of the positive thing about the models is that the outputs are reasonably consistent even for quite different input criteria. However, you are right to point out that all of the models use a great deal of subjective input. This is a real problem in a branch of science that is reliant on a particular hypothesis being correct and goes some way to explaining why almost every model uses a positive feedback for cloud formation even whe there is very little science to back this up. As a mathematician I believe strongly in modelling as a valid and useful approach to problems such as this. However, it is clear that you need to keep a skeptical head when producing such models, making sure to check a range of possibilities in unknown inputs. Otherwise you run the considerable risk of ending up with a GIGO model.

 

 

Your argument is a bit like saying "10 weather forecasters predict rain tomorrow, one predicts sun, so we can't conclude anything". Or "10,000 doctors claim I should quit smoking, but 20 think it increases my health, so there is nothing I can do until about my health until I have understood why each of these 20 doctors is wrong".

A better analogy is that 10 weath forecasters predict a 100% chance of rain for the next week, one predicts a 90% chance of rain every day. It only takes one dry day for the models used by the 10 to be faulty, even if it is only a small discrepancy. Or that 10000 doctors claim that I have a 100% chance of getting cancer because I smoke and my only chance of surviving is to give up smoking and pay $20000 per month for treatment (of which the doctors themselves get a 10% kickback), whereas 20 notice that if I pay $20000 per month I will be bankrupt and homeless in 6 months and suggest that I try an alternative treatment that only costs $20 per month but will reduce the chance of getting a fatal cancer to 10%.

 

I know these are stupid examples. So are yours. That is characteristic of the arguments on both sides sometimes. The truth is that we have the technology already to deal with excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If it turns out that the problem is extreme then they could be implemented quickly. Naturally the cost of doing this would be greater than taking the same action over a longer time frame starting now. In this respect it makes sense to make changes now which have little impact on the existing economies and standards of living, or are already beneficial. It does not make sense to take the drastic action that has at times been suggested by some ecology groups (turn off all coal-powered power stations, etc).

 

One further example of this is the 4 degree link posted by PassedOut. Question: at the current rate of warming, how long will it take for the world to warm by 4 degrees? Given that solutions are available, is this a realistic scenario? You may as well post a link on why a 20 degree cooler world must be avoided. One example from the introduction: "Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming." So everyone agrees and the science is settled. Except that 3 paragraphs later comes: "We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk." Errrr, so is the science settled or not? This is Wayne's point. Also, the very next sentence is: "But the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to justify strengthening current climate change policies." Scientists also cannot rule out the scenario of aliens landing on Earth and starting an intergallactic war - does that mean we should strengthen our policies against an alien invasion? Nor of a large interstellar body crashing into Manhattan - perhaps we should proactively evacuate all the inhabitants to underground bunkers just to be on the safe side.

 

This is precisely the problem. For every piece of rubbish AI posts here there is at least one equally as misleading posted on the AGW side. It is a little like the advertising for the American presidential race. Separating out the pieces of science based on good maths and statistics is not an easy task and it is no surprise that some sections of society have started to wonder what to think. It is tough enough even when you have some knowledge of the methods involved. Let us make an agreement - any link posted in this thread is regarded as bogus until someone else posts a meaningful argument as to why the underlying science in the linked article is indisputable. My guess is that very few links will meet this criteria (ignoring fanboi arguments).

[Al_U_Card]

throws out the key statistical test used to decide of the resulting data is meaningful, replacing it with a different test. Why? Because using the standard statistic says that the data is not meaningful.

 

For every piece of rubbish AI posts here

 

 

Welcome to the club, then.

[Winstonm]

1. I thought we were constantly reminded that the science is settled.

 

Science is not a popularity vote its about establishing the facts.

 

You seem trapped in the same mindset I see almost always with deniers - a comparison of science to religion/philosophy.

 

Science is not in the "proof" business - that is religion/philosophy/law. Everyone but the jurors "knew" the facts about O.J.

 

In unknowns, we can only take our best guess and live with the results. If you are waiting for total proof, see O.J.

[Al_U_Card]

You seem trapped in the same mindset I see almost always with deniers - a comparison of science to religion/philosophy.

 

Science is not in the "proof" business - that is religion/philosophy/law. Everyone but the jurors "knew" the facts about O.J.

 

In unknowns, we can only take our best guess and live with the results. If you are waiting for total proof, see O.J.

