Citizen Runner wrote:
Deegree wrote:2) Other fields of science are "rarely critiqued" because climate change research is fundamentally different. It is not really science. It is statistics (from what I have seen).
Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem be claiming "science" and "statistics" are mutually exclusive which seems a rather limited view of science.
Hmm I'd agree with excluding stats from science. Math is a tool used by science. It isn't science unto itself.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem be claiming "science" and "statistics" are mutually exclusive which seems a rather limited view of science.
It is not a limited view. Statistics is a tool. Science is a method of thinking and logic. They are not the same. Science may not be able to done without statistics (I'd have to think about that for a bit), but that does not make science and statistics the same thing. Statistics can be done without science.
Citizen Runner wrote:
In Poppler's epistemology "proof" doesn't exist in "science" so that doesn't seem to be a fair bar. The best one can do is consilience, that is strong conclusion drawn from multiple independent lines of evidence.
I agree, but you are making my argument for me. The only field that can really maybe PROVE things is math. Science is missing a layer of logic. Statistics (specifically, correlations and coincidences) are missing at least 1 more layer of logic.
So scientific research allows you to make a logical conclusion. Statistical research does not.
Deegree wrote:
2) Other fields of science are "rarely critiqued" because climate change research is fundamentally different. It is not really science. It is statistics (from what I have seen). Statistics is can show correlations and occurences, but it cannot prove causation. At best, it can only give evidence for causation, but certainly not proof.
Climate change research focuses on hindcasts and forecasts with models, but also extensively with observations and theoretical understanding of the present climate system. So, yes, we use statistics in our predictions (of future and past), but also regularly analyze the physical climate system. I don't think it's fair to say studying the climate is purely statistics. I think you could perhaps make an argument for specifically 'climate change (prediction) research.'
Deegree wrote:
3) Models are great. I use them in my field. But like in my point #2, climate models are fundaentally different. They are fitted and based on statistics NOT EXPERIMENT.
This is simply untrue. El Nino forecasting, for instance, is based on statistical models. However, global climate models and regional climate models use coupled dynamical cores that are completely physics-resolving. We don't do statistical modeling. We literally run a dynamical model with full physics forward in time and look at what comes out.
The 'experiment' part is tricky. There are experiments to prove the greenhouse effect (by adding CO2 to a flask and maintaining radiation). There are in situ experiments (perhaps better said as 'observations') of the climate system where we have Lagrangian drifters move through the ocean to take samples, or have Eulerian instruments set up for our global weather observation network. There are A/B experiments where we can put mesocosms into the ocean and perturb things and test hypotheses. In my mind, climate models are great for experimenting. They hold a dynamical core of primitive equations, and we can run control runs, and then crank up CO2, or add iron to the ocean, or change parameterizations, etc. and see what happens. The observed warming in the real world is only reproduced by models by running an 'experiment' with enhanced CO2 in the atmosphere.
Deegree wrote:
4) Bringing up weather models is not doing you any favors. A few weeks ago, they told me it was going to be 0% chance of rain... it rained.
I don't see what you're getting at here. The climate system, and weather, are characterized by chaos and inherent unpredictability (a la Lorenz). We make probabilistic predictions of the weather, knowing that some will fail. Rain isn't a great example either, because there is considerable debate in weather forecasting of what X% chance of rain means (over what area? over what time span? etc.)
Improving the dynamical cores of weather models has produced one of the greatest examples of increased forecasting in the modern world (see this figure:
https://goo.gl/x7i2k1). Hurricane forecasting as well. This is in stark contrast to earthquake forecasting. Nate Silver has a great chapter on this in his book.
Deegree wrote:
Again, this is just based on the little climate research that I have seen. If you know of any actual experiements in human contributions, please let me know.
I pointed to experiments earlier in the sense of climate models unable to reproduce warming without CO2 forcing. This Bloomberg article also does a great job:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/. But that is based upon residuals and statistics, which you might find unsatisfying.
