What Happened To Global Warming

[Thundery wintry showers]

And that’s the point I'm making, nobody needs to feel like that, if a little more care is taken with peoples posts, there is no need for the inflammatory statements or rudeness.

For myself I'm pretty much in the same camp as TWS, I believe that man has had an effect on climate, but that effect is not properly understood and maybe being over estimated. Of course not understood properly, could be a double edged sword, as what tends to be forgotten is that when we don’t fully understand something, it is also possible that we may be under estimating, rather than over estimating. Not only does that apply to AGW but also to natural forcings. There’s plenty of research to suggest that natural climate change can be very rapid and extreme. In his book the two mile time machine, Richard B Alley a professor of geosciences discusses how the last Ice Age may have ended over the course of just three years. In their book The Great Ice Age, Wilson, Drury and Chapman (Its an OU guide) describe both rapid natural and rapid man made climate change. In fact, in both of these books natural forcings form the basis for the research, however nether dismisses man made forcings.

Yes, the views you've expressed there match my own pretty well!

Regarding the "it's all natural" conclusion, if the anthropogenic component is uncertain, how can we therefore end up certain that it's all natural? At the very most, we might be able to conclude that it isn't certain to not be all natural, but even that seems a bit of a stretch given the available evidence. Bear in mind that there are many ways that humans could be impacting the climate other than CO2- for example land use changes, aerosols (a recent study suggested that anthropogenic aerosols may have contributed heavily to the melting of the Arctic ice) and deforestation in the Amazon, among others.

[VillagePlank]

I find it curious. Very curious, if I am totally honest.

Let's try and put some of this into (my) perspective. The published science supports the view that man is contributing to increasing in temperatures; not solely due to GHGs, but changes in land, and other mitigating factors in our environment. I don't find that hard to grasp.

But, as with all human endeavours - and, of course, an investigation into the causes of thirty years warming, is one such endeavour - there are extremes. This is not abnormal. This is entirely normal as anyone with an ounce of sense about how scientific certainty is attained will already know ...

We all remember that chart, in school, where the heights of people was put into how many people occur at each height. The chart looks like a great big hump. That is the basis of science. Not heights of people, of course. This chart is known as the normal distribution such that it is normal, in a population of people, to find a few very short people, and a few very tall people, but most people's height appears around the average. Most people get that.

Well, and so it is in this debate. Whilst people, it seems to me, and I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong, try to push other people's viewpoints to one extreme edge of the debate (tall people, short people) it is highly unlikely that anyone actually has those extreme views. For sure they exist, but, I think you'd find, perhaps, one or two people at most at either end.

In just the same way that I would not accuse (these days) of those concurring with the current consensus of fear mongering, and doom-saying (very tall people) it is up to those who appear a fraction of a standard deviation to the right (slightly tall people) not to push those a fraction of a standard deviation to the left (slightly smaller people) to the very far extreme. Those people already exist, and those who believe in such extreme viewpoints are most likely to be roundly ignored/ridiculed anyway - because most people have an inbuilt and innate understanding of the normal distribution.

Incidentally, when you conduct research, you must make sure that your results appear at least 1.96 standard deviations from the mean (where the sample is your data and random trials) to make sure you get 95% certainty that your hypothesis is not down to chance.

(This is testable, of course, we could set up a poll, where people vote for varying degrees of scepticism or compliance, and then plot the distribution)

[Crepuscular Ray]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons (and obviously it's only a one-month snapshot) the NOAA have released information that September was the second warmest since 1880, in global terms:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...tted=Get+Report

Edited October 16, 2009 by crepuscular ray

[Thundery wintry showers]

...

Well, and so it is in this debate. Whilst people, it seems to me, and I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong, try to push other people's viewpoints to one extreme edge of the debate (tall people, short people) it is highly unlikely that anyone actually has those extreme views. For sure they exist, but, I think you'd find, perhaps, one or two people at most at either end.

In just the same way that I would not accuse (these days) of those concurring with the current consensus of fear mongering, and doom-saying (very tall people) it is up to those who appear a fraction of a standard deviation to the right (slightly tall people) not to push those a fraction of a standard deviation to the left (slightly smaller people) to the very far extreme. Those people already exist, and those who believe in such extreme viewpoints are most likely to be roundly ignored/ridiculed anyway - because most people have an inbuilt and innate understanding of the normal distribution.