 

So, the accused presents exculpatory evidence of their innocence and they are still to be convicted?

 

What you posted is the type of logical fallacy that most "believers" use along with various strawman, consensus or arguments from ignorance (we don't know what else it might be so it must be that...) .

[Zelandakh]

Science is not in the "proof" business - that is religion/philosophy/law.

I would say it is maths personally. This is one of the reasons why it is so galling to here phrases such as "the science is settled". Admittedly you tend to hear this from politicians and campaign groups rather than scientists. Indeed, and this should really end the debate on the subject, here is a link to one of the most popular (pro) AGW sites dismissing the idea that "the science is settled". As always there is some blurring on where the lines between "unequivocal", "with high confidence" and "uncertain" might fall. While I agree with RC that the answer to "Is AGW real" would be yes with high confidence, finding a consensus of nearly all scientists on precisely how much warming and what the feedback factors are would be a different question entirely.

 

This is where the robustness of models to different input criteria is reassuring but equally is the recent trend away from the precitions from those models confusing. I have little doubt that the next piece of the puzzle will be found in due course and added. I also have little doubt that the models are broadly on the right track, although the subjective nature of certain feedbacks worries me. But even then, when my prediction would be that catastrophic warming is not unlikely if we were to continue without change, I am not overly worried. In exactly the same way as technological improvements have broadly kept pace with the catastrophe scenario of my youth (overpopulation and food levels) so I expect something similar to come into play with respect to GHGs. The technology is there already and just needs someone to pay for it. I trust world leaders to get their act together on this before we reach one of the tipping points. I do not expect it to happen in my lifetime but I would be genuinely astounded if we were to reach such a point when removing or countering GHGs is so simple.

[hrothgar]

In exactly the same way as technological improvements have broadly kept pace with the catastrophe scenario of my youth (overpopulation and food levels) so I expect something similar to come into play with respect to GHGs. The technology is there already and just needs someone to pay for it. I trust world leaders to get their act together on this before we reach one of the tipping points. I do not expect it to happen in my lifetime but I would be genuinely astounded if we were to reach such a point when removing or countering GHGs is so simple.

 

Guess that I am a fair bit more cynical than you.

 

I saw how well issues arising from "over population and food level" played out in Rwanda...

I know just how far people will go to make buck

Genocide isn't nearly as rare as we like to think

 

Consider what's going on with tobacco.

 

Here in the US, consumption has plummeted as folks have finally wised up about the health risks associated with smoking. With this said and done, we're still perfectly happy to promote and sell tobacco throughout the world, so long as we can make some easy cash.

 

Global warming is no different. It is going to be extremely difficult to convinced people to spend money to benefit folks on the other side of the planet.

[Daniel1960]

I would say it is maths personally. This is one of the reasons why it is so galling to here phrases such as "the science is settled". Admittedly you tend to hear this from politicians and campaign groups rather than scientists. Indeed, and this should really end the debate on the subject, here is a link to one of the most popular (pro) AGW sites dismissing the idea that "the science is settled". As always there is some blurring on where the lines between "unequivocal", "with high confidence" and "uncertain" might fall. While I agree with RC that the answer to "Is AGW real" would be yes with high confidence, finding a consensus of nearly all scientists on precisely how much warming and what the feedback factors are would be a different question entirely.

 

This is where the robustness of models to different input criteria is reassuring but equally is the recent trend away from the precitions from those models confusing. I have little doubt that the next piece of the puzzle will be found in due course and added. I also have little doubt that the models are broadly on the right track, although the subjective nature of certain feedbacks worries me. But even then, when my prediction would be that catastrophic warming is not unlikely if we were to continue without change, I am not overly worried. In exactly the same way as technological improvements have broadly kept pace with the catastrophe scenario of my youth (overpopulation and food levels) so I expect something similar to come into play with respect to GHGs. The technology is there already and just needs someone to pay for it. I trust world leaders to get their act together on this before we reach one of the tipping points. I do not expect it to happen in my lifetime but I would be genuinely astounded if we were to reach such a point when removing or countering GHGs is so simple.

I generally agree with your comments. While temperatures are likely to increase with increasing CO2 concentrations, quantitating that increase is highly uncertain. Catastrophic warming, while possible, seems unlikely based on the scientific observations. Thus far, the catastrophes only exist in the models. That is where I tend to differ with sites like RC, who promote the worst-case model-based scenarios, and ridicule those who disagree with them.