Evidence-wise, anthropogenic carbon has a distinct delta13 signature we can measure in the atmosphere that links the rapid rise in CO2 to human activities. We can also track this unique carbon (as well as 'bomb carbon') as tracers in the ocean as it trickles into the deep via "deep water" formation sites.
Further, atmospheric oxygen has declined proportionally to our rate of fossil fuel burning, which would only happen upon combustion. If CO2 were rising naturally, you wouldn't see a subsequent decrease in O2.
Deegree wrote:
Lastly, anyone talkig about scientific consensus being proof that humans are causing climate change is being anti-science. The truth does not depend on how many people believe it. People are confusing truth and science with democracy.
I agree with you completely here! I'm a big fan of getting rid of the consensus argument.
climvar wrote:
I don't think it's fair to say studying the climate is purely statistics. I think you could perhaps make an argument for specifically 'climate change (prediction) research.'
I don't think I said it was purely statistics. I thought it was obvious that we are talking about "climate prediction research". Isn't that what the entire political argument is about? Some people think the Earth is predicted to get too hot, while some people disagree.
climvar wrote:
This is simply untrue. El Nino forecasting, for instance, is based on statistical models. However, global climate models and regional climate models use coupled dynamical cores that are completely physics-resolving. We don't do statistical modeling. We literally run a dynamical model with full physics forward in time and look at what comes out.
Maybe it is untrue, but nothing you have said indicates that. I said the models do not appear to be based on experiment. You did not mention any experiments. Looking at what comes out of a model is not an experiment.
A general method flow is (although sometimes you may be able to go in reverse order):
1) observations/model/theory
2) simulation/predictions
3) experiment
I have seen lots of 1 and 2, but none of 3 in human climate change research. You need 3 to really confirm 1 and 2.
The 'experiment' part is tricky. There are experiments to prove the greenhouse effect (by adding CO2 to a flask and maintaining radiation)....There are A/B experiments where we can put mesocosms into the ocean and perturb things and test hypotheses.
Do I really have to explain why a flask demonstration is not a strong argument that the greenhouse effect is real for a planet?
Can you show me some of these mesocosm experiments?
climvar wrote:
I don't see what you're getting at here. The climate system, and weather, are characterized by chaos and inherent unpredictability (a la Lorenz). We make probabilistic predictions of the weather, knowing that some will fail. Rain isn't a great example either, because there is considerable debate in weather forecasting of what X% chance of rain means (over what area? over what time span? etc.)
Maybe I misread your post, but I thought you were using our ability to predict daily weather as an argument that models are accurate. I was countering that by saying that daily weather predictions can be very inaccurate. What am I missing in your post? Interesting about the meaning of "% chance of rain". I have wondered for years what that is supposed to mean.
climvar wrote:
I pointed to experiments earlier in the sense of climate models unable to reproduce warming without CO2 forcing....But that is based upon residuals and statistics, which you might find unsatisfying.
I'm not sure that simulations can be called experiments. Maybe "experimental simulation" or some kind of qualifier is needed to distinctify simulations from experiment.
climvar wrote:
Evidence-wise, anthropogenic carbon has a distinct delta13 signature we can measure in the atmosphere that links the rapid rise in CO2 to human activities. We can also track this unique carbon (as well as 'bomb carbon') as tracers in the ocean as it trickles into the deep via "deep water" formation sites.
Further, atmospheric oxygen has declined proportionally to our rate of fossil fuel burning, which would only happen upon combustion. If CO2 were rising naturally, you wouldn't see a subsequent decrease in O2.
Evidence isn't my main problem. There is plenty of evidence and data to support a human climate change argument. The problem is that argument does not exclude other possibilities (such as humans are not significantly affecting the climate).
climvar wrote:
I agree with you completely here! I'm a big fan of getting rid of the consensus argument.
Excellent. I wish more people would see this. We have an alarming number of politicians (both Republican and Democrat) that are either ignorant about science or being dishonest about science (in order to get votes). In this aspect, Trump is far more pro-science and the Democrats are anti-science. Lots of irony there.
climvar wrote:
comedyrelief wrote:I find it hilarious that these "climate scientists" expect everyone to curb their carbon emissions by 80% except for the researchers themselves. It's like Al Gore and his four kids living in their giant mansion and flying all over the planet in private jets and helicopters.
