Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/02/15 15:38:38
Subject: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
I'm a meteorologist, with very limited training in climatology. I don't claim to be an expert on this. Just someone who has a better founding in the subject then most.
I also don't know for sure what is happening. I have a gut feeling (and with my experience over the last 12 years, I've learned to trust it) that humans impact is overstated.
What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that. That being said, I work with forecast models day in and day out. I know how to "correct" the data the provide when they are wrong. The IPCC failed to do that to the extent they probably should have when they released their latest study.
Things like that, Al Gore, the findings of potentially fudged data to scew results, and a myriad of other things have led me to believe that a large part of the "concensus" is fiscally and politically driven. AGW causes sensation, which leads to hysteria, which leads to funding. If there is nothing to worry about, then there is nothing to spend money on. Being a government employee I'm also very familiar with that school of thinking. We go through it every year around the end of the Fiscal year. How can we continue to justify our budgets? How can we get them expanded?
I see it all as a money game. And the fact that to date, very little of the doom and gloom has been right, nothing has yet swayed my view on it.
I agree in a sense, I'm sure there are people who have a vested interest in climate change being increased by human involvement. As an example our own Prime Minister was involved in getting massive subsidies for members of his wife's family for the setting up of wind farms on their land.
But, on the other hand do you not think that there is also a massive impetus for leaders in industry to deny man made climate change? I would say the 'industrial complex', the power of oil magnates, of car companies and massive industrial corporations would far outweigh (in terms of political and economical power) those who might benefit from government subsidy to renewable energy producers and the like. The same too with scientists being paid to give particular results. No doubt there are forces on both sides pushing, and it's become massively politicised, but from someone living in a country where it is not as politicised (and therefore as polarising on the population), then the thing is that you have to take the majority scientific consensus on these things.
Another view I've start to read about recently, and this is something that you are certainly hearing more often from the more right-wing government sources, is that they've stopped trying to deny climate change. Instead, believing that human technology and ingenuity will lead to ways to counteract it. I can see this being a more and more popular opinion in the future; let's keep on pumping out the CO2, no worries in 50 years or so we will have the technology to put a great big shield in front of the sun or something.
djones520 wrote: Edit: Excuse my typos. Multi-tasking between the nor'easter that's gonna mess with New England tomorrow, some Severe Turbulence of the Southern States, and ferrying a bunch of jets over some oceans. Busy night...
I hope you lied and told them it was balmy. Nothing sucks worse than a drysuit.
We only handle the tanker aspect, not the fighter.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/17 02:42:29
Subject: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
djones520 wrote: What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that.
To the extent that 0.3'C is significant, then it is just as significant that temperature did rise 0.3'C over the measured period.
Also, the measures were only wrong if you look only at surface temperature and then only at the limited measures of surface temperature available (limited arctic measures etc). I don't know how many more times I have to say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Personally, I think Kaku should stick to quantum physics and let actual meteorologists handle the since of the weather.
You don't really want to start setting the standard that only experts in their specific field get to talk on issues. Debate on climate change would become very one sided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: But, on the other hand do you not think that there is also a massive impetus for leaders in industry to deny man made climate change? I would say the 'industrial complex', the power of oil magnates, of car companies and massive industrial corporations would far outweigh (in terms of political and economical power) those who might benefit from government subsidy to renewable energy producers and the like. The same too with scientists being paid to give particular results. No doubt there are forces on both sides pushing, and it's become massively politicised, but from someone living in a country where it is not as politicised (and therefore as polarising on the population), then the thing is that you have to take the majority scientific consensus on these things.
It's interesting to observe as major multinationals hire two distinct groups of people, the first to refute the conclusions of climate change, and more recently climate scientists to help those multinationals begin to adapt to the future predicted by climate change.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/17 02:48:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/02/17 02:56:39
Subject: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Breotan wrote: Personally, I think Kaku should stick to quantum physics and let actual meteorologists handle the since of the weather.
You don't really want to start setting the standard that only experts in their specific field get to talk on issues. Debate on climate change would become very one sided.
Regarding the "debate" issue, it's fine and dandy that he's voicing an opinion. I just don't want him presented as an authority on the subject like these TV news shows are doing. It's disingenuous.
The problem here is, Kaku isn't just some guy voicing his opinion like we are. He's being paid as an "expert" because he's a scientist. His opinion is presented as having greater value because of this. Now if they want to bring him in as an "expert" on something happening at CERN, then that's fine because it's in his field of study.
2014/02/17 05:19:11
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2014/02/17 05:21:05
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
AegisGrimm wrote: It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
AegisGrimm wrote: It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
Technically both can be correct.