[blackshoe]

About the only thing you can be sure of coming out of this whole AGW thing is that the politicians are going to screw us all.

[hrothgar]

We are talking about the World Bank....and we do know who benefits from the international exchange of carbon credits and the like.

 

It always so hard to remember whether today is "Attack bankers day" as opposed to "Complain about ad hominem attacks day"

[Al_U_Card]

About the only thing you can be sure of coming out of this whole AGW thing is that the politicians are going to screw us all.

 

And that the bankers will get paid and the corporations will profit.

[Daniel1960]

Guess that I am a fair bit more cynical than you.

 

I saw how well issues arising from "over population and food level" played out in Rwanda...

I know just how far people will go to make buck

Genocide isn't nearly as rare as we like to think

 

Consider what's going on with tobacco.

 

Here in the US, consumption has plummeted as folks have finally wised up about the health risks associated with smoking. With this said and done, we're still perfectly happy to promote and sell tobacco throughout the world, so long as we can make some easy cash.

 

Global warming is no different. It is going to be extremely difficult to convinced people to spend money to benefit folks on the other side of the planet.

I am a bit more optimistic. Currently, people spend significant funds to help the poorest, both here and abroad. While not everyone supports this idea, there is a large number that do. Regarding food, just check out how much food production and production efficiency has increased over the past 40-odd years, since the Population Bomb was written. Neither mass stravation nor social upheavals have resulted due to overpopulation. Even in Rwanda.

[Al_U_Card]

A clearer image of just how doomed we are?

 

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IPCC-20071.png

[Cascade]

You seem trapped in the same mindset I see almost always with deniers - a comparison of science to religion/philosophy.

 

Science is not in the "proof" business - that is religion/philosophy/law. Everyone but the jurors "knew" the facts about O.J.

 

In unknowns, we can only take our best guess and live with the results. If you are waiting for total proof, see O.J.

 

1. I don't think that I am a denier. I don't know where the truth lies. I am skeptical of those who tell me what to believe based on what I can see is flawed data and other arguments.

 

2. If science is not in the "proof" business then it is disingenuous to claim "science is settled". To repeatedly tell me that the science is settled whilst in quiet acknowledging significant errors is the analysis is misleading at best, it is treating the population with contempt. It is a dumbing down that seems to be designed to mislead.

 

3. I see what I think can only be described as marketing style hype and religious style fervour trying to convince me to believe in AGW. For example I watched (some of) Al Gore and others on Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality.

 

I don't know from personal observation what is happening in other parts of the world. I don't even know the full facts of what is happening in my backyard. However when I see information protrayed that is obviously not correct or not known or if it is known without any supporting evidence and used to support an ideal I will be naturally skeptical of the underlying claims and the motives of the people (Climate Reality) trying to push that information.

 

In particular in the Climate Reality videos there is a section on what is happening in New Zealand. The overview states "Dirty Weather has infiltrated New Zealand..." and they give some anecdotal evidence of weather events. They claim they are examining the 'connection between dirty energy and dirty weather'. From 1:47 in the appropriate video they show the Manawatu gorge without naming it. This gorge is around 25km from my home. The road through the gorge is about 140 years old. Throughout that 140 year history this gorge due to the steep unstable geography has experienced many slips. However without proof they show a slip (admittedly a particularly bad one) across this road (not railroad as claimed in the video the railroad is on the other side of the river) as an example of a dirty weather impact. Yes they acknowledge that slips are frequent in New Zealand but I bet they get more mileage out of showing a big nasty slip than they lose from a minor disclaimer and even that was conditional. Whilst this event was triggered by rainfall it was not so extreme as to register on a list of 14 extreme events in the NIWA statistics for October 2011 in New Zealand. It seems to me very unlikely that there has been established any causality between AGW and this event and yet it was show cased as an example of 'dirty weather' around the world. I am going to resist being convinced by this sort of deception and continue to look for hard evidence untainted by political hype and marketing campaigns.

[Daniel1960]

1. I don't think that I am a denier. I don't know where the truth lies. I am skeptical of those who tell me what to believe based on what I can see is flawed data and other arguments.

 

2. If science is not in the "proof" business then it is disingenuous to claim "science is settled". To repeatedly tell me that the science is settled whilst in quiet acknowledging significant errors is the analysis is misleading at best, it is treating the population with contempt. It is a dumbing down that seems to be designed to mislead.