Incidentally, when you conduct research, you must make sure that your results appear at least 1.96 standard deviations from the mean (where the sample is your data and random trials) to make sure you get 95% certainty that your hypothesis is not down to chance.

(This is testable, of course, we could set up a poll, where people vote for varying degrees of scepticism or compliance, and then plot the distribution)

In my experience, many topics of discussion (including AGW) tend to degenerate into two extreme positions being argued out with little room for anything in between, but I also think that there's a tendency for those with the most extreme views to speak the loudest, meaning that it doesn't necessarily represent the majority view. It is certainly possible that the real distribution of public opinion may be close to being normally distributed.

The problem is that, for whatever reasons, most of the people near the middle tend to be indecisive and not speak out, and this in turn leads to a popular misconception that being at one extreme or the other implies decisiveness and being near the middle implies indecisveness. I try to do my bit to tackle this, by often strongly expressing views that fall somewhere close to the middle, and there are others who try to do the same, but it is often surprisingly difficult to get more people with moderate views to be up front about it.

[VillagePlank]

The problem is that, for whatever reasons, most of the people near the middle tend to be indecisive and not speak out, and this in turn leads to a popular misconception that being at one extreme or the other implies decisiveness and being near the middle implies indecisveness. I try to do my bit to tackle this, by often strongly expressing views that fall somewhere close to the middle, and there are others who try to do the same, but it is often surprisingly difficult to get more people with moderate views to be up front about it.

Yes, that's true; even though the scientific evidence almost certainly points to them being correct on the basis of countless, thorough analysis over centuries of effort.

An interesting experiment that I can recall, I think, by Francis Bacon, was one where he took an ox to a village market, and asked the people who turned up to guess the weight. Of course, as one would expect, a huge range of guesses were posted, but to his astonishment, and that of the scientific community at the time, the best was almost always at the arithmetic mean. I've even won a tub of jelly beans on that basis, too. I waited until the last moment, and, perhaps foolishly, they published everyone's guess before the count (which was done by weight, btw) One mobile phone (to compute the average), one arithmetic mean, and I came closest. Of course, this closely resembles the normal distribution, and with countless mathematicians proving the phenomena, it is highly powerful construct, if one understands what it means. For sure, my daughter appreciated the apparent endless supply of sweets for a while ...

My prediction is, that as more is known, and, of course, more is known about how little we actually understand the science (for a start the science of complexity is only about 30 years old, and is based in and around the very well respected Santa-Fe Institute) popular opinion (and that's what the forum represents) will converge to the arithmetic mean.

I mean, who is seriously considering an ice age, now? And who is seriously considering a 6C hike in global temperatures before the century is out?

Convergence has already started - and if you're a betting man, then it's odds on in two-five years that the consensus amongst human society, scientists, and everybody else, will be that we'll all accept that we're responsible for some of the warming, that we need to fix top limits on emmissions to prevent the unknowable unknowns occuring, and that actually, it is acheivable.

EDIT: Sorry, it was Francis Galton, and the subject is, apparently, quite controversial - see here

Edited October 17, 2009 by VillagePlank

[The PIT]

In my experience, many topics of discussion (including AGW) tend to degenerate into two extreme positions being argued out with little room for anything in between, but I also think that there's a tendency for those with the most extreme views to speak the loudest, meaning that it doesn't necessarily represent the majority view. It is certainly possible that the real distribution of public opinion may be close to being normally distributed.

The problem is that, for whatever reasons, most of the people near the middle tend to be indecisive and not speak out, and this in turn leads to a popular misconception that being at one extreme or the other implies decisiveness and being near the middle implies indecisveness. I try to do my bit to tackle this, by often strongly expressing views that fall somewhere close to the middle, and there are others who try to do the same, but it is often surprisingly difficult to get more people with moderate views to be up front about it.

I would say it's more of a case of not having the education to speak out. Say I had twenty years of climate research under my belt and fully qualified would you dare say I'm talking brown and smelly stuff or just except what I was saying as a fact ???

