Thank you for all those who have contributed. I’ve read all the comments and have tried to take account of what everyone is saying. Comments have ranged from “broadly agree” to “there is no sceptic view” to “the whole theory is wrong”. Where comments indicate a consensus to change I’ve tried to address these with amendments. I have tried not to exclude any less well supported view but the focus has to be on those that seem to have the most support here and in the general discussion on places like WUWT.
Previous versions/discussion:
The Sceptic View (revision 0.5)
Sceptics value diversity of views and there are many strands. As one contributor said:
Climate scepticism isn’t necessarily about what we agree upon, it’s based upon how many questions go unanswered. More, it’s about how many lies that have been told, whether directly or by omission. The greatest liberator of mankind so far – fossil fuel – has been tried, found guilty and condemned without ever being allowed to publicly mount a defence. (TinyCO2 )
Many have passionate views based on the evidence:
As far as I’m concerned I see absolutely no unambiguous empirical evidence that CO2 has any discernible effect on climate whatsoever. It may possibly have an influence but I’m damned if I see it anywhere. (cerberus)
Although there is no single sceptic view, most** sceptics broadly agree with the following:
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing. In 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.
- There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures in the last 150 years.
- There is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The best scientific estimate of this effect (for doubling CO2) is about 1C warming.
- People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This is not supported by the evidence.
- Current estimates of about 0.8 C temperature rise in the past 150 years are very likely too high. There is compelling evidence of malpractice, urban heating and poor instruments & siting. A figure of 0.5-0.6C warming appears more likely.
- Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2, however scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.
- Water in the atmosphere is far more important than CO2 in determining global temperature.
- The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown e.g. by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.
- Known benefits have been hidden. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse. CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants.
- Even under the worst case scenario warming, when the usual method of comparing the cost and benefit of policy is used, it is more cost effective to deal with any problems that occur than to pay to try to stop them.
- Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
- Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.
- In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.
- We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.
Explanatory note
**We encourage debate based on scientific evidence. We particularly abhor any dismissal of potentially good science based on the preconceived prejudice that has dominated climate science and prevented debate. Those who did not agree with the above seemed to do so for the following reasons:
- Some sceptics reject any interpretation of the data beyond a minimal assertion of the facts.
- Others question the validity of isolated surface stations as representing a global temperature.
- A vocal group of sceptics look to other planets as a model of the earth’s climate and argue that the temperatures seen on these planet contradict the theory on which greenhouse warming is based. We think such ideas and theories deserve consideration and require effort to substantiate or refute them based on the evidence.
Revision 0.5 notes on changes
- In response to those saying there is no single view, I’ve moved up the comments about diversity and valuing different views to the top with an explicit statement that there is no single sceptic view. I’ve also added some quotes which seemed to sum up the posts.
- I’ve tried to briefly summarise the views of those who disagree. I think it is important they are represented, just as the average also needs the standard deviation.
- I’ve changed the paras:
There is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.Increasing CO2 alone should cause warming of about 1C for a doubling of CO2.into one:There is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The best scientific estimate of this effect (for doubling CO2) is about 1C warming. - The para:“There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures (about 0.8 C in the past 150 years).”
Has been changed to:“There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures in the last 150 years.”And a new para has been added:“Current estimates of about 0.8 C temperature rise in the past 150 years are very likely too high. There is compelling evidence of malpractice, urban heating and poor instruments & siting. A figure of 0.5-0.6C warming appears more likely.”We had a discussion on this on WUWT (which I cannot find!!) where the consensus was around 0.5-0.6C from memory!! I felt if we said “the 0.8 figure is wrong”, I had to give a sense of what kind of warming we felt could be realistic. - I’ve added this para:Water in the atmosphere is far more important than CO2 in determining global temperature.This after reading the blog of GlobalWarmingDenier, looking for a short succinct summary of his position. It was also mentioned by others.
- This para changed as indicated:Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence
shows climate has always varied and itsuggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period”( and before 5,000BC)as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.Note climate varies in next para. - Other minor changes like a smelling mistake.
It’s getting there 🙂
Does it need something about models? Recently I’ve got the impression that models work this way but I’m still fuzzy about it. –
Much of climate science boils down into computer models that are undoubtedly complex but by far the greatest driving elements are CO2 and water vapour feedback. This means that all the things we might guess affect climate are reduced to just noise. It’s why there is such agreement between different models. If the assumptions about CO2 and water vapour feedback values are wrong, the rest of the software is junk. Of course the models seem very realistic as they’re based on real global climate interactions but the teraflops of processing power essentially colour in a very crude prediction. Those predictions have changed very little since 1988 (1990 ???) when Dr Hansen presented his graph of future temperatures under three different CO2 scenarios. Those predictions are already substantially too high and are being adjusted down by tweaking the effects of other types of man made pollution and solar influences. Models are never wrong are they just given a new version number.
Anybody able to explain it better to me?
It’s: globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com NOT with capital letters.
Everything I state; can be proven now, no need to wait 100y. 2] Because most of the Skeptics are ”trying to prove that is no global warming in 100y; by their PHONY ”GLOBAL warmings” in the past = that makes them more guilty than the Warmist swindlers. Using ”proxy” evidence from some corner of the planet – to declare that warming / or the ice age was GLOBAL, gives oxygen to the Warmist. Warmist know that they don’t have a mature opponents.
3] the ”big city island heat” Warmist were using as 0,7C warmer planet – then they went for 0,8C, is their cheap joke that still works. Truth: Warmist cannot say for obvious reasons that: extra warming in the constantly growing cities is between 0,3C and 3,5C. Can be easily seen, when snow is melting in the city much quicker than in the surrounding areas. Warmist are using it as GLOBAL.. Skeptics follow.