 

3. I see what I think can only be described as marketing style hype and religious style fervour trying to convince me to believe in AGW. For example I watched (some of) Al Gore and others on Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality.

 

I don't know from personal observation what is happening in other parts of the world. I don't even know the full facts of what is happening in my backyard. However when I see information protrayed that is obviously not correct or not known or if it is known without any supporting evidence and used to support an ideal I will be naturally skeptical of the underlying claims and the motives of the people (Climate Reality) trying to push that information.

 

In particular in the Climate Reality videos there is a section on what is happening in New Zealand. The overview states "Dirty Weather has infiltrated New Zealand..." and they give some anecdotal evidence of weather events. They claim they are examining the 'connection between dirty energy and dirty weather'. From 1:47 in the appropriate video they show the Manawatu gorge without naming it. This gorge is around 25km from my home. The road through the gorge is about 140 years old. Throughout that 140 year history this gorge due to the steep unstable geography has experienced many slips. However without proof they show a slip (admittedly a particularly bad one) across this road (not railroad as claimed in the video the railroad is on the other side of the river) as an example of a dirty weather impact. Yes they acknowledge that slips are frequent in New Zealand but I bet they get more mileage out of showing a big nasty slip than they lose from a minor disclaimer and even that was conditional. Whilst this event was triggered by rainfall it was not so extreme as to register on a list of 14 extreme events in the NIWA statistics for October 2011 in New Zealand. It seems to me very unlikely that there has been established any causality between AGW and this event and yet it was show cased as an example of 'dirty weather' around the world. I am going to resist being convinced by this sort of deception and continue to look for hard evidence untainted by political hype and marketing campaigns.

Cascade,

I do not think that you are alone in this. Hurricane Sandy has been described by some as the result of climate change. Yet, it was nowhere near the most powerful or destructive hurricane to hit the area in the past two centuries. Actually, the area has been rather hurricane-free in the past half century, until now. Perhaps, it was the warming temperatures that steered the hurricanes away from New York, and now the cooler temperatures are bringing them back. Similarly no causality between AGW and hurricane Sandy either. Just hype, and lots of it!

[dwar0123]

1. I don't think that I am a denier. I don't know where the truth lies. I am skeptical of those who tell me what to believe based on what I can see is flawed data and other arguments.

How skeptical are you of AL and his flawed data and arguments? Both sides have people who are guilty of this, pretty much all of human discourse is steeped in nonsense on both sides. If after you filter all the information and nonsense through your own personal lenses, if you not concerned by climate change, yet still post opinions on it frequently, I think that would classify you as a denier.

 

 

2. If science is not in the "proof" business then it is disingenuous to claim "science is settled". To repeatedly tell me that the science is settled whilst in quiet acknowledging significant errors is the analysis is misleading at best, it is treating the population with contempt. It is a dumbing down that seems to be designed to mislead.

Right, like everything AL spews isn't guilty of the same from the opposite point of view. Back to the first point, both sides do this, its human nature, I suppose because it often works.

 

 

3. I see what I think can only be described as marketing style hype and religious style fervour trying to convince me to believe in AGW. For example I watched (some of) Al Gore and others on Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality.

 

I don't know from personal observation what is happening in other parts of the world. I don't even know the full facts of what is happening in my backyard. However when I see information protrayed that is obviously not correct or not known or if it is known without any supporting evidence and used to support an ideal I will be naturally skeptical of the underlying claims and the motives of the people (Climate Reality) trying to push that information.

 

In particular in the Climate Reality videos there is a section on what is happening in New Zealand. The overview states "Dirty Weather has infiltrated New Zealand..." and they give some anecdotal evidence of weather events. They claim they are examining the 'connection between dirty energy and dirty weather'. From 1:47 in the appropriate video they show the Manawatu gorge without naming it. This gorge is around 25km from my home. The road through the gorge is about 140 years old. Throughout that 140 year history this gorge due to the steep unstable geography has experienced many slips. However without proof they show a slip (admittedly a particularly bad one) across this road (not railroad as claimed in the video the railroad is on the other side of the river) as an example of a dirty weather impact. Yes they acknowledge that slips are frequent in New Zealand but I bet they get more mileage out of showing a big nasty slip than they lose from a minor disclaimer and even that was conditional. Whilst this event was triggered by rainfall it was not so extreme as to register on a list of 14 extreme events in the NIWA statistics for October 2011 in New Zealand. It seems to me very unlikely that there has been established any causality between AGW and this event and yet it was show cased as an example of 'dirty weather' around the world. I am going to resist being convinced by this sort of deception and continue to look for hard evidence untainted by political hype and marketing campaigns.