[Thundery wintry showers]

I doubt that education has much to do with it. Lack of education often doesn't stop some of those with very extreme views from being very vocal- indeed a lot of extreme views arise from people not being very knwoledgeable about a subject but becoming attached to a certain position for various reasons.

It is also possible for the very knowledgeable to become extreme as well, sometimes down to focusing on too narrow an area of expertise at the expense of the wider picture. But that merely illustrates that it can work both ways.

[The PIT]

I doubt that education has much to do with it. Lack of education often doesn't stop some of those with very extreme views from being very vocal- indeed a lot of extreme views arise from people not being very knwoledgeable about a subject but becoming attached to a certain position for various reasons.

It is also possible for the very knowledgeable to become extreme as well, sometimes down to focusing on too narrow an area of expertise at the expense of the wider picture. But that merely illustrates that it can work both ways.

Okay would you feel confident in arguing with a scientist or someone who claims to have the knowledge over a climate change and be able too dissemble any data that they provide???

Talking about data How about create your own hockey stick ?? http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

Edited October 17, 2009 by The PIT

[Devonian]

Okay would you feel confident in arguing with a scientist or someone who claims to have the knowledge over a climate change and be able too dissemble any data that they provide???

Talking about data How about create your own hockey stick ?? http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

Why would anyone put more weight on the musings of a nameless anonymous internet blogger than of people who's life's work has been in the field concerned?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Devonian

[The PIT]

Why would anyone put more weight on the musings of a nameless anonymous internet blogger than of people who's life's work has been in the field concerned?

Instead of dismissing it out of hand which I would expect of you since it's against you deep held beliefs if you're so confident try it yourself and post your results.

[MR EXTREMES]

I would say it's more of a case of not having the education to speak out. Say I had twenty years of climate research under my belt and fully qualified would you dare say I'm talking brown and smelly stuff or just except what I was saying as a fact ???

no because you could be wrong,

with everything theres another side.

and there is very much 2sides to this story gw and gc man made or natural,

well if we had the tec back in the medievil warm period imagine global warming stories it would be the same its our fult,

then along comes maunder minimum odear,

what now erm we were wrong its now global cooling.

this happened in the 70s,

all talk of a ice age was on the way then it warmed the science then ended up flawed.

theres nothing to say the science the data is flawed again because so far what has been predicted has not been 100% correct,

there is just so much for and against on both sides if it aint broke then why try and fix it,

but theres no harm in preventing it but this should be done on the basis of what ifs,

and not the fact it will happen.

although i really think we should be getting ready for ice age not heat age because past events have proved that when it happens it pretty quick,

here we are fighting warming when there just as much chance of the oposite.

we are not willing to be ready for a colder climate because although cooling stories are becoming more evident warm is the main focus this is a dangerous game to play,

because the warming stories are from the scientist we are all ment to trust.

do i trust political figures,

do i trust politics no way.

as far as im concerned id listens to none mainstream scientist and scientists that look at both sides of the fence.

the ones that are not fueled by money or power or the goverment.

Edited October 17, 2009 by badboy657

[Thundery wintry showers]

PIT,

I think you missed my point. It is difficult to argue against established people who are held in high authority and I'm all too familiar with arguments "who are you to question those who claim to be more knowledgeable", e.g. as a non-parent and non-driver who sometimes comments on issues relating to children and driving.

But it seems to deter those with moderate views far more than it deters those with extreme views. For example, there are all manner of campaign groups out there that aim to grind axes at one extreme or the other, which contain few if any reputable scientists, while precious few preach an approach that lies somewhere in between.

There's another factor that contributes to the problem. Groups with extreme views generally find it a lot easier to refute views from the opposite extreme than to refute dissenting views that fall somewhere in between. Therefore there's a tendency to get more heavy-handed and defensive with those nearer the middle because their arguments pose more of a threat to the validity of the extreme views being preached.