Truth: when city is warmer by 2C than if the city was same size as 150y ago; with no black bitumen – the 500km3 of air in /above has warmed and expanded by 10%. It means that is 50km3 extra volume of air – that extra air hasn’t gone bush; because was already air in the bush. Instead as ”warmer” has gone to the edge of the troposphere and increased the troposphere’s volume by that much bulging into the stratosphere- is releasing that much ”extra” heat – intercepting / redirecting extra coldness down. That EXTRA coldness doesn’t fall back in the city to cancel the extra heat, because of the fast spinning planet eastwards – plus on the way down, that EXTRA coldness is mixed by winds and falls somewhere far west = somewhere west is colder than normal, exactly by the amount of coldness needed to cancel the extra heat in the big city. Therefore, the truth remains: for the last 150y, all the extra heat accumulated wouldn’t be enough to boil one chicken egg!!! Because EXTRA heat in the earth’s troposphere is not cumulative!!! Nobody knows what was last year’s GLOBAL temperature; because of insufficient data, how can they compare with temp from 50-100y??? GROW UP!!!
I hope you’re not trying to clam that there has been NO warming without UHI because that’s stretching credibility. The hard part is separating natural warming (end of LIA, phase changes in the oceans, etc) with man made warming (UHI, land use, CO2, bad measurement, etc). I certainly couldn’t say if today’s temperatures are higher than the thirties and fourties (though warming has been more prolonged) but I do know that they’re higher than my childhood.
Even if we ignore thermometers altogether, nature has demonstrated warming in enough remote places to prove its existence. One of the red flags from Mann’s work was the suspiciously flat part of the hockey stick because history tells us that climate changes quite a lot.
TinyCO2 ; Climate is in constant change – that has nothing to do with any phony GLOBAL warming! Localized warmings / coolings happens all the time – otherwise wouldn’t be any winds. They are NEVER GLOBAL. Laws of physics don’t permit GLOBAL warmings. Before 90’s, there was no scrutiny of climatology = they were presenting localized imprint of warmings as GLOBAL. I have being in same discussions many times; reason I blame prof. Plimer. He deceived the people that supposed to stand up for the truth – that planet’s temp goes up and down as a yo-yo. LIA was GLOBAL? Who was monitoring for you the temp in Patagonia, Oceania at that time? Warmist are walking all over the Skeptics, exclusively because of Plimer’s Pagan beliefs. .
Unless some place / places gets colder – warming on other area is not possible for more than few minutes. If some place gets colder – shrinking air can accommodate the extra volume of air from where is getting extra warm. Otherwise – if it gets much warmer on one part or troposphere -> air expands – the extra volume goes from the troposphere into the stratosphere – releases extra heat / swaps it for extra coldness – that extra coldness falls down some other area in minutes, not years.Too much to explain / prove in couple of paragraphs – my blog: globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com you will find lots of proofs
The only reason the Warmist are not spiting the dummy is because ”Skeptics” still are persisting to prove that is not going to be global warming in 100y; with their lots and lots of phony GLOBAL warmings in the past. Be fair to yourself and read what I have, it’s not much, only 8-9 pages; then we will have things to discus. Have in mind that: I know what you know about those phony GLOBAL ice ages and phony ”GLOBAL” warmings.
Pingback: Revised statement of sceptic view | ScottishSceptic
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing: in 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.
Check. the increase since pre-industrial times is circa 35%, higher than it has been in 600K years, probably longer.
Current estimates of about 0.8 C temperature rise in the past 150 years are very likely too high. There is compelling evidence of malpractice, urban heating and poor instruments & siting. A figure of 0.5-0.6C warming appears more likely.
Hmmmm, you’re not convinced by the Berkeley project which found UHI to be insignificant and siting quality to have no impact on the trend?
There is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Check. One of several significant GHGs.
Increasing CO2 alone should cause warming of about 1C for a doubling of CO2.
Check.
People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This is not supported by the evidence.
Nope. For example the water vapour feedback (a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas) has been observed, measured and found to be in line with predictions.
See http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/229/Dessler_et_al_2008b.pdf
Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2, howecer scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.
Nope. Simple carbon accounting show the opposite – the increase is a lot less than our emissions would provide. Natural sinks have been absorbing the excess. This is confirmed by isotopic analysis. Try Googling The Suess Effect.
Water in the atmosphere is far more important than CO2 in determining global temperature.
Except if humidity increases, the excess precipitates out in a few days or weeks. Once emitted excess CO2 remains in the carbon cycle for many hundreds of years.
The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.
Hmmmm…
Known benefits have been hidden. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse. CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants.
The beneficial effect of moderate warming on crop yields was noted by the IPCC. However every serious study shows that net effects are profoundly negative.
Even under the worst case scenario warming, when the usual method of comparing the cost and benefit of policy is used, it is more cost effective to deal with any problems that occur rather than pay to try to stop them.
Nope. Even Lomborg found a positive B/C ratio for mitigation.
Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” ( and before 5,000BC) as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
Proxies are unreliable yet suggest the answer you want? No published multi-proxy reconstruction shows a global and synchronous MWP.
Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.
Just handwaving. In fact every decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding one, with an accelerating trend.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.
Nope. The IPCC quite rightly did not present such a short-range projection. If you examine their projections for 1990 to 2010 they were spot on.
We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.
If you have conclusive evidence of scientific malpractice then you should present it. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And all those answers are from the warmists play book and they’ve been generated by people who looked for the answer to global warming, set their spotlight on CO2 and stopped looking for any other option. They’ve got the money and institutions for research sewn up and careers that rely on CO2 being the bad guy. They’re not backing off now. Their opportunity for credibility was the enquiries into Climategate and they showed that the dishonesty went right to the top. While there is a lot of solid work in proxy science, Mann’s Hockey team aren’t part of it. That warmists still support them is a red flag.
The hiatus in global temperature rise was the warning sign that they didn’t know as much as they claim. They’ve countered that by molesting the temperature series to generate a trend and trying to make stuff up to explain why the 30ppm that caused all the rise in the 80s and 90s has done almost nothing in the 00s. Don’t quote Lomborg like we’re supposed to be impressed, he’s a warmist too.
I don’t have to have conclusive evidence of scientific evidence of malpractice I just have to suspect that they’re a lying, useless bunch of academics that have bought into their own publicity. I even fear that they are so bad at their jobs they are incapable of proving CAGW even if it exists. I’m more than happy to kick climate science until I see evidence they’re trying to put their house in order. I won’t hold my breath.
