Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

@matthias
causality vs correlation.
Very weak in the field of climate science to date.

Very few deny change, just require strong proof of causality.
Also, hyperbole from ignoramuses hasn’t helped. Nothing is blowing up in 10 years despite the klaxons.

Where is your convincing proof of causality?
If be very keen to be convinced myself.

I withhold judgement until proof is presented.

A million people saying the same thing isn’t proof of scientific research. It’s proof of propaganda because these people don’t know the science behind what they’re being told.

To your point, hardly anyone knows that calculus is behind almost every single consumer good as well, so fair point to that.

> I withhold judgement until proof is presented.

Simply turn to any of the recent publications of respected climate scientists around the globe.
For example the recent IPCC Special Report.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

It’s report is based on decades of research and massive amounts of data on
- global land and atmospheric temperature developments
- changes in atmospheric composition (e.g. rising CO2 levels)
- ocean temperature developments
- land- and sea ice developments
- changes in permafrost structures
- radiation and reflection data measured from orbit

and plenty of other sources.

In their attempt to undermine the credibility of reports like the IPCC Special Report climate change deniers usually turn to one or both of the following “arguments”:

1.) The scientists don’t know what they are talking about because they didn’t think of XYZ.

Well, when you actually read any of the publication you’ll find that these fine women and gentlemen in global climate research really appear to “know their shit”. If many nations spend many millions of dollars on decades of climate research and the respective scientists end up presenting their results with a practically unanimous voice then it’s incredibly tough to refute their findings.

Simply dropping platitudes like “They don’t know about correlation vs. causility” or “They didn’t think of the difference in heat capacity between water and air” won’t cut it.
In fact, unless you are a respected climate scientist yourself and have somehow withheld landmark discoveries from your peers, there simply is no way that you can credibly convince anyone rational that your world view is in fact closer to the truth.

2.) Climate science and its finding cannot be taken seriously because they are all a fraud pushed by a global conspiracy of some political group that is trying to further its agenda by infiltrating climate science institutes across the globe and fabricate evidence in their favor.

While this is of course possible Occam’s razor would dicate, in the utter absence of any proof for this bold hypothesis, that it is to rejected and the much simpler explanation, namely that the research findings are in fact correct, to be accepted.

So, in summary, there simply isn’t any credible way that the climate research results can be refuted.
Which makes discussing their veracity nonsensical.

Which brings me back to my point that we as mankind must turn to the much more important discussion of how to deal with the implications.

Which is of course painful and uncomfortable, maybe especially for us aviators.

But it is the only logical and – in fact – right thing to do.

Cheers,
Mathias

EDTF

Have these fine women and gentlemen explained why we have had ice ages and warm periods with massive temperature and climate changes well before any significant human activity has occurred ?

And once we have those factors, can we rule out that these factors override the (undeniable) effect of CO2 increase in the atmosphere ?

From direct environmetal concern, I am in favor of changes in the sectors energy and industry to avoid poisoning ourselves.
What I do believe is a typical human hybris, is the thought that we a) should or b) could “protect” the climate which will run its course regardless.

And panic btw has almost never in hystery played a constructive role in solving problems.

And yes, a lot will be down to us consumers with their everyday choices. Politicians cannot solve it for us. And forbidding everything might be diffichlt with many folks incl. some current protesters…

...
EDM_, Germany

we have had ice ages

In geological terms it is only a few seconds ago that early man would find Chicago under metres of ice…

…some Chicago winters it feels you are under several metres of ice

Enstone (EGTN), Oxford (EGTK)

Clearly, if I don’t bend the knee and swallow the righteous pill, I won’t be inducted into the hall of climate change righteousness, regardless of my small ‘carbon footprint’ or my care for the earth.

One must believe the doctrine without question, I get it.
But I don’t care to be a priest in the new world religion.

I’m one unique person on the planet, with a unique perspective.
Even if I somehow decreased my footprint even more, it won’t change China, India and Africa.
Wishful thinking, that’s the religion of climate science.

Will you try to make colonies of those 2nd/3rd world countries again?
Suppress them because they don’t follow the tune?

Right, World War 3 it is, to save the earth. We’re all righteous in the fight, aren’t we?