Its all about how you present the facts.
I can say I just doubled my salary. But it still small if my salary was just $2.50 an hour and my new salary is $5
And when you are talking about very tiny numbers any increase can have a very large % change while having a very tiny shift in actual values.
You must know what sort of context the increase should be viewed in.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Breotan wrote: Regarding the "debate" issue, it's fine and dandy that he's voicing an opinion. I just don't want him presented as an authority on the subject like these TV news shows are doing. It's disingenuous.
The problem here is, Kaku isn't just some guy voicing his opinion like we are. He's being paid as an "expert" because he's a scientist. His opinion is presented as having greater value because of this. Now if they want to bring him in as an "expert" on something happening at CERN, then that's fine because it's in his field of study.
Well, yeah, science journalism is pretty terrible most of the time. Are you as bothered when geologists and engineers get given equal deference on climate change as climatologists?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/17 07:18:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/02/17 06:20:00
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
AegisGrimm wrote: It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
Technically both can be correct.
Its all about how you present the facts.
I can say I just doubled my salary. But it still small if my salary was just $2.50 an hour and my new salary is $5
And when you are talking about very tiny numbers any increase can have a very large % change while having a very tiny shift in actual values.
You must know what sort of context the increase should be viewed in.
Obviously I meant it in the way that she used it as a hand-wave comment, like "Pfft, it's just a couple more parts per million, so what."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/17 06:20:43
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2014/02/17 17:38:59
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
There is colossal, staggering arrogance at work when people can deny the consensus of 95%+ of the specialists in a field based on their own anecdotal evidence and political beliefs.
It makes me chuckle, I have to say. I'm pretty sure we're at the point now where we can't do much about the oncoming changes in global climate, and should turn our thoughts to dealing with it, but I'm sure history will look kindly on you guys.
It's better to find it funny that horrendously depressing, which is my other option, I guess.
Edit: Also, honestly, all the talk of some scientific conspiracy to propagate climate change is just hilarious. The pressure in academia is generally to publish something shocking, something that breaks convention, that grabs attention, something with relevance and impact. If the guys doing decent science could disprove climate change, it would be massively beneficial to them, career wise, to do so. And yet the vast majority don't. When I was in research, I don't recall any meetings where we all decided our opinion on things- quite the opposite! Arguments and disagreements were the order of the day. And I never got any hush money either! Bloody disgraceful. I want my hush money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/17 17:51:36
I'm a meteorologist, with very limited training in climatology. I don't claim to be an expert on this. Just someone who has a better founding in the subject then most.
I also don't know for sure what is happening. I have a gut feeling (and with my experience over the last 12 years, I've learned to trust it) that humans impact is overstated.
What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that. That being said, I work with forecast models day in and day out. I know how to "correct" the data the provide when they are wrong. The IPCC failed to do that to the extent they probably should have when they released their latest study.
Things like that, Al Gore, the findings of potentially fudged data to scew results, and a myriad of other things have led me to believe that a large part of the "concensus" is fiscally and politically driven. AGW causes sensation, which leads to hysteria, which leads to funding. If there is nothing to worry about, then there is nothing to spend money on. Being a government employee I'm also very familiar with that school of thinking. We go through it every year around the end of the Fiscal year. How can we continue to justify our budgets? How can we get them expanded?
I see it all as a money game. And the fact that to date, very little of the doom and gloom has been right, nothing has yet swayed my view on it.
This is one of my absolute favourite arguments on this subject. There isn't actually a scientific consensus at all, instead climatologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to manipulate thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, in order to suckle heartily at that sweet sweet government teat, what with basic scientific research being so lucrative and all. You might use more qualified wording, but you're espousing essentially the same position as the Lord Monktons and Rush Limbaughs of the world.
What makes it my favourite argument is that it's so much the opposite of reality that it would be hilarious if we weren't discussing such a serious issue.
On one side of the issue; the vast majority of qualified scientists, vast reams of data, and conclusions drawn from that data by the scientific method.
On the other; people who believe anthropogenic climate change is impossible because God wouldn't allow it to happen, massive oil corporations, power companies, and the politicians who pander to them.
Yet it is the first group, in your estimation, who are playing a "money game". All those right-wing think tanks, oil industry-funded studies(typically conducted by....geologists), vast political campaign contributions to denialist politcians, the constant attempts to equate basic rational actions like reducing emissions with government tyranny; well, that's just sensible folk trying to provide some balance in the debate, what with the media being so in thrall to those dastardly climatologists and only presenting their side of the stor...oh wait.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2014/02/17 23:15:53
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