Challenging a consensus view can meet with much the same problem. For example, I rarely get involved with discussions relating to piracy and copyright laws on computer gaming forums these days. That's because "the law is the law" stances dominate, and while people are relatively tolerant of the fatuous arguments suggesting that content creators don't need to be rewarded for their work, they tend to get very heavy-handed with anyone who offers a well-reasoned criticism of the current state of copyright laws. That's because the latter people might actually have a good point and so a desire arises to silence those people at any cost- e.g. "forum rules say you can't condone piracy, and suggesting that copyright law is over-restrictive implies condoning acts that are technically piracy, so if you contest the 'all piracy should be illegal because it's illegal' stance, that's an instant ban."

In my experience most "pure" mainstream climate scientists are the other way around- they are less tolerant of the sceptic extremism than the well-reasoned scepticism, and acknowledge that the latter can be very helpful in advancing scientific understanding further. But whenever politics gets involved, there tends to be an increasing defensiveness over the consensus view, and a corresponding desire to silence the sceptics who have strong grounds for being sceptical.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[MR EXTREMES]

and this is what happens when media along with orgnisations that over cook climate change theories riots.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/8312918.stm

thease people really take this seriously but if they never knew half as much then this type of thing would not be happening.

imagine if climate change or man made warming turned out to be wrong imagine how angry they would be.

of coarse the attitude is also that if we sit back and do nothing then this also could be the wrong thing to do.

i fear if man made global warming does turnout to be flawed the throwback from this could really cause some problems worse than a riot.

but it also shows how bias warming really is its send people in a frenzy turning our world into a panic striken planet built on data and stats that are not 100% predictable and reliable,

it would seem thease people love our planet and are scared for the future which is not a bad thing,

but it proves my point that even though ipcc pridictions are not as accurate as was predicted and that since 1998 things have not gone completely the way as predicted this is causing this type of outcry.

whos fult politics and the media but yet what if solar effects do have a impact what then we riot to put more co2 in the air lol.

i dunno this is crazy stuff.

and this notice the richer countrys pay for this richer lol yeah 3trillion pounds in dept paying for something that might not be the outcome on climate data that has shown flaws at times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8312552.stm

but this is not to say a cleaner planet is not a good thing our forest do need looking after but we also need to balance the theories.

cooling is as important as warming so my opion would be open your arms to skepical scientist and work hand in hand together.

Edited October 18, 2009 by badboy657

[laserguy]

BB,they're all as mad as hatters and I don't know why 'we' put up with these morons. After a lengthy 'cooling off' spell inside I'd make sure they had no access to mains electricity.

Oh and here's another 'it's only weather and not climate' moment -

http://mapcenter.ham...ds/7day/us.html

[MR EXTREMES]

BB,they're all as mad as hatters and I don't know why 'we' put up with these morons. After a lengthy 'cooling off' spell inside I'd make sure they had no access to mains electricity.

Oh and here's another 'it's only weather and not climate' moment -

http://mapcenter.ham...ds/7day/us.html

intresting stuff laser been good if we had one in europe.

i hear ya its amazing because cooling has been noticed by some but rejected by others typical but to be honest the met o have also been talking of a cool off,

but not this winter lol.

[J10]

Yes, that's true; even though the scientific evidence almost certainly points to them being correct on the basis of countless, thorough analysis over centuries of effort.

An interesting experiment that I can recall, I think, by Francis Bacon, was one where he took an ox to a village market, and asked the people who turned up to guess the weight. Of course, as one would expect, a huge range of guesses were posted, but to his astonishment, and that of the scientific community at the time, the best was almost always at the arithmetic mean. I've even won a tub of jelly beans on that basis, too. I waited until the last moment, and, perhaps foolishly, they published everyone's guess before the count (which was done by weight, btw) One mobile phone (to compute the average), one arithmetic mean, and I came closest. Of course, this closely resembles the normal distribution, and with countless mathematicians proving the phenomena, it is highly powerful construct, if one understands what it means. For sure, my daughter appreciated the apparent endless supply of sweets for a while ...

My prediction is, that as more is known, and, of course, more is known about how little we actually understand the science (for a start the science of complexity is only about 30 years old, and is based in and around the very well respected Santa-Fe Institute) popular opinion (and that's what the forum represents) will converge to the arithmetic mean.

I mean, who is seriously considering an ice age, now? And who is seriously considering a 6C hike in global temperatures before the century is out?

