Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#71

Post by anodari » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:15 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #69

anodari wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Argument by consensus is simply argument by headcount. It isn't an argument. I can point out a long laundry list where the 'consensus' was completely wrong, yet every person with a letter behind their name supported it. Consensus doesn't prove anything but the fact that a bunch of people agree on something. It doesn't make that thing true or false.

I'm not trying to argument by consensus. I'm saying "look, the researchers in this field are saying..." Why so much people thinks he knows more about a subject than the researchers?

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#72

Post by brc » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:19 AM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #46

gavanwoolery wrote: post #6

http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI Look at the Dow Jones index. If you look at it today, it looks like a dramatic drop. If you look at it in the span of several years, that drop looks somewhat trivial. Same thing goes for climate change. Go back 1 billion years, and you will find that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last 100 years. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warm…

>I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to cast doubt on it. There's as close to a scientific consensus as you're likely to ever get that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we're the cause of it.

Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science.

What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular position.

The parent quite rightfully points out that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, and you want to ping them for casting doubt. What you should be doing, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, is trying to find out how, in this case, causation can be disproven, to better advance knowledge.

Trying to throw someone from the temple for casting doubt belongs to religion, not science.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#73

Post by redthrowaway » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:29 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #72

redthrowaway wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to cast doubt on it. There's as close to a scientific consensus as you're likely to ever get that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we're the cause of it.

Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science. What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular…

Trying to imply that a particular theory is less well supported than it is (intelligent design, climate denial) is the realm of pseudoscience, not science.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#74

Post by brc » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:30 AM UTC

anodari wrote: post #71

brc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument by consensus is simply argument by headcount. It isn't an argument. I can point out a long laundry list where the 'consensus' was completely wrong, yet every person with a letter behind their name supported it. Consensus doesn't prove anything but the fact that a bunch of people agree on something. It doesn't make that thing true or false.

I'm not trying to argument by consensus. I'm saying "look, the researchers in this field are saying..." Why so much people thinks he knows more about a subject than the researchers?

It's still the same thing. You can state that the researchers say one thing...but that doesn't make that thing true.

10 years ago if I had a stomach ulcer, all the researchers and doctors would have told me I had stress and that is what caused it. They would have prescribed me treatments and told me to change my behaviours, which would have all been ineffective.

Two researchers thought outside the box, went against the consensus, ignored what all the researchers said, and proved that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria. An entire industry and field was turned upside down, and Nobel Prizes were handed out.

What's my point? You can never tell when research is right or wrong, so you must always be sceptical, and never say 'the science is settled, because there is a consensus'. You can never rely on the word of researchers, only on the proof that they have or have not generated.

Edit : I re-read the parent, which goes like this: >"Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases"

I read this statement as saying correlation is proven by consensus - which is wrong no matter what the topic.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#75

Post by brc » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:34 AM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #73

brc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science. What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular…

Trying to imply that a particular theory is less well supported than it is (intelligent design, climate denial) is the realm of pseudoscience, not science.

I understand what you mean by intelligent design, I've read that theory, and it's that certain characteristics observed in nature are irreducible complexity, which supports the hypothesis of a supreme being. It's certainly a colorful theory, but isn't supported by real world observations and changes in the fossil record.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'climate denial'. I don't know what that is supposed to describe.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#76

Post by anodari » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:40 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #74

anodari wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to argument by consensus. I'm saying "look, the researchers in this field are saying..." Why so much people thinks he knows more about a subject than the researchers?

It's still the same thing. You can state that the researchers say one thing... but that doesn't make that thing true . 10 years ago if I had a stomach ulcer, all the researchers and doctors would have told me I had stress and that is what caused it. They would have prescribed me treatments and told me to change my behaviours, which would have all been ineffective. Two researchers thought outside the box, went against…

Not the same thing, they was not an ordinary person who discovered it, was a scientist with many years of research. I prefer this metaphor: just as there are many healers around claiming to know the "true" cause of mental illness, I still prefer to believe the researchers. Do you're refuting climate scientists simply because you believe they are wrong?

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#77

Post by ridicter » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:48 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #70

ridicter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the climate has fluctuated over geological time. Scientists know this. The difference is a) the rate at which it is warming and b) the fact that all living things have adapted to a completely different climate. Climate change means mass famines and suffering, mass disruptions in commerce as whole industries implode, increased conflicts over dwindling resources, and mass extinction. It's a big deal. As far as agr…

I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive. 'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass famine and suffering'...'yield rates going down'... These are unsupported by real world observations. I understand you wish to alarm people into joining your activist groups, and the more dramatic language, the better (I assume this has been A/B tested). But I thin…

The highest point in the Maldives is 2.4M, and by 2100, nearly all inhabitable land will be underwater [1]. Likewise the average elevation of Bangladesh is a few feet. In effect, these countries will be wiped off. With tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees due to climate change, mass famine and suffering will result.