Unfortunately, our opinion doesn’t count anyway as the rest of the population have got bored with AGW and will do what they please. When imports are included, UK emissions are significantly higher than 1990. Warmists are among the worst CO2 offenders but like to feel virtuous because they believe. Just not enough to cut CO2. Doesn’t sound as if those warmist arguments are very convincing after all.
Oh, and if warmists were serious about dealing with scepticism they’d have the debate about AGW that we all seem to have missed.
I don’t have to have conclusive evidence of scientific evidence of malpractice
I rather think you do if you want to be taken seriously. I rather think if there was any such, then it would be presented. ‘I don’t need evidence’ seems a very odd position for a sceptic……
The debate has occurred and is occurring where it should, in the academic literature and scientific associations, every last one of which has issued a statement endorsing the IPCC’s main conclusions.
You just comfort yourself with those thoughts while the World ignores you.
The debate was never the preserve of academics. If you want everyone to act they need to see that the science is credible for themsleves. That means the opposition has to have a fair say and funding. It says it all that during Climategate, not a single sceptic was questioned and there wasn’t a single sceptic on the investigating panel. Peer review might just as well be called buddy review.
Climate science has made too many mistakes (scientifically and morally) to be left as arbiters of what it right and wrong. The longer they/you argue about it the harder it will be to turn the tide of inaction.
As a true sceptic I will admit CO2 may be as big a problem as the scariest alarmists predict. I just no longer trust climate scientists to tell the truth about it. The only reason I post as a sceptic is to try and irritate someone enough to do something about it. There’s very little wrong with my carbon footprint so it’s not like I’m trying to preserve my fossil fuel guzzling lifestyle to hold these opinions.
Red flags
Treating the global temperature set as insignificant data, up to and including losing part of it.
Making changes to raw temperature data without fully documenting any modifications.
Making changes to data despite those records being correct according to the supplying country (eg Iceland, Reykjavik).
Continually making changes to historical data without having a time machine to go back and assess the original data for accuracy.
Changing historical data without updating anything that used those temperature records to calibrate results (eg proxy records).
Seeing no need to make globally important data public.
Publicly funded scientists treating their work as their own property and putting intellectual property rights above public persuasion.
Trying to avoid FOI requests and trying to get themselves exempt (especially the IPCC).
Creating secret communication channels for the discussion of IPCC work.
Lying about harassment (FOI requests, death threats, etc)
Refusing to debate.
Turning the IPCC report into a magazine for green lobbies (NGOs shouldn’t be anywhere near the report or the references).
Creating an impenetrable club out of peer review and using bully boy tactics to maintain supremacy.
Admitting that nobody had ever asked for the data and code to enable a full check of the results of peer reviewed papers (in other words they had just slid by without anyone examining them for mistakes.
And many more.
Nigel Persaud,
thank you for your contribution. The question you do not seem to have answered is whether this is a faithful and fair representation of Sceptics view. As someone who no doubt argues with sceptics you will no doubt be aware of views that have been stated. So I would be particularly keen to hear your views on whether these represent those views.
The value of peer review – One of the few people consulted during the Climategate investigations was Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet. He was asked to submit a paper on peer review. Well he’d know all about it since he was the editor who published the paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield. You know the one, the now thoroughly discredited paper about autism and MMR. A paper only retracted after Wakefield was struck off. An event that only came about because a journalist pushed for the truth and not because his peers willingly investigated Wakefiled’s work.
As for the other scientific associations issuing a statement endorsing the IPCC’s main conclusions – they’re just rubber stamping it because it’s another science and they believe that due diligence has been done. Most of the people issuing the statements (no association wide vote) will know no more about the science than the average member of the public and much of that would be supplied by biased media like the BBC. Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Academy is a good example. Presumably he really is brilliant at his own job but he demonstrated a lamentable lack of knowledge about the issues in climate science and a marked bias against scepticism. His mocumentary was a set up from start to finish.
So I would be particularly keen to hear your views on whether these represent those views.
Well, I would certainly hope not, given that more than half of the points are trivial to disprove, and have indeed been repeatedly debunked.
The perfectly good and useful word ‘sceptic’ has been hijacked by people who are anything but, and who do not seem to have a consistent view or basis for scepticism, rather will uncritically embrace anything that appears to cast doubt upon the thesis that most of recent GW is driven by manmade greenhouse gases. If you read WUWT, for example) and add up the supposed effect of cosmic rays, oceanic cycles, solar activity etc., they have successfully ‘explained’ about 300% of modern warming.
And not an ounce of scepticism in sight.
Of course there are uncertainties, there is scope for genuine ‘scepticism’ around whether the feedbacks will play out as modelled, the effects of clouds being not well understood. My advice would be to focus on this area. Recycling debunked nonsense about UHI, station siting and whether the CO2 increase is manmade just makes you look silly.
So if AGW is so obvious, why is your side losing? Apart from the odd nutter, nobody really believes enough to act. I suspect you don’t have the sort of carbon footprint that CO2 reduction demands. 2 tonnes? No? Oh, and don’t count carbon offsets, we can’t all use that excuse. Don’t tell me, you’ll get around to it when everyone else does.
Or does the straight line you can draw between 1997 and 2011 worry you just a teeny bit? Perhaps the warming will only be on the lower edge of IPCC values? Perhaps there isn’t much of a water vapour feedback? Perhaps all those WWF moles in the IPCC report have exagerated the hazards of a warming planet? Perhaps you think we could engineer a solution if we had to?
Perhaps if more believers asked themselves why they can’t be bothered to cut CO2 they might admit that climate science isn’t as convincing as they say it is?
Apart from the odd nutter, nobody really believes enough to act.
Really? You seem to have forgotten the Climate Change Act 2008, which introduced a legally binding 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, passed by a majority of 463 votes to 3.
Leaving it to individual’s voluntary actions is a recipe for failure. I am pessimistic that enough will be done however it is government policies, especially in energy and transport, that will prove decisive, rather than individuals unilaterally reducing their personal footprints.