Do you have a source for this whatsoever or are you just making baseless accusations?
The major responsibility is on large corporations and sovereign states to make changes to their water usage, fossil fuel emissions, and deforestation practices. However, individuals can be conscientious as well to contribute to change.
I'm a climate scientist and have decided to contribute by primarily walking/biking/bussing to locations. I eat an entirely vegetarian diet (but don't think others need to go full force to this end; less red meat goes a long way). I bring reusable bags to grocery stores and avoid over-consumption and extensive packaging.
I still eat soy, even though it contributes to deforestation and high water usage. I still fly in airplanes, even though they contribute emissions. I still drive from time to time, and don't think too hard about which companies I buy products from. Nobody is expected to everything, but small lifestyle changes go a long way.
You're probably serious in your efforts and you acknowledge it requires sovereign states to change, but Chinas got new investments to build 3 plants in Vietnam, and others in Myanmar and Indonesia, a total of about five new plants within the next few years. So they cut back plans for new plants at home at home to applause, but insyead are spreading out. Sorry, your efforts are moot.
Deegree wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem be claiming "science" and "statistics" are mutually exclusive which seems a rather limited view of science.
It is not a limited view. Statistics is a tool. Science is a method of thinking and logic. They are not the same. Science may not be able to done without statistics (I'd have to think about that for a bit), but that does not make science and statistics the same thing. Statistics can be done without science.
So then science and statistics are mutually exclusive except maybe science can't be done without statistics? This is very confused.
Citizen Runner wrote:In Poppler's epistemology "proof" doesn't exist in "science" so that doesn't seem to be a fair bar. The best one can do is consilience, that is strong conclusion drawn from multiple independent lines of evidence.
I agree, but you are making my argument for me. The only field that can really maybe PROVE things is math. Science is missing a layer of logic. Statistics (specifically, correlations and coincidences) are missing at least 1 more layer of logic.
So scientific research allows you to make a logical conclusion. Statistical research does not.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined these two missing layers of logic. It might also be helpful if you were more specific about what you mean by the claim that AGW theory is "statistics" exclusive of "science" and gave some supporting evidence.
Hey Gramps wrote:
Gramps wrote:My question to all the climate change nuts: if the climate doesn't change on its own, what killed off the dinosaurs? The emissions from Fred Flintstones car?
Boom, (drops the mic and walk away).
Ever hear of the asteroid theory? Look it up and stop asking such ignorant questions.
It seems that the science is not settled.
https://www.rt.com/viral/392305-sun-twin-nemesis-dinosaurs/Nemesis did them in wrote:
Hey Gramps wrote:Ever hear of the asteroid theory? Look it up and stop asking such ignorant questions.
It seems that the science is not settled.
https://www.rt.com/viral/392305-sun-twin-nemesis-dinosaurs/
Science is never settled.
Not baseless at all, most of the research I have read has climate scientist claiming we need an immediate 80% reduction in fossil fuel emissions if we are to survive as a planet. Most people do not realize how much fuel is consumed in air travel. One cross country flight generates about 3 tons of CO2, or about 18% of the average American's CO2 emissions of 16.5 tons CO2 per year. So, if you are really advocating for an 80% reduction, how do you plan to use your other 2% that you would have left after one flight? Travel to Antarctica or the remote polar north is even more carbon intensive. Traveling to Antarctica from the US generates 15 tons per passenger if you are only doing water based activities, if you plan on doing anything land based (as ice core researchers do), you are looking at 50 tons CO2 per individual. So, yes I do take umbrage with Antarctic researchers who are producing three times more CO2 just getting back and forth to work telling everyone else that they need to cut their emissions and are villains if they do not. Al Gore deserves his own case study (10k sq ft in Nashville, 4k sq ft in Arlington, VA, 6.5k sq ft in Montecito, CA, etc.). But give him credit, he has made a killing sounding the climate change alarm.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
http://grist.org/article/How-soon-do-we-need-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/16/epa-climate-change-expert-cia-fraud
climvar wrote:
The major responsibility is on large corporations
I find this entertaining. I work for one of the largest corporations in the US. We have a minuscule carbon footprint compared to our customers.