And every cold wave is used as further proof that climate change isn't happening. I am not here to convince you that Sandy means anything with respect to climate change, it doesn't. I doubt any serious scientist would suggest otherwise. It is very easy to pick apart the climate change argument when you only attempt to refute the weakest positions put forth.

[luke warm]

I am not here to convince you that Sandy means anything with respect to climate change, it doesn't. I doubt any serious scientist would suggest otherwise.

no, but there are plenty of non-serious, and unqualified, politicians who are trying to convince us of that very thing

[dwar0123]

no, but there are plenty of non-serious, and unqualified, politicians who are trying to convince us of that very thing

I seriously doubt any of them are posting in this thread.

[Al_U_Card]

How skeptical are you of AL and his flawed data and arguments?

 

 

Do, please, be specific. Since my flawed data can only come from sources that are national and peer-reviewed, describe the flaws.

 

Arguments, like data, can be interpreted. That those interpretations differ is the basis for discussion. Decrying the messenger or using pejorative descriptors such as "spewed" does not bode well for an open debate.

 

There are way too many instances of "sleight of hand" in the alarmist camp to not be wary of their stance, especially since it involves so much of our money and prosperity. The above illustrated "model projections versus reality" is just one case in point. We are to "believe" that further in the future the results will miraculously fall into line with their modeled result? If at first you don't succeed, find another sucker.

[cherdano]

This is precisely the problem. For every piece of rubbish AI posts here there is at least one equally as misleading posted on the AGW side. It is a little like the advertising for the American presidential race. Separating out the pieces of science based on good maths and statistics is not an easy task and it is no surprise that some sections of society have started to wonder what to think. It is tough enough even when you have some knowledge of the methods involved. Let us make an agreement - any link posted in this thread is regarded as bogus until someone else posts a meaningful argument as to why the underlying science in the linked article is indisputable. My guess is that very few links will meet this criteria (ignoring fanboi arguments).

 

I would claim there is essentially no indisputable science in the field of medicine. I still go to the doctor and take his advice.

 

I am a mathematician myself, and my impression is that you are expecting a standard of rigor that is impossible in a field like climate science. There is no "scientific method" that works for all sciences. How could there be, when there isn't even the level of rigor expected for mathematical proofs varies widely between different field of mathematics.

[Al_U_Card]

I would claim there is essentially no indisputable science in the field of medicine. I still go to the doctor and take his advice.

 

 

And after a routine check-up, your doctor (diplomas on the wall) tells you that you have a terminal condition with only months to live. You might well give him all of your money because he is trying to find a cure for that condition OR you might just ask for a re-test or a second opinion...

 

Even at that, climate science is in such dispute that, as a diagnostic tool, let alone a definitive method, it is as shown in the above graphic, more than somewhat off the mark. Remember that all of the doomsday scenarios are founded on and developed from these same models.

[dwar0123]

Do, please, be specific. Since my flawed data can only come from sources that are national and peer-reviewed, describe the flaws.

 

Arguments, like data, can be interpreted. That those interpretations differ is the basis for discussion. Decrying the messenger or using pejorative descriptors such as "spewed" does not bode well for an open debate.

 

There are way too many instances of "sleight of hand" in the alarmist camp to not be wary of their stance, especially since it involves so much of our money and prosperity. The above illustrated "model projections versus reality" is just one case in point. We are to "believe" that further in the future the results will miraculously fall into line with their modeled result? If at first you don't succeed, find another sucker.

I can't believe I bothered to respond, utterly pointless, I really should just ignore you.

 

You use sources that filter national and peer reviewed data using sleight of hand. Hardly the same thing.

 

Hadcrut3 raw data

 

2011 - 0.35

2010 - 0.50

2009 - 0.44

2008 - 0.31

 

Hadcrut3 data as represented by your graph

2011 - 0.32

2010 - 0.47

2009 - 0.43

2008 - 0.31

 

Using the 2008 data point to calibrate where the positions of the other 3 data points should have been.

 

source - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature