Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

If people dismiss a theory without good reason, then that's for them; it has no place in science. It still is not encumbent upon them to come up with an alternate theory. Continuing my analogy, if I assert my car could fly, despite your protestations that the physical evidence is completely against it, would you then insist I destroy the car by driving off a cliff destroying myself in the process to satisfy your apparent need for an alternate hypothesis? Apart from being a Type I and Type II scientific error, it is unethical, immoral, and faulty reasoning par excellence.(It doesn't take a genius to think car=Earth, me=humankind)

 

But I didn't say it was encumbent upon them. Merely that it would be reasonable if they proffered one. That is million miles away from my need for an alternate hypothesis. I'm getting giddy here on the third circuit.

 

Regarding a deity the short answer is no and I can see the road ahead and I'm not travelling down it. I'll take a rain check on the psychology of belief systems masquerading as theories.

Edited April 19, 2014 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

But I didn't say it was encumbent upon them. Merely that it would be reasonable if they proffered one. That is million miles away from my need for an alternate hypothesis. I'm getting giddy here on the third circuit.

But it's not reasonable. To claim that it is, is an act of anti-science! This isn't the way that science works. You have a theory, a few of your peers agree it's reasonable, it produces a prediction, the theory lasts until the theory is falsified by the prediction not occuring. No where *whatsoever* does the scientific method *ever* claim that in order to falsify a theory it is 'reasonable to proffer the alternative' Indeed, protections are in place (Type I and Type II hypothesis errors) that are precisely in place to prevent this sort of thing.I don't know about getting giddy: exasperated is more like it. Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

But it's not reasonable.To claim that it is, is an act of anti-science! This isn't the way that science works. You have a theory, a few of your peers agree it's reasonable, it produces a prediction, the theory lasts until the theory is falsified by the prediction not occuring. No where *whatsoever* does the scientific method *ever* claim that in order to falsify a theory it is 'reasonable to proffer the alternative' Indeed, protections are in place (Type I and Type II hypothesis errors) that are precisely in place to prevent this sort of thing.I don't know about getting giddy: exasperated is more like it.

 

Man made climate camp offer theories why the Antarctica sea ice is increasing . The theories could all be true all wrong or in between.

 

You don't have to offer a alternative but we can all agree Antarctic sea ice is increasing generally year on year min and max.

 

I think it would be reasonable to give an explanation to explain it such as 'natural variation' but its not a requirement.

Edited April 19, 2014 by stewfox

[knocker]

But it's not reasonable.To claim that it is, is an act of anti-science! This isn't the way that science works. You have a theory, a few of your peers agree it's reasonable, it produces a prediction, the theory lasts until the theory is falsified by the prediction not occuring. No where *whatsoever* does the scientific method *ever* claim that in order to falsify a theory it is 'reasonable to proffer the alternative' Indeed, protections are in place (Type I and Type II hypothesis errors) that are precisely in place to prevent this sort of thing.I don't know about getting giddy: exasperated is more like it.

 

You say that to claim that it is, is an act of anti-science! This isn't the way that science works is exactly why this whole farago started. To dismiss a theory with out falsifying it is most definitely anti-science. Thus using the word reasonable in this context is perhaps not strictly within the scientific method but an attempt to regain that method in view of the initial failure to scientifically falsify the theory. In other words it is simply if you are not prepared to falsify the theory perhaps you are prepared to proffer another one. It is not scientifically required of course but in view of the initial 'lapse' the onus surely falls there.

 

Regarding No where *whatsoever* does the scientific method *ever* claim that in order to falsify a theory it is 'reasonable to proffer the alternative. I quite agree and of course I haven't said that it did.

Man made climate camp offer theories why the Antarctica sea ice is increasing . The theories could all be true all wrong or in between.

 

You don't have to offer a alternative but we can all agree Antarctic sea ice is increasing generally year on year min and max.

 

I think it would be reasonable to give an explanation to explain it such as 'natural variation' but its not a requirement.

 

I've never said it is a requirement.

[VillagePlank]

Those who dismiss a theory without explanation - a valid explanation might well be that the theory doesn't fit the observations, or the observations do not concur with the theory's predictions - are enough to label such dismissal as belief, not science; it doesn't even make it to the platform of pseudo-science.

Incidentally, of note, a theory that cannot be falsified is not scientific. (would've got to that one if we'd discussed belief systems) Also, an idea that doesn't create testable predictions is not a theory!

(I get that you find it reasonable to request the alternate in the face of bare-faced 'it just ain't, mate' type responses)

Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Those who dismiss a theory without explanation - a valid explanation might well be that the theory doesn't fit the observations, or the observations do not concur with the theory's predictions - are enough to label such dismissal as belief, not science; it doesn't even make it to the platform of pseudo-science.Incidentally, of note, a theory that cannot be falsified is not scientific. (would've got to that one if we'd discussed belief systems) Also, an idea that doesn't create testable predictions is not a theory!(I get that you find it reasonable to request the alternate in the face of bare-faced 'it just ain't, mate' type responses)

 

Yes I saw that one coming which is why I turned right at the crossroads and not left.

[VillagePlank]

I suspect you turned left, not right

[knocker]

A quick look at the five-centuries-old kind of arguments  confusers are using

 

[knocker]

Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust

 

A paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B by the University of Waterloo's Qing-Bin Lu last year claimed that solar activity and human chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, not carbon emissions, could explain the observed global warming over the past century.  The journal has now published a rebuttal of that paper by Skeptical Science team members Dana Nuccitelli, Kevin Cowtan, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Robert Way, Anne-Marie Blackburn, Martin Stolpe, and John Cook.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2495

[Nick L]

Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2495

 

 

Another aspect of my climate change module! CFC molecules are approximately 10000 more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but for every CFC molecule there are 70000 CO2 molecules. As my course notes says: "CO2 wins!".

