Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[HiLo]

You have to be cautious with what you ask of science.

 

Science hasn't proven absolutely that smoking causes cancer in humans. But a huge amount of "circumstantial" evidence, plus a few court cases (where beyond reasonable doubt is the measure), have had a pretty big impact on what we all believe.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

Thanks for finding my typo. The sentence should read: Consensus in science is used when the correct scientific explanation has NOT been elucidated.

 

We do not agree because you are wrong. You do not understand science. I am weary of you.

 

[acco40]

Global warming - easily determined by looking at "temperature" records over the last 150 years or so. Conclusion - yes!

 

Difficult part - why? Another question - is this a small blip (150 years not much in the grand scheme of things) or a serious indicator of the future?

 

This is a classic risk evaluation problem. What is the risk, what is the cost, etc.

 

My take, we (USA) should be serious about studying the problem but not just through money to any researcher who asks for it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter, we don't agree because you are wrong. You've created some arbitrary "scientifically correct" criterion, apparently just so you can claim AGW doesn't meet it and only meets some lesser "consensus" standard. But science uses consensus for everything.

[vol_scouter]

acco40,

 

I agree with your statements with a caveat about the temperature. The changes in temperature are on the order of degrees while the surface temperatures on the earth varies by tens of degrees at a given time at different locations on the earth (equator vs poles) and also by tens of degrees at a given location over 24 hours. The technology used for recording temperature over the years have changed as well as the number of reporting stations. So how the earth's temperature is determined can change the value significantly. Also, the meaning of that temperature is a difficult concept. Should it be a simple average? If so, areas of the oceans have for years not had measurements made - that changed with the advent of satellites. So the earth temperatures in for most of 150 years did not include temperatures over the ocean which makes up the majority of the earth's surface. Still, the temperature measurements are not uniform over the earth's surface. These problems are dealt with by 'adjusting' the raw data. Part of the problem is that some of the groups will not reveal the assumptions made to 'adjust' the data. The more significant problem is that the uncertainty in the raw data is on the same order of magnitude as the effect being inferred. That means that there could be more or less warming. The earth is thought to have been significantly warmed and have higher levels of CO2 in prior epochs. Life flourished during these epochs in contradistinction to cooling periods.

 

There should continue to be a vigorous research effort in climate modeling. In the future, the models should be clearly defined as well as the assumptions upon which the model is based should be well described. Any 'adjustments' to the data should be clearly defined.

 

Political decisions that can destroy the economy of a country should not be made upon consensus opinions because that means that the science is not settled.

[GaHillBilly]

Merlyn, in the recent past, over praising kids ("You're doing GREAT!"; That's so GOOD!"; "Fantastic job!") has been a staple of educational motivation concepts. Recently, the trend seems to be to back away from the BS, as it has begun to dawn on the "highly educated" teachers and professors with "advanced degrees", that when you praise a kid who's acting like a monster and learning nothing, the results might not be what you hope.

 

It's too late for all the idiot children running around, who are confused as heck why, when they are "just so SMART!", they can't pass algebra.

 

Us hillbillies figured it out, even BEFORE they tried that BS. Unfortunately, it seems that you were educated while that mess was still in vogue. Given your D&D-ish nom de forum (Merlin the King), I'm guessing you are a 20 - 30ish ex-dweeb, which would put you right in that group of highly over-praised idiots.

 

So, here's a clue: DanKroh and I disagree because we think differently. You and I disagree because you don't -- and apparently can't -- think about science in an educated manner.

 

Here's a second clue: if your teachers and SMs praised you for doing "A Great JOB!" with your work, and told you that you were "just so SMART!" . . . they were lying!

 

If vol_scouter were wrong . . . you wouldn't be able to tell. You are just too under-educated in scientific and mathematical concepts.

 

GaHillBilly

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

You are so ignorant about science. Consensus opinions are generated when a political decision is requested or when a practice decision is made. An example of the second is practices guidelines in medicine. They will say that the 'best' way to care for a particular condition is to do such and so. They are guidelines instead of rules because consensus opinions are not settled science. The guidelines typically change every other year because we are still understanding the basic science. I am sorry that you have embarrassed yourself again but please cease and desist on insisting upon something that is simply wrong.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

GaHillBilly writes:

You and I disagree because you don't -- and apparently can't -- think about science in an educated manner.

 

Uh, last I checked, you're the one who appeared to disbelieve in well-established science like evolution.

 

vol_scouter, "consensus" means generally agreed upon, which is more applicable to what you're trying to repaint as "settled science" (which, of course, can still end up being wrong). Can you cite anyone who uses "consensus" and "settled science" (or "correct science" or whatever term you decide to use today) to categorize scientific theories the way you do?

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

You can't even understand when it is spelled out in detail. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself? I do not have time to educate you. GaHillBilly is obviously right.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

I do not have time to educate you.

 

I'm not asking you to "educate" me, I'm asking you for some kind of cite or link supporting your assertions. Got any? It doesn't appear so. All you have so far are your keystrokes.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

You cannot even understand why I would have to educate you!!! How science is done is not something in papers. I have many peer reviewed publications in medicine and in physics. I have given talks all over the world, some invited. I am a scientist and I do not have the time or desire to fill in your lacking education. I don't believe how silly you seem to other scientists.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So vol_scouter, that means you're completely unable to come up with a link or a cite of any scientist distinguishing between scientific consensus vs. "scientifically correct" (or "settled science" or whatever you claim it's called) in the way you claim they do?

 

Yeah, color me not surprised.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

I thought that you might take such an attitude. One cannot reason with the uneducated who are so arrogant about the correctness their own opinions that are unable to accept truth. Please, quit making you self seem foolish.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter, you're the one not backing up what you claim. You do that quite often -- you'll make some claim, but never back it up.

[HICO_Eagle]

No Merlyn, vol_scouter, GHB, myself and many others have repeatedly backed up our statements with facts, figures, studies -- not to mention we all demonstrate a familiarity with REAL science that you clearly lack. I even gave you specific items (and sources!) to research yourself so you could be sure I wasn't quoting out of context. You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand the culture, terminology or processes -- all while professing to respect science.

 

I could readily anticipate your actions as a stubborn ideologue from other threads where you demonstrated this pattern of behavior but I really don't understand your persistence in a discussion where you are so clearly out of your league. Spew as much vaporous ramblings as you want, it won't give your arguments any more substance or fix the basic problems of:

 

- sensitivity exceeding data precision in most of the models (1% sensitivity with data error margins at 5+%)

- inadequacies of using proxies that aren't (Briffa tree ring studies, misuse of primary component analysis in dendropaleoclimatology)

- revisionist history trying to do away with the MWP and LIA and minor warm period during the 1930s/40s (Mann, Santer and Jones, possibly also Wigley)

- rank cherry-picking/withholding/distortion of data (Briffa Yamal tree rings/Jones et al/Schmidt & Wigley "homogenization" of GISS station data)

- unethical manipulation of the peer review process (Mann, Jones et al)

 

Getting back on track as OGE advised weeks ago, how about you provide some reasonable explanations of the problems we have noted? Please be specific as we have and avoid the ad hominems and strawman arguments raised over on RealClimate.org.