Or does the straight line you can draw between 1997 and 2011 worry you just a teeny bit?
Cherry-pick much? http://sks.to/escalator
Nigel said: If you read WUWT, for example) and add up the supposed effect of cosmic rays, oceanic cycles, solar activity etc., they have successfully ‘explained’ about 300% of modern warming.
Nigel, you should leave cosmic and solar influence to horoscope people. Same cosmic and solar influences affect Sahara and Brazil. If they had any influence – would have being same climate in both places. 2] oceanic cycles affect the climate; that has nothing to do with any phony GLOBAL warming. The GLOBAL warming is inside your head, not in nature!!! Grow up; how long will take you to realize that the phony GLOBAL warming was concocted, lie by the people that you are trying to prove wrong?!
TinyCO2, enough about ”carbon footprint” – time for ”carbon fingerprinting” the beneficiaries from the misleading propaganda. CO2 has nothing to do with the GLOBAL temperature / h2o controls the climate. Small / big climatic changes are a natural phenomena – GLOBAL warming is a phenomenal lie. Those two are not related..
CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
Temperature in the atmosphere is NOT same as in human body; when under the armpit is 1C warmer than normal = the WHOLE body is warmer by that much. In nature is opposite. Time for mature debate; for real proofs, it’s time for the secular Skeptics to get on the front foot.
Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that; where they expand upwards; on the edge of the troposphere is minus – 90⁰C? Q: why O+N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to release MORE heat; to intercept more extra coldness, to equalize. Q: if O+N are cooled after 10minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units overall in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millennia! (Past GLOBAL warmings were never global!)
Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness, to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds > that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O+N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.
Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding when they warm up? A: O+N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist cult? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder -> air shrinks -> intercepts less coldness on the edge of the troposphere > retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo -> troposphere expands extra -> intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before they start expanding; or expand instantly extra, when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? Mitich formula: EH>AE>EHR (Extra Heat >Atmosphere Expands >Extra Heat Releases) Tons of extra CORRECT proofs, why I am a GLOBAL warming Infidel. I believe in climatic changes; big and small – I know that human can improve the climate / because water controls climate = to a degree, human can control water. On the other hand, ALL the phony GLOBAL warmings are, yes, phony.
Lots of B/S makes fertile imaginations. Money corrupts even honest people, lying is bread and butter to people involved in climatology, don’t blame them. Present our own ‘’honest’’ proofs. Warmist believe in 90% possibility of GLOBAL warming – the face Skeptics believe 101% in global warming; Fake”Skeptic” is prepared to die in the trenches, fighting to proof that the phony GLOBAL warmings are for real… shame shame!!!
2] CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
They constantly use the terms: ‘’thermodynamics and convection’’ but never implement it.
IT’S, THE SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISMS: to be same warmth units in the troposphere every hour of every day / year and millennia
Factor 1] when troposphere warms up – oxygen + nitrogen expand, INSTANTLY. They are 998999ppm in the troposphere. Volume of the troposphere increases INSTANTLY. Nobody talks about it; if they did – they would have proven their misleading is WRONG. Because of bigger cities, bitumen / bricks / more people are having hot showers and cooking than 150y ago; the air in those cities is always warmer than before (city island heat) From 500km3 of air is expanded to 550km3. Those extra 50km3 are increasing the volume of the troposphere. Take in the account the contribution of every big city on the planet; conservative estimate: the ‘’troposphere’’ has expanded by 5-7m up; that extra volume intercepts and redirects enough extra coldness ‘’to CANCEL the extra heat’’. That extra coldness doesn’t fall back into those cities; because in few minutes falling down – by spinning the planet fast eastwards + horizontal winds on the way down disperse that extra coldness somewhere far west = far west of every big city is fraction colder. ‘’Fraction, because that coldness is distributed on much larger are, than the city. Overall, same warmth units in the troposphere every hour of every year and millenia.
Factor 2] usually, HORIZONTAL winds take the heat from the ground; VERTICAL winds take that heat to the edge of the troposphere; discharge the heat into the unlimited coldness; and exchange it for coldness, which takes about 3,5 second > that extra cold air gets to the ground in minutes. WHEN HEAT INCREASES on the ground > VERTICAL WINDS INCREASE.
Warmer air expands > increases volume > on the way up. Hot air balloon is a good example; because is using the heat convection – to get up, and stay up. The power of warm air wants to go up – the warmer it gets – the more powerful vertical winds. Lifts 100kg balloon + the gas bottle + the basket + 5-6 people in it – it’s lifting 600kg, over half a ton. In that balloon is lots and lots of CO2+H2O; but doesn’t prevent it of going up, to release heat. Example: if the balloon instantly disappeared – that warm air inside the balloon would have shot up as a rocket – to take the heat to the edge on the troposphere and replace it with coldness.
Can CO2 and water vapor prevent the warmed air from getting up? A: When the gas burns to warm up the air inside the balloon; the flame turns the gas into CO2 AND ‘’VATER VAPOUR’’. If those two molecules CO2 + H2O were preventing expansion of oxygen + nitrogen inside the balloon; the balloon wouldn’t have taken off the ground with that extra weight. That is factual / proof of their lies / Warmist ‘’smoking gun’’.
After 1/2h up in the air; in the balloon is over 20 000ppm of CO2 + lots of water vapor!
Q: can CO2 + water vapor prevent the warm air into the balloon of expanding and going up? A: you know the answer; don’t let them get away with their cheap lies. Cheers!
3] ANOTHER PROOF / SMOKING GUN
:
When it gets hotter than normal – vertical winds increase. People with hang-gliders prefer over rocks / red soil. Because on that kind of surface sunlight produces extra heat. They hate rice paddies / swamps. Which brings back to Sahara; in Sahara the vertical winds are much faster than in Brazil. Because above Sahara much less CO2 and water wapour, to produce dimming affect (to intercept lots of sunlight, where cooling is much more efficient) = on the ground much hotter / upper atmosphere colder. ‘’proportion in difference of heat between the ground and upper atmosphere is greater – that makes ‘’VERTICAL WINDS to SPEED UP!!!