Of course none of the responsibility lies with you, does it?
Oh btw, I work for an oil company.
Truthier wrote:
The truth is self elephant wrote:So the globe is warming but a ship can't sail because there's too much ice. Allllriiiighhteee, then.
Idiot. That's why it's called climate CHANGE. It used to be that the cold ice stayed at the north pole. Now that things have changed, the cold ice comes much further south and invades all of our warm places. Yesterday when I was swimming in the ocean (Long Island), an iceberg floated by and dropped the water temperature like 5 degrees. I had to get out. Climate change sucks.
Is is quite convenient of them to change the name every time it is proven that they are wrong.
First, they said Global Cooling.
Then, they said Global Warming.
Now, they finally figured out if they just call it Climate Change, they can say they are right no matter what happens.
Morons!
What ever happened to the growing hole in the ozone layer over the North Pole due to the use of Aquanet Hairspray on bouffant hairdos in the 60s? We were all supposed to be fryed by now, "science experts" said.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5MIMITW wrote:
Is (sic) is quite convenient of them to change the name every time it is proven that they are wrong.
First, they said Global Cooling. . .
Gramps wrote:
What ever happened to the growing hole in the ozone layer over the North Pole due to the use of Aquanet Hairspray on bouffant hairdos in the 60s? We were all supposed to be fryed by now, "science experts" said.
While I'm generally skeptical of climate change.... you may have picked the worst counter-example of all time. Scientists recognized the O-zone problem and then convinced others to make changes that has slowed things way down. It's been sort of a major win for science.
Actually, it looks like the Arctic icepack is returning to "normal" thickness, with the passage being blocked currently.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20170614.png
Beaufort me wrote:
Actually, it looks like the Arctic icepack is returning to "normal" thickness, with the passage being blocked currently.
That picture doesn't indicate "normal" thickness, it's just thickness. The insert graph is volume and it shows volume approaching "not record low" which isn't what "normal" means. This graph might better represent "normal" and deviation from such.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.pngCitizen Runner wrote:
Beaufort me wrote:Actually, it looks like the Arctic icepack is returning to "normal" thickness, with the passage being blocked currently.
That picture doesn't indicate "normal" thickness, it's just thickness. The insert graph is volume and it shows volume approaching "not record low" which isn't what "normal" means. This graph might better represent "normal" and deviation from such.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Clearly neither of you have any clue what the f*ck is going on the Arctic.
climvar wrote:
comedyrelief wrote:I find it hilarious that these "climate scientists" expect everyone to curb their carbon emissions by 80% except for the researchers themselves. It's like Al Gore and his four kids living in their giant mansion and flying all over the planet in private jets and helicopters.
Do you have a source for this whatsoever or are you just making baseless accusations?
The major responsibility is on large corporations and sovereign states to make changes to their water usage, fossil fuel emissions, and deforestation practices. However, individuals can be conscientious as well to contribute to change.
I'm a climate scientist and have decided to contribute by primarily walking/biking/bussing to locations. I eat an entirely vegetarian diet (but don't think others need to go full force to this end; less red meat goes a long way). I bring reusable bags to grocery stores and avoid over-consumption and extensive packaging.
I still eat soy, even though it contributes to deforestation and high water usage. I still fly in airplanes, even though they contribute emissions. I still drive from time to time, and don't think too hard about which companies I buy products from. Nobody is expected to everything, but small lifestyle changes go a long way.
How does not eating meat help the environment?
Citizen Runner wrote:
MIMITW wrote:https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5Is (sic) is quite convenient of them to change the name every time it is proven that they are wrong.
First, they said Global Cooling. . .
I was referring to "first" in my lifetime, not yours.