AF wrote:

Clearly, if I don’t bend the knee and swallow the righteous pill, I won’t be inducted into the hall of climate change righteousness, regardless of my small ‘carbon footprint’ or my care for the earth.

One must believe the doctrine without question, I get it.
But I don’t care to be a priest in the new world religion.

So the reason you don’t agree with the science is that you object to being part of a consensus?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Buckerfan wrote:
PhD from Oxford University (organic chemistry)
In what way does that qualify you for an expert opinion on climate science? I myself have a PhD in Computer Science.

Hi Airborne. It doesnt qualify me as expert on climate science. But it certainly gives me the ability to understand some of the relevant science and it has also grounded me in the scientific method. The absolute core of the scientific method is a) make a hypothesis (eg increasing CO2 concentration will increase the temperature of the atmosphere by a certain amount) and b) see whether the data supports the hypothesis (it doesnt, to the extent that the increase in temperature of the atmosphere since the predictions began is far below that predicted by 99% of the models surveyed by the IPCC). Thus, it is clear that the “Climate community” has so far got the basic science wrong by a large margin.

BTW, I think it is worth noting that there is no such thing as an expert “climate scientist” per se, but thousands and thousands of scientists who work in a huge variety of disciplines to contribute to our understanding of the climate. For example the list of disciplines would include: meteorology, atmospheric physics, astrophysics, atmospheric chemistry, paleobiology (tree ring data), paleochemistry (climate data from eg cave deposits), biology, computer modelling, mathematics (especially statistics), and then a whole host of oceanographic disciplines etc. Each of these scientists is an expert in their narrow discipline, but struggling like the rest of us in trying to see, integrate and understand the whole system.

One of the factors that is little understood outside modelling community is that the climate models rely on what is known as “positive water vapour feedback”. CO2 alone cannot absorb enough outgoing long wave radiation to heat the atmosphere (for reasons I am happy to explain) to the extent that the alarmist models predict. Instead the theory is that a small warming, caused by elevated CO2 levels, causes higher atmospheric water vapour concentrations. As water vapour is in fact a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it is this elevated water vapour level that causes most of the excess warming per the models. The trouble is that so far the levels of water vapour in the atmosphere are not rising as predicted, and instead there is an emerging theory that water vapour may in fact cause a “negative feedback loop”, mediated through things like the carriage of surface heat high into the atmosphere by tropical thunderstorms.

Last Edited by Buckerfan at 06 Oct 07:50
Upper Harford, United Kingdom

What irritates me, is the strong focus on the scientific consensus.

Consensus opinion in science has been, on numerous occasions, simply been a reflection of the limitation in a) available data / observations b) willingness to account for alternative explanations c) willingness to openly discuss alternative theories.
All too quickly, conversations and discussions turn negative and often, the killer argument is “scientific consensus”.

And yes, it equally often has quasi-religious aspects, those screaming loudest being the ones with the most limited insights in the remaining wrinkles and questions marks that have been ironed out for the headlines, but are in the details of the underlying reports.

And all of the above does not mean we should stop transforming towards an ecological way of life !
Just do it without panic and trading in freedom and well being in our part of the world.

...
EDM_, Germany

Buckerfan wrote:

But it certainly gives me the ability to understand some of the relevant science and it has also grounded me in the scientific method. The absolute core of the scientific method is a) make a hypothesis (eg increasing CO2 concentration will increase the temperature of the atmosphere by a certain amount) and b) see whether the data supports the hypothesis

But so does my Ph.D. and the Ph.D of a lot of people who agree with the IPCC.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Sure. But science is not driven by “consensus”. And, by the way, the much cited “97% of scientists agree…” statement that is thrown around so often is bunkum. The sociology research that led to that paper has been completely debunked.

In a much more insightful study, only 67% of members of the American Meteorological Society believe that climate change is “largely or entirely” caused by humans

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/04/13/another-survey-of-meteorologists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#2b98d8826d9a

My point being that there remains considerable doubt about reasons for and likely future magnitude of climate change and we should be very careful of signing up to the hysteria and dooming our civilization to a dramatic reduction in wealth, health, happiness and freedom.

Last Edited by Buckerfan at 06 Oct 13:12
Upper Harford, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top