In Brazil, because of dimming affect – upper atmosphere is warmer, but at daytime on the ground is much cooler. At night is warmer in Brazil than Sahara; because the vertical winds are slower. They are slower, because the proportion in difference of temperature between the ground and upper atmosphere are much less. Doctor’s order for growing better trees! So much about H2O +CO2 being bad for climate. If you don’t know what is good climate – ask the trees; Sahara or Brazil??? That makes the Conspirators not just wrong, but back to front as well. In Brazil, from 33C at lunch time cools in 12h to 23C at night — in Sahara, from 45C at lunch time; in 12h cools to down to 10C. That means: nature can cool by 25C more in Sahara, in 12h than in Brazil; they state that troposphere cannot cool extra 0,15C in a decade?!… Grow up people, all of you. Self adjusting mechanism is brilliant, but avoided!
Fact: when the air for that latitude gets warmer than normal – vertical winds speed up accordingly – INCREASES efficiency in cooling. Hello ‘’thermodynamic / convection’’ parrots!
Fact: when the air for that latitude cools – vertical winds slow / can even stop. But because close to the ground is always warmer than up, they just slow down. Self regulation that never fails; because the creator inserted a thermometer in every atom of oxygen / nitrogen. UNLESS THE POLITICIANS ABOLISH THE ”LAWS OF PHYSICS” BY LEGISLATION; every talk of any phony GLOBAL warming is a crappy delusion from the truth and reality.
A carbon footprint may be irrelevant to both of us but it’s supposed to matter to those who believe CO2 is a driver of catastrophic warming, like Nigel.
Stefan, if you think you properly understand how your theory works then I’ll ask the same of you as I would a climate scientist – make a prediction that can be demonstrated. In practice it only matters what happens to surface temperatures and weather, that’s where we live. The troposphere could go in and out like an accordion playing a jig but until you can relate it to the effects on global measured temperatures or climate it’s merely an interesting effect.
Since I believe that there are extremes of global surface temperature called glacials and interglacials it seems logical that there are smaller fluctuations ranging from daily shifts to thousands of years. This doesn’t mean it all has to rise and fall together but that the net effect is up or down. I suspect those variations have a variety of mechanisms involved. Short term changes in temperature are obviously just a relocation of heat to places not included in the thermometer series (including the high atmosphere) but there are longer term effects that involve the transfer of heat in and out of the atmosphere either to space or to and from the oceans.
Part of the problem with recognised climate science is the insistence that they know what is happening despite a failure to accurately plot reality. Perhaps Nigel could provide us with a model output that mimics the full BEST temperature series? The ones I’ve seen struggle with the bump in the 1940s but I’ve never seen anything like the pre 1850 temperature swings. Those swings also knock Mann’s hockey sticks off the pitch.
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
Cherry pick the questions you answer much?
Actually, I just wanted to know if you believe in the science enough to act upon it. I think I have good reasons to doubt AGW science, thus I refuse to support pouring money down the drain on what I think are useless CO2 cutting attempts. What’s your excuse?
If your argument is that you’re waiting for global action or industry to make the big cuts then you’ll have a long wait. The only cut that has made an impression on CO2 levels was the huge recession we’ve still not climbed out of. That doesn’t mean businesses became really efficient, it means they shut for good. Who’s going to vote for austerity greater than that? Not the Greeks or the French. Even the Germans opted for coal rather than stick with nuclear. When entire nations are failing to do anything substantial are they all silly? Do you think the UK’s windmills are a serious attempt to cut CO2 or the vanity projects of politicians who couldn’t tell what was a climate fact or a comic book quote?
So you can wave SKS ‘proof’ and trimmed BEST graphs till you’re blue in the face but nobody trusts them enough to make a difference. How many SKS regulars fall into that category? So when are you guys going to admit that climate science is much less than it should be and start asking questions about how it could be improved?
NB [copied from an answer to Stefan] – Part of the problem with recognised climate science is the insistence that they know what is happening despite a failure to be able to accurately plot reality. Perhaps you could provide us with a model output that mimics the full BEST temperature series? The ones I’ve seen struggle with the bump in the 1940s but I’ve never seen anything like the pre 1850 temperature swings. Those swings also blow Mann’s hockey sticks off the pitch.
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
Oh right and remind me again how much CO2 has actually been cut since Kyoto by the UK who signed up for it? The real cuts, not the ones they fiddle by ignoring imports. Do you really think the Climate Change Act 2008 will be any different?
http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/Release_carbon_footprint_08Mar12.pdf
It’s very easy to say that individual action is a recipe for failure and ignore your own contribution. Real cuts are made up by the agregate of individual actions. Governments can’t make laws to cut CO2 if people don’t want the result. They don’t stay in government very long. FYI, nothing is legally binding if there is no one to enforce it.
Hi all,
Am new here, having linked from Climate Audit
I have had a look through the above, and it appears a fair summary the sceptic position of the science. In general it shows how magnitude and likelihood go in opposite directions. The best corroborated science has trivial implications. The most alarming predictions are basically of the form “If A then maybe B. If B then possibly C. If C happens in a certain way then it could be D. D is an extremely alarming situation” This then gives the headline like
“Leading scientists are concerned we are heading for D”.
Having read quite widely on sceptic ideas, on the subject of climate models, sceptics view them as “black boxes”. This would not be concerning if they followed the normal scientific procedure of rigorously evaluating the predictions with the actual data, and adjusting accordingly. Instead, it appears to be past data that gets adjusted to the models, along with some very fuzzy analysis.
Another point is that sceptics tend to see a scientific approach as questioning, identifying anomalies, and getting ever more precise answers. Mainstream climate science is nearer to a definition of “science is what scientists do”.
That leads to another point. Sceptics tend to demand higher levels of evidence. The mainstream seems to accept levels of evidence that a criminal court of law would reject. “Scientists believe/agree”, or “Climate Models predict” or comments a court would reject such views as either hearsay or unsubstantiated. So in the wider world sceptics are not the ones with the marginal position.