That's just logic. If calling that situation "mass famine and suffering" is "alarmist" of me, what words would you prefer?

As far as yield rates, climate change will decrease yield rates [2], but you're right that science will mitigate and address some of these issues. From my link:

> Through the years of 1985 through 2011, wheat breeding programs boosted average wheat yields by 13 bushels per acre, or 0.51 bushels each year, for a total increase of 26%. A simulation also found that 1.8 degree Fahrenheit in projected mean temperature was found to decrease wheat yields by 10.64 bushels per acre or nearly 21%.

Yes, humans will adapt. But in the process, hundreds of millions of people will suffer very gravely, and an innumerable # of species will go extinct in the ocean alone. I'm a huge tech guy, but it's silly to think technology will be able to address all of these issues.

I stand by what I said. Conviction is important to move the ball forward.

[1] www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/the-island-president-mohamed-nasheed_n_1383413.html

[2] http://www.agriculture.com/crops/wheat/climate-chge-may-affe...

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#78

Post by brc » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:48 AM UTC

gfdgf546 wrote: post #27

Loughla wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't straw man your argument. I said that your statement that correlation does not imply causation, essentially, negates the previous statement that you aren't denying human caused global warming. That is a thing that you said. It's up there. I didn't fabricate anything. I didn't exaggerate. I didn't misrepresent. I asked you what would be the worst thing to happen if we tried to stop global warming. Then I told…

Climate sensitivity is still not settled. Climate scientists still don't know the magnitude of human made warming. It's quite unsettling that anyone who debates climate science is told to STFU by people like you.

I have tried to point out the fallibility of consensus and suggestions to actually look at the actual observed climate sensitivity throughout these comments.

It seems that you cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, though I do see some glimmers of rational thinking and not just a whole pile of please shut up.

Anyone who just graduated high school has not seen any 'global warming' since they started kindergarten. These facts don't seem to get mentioned a lot, but 'consensus' gets a whole lot of airing. It saddens me to see so much fashionable rather than rational thinking. Perhaps it is an artefact of information overload that people can't get to the nub of a debate and discuss it rationally.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#79

Post by redthrowaway » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 1:57 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #75

redthrowaway wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to imply that a particular theory is less well supported than it is (intelligent design, climate denial) is the realm of pseudoscience, not science.

I understand what you mean by intelligent design, I've read that theory, and it's that certain characteristics observed in nature are irreducible complexity, which supports the hypothesis of a supreme being. It's certainly a colorful theory, but isn't supported by real world observations and changes in the fossil record. Can you clarify what you mean by 'climate denial'. I don't know what that is supposed to describe…

Just as ID is a pseudoscientific attempt to cast doubt on evolution, motivated by ideology but dressed up as science, so too is denial of AGW an attempt to discredit climate science, motivated by ideology (or profit) and dressed up as science.

Climate models are tough and it's very difficult for us to forecast what the results of global warming will be, especially at local scales. That doesn't change the fact, well supported by science and not seriously doubted by any meaningful number of climate scientists, that the Earth is getting warmer and it's almost certainly due to our burning of fossil fuels.

There are two groups who try to make AGW seem less certain than it is: energy companies who have a financial interest in not seeing government action against carbon emissions, and libertarians who feel threatened by the reality of AGW as it would seem to mandate large-scale, international government regulations. That would call into question deeply held libertarian beliefs about the ability of the free market to achieve societal goods and avoid evils. Just as religious people (rightly) view evolution as a threat to their beliefs and respond by attacking evolution, so too do libertarians view AGW as a threat to theirs and respond in the same fashion.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#80

Post by brc » Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 2:06 AM UTC

ridicter wrote: post #77

brc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive. 'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass famine and suffering'...'yield rates going down'... These are unsupported by real world observations. I understand you wish to alarm people into joining your activist groups, and the more dramatic language, the better (I assume this has been A/B tested). But I thin…

The highest point in the Maldives is 2.4M, and by 2100, nearly all inhabitable land will be underwater [1]. Likewise the average elevation of Bangladesh is a few feet. In effect, these countries will be wiped off. With tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees due to climate change, mass famine and suffering will result. That's just logic. If calling that situation "mass famine and suffering" is "alar…

2.4 M in 85 years? That is 28 mm a year increase - current observations are about 3mm per year. That is an exponential growth that is unlikely to occur.