[Devonian]

... and thus a reasonable hypothesis has been established. Can anyone show that this hypothesis is inaccurate to the 95% certainty level?

Let me, quickly, go into AGW sceptic mode....

...

...

 

Right., that's done it! 

 

"Well, no, I don't have to do anything bar jeer, and point out nits. iIt's for you to prove, besides it's all just lefty politics, you're probably a socialist! No, I don't have to do anything. And I bet you're just trying to get a research grant. So there!"

 

Ugghh, don't like that lets get back to normal...

...

...

...

OK, sparks to answer you question in normal mode. In my opinion the evidence is good enough to with certainty man is responsible for the rise in conc of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, that various physics I can't remember on a Sunday morning (Claus whatsit) point to the likelyhood there will be water vapour feedback. I don't think I can prove it, you can't prove things when you can't run a planet sized experiment with another Earth, but I do back physics as we understand it. Which is why I remain (until, or if, I see better evidence) a 2-4C bloke.

[knocker]

The study that stewfox referred and that it all could be down to natural variations. True but increased snowfall could be due to global warming as well..Actually I don't think they have a very good handle on historic and current levels of snowfall anyway.

 

 

A study published in Nature shows that a lot of the ice gain due to increased snowfall is countered by an acceleration of ice-flow to the ocean.

[Gray-Wolf]

I recall reading about an alteration to a circulation pattern impacting SW Australia/Tasmania and Antarctica leading to increased precipitation in Antarctica at the cost of rainfall to Australia/Tasmania? 

 

We all know warmer air holds more moisture but couple that in AGW tweeks to circulation and you could have a last winter scottish snowfest down there ( or was las winters precipitation in the UK 'normal'?)

 

EDIT: I see keith's given us another screenshot of the letter on his cap over on the sceptics thread?........

Edited April 20, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Obama has given himself a bit more wriggle time.

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is putting off its decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, likely until after the November elections, by extending its review of the controversial project indefinitely.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-delays-review-keystone-xl-pipeline

[knocker]

Some musings from Eli this morning.

 

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fate-of-world-powerflip-2036.html

[knocker]

Perhaps the most depressing palaeoecology paper ever

 

Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

[knocker]

Interesting article Dr Dr Ricky Rood

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=293

[Devonian]

There was an interesting exchange of ideas on 'Start the week' (R4) this morning between George Monbiot, Joanna Haigh and James Lovelock. They agreed on a lot but parted company when Lovelock stated (I precis) that it (YKW) doesn't matter because it will all go into the oceans - I parted with him there too...

Edited April 21, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-61#entry2959006

 

That would be the jeering bit, Kieth...

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-61#entry2959192

 

 

Its all about the weather, nothing to do with man I'm afraid

 

http://www.mercuryne...ave-lasted-more

That is of course quite possible incorrect and in any case irrelevant as regarding a water crisis as I believe California has changed somewhat in the last few hundred years. This has actually been  discussed before. It's a bit like saying lung cancer existed before mass cigarette smoking therefore there is no link with the latter.

 

 

What happens if US loses California food production?

 

So a loss of California ag production would hit hard consumers’ wallets and their diets would become less balanced.This is because our state produces a sizable majority of American fruits, vegetables and nuts; 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots and the list goes on and on. A lot of this is due to our soil and climate. No other state, or even a combination of states, can match California’s output per acre.

http://westernfarmpress.com/tree-nuts/what-happens-if-us-loses-california-food-production

 

Bombshell: Study Ties Epic California Drought, ‘Frigid East’ To Manmade Climate Change

 

 

Natural variability alone cannot explain the extreme weather pattern that has driven both the record-setting California drought and the cooler weather seen in the Midwest and East this winter, a major new study finds.

 

We’ve reported before that climate scientists had predicted a decade ago that warming-driven Arctic ice loss would lead to worsening drought in California. In particular, they predicted it would lead to a “blocking pattern†that would shift the jet stream (and the rain it could bring) away from the state — in this case a “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge†of high pressure.

 

A new study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) takes the warming link to the California drought to the next level of understanding. It concludes, “there is a traceable anthropogenic warming footprint in the enormous intensity of the anomalous ridge during winter 2013-14, the associated drought and its intensity.â€

Edited April 21, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Water will, I suspect, be a major problem

 

India’s Worsening Water Crisis

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/indias-worsening-water-crisis/

 

Peru's glaciers are melting at an incredible rate.What happens when your main source of water disappears?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/dying-for-a-drink/disappearing-act.html

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-61#entry2959245

 

 

There is nothing new under the sun, and I agree with your summary, drought in California is synominous with Britains very changeable weather

This is new.

 

World-Population-1800-2100

Edited April 21, 2014 by knocker

[ANYWEATHER]

Water will, I suspect, be a major problem

 

India’s Worsening Water Crisis

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/indias-worsening-water-crisis/

 

Peru's glaciers are melting at an incredible rate.What happens when your main source of water disappears?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/dying-for-a-drink/disappearing-act.html

Look Knocker, in all respect to you. This is doom and gloom. Please put something .that we can really enjoy. and are actual facts. Surely you have got some good news up your sleeves   :lol:  B)

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-61#entry2959245

 

This is new.

 

World-Population-1800-2100

 

No idea where we are going  with population forecasts ? Looking at maximums ?

 

http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

 

If 100 million people live in California would things get worse sooner, sure.

 

Not sure what that got to do with climate change ??

Edited April 21, 2014 by stewfox

[ANYWEATHER]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-61#entry2959245

 

This is new.

 

World-Population-1800-2100

Well yes youre right, population is growing......