Thanks Manicbeancounter. My original intention was a modest website explaining sceptic views and some material to add to it.
However, given the interest in the discussion, I am wondering whether I should ask Anthony Watts to put it on WUWT.
What do you think? A vote would be good because it would need something like a vote to make it newsworthy.
Pingback: Scottish Sceptic on summarizing the sceptic position « ManicBeancounter
Hi Tony CO2, My predictions are not tea cups readings, as the Warmist / Skeptics predictions. B] if you read on my blog how things function on Antarctic, Arctic, desert, mountain and in the ocean; you will be able to predict yourself, correctly. You will know why things happen and what cannot be predicted = who does, is telling lie. 2] in practice, matters the temperature in the sea also, and the temp in different soils – but they are NOT part of the GLOBAL temp, unless used for confusing the ignorant. Releasing the heat from sandy soil at lunch time (when the ‘’hottest minute’’ is monitored, or at 2am heat released from red clay… or cooler days / warmer nights, when cloudy days…
(global measured temperatures or climate) you are referring; has nothing to do with GLOBAL temp. It’s the biggest cherry picking, ever, to confuse. Yes, troposphere goes like accordion and regulates the GLOBAL temp to be overall the same to a milli degree, every day of every year and millennia. That is avoided. ‘’surface temperature’’ is exclusively for manipulation. A] surface (soil temp) depends on moisture content and foliage – is avoided. B] 2m above the ground ‘’referred as surface temp’’ I have addressed in the 2 large comments as ‘’the bottom line’’ on the previous post on this blog (0,5)
3] (you said. ‘’Since I believe that there are extremes of global surface temperature called glacials and interglacials’’)
Perfect topic The precursor of all evil now, is: the ‘’misinterpretations’’ of the past big climatic changes. In one sentence: Arctic ocean was without ice cover – for 11000y, without ice (for genuinely ‘’proven’’ reasons) Without ice as insulator – water was absorbing EXTRA coldness – was radiating extra heat south-> intercepting the moisture south ->in northern Europe 100m thick ice / north America 1km thick ice . In my book I have given it a name: ‘’ ice donut effect’’ – north of parallel of Cancer was mush colder ( with variation in degrees on different places) – (they are your ‘’glacials and interglacials’’). – south off Cancer to the south poll was WARMER than today.
See, it’s difficult in one sentence to fit enough evidences, to disprove the brainwashing that has being going for a century, regarding climatology. Tony, for everything that happens, there are real reasons, supported by the laws of physics and facts – than there are the baseless / self-destructive Pagan believes regarding climate, preached in the education system.
On my blog, a page called: ‘WARMER=MORE ICE’’ encompasses step by step; how and WHY the Ice Age started – how and why it finished. Sufficient to prove that popular science on the subject is not just wrong; but BACK TO FRONT ON EVERYTHING as well. In my book, published January 20010; has many, many pages on the glacial, subject. The obstacle is: the Fundamentalists from both camps on the blogosphere; have spent years studying the misleading ‘’yo-yo temperatures theology’’ – if they let go = they fear, of having nothing left. If you clear the desk and get it the proper way – you can predict with accuracy; but NOT by using IPCC’s misleading data. But you need to have stomach for the truth – it’s all there in 8-9 pages, on my blog. Using ‘’glacial / interglacial periods’’ is same as when the Pope said to Galileo: ‘’look at Venus, is spinning around the earth’’ .. yes, Venus is ‘’spinning’’ = yes there was glacial / interglacial periods… If you are prepared to learn how things function; you will know why was 1km thick ice in America but only 100m thick in Europe – why it wasn’t the other way? (Because I forgot to state it in my text); but you will know why, same as if you were there, at that time. There are only 9-8 pages on my blog, no need for more – when the mud settles down – those pages will become the new Climatologist Gospel: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com
I can generally go along with those statements. Missing IMHO:
“Climate” does not exist in a physical sense, it is the average of weather. We do not fully understand the physical processes leading to weather and so have relatively poor predictive capability from weather models, especially on timescales greater than 48 hours.
Trying to model climate without actually modelling weather is risking correlation without causation, especially in a system where the purported critical variable (CO2) has such a small contribution to the overall signal (weather).
Simple physics tell us that Energy transfer in the atmosphere is dominated by the Earths rotation, the seasonal and diurnal cycles of solar irradiance on the surface and water (in all its forms) not by CO2. Weather models broadly confirm this.
“First do no harm” is a good maxim when considering any policy action in a complex environment, but must not be used simply to justify inaction, nor expanded to create a reverse onus of proof such as embodied by the “precautionary principle”.
If you take this to WUWT, I’d suggest a different approach: do it via a survey with a likert scale for each statement, you can then select the statements with the highest degree of agreement for your overall statement. ABC Oz did the same with their “I can change your mind about Climate” show.
O/T but hat’s off sir for your actions wrt the possibility of criminal activity at UEA.
Ok, you’ve got a lot of theories and you might be spot on about it all, but telling us does little to improve your audience significantly. Even if we understood and accepted it. What you need is a way to get your theories discussed by scientists. To do that you need climate science to be opened right up so that new people and new ideas can be seriously considered. Maybe you need funding? Maybe you need the peer review journals to be less CO2 oriented?
Well the best chance of that is to get the media and senior politicians to start questioning existing consensus. You won’t get that by insisting that everything everyone thinks about climate science is wrong. Eg not being able to agree with the concept of temperature measurement as we usually accept it is a tough sell.
I gave your site a quick look and several things struck me.
You don’t include any illustrations like diagrams or graphs.
You make a lot of claims without references or proof (I’m even pretty easy going about references and would accept another web site)
You use a lot of inflammatory or insulting language which doesn’t make your writing more powerful it just comes over as a manic rant.
You need to break the information up into more digestible quantities.
You’ve got to engage more on sceptic sites without carpet bombing your theories.
People won’t take the time to consider your theories if you irritate them.
When I asked for a prediction I wasn’t expecting a temperature graph for the next 100 years. Surely there is something in you theory that can be illustrated – if X happens the Y will result?
I don’t suppose you can work with the satellite measurements of temperature at different altitudes either?
