UK flooding again

[El Cid]

 

Ocean currents and their cycles (there are many of these).

 

Not a prediction, but an explanation of the 15 year climate change pause.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

[unbeliever]

Not a prediction, but an explanation of the 15 year climate change pause.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

Yes, I alluded to this earlier.

The climatology community can't seem to decide whether to "correct" the pause away or to explain it.

 

What I would like you to think about is this:

Up until the unpredicted "pause" became apparent, the "consensus" was that natural effects were not significant and we should attribute all of the 20th century warming to anthropogenic CO2. Now the same scientists are attempting to explain away a deviation from their predictions with a natural cooling effect.

If natural effects were too weak to account for a significant portion of earlier warming, how is it now that they're plenty strong enough to account for the lack of warming.

 

Apart from that, it's no good telling us to trust their models and at the same time conceding that they left a massive effect out of the models.

In science, if you want to validate a hypothesis you have to predict and then be right. It's no good being wrong and then attempting to explain it away.

 

It's also no good telling is that their hypothesis has been validated because one recent year or another was very hot by historical standards, and then telling us that a 10-20 year "pause" is not significant because we have to use a 30 year rolling average. They can't both be true.

Edited January 5, 2016 by unbeliever

[dutch]

What does that mean?

Climate change is 90% certain. What's 90% certain?

 

Next month I have to travel from Manchester to Sheffield and could get £5.50 tickets online for that.

Being only 90% certain that I catch that train on time I had to buy the next train ticket as well because these two are still cheaper than getting an open one way ticket.

 

Even when you are only 90% certain you can still be 90% wrong when you need that other 10%.

That approach is dangerous and only 100% justifies a real answer. I suggest to go to Las Vegas and use percentage skills there to see how things work in the real world out there.

Edited January 6, 2016 by dutch

[Eric Arthur]

Yes, I alluded to this earlier.

The climatology community can't seem to decide whether to "correct" the pause away or to explain it.

 

What I would like you to think about is this:

Up until the unpredicted "pause" became apparent, the "consensus" was that natural effects were not significant and we should attribute all of the 20th century warming to anthropogenic CO2. Now the same scientists are attempting to explain away a deviation from their predictions with a natural cooling effect.

If natural effects were too weak to account for a significant portion of earlier warming, how is it now that they're plenty strong enough to account for the lack of warming.

 

Apart from that, it's no good telling us to trust their models and at the same time conceding that they left a massive effect out of the models.

In science, if you want to validate a hypothesis you have to predict and then be right. It's no good being wrong and then attempting to explain it away.

 

It's also no good telling is that their hypothesis has been validated because one recent year or another was very hot by historical standards, and then telling us that a 10-20 year "pause" is not significant because we have to use a 30 year rolling average. They can't both be true.

 

You're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, cherry picking. That's a poor approach for a scientist.

[unbeliever]

You're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, cherry picking. That's a poor approach for a scientist.

 

In order to be correct a hypothesis has to consistently make correct predictions. If it gets even the odd thing wrong it's invalidated.

In this case, the hypothesis is that CO2 is the dominant factor in global temperatures. If any observations arise which are inconsistent with the idea that CO2 is dominant, then it isn't.

 

I'm not putting forward an alternative hypothesis. I don't know what caused the 20th century temperature rise. There are lots of candidates.

By normal scientific standards, we have invalidated the idea that it was entirely or almost entirely down to CO2, so let's see about testing out some other ideas.

Edited January 6, 2016 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

In order to be correct a hypothesis has to consistently make correct predictions. If it gets even the odd thing wrong it's invalidated.

In this case, the hypothesis is that CO2 is the dominant factor in global temperatures. If any observations arise which are inconsistent with the idea that CO2 is dominant, then it isn't.

 

I'm not putting forward an alternative hypothesis. I don't know what caused the 20th century temperature rise. There are lots of candidates.

By normal scientific standards, we have invalidated the idea that it was entirely or almost entirely down to CO2, so let's see about testing out some other ideas.

 

And it's close minded not to test out other hypothesis. There's nothing stopping us trying to keep a lid on CO2 emissions while we do that though, that just makes sense to me because if CO2 is to blame and we ignore it while we await a better answer we risk buggering up everything.

[Eric Arthur]

In order to be correct a hypothesis has to consistently make correct predictions. If it gets even the odd thing wrong it's invalidated.

In this case, the hypothesis is that CO2 is the dominant factor in global temperatures. If any observations arise which are inconsistent with the idea that CO2 is dominant, then it isn't.

 

I'm not putting forward an alternative hypothesis. I don't know what caused the 20th century temperature rise. There are lots of candidates.

By normal scientific standards, we have invalidated the idea that it was entirely or almost entirely down to CO2, so let's see about testing out some other ideas.

 

 

As well as cherry picking you're making the very rash and very unscientific conclusion that climatology science is fully known, understood and finite and can draw predictable conclusions. A quick check of the weather forecast says otherwise.

 

You're not really a scientist are you?

[unbeliever]

As well as cherry picking you're making the very rash and very unscientific conclusion that climatology science is fully known, understood and finite and can draw predictable conclusions. A quick check of the weather forecast says otherwise.

 

You're not really a scientist are you?

 

I think you may be guilty of conflating climate and weather there.

Anyway, if it can't make predictions, why are we turning our economies upside down on the basis of said predictions.

[Eric Arthur]

So you're an economist as well as a scientist now. I'm neither but even I can detect the flaws in your argument on this topic.

[unbeliever]

So you're an economist as well as a scientist now. I'm neither but even I can detect the flaws in your argument.

 

I don't need to be a professional economist to know that expensive energy is a bad thing.