Convergence has already started - and if you're a betting man, then it's odds on in two-five years that the consensus amongst human society, scientists, and everybody else, will be that we'll all accept that we're responsible for some of the warming, that we need to fix top limits on emmissions to prevent the unknowable unknowns occuring, and that actually, it is acheivable.

EDIT: Sorry, it was Francis Galton, and the subject is, apparently, quite controversial - see here

A very interesting point about the wisdom of crowds. However this is done with a decent level of knowledge and a lack of bias. As an example, the arithmetic mean in the CET competition thread particularly in winter, are often way out, perhaps showing the crowds sometimes are not that wise.

However when it comes to climate predictions whether we can say the predictions are free of bias and from a sound starting point is another matter. With the best will in th world if the assumption on which climate modelling are wrong then all following figures will be wrong. Of course this is not to say that climate modelling should not be done, of course it should, only this way can "we" learn, however ewe should be cautious about the findings from long term climate predictions.

[MR EXTREMES]

im not bias climate change has happened but intresting video and this is going back to why im so very skeptical and why i also like to choose none goverment funded orginisations for information and data.

the reason why is because they have less to loose.

[laserguy]

i hear ya its amazing because cooling has been noticed by some but rejected by others typical .......

http://weblogs.wgntv...illiest-in.html

'Someone' will be saying it's the warmest they've had since time began and we must act to stop it etc etc !

[J10]

im not bias climate change has happened but intresting video and this is going back to why im so very skeptical and why i also like to choose none goverment funded orginisations for information and data.

the reason why is because they have less to loose.

But if not funded by government, they are likely to be funded by other vested media, such as Oil Companies, who of course are independent.

[MR EXTREMES]

But if not funded by government, they are likely to be funded by other vested media, such as Oil Companies, who of course are independent.

yes indeed your right there goes to show though the two sides to everything,

and in a world full of coruption its hard to know who to trust.

but my choice would be the none funded none oil type people if you know what i mean.

like joe b says look at it all yourself and make your own mind up and if they have extra science ability then even better but humans are good at making errors.

but nature has no agenda.

[Devonian]

Instead of dismissing it out of hand which I would expect of you since it's against you deep held beliefs if you're so confident try it yourself and post your results.

I asked a question, again, why put more trust in a blog than those who's job it is?

[Mr Maunder]

BB,they're all as mad as hatters and I don't know why 'we' put up with these morons. After a lengthy 'cooling off' spell inside I'd make sure they had no access to mains electricity.

http://mapcenter.ham...ds/7day/us.html

They may just achieve that themselves!

MM

[pottyprof]

I asked a question, again, why put more trust in a blog than those who's job it is?

Well, considering that blogs have been talking about cooling for a long while now and those whos job it is have just decided to jump on board...........

I think that says enough really.....

[noggin]

Question......"What Happened To Global Warming?"

Answer.......Nothing. It's alive and kicking and we are doomed, doomed, I tell you. Well Gordon Brown thinks so, anyway. Is it just me,or does the quoted type of doom-laden pontificating sound somewhat out-of-date?

I'm all for cleaner, sustainable life on Earth, but hasn't the "ranting" had it's day? Rather than bring people "on board" to their way of thinking, it is surely now alienating people instead. (Like Dr Pope said a while back.....she hasn't got through to Gordo, yet!)

Crikey, it would help if I linked to the article . http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221309/Gordon-Brown-warns-killer-floods-droughts-heatwaves-ignore-climate-change.html

Edited October 19, 2009 by noggin

[noggin]

Why would anyone put more weight on the musings of a nameless anonymous internet blogger than of people who's life's work has been in the field concerned?

It is possible for people who have dedicated their working life to one specific field to be so blinkered as to not see the bigger picture; so focussed are they on that one particular thing. When challenged about it, they still cannot see and it just makes them even more entrenched as they then feel the need to convince you, which in turn reinforces it in their own mind......as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

I speak from personal experience here. It is of a personal nature so I shall not disclose it here. But it concerns me, my dear late Dad and a of a professor at Bristol University.

An internet blogger may well have a more open mind and less tunnel vision. Also, less of a vested interest.