Scottish Sceptic is trying to engage with the establishment to try and stir some global warming caution in minds that have so far been closed. It is hard to do that if they don’t take his message seriously. Your contributions are… unhelpful at this time, as they are too complicated and too extreme. Please respect this attempt and don’t use it as a soundingboard for your own endeavour. Who knows, it may spark the changes in funding and peer review that would be needed to get your ideas aired.
Hi Nigel
You say
Now who’s definition would you be using? That of a consensus of the world’s leading experts in the field, or of a small group of highly partisan people?
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/
I am undecided. On the one hand it is something that I personally vote for – along within many in the sceptic community. When so much effort of the mainstream is directed towards totally mis-representing their opponents position and motives, then having a statement which many subscribe to can become a reference point.
BUT there is an issue, that many sceptics will also agree with. The validity of scientific statements is not about how many people or organizations agree to it, or the credibility of who says it. Rather, it is saying something about the world, that no other plausible theory, or chance set of circumstances can explain. The most famous example being Sir Arthur Eddington’s confirmation of Einstein’s theory of relativity in a solar eclipse of 1919.
Climate change suffers from the opposite –the underdermination thesis. That is:-
The implication for science has a corollary with a prosecution in criminal law. It is not sufficient to show that your theory or explanation is better than known alternatives. It is to show that the theory or argument lacks any credible alternatives. There is an inequality in science as in law. The thrust should be (in my opinion) to challenge the mainstream to substantiate their claims.
Nigel, do you realty want evidences? here are couple: 1] you are presenting CO2 + H2O as a GLOBAL warming gases. A] find a spot in Sahara and Brazil; that are on SAME distance from the polar caps and from the equator. It will prove to you (if you are interested in truth) that on that spot, in Brazil day time temp is MUCH LOWER than in Sahara. B] night temp in Sahara is lower, because of absence of H2O. H2O + CO2; they make ”shade-cloth effect”, not a greenhouse effect. Water vapor and CO2 intercept sunlight high up; where cooling is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT = less heat on the ground. Those two molecules demonized (by the propaganda machine) are a ”shock absorbers for the temperature”.NOT a greenhouse gases!!! Physics is reliable science. Unless you people abolish first the ”laws of physics” by a legislation, in parliament; all you people promote is opposite than the truth. Unless the laws of physics approve – it’s B/S, from both camps. Cannot be even used as organic fertilizer; apart for your ”fungi / believers”
Oxygen + nitrogen are a greenhouse gases; as transparent, they let the sunlight to the ground / same as a glass roof on a normal greenhouse. b] then as perfect insulators – they are slowing the cooling / same as a roof of a ”normal” greenhouse. that’s why on the moon is colder; because the unlimited coldness is touching the ground – on the earth is 50km of O+N, as perfect insulators in-between the ground and the unlimited coldness!
c] when the air in the ”normal” greenhouse warms up -> . air expands – > 25% of it out the door. I.e. volume stays the same / quantity DECREASES by 20-40%. In nature (in the shonky’s greenhouse) when troposphere warms up; quantity stays the same / VOLUME INCREASES. Same as increasing the size of radiator on your car, when engine warms up. BIG DIFFERENCES. Nigel, if you want REAL proofs of hundreds of misleadings: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com Real proofs, can be all proven / replicated now; no need to wait 100y, the ”Nostradamus trick” what you people use
There is no Greenhouse Effect – it’s a sleight of hand, a con from the beginning. That is why when asked to provide the physics of it, they never do. They can’t find it either. They have changed the basic physics of matter and processes to bolster the fictional fisics of the Greenhouse Effect in order to promote AGW. This is all science fiction. It bears no relationship to the actual Earth we live on. This is a magic trick, an illusion, so it’s tricky to explain.
There is a clear distinction between the fictional world of AGW fisics and real world physics. They have introduced their fictional fisics into the educational system over the last few decades and have dumbed down real world science for the masses. This is an important point, because much of what is now thought of as “well known physics” is not real world physics, but the memes of their fictional fisics.
The Greenhouse Effect is the claim that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the minus18°C it would be without them”.
They’ve created the Greenhouse Effect in their fictional world by taking out the Water Cycle of the real world and have further used the real world base temp of minus18deg;C which is the Earth without any atmosphere at all, to pretend that this is the temperature of world without greenhouse gases; i.e. in their fictional fisics the minus18°C has become the temperature of the Earth with an atmosphere, which is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but without “greenhouse gases”.
Without water in the real Earth physics the temperature would be around 67°C, water brings the temps down 52°C to the 15°C. Think of our atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, without water, as in a desert.
Their Greenhouse Effect warming by greenhouse gases of plus33°C from minus18°C to 15°C is non-existant.
From this base sleight of hand the rest of their fisics has been specially created to provide the background to their fictional energy budget (KT97 and kin). Everything in that cartoon energy budget is garbled nonsense, impossible in the real world.
For example, their fictional AGW world has Light from the Sun heating the Earth, and not as in the real world, Heat from the Sun. They claim that the direct heat from the Sun plays no part in heating land and oceans because it doesn’t reach the surface of their Earth. They claim that Light, shortwave heats the land and oceans of their Earth, in real world physics this is impossible. Their fictional fisics meme is “shortwave in longwave out”. This is presented as a greenhouse which blocks the direct heat from the Sun from entering while allowing shortwave, light, to pass through claiming this heats the ground which then gives off heat which is trapped by the glass, prevented from escaping.
In the real world, the direct heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, longwave. So we all know it reaches the surface, and it is this which heats land and oceans and us.
In the real world, water is a transparent medium for shortwave, visible light, which means that it is not absorbed but transmitted through. It’s main actions on meeting matter is to make it visible, by reflection/scattering, and by conversion to chemical energy, not heat energy, in the process of photosynthesis. This is not an energy from the Sun capable of being the main heating energy of land and oceans.
There is more, such as their fisics has created an atmosphere of empty space populated with molecules of ideal gas not real gas. Consequently, they not only do not have convection because ideal gas has no volume, weight, attraction, not subject to gravity, but, they have no sound. They can’t hear this… Their atmosphere is empty space full of ideal gas molecules (a purely imaginary construct) zipping through at great speeds bouncing off each other and so thoroughly mixing – hence their “well-mixed” of carbon dioxide. From this they explain that carbon dioxide spontaneously diffuses into the atmosphere as per ideal gas and so can stay up accumulating for hundreds and even thousands of years.
It should also be appreciated that their fisics has no internal coherence, they don’t much care how they explain “well-mixed” for example. Sometimes they use the concept of Brownian motion, which those that know real physics will immediately spot applies to particles in a fluid volume and as their gases have no volume.. Same with “wind” – they also say that this turbulence is thoroughly mixing the gases – but without volume they have no wind.
They don’t have the Water Cycle in their fisics firstly as above, to initiate the sleight of hand, but they can’t have it anyway because their atmosphere is empty space and their gases aren’t real. Their gases aren’t bouyant in air, how can they be? They have no air.
In the real world the atmosphere above us is a huge voluminous fluid gas weighing down on us a stone on our shoulders. Liquids and gases are fluids. Real molecules do not move at super speeds through this, because they can’t, gravity and pressure keeps them from doing so. That’s how we get sound. Sound travels through the fluid medium air by energising molecules which pass this vibration on to their near neighbours, as a wave is energy moving through water, it’s not the water moving. The molecules of air don’t move – that would be wind. There is no sound in empty space.
Oh, and in the real world carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, as if fog, dew etc. They don’t have this, because in their fictional world of ideal gases there is no attraction. Carbon dioxide in the real world is fully part of the recycling process via the Water Cycle and anyway heavier than air, one and half times heavier, will always sink back to the ground displacing air unless work is done to change this, wind etc.
Unless this is properly put to the front in arguments about ‘CAGW, AGW, GlobalWarming, ClimateChange’ and the politics of it all, these arguments about the science, or the manipulation of it as the hockey stick and changing temperature records and the rest, will continue to go around in circles. You, generic, have to decide what is important here, getting to the root of the problem which is this basic con cuts through the difficulties of explaining the science to those who haven’t the time to understand such things as the second law and ‘backradiation’ – everyone can understand the difference between a created science fiction world and the real world. Keep it simple, the basic con is simple. There is no “Greenhouse Effect” – it’s an illusion.
Myrrh says:July 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Myrrh, all the legitimate proofs, facts are there, let us join forces, on -7-8 posts: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/ ,
Hi stefanthedenier – you’re welcome to post my post, I don’t require attribution so feel free to just stick it in somewhere if you want.
A typo I’ve noticed in second paragraph up – “if” should be “is” – as if fog, dew etc., should read: Oh, and in the real world carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, as is fog, dew etc.
And last paragraph a full stop after “You, generic, have to decide what is important here.” and new sentence: “Getting to the root of the problem which is this basic..”
Your page is a bit difficult to read, perhaps the sections could be separated out more so the numbering stands out?
I disagree with this statement: “In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it.” This is not quite correct. In science, a theory is valid only so long as it conforms to the body of observed data, and not the other way around. A theory is only good so long as no data contradict it. Science does not gather data in the hope of providing support for any theory. It gathers data precisely in hopes of disproving a theory. What makes a theory valid is that is has withstood continual attempts to prove it false.
A Skeptic, That is a good point. I think logically what is written (In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. ) is the same as “if the data does not support the theory it is invalid”. I think this is generally the same as “A theory is only good so long as no data contradict it.”
However the sentence suggests the order of things in science. 1) the theory is invalid 2) it is compared to the data 3) is only considered valid if supported by the data.
Actually, the role of science is to gather data to test a theory rather than to try and prove it right or wrong. It is people that “want” to prove or sometime “disprove”.
Still its made me think. It would help if you could suggest a revision.
Pingback: sceptics vs. academics | ScottishSceptic
I not sure I can, but here goes some thoughts. Climate models usually apply the Chaos Theory – i.e., one carefully stacks a column of cocktail glasses, the stack rises and rises until one more glass is added and the stack collapses. Obviously this is oversimplified, but you get the idea. Moreover, likely it doesn’t take the full weight of the additional glass to make it fall, likely it is somewhere between the weight of a housefly and the extra glass.
When I was involved in constructing mathematical models in the 1970s I used to joke that the only things constant were the many variables that had to be applied. The same rule applies today.
Yes, keep working on the models, but accept the fact that they can vary from one modeler to another. Unfortunately, climate models depend on data collected in thousands of sites by mostly unscientific observers. Automatic recorders usually need a great deal of re-calibration. In short, how is the data applied, how is it scrutinized for accuracy?
You make some good points. Geologic history is helpful in examining what might be occurring since the Earths natural events recur on a cyclical basis. The cycles cannot be determined to the last hour or even millennium, but they do recur.
I think a lot of laymen get weather and climate confused – weather can be hourly, daily,and even weekly,while climate is decades, or centuries.
Today’s climate models are very primitive and results vary all over the place. They’ll improve, but for now they are only research tools.
Hi scientist5; precursor of all evil is that everybody confuses climatic changes with the phony GLOBAL warmings / coolings. Warmings are always localized, say one or part of a hemisphere – in the same time other parts are cooler than normal LAWS OF PHYSICS: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
Absolutely. I agree completely with your comments. I think I should have been clearer – theories are propositions, a proposition is tested with data.. The proposition is validated, revised, or discarded. As an engineer, I have proposed many ideas and built mathematical models that turned out to be JUNK. So, one can either start all over again or revise the formulas or get more data in an attempt to improve the approach. Never, never adjust the data to suit the ANSWER you want. This is what I think the hockey stick developer did. Believe me, sometimes it is difficult to follow this line of thought – we are all human.
Sometimes you have to act on plausibility without strong evidence. But in our social surroundings you also should take account of the importance of motive, means and opportunity.
Pingback: Most useful links when explaining climate science to alarmists | Scottish Sceptic
Pingback: The Academic Ape: Instinctive aggression and boundary enforcing behaviour in academia | Scottish Sceptic