The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[Slybacon]

^^^ But the ice is not melting? Despite the photos of drowning polar bears

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[WoodDragon]

There just seems to be WAY to many variables for you wood dragon to give an accurate scientific explanation that it is plausible enough to satisfy the majority of people who simply don't believe.

And this is the problem bro'.

It's a complicated field, and it takes years of study and work to be able to understand it, let alone to actually do research in it. But there are thousands of scientists in the field who each chip away at revealing the overall body of knowledge, and build up the overall picture. They've each spent years of their lives learning about and specialising in this stuff, and it is this understanding that leads to their satisfaction that the science is"real".

As Isaac Newtown said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants". That how science works.

The problem for climatologists is that when lay people are confronted (in an ideological sense) by the science, it is difficult to explain simply to them why the science is correct. And it gets harder when they try to explain, but the disbelievers just skip around to another "but..." argument instead of trying to understand and consolidate the information that is given to them.

As many are fond of pointing out, you don't argue with your brain surgeon when he tells you what's wrong with your head, and you don't argue with your mechanic when he tells you that your clutch is buggered, so why argue with climatologists when they are telling you something about which they have expertise? Do you take a course in medicine and surgery before you believe your brain surgeon, or an apprenticship in mechanics before you let the bloke at the garage fix your car?

If Joe Average's brain surgeon told Joe that he had a neuroblastoma, and Joe told the surgeon he was a fraud and conspiring to take all of Joe's money because all Joe really had was sinusitis, then you'd probably find that at some point Joe's surgeon would be musttering under his breath too that Joe's an idiot. And if the surgeon was too professional to say it to Joe's face (as many climatologists are) the Joe shouldn't be surprised if his mate who is a GP says it straight to Joe's face instead.

My climatology friends (and yes, I have more than one) are too polite to say what I do, but I have no compunction in saying it for them. As an ecologist, I know what the consequences with be for Joe Average (and for his kids) if he doesn't have his surgery.

Its not like the worlds "best " science hasn't got it wrong before.

Oh, science has certainly "got[ten] it wrong before". The thing is, such mistakes ususally occur when there is no significant effort in the field to learn about new aspects - that is, when there is no major scientific scrutiny. Climate change physics is not in this category - it is probably the most scrutinised of any scientific discipline, and it stands robustly to all scrutiny, no matter what the denialists might imagine.

If climatology has this wrong, then there is a major problem with the underlying understanding of physics, and 'planes will start falling from the sky and your plasma screen and moblie 'phones will stop working.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that.

A famous scientist once said, they only way to get enough money to support your own research is to write a paper to help prove someone elses theories.

Heh, that sounds either apocryphal, or like the words of a browned-off cynic. Most scientists I know are busily trying to do their own original work instead, so I can tell you that the comment doesn't wash.

[Slybacon]

As many are fond of pointing out, you don't argue with your brain surgeon when he tells you what's wrong with your head, and you don't argue with your mechanic when he tells you that your clutch is buggered, so why argue with climatologists when they are telling you something about which they have expertise? Do you take a course in medicine and surgery before you believe your brain surgeon, or an apprenticship in mechanics before you let the bloke at the garage fix your car?

 

No , not at all true...... Some of the most horrific of modern western medicine atrocities come from brain surgeons in Sydney and Canberra. I wish I could find some links. The same is true for mechanics and clutches. I have gone against what most doctors have told me.......

I do hear what your saying, but I think that scientist have a very narrow opinion that is based only on what is measurable.....

[hutch]

[quote name='WoodDragon' timestamp='1294888550' post='285211'

As many are fond of pointing out, you don't argue with your brain surgeon when he tells you what's wrong with your head, and you don't argue with your mechanic when he tells you that your clutch is buggered, so why argue with climatologists when they are telling you something about which they have expertise? Do you take a course in medicine and surgery before you believe your brain surgeon, or an apprenticship in mechanics before you let the bloke at the garage fix your car?

 

But if I knew the clutch was working perfectly well when I took it in I would be thinking to myself "why is this bloke trying to rip me off by lying and attempting to deceive" Then I would get a second opinion... I bet he will curse me and mutter under his breath but that is only because he is pissed off that I am awake to his con and it will cost him money...

[WoodDragon]

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

The 2035 issue was a mistake, but it occurred only in one paragraph of the thousands of pages of the IPCC's AR4. The correct information was repeated elsewhere in the report many times, but that seems to have escaped the denialists.

Quite simply, the AR4 is a stonking huge document. Some mistakes do slip through and are not found until after publication - this is one of them. Yes, even in science editorial mistakes are made: this is why scientific journals have things called errata and corrigenda.

The fact remains that this was one deficiency in editing that was not reflected elsewhere in the document (if people actually read the thing they'd know this). There are certainly other mistakes in the document, but none are mistakes of fundamental physics, and the surprising thing is that there are actually as few mistakes even of the minor sort, as there are.

If you want to do some background reading on this matter, try "Reporting about the 2035 error", "A beat up of Himalayan proportions", or here, and here.

[WoodDragon]

But if I knew the clutch was working perfectly well when I took it in

So you're trained in climatology are you?

Duffus, if ten thousand mechanics all told you that your clutch was stuffed, would you still not believe them?

Because that's what you're doing.

[hutch]

"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."

—Albert Einstein

[WoodDragon]

But the ice is not melting?

Yes, it's melting.

[Edit:

Ha! I note that someone negatised this post! Seriously, who so challenged by factual data that they needed to do that?! It's just a graph of what's happened in the world - why is that so confronting?

Pathetic.

(And Bacon, I know that it wasn't you!]

Edited January 13, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."

—Albert Einstein

So now you're descending into argumentum ad hominem?

Fine. When you have no science, use a logical fallacy.

[Slybacon]

Yes, it's melting.

 

Um not entirely true when you look at the big picture.... Im sure there is more if I had time at work to find the link, this should get us started.

 

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[synchromesh]

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."

- Albert Einstein

Why?

 

Well, where do I start?

Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism. ... All denialisms appear to be attempts like this to regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature: blaming autism on vaccines rather than an unknown natural cause, insisting that humans were made by divine plan, rejecting the idea that actions we thought were okay, such as smoking and burning coal, have turned out to be dangerous.

There are so many problems with this quote, that again, I don't know where to start.

[Slybacon]

^^^^ So as you can see WD, its not as simple as saying..... The ice caps are melting, because at least 70% of the worlds ice is actually cooling.....

You forgot to mention Antarctica.....

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[WoodDragon]

Bacon.

Some of the most horrific of modern western medicine atrocities come from brain surgeons in Sydney and Canberra.

You don't need to tell me about iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. I know all about this, having worked in biomedical research for a decade and a half. It's one of my big bugbears.

Come on, let's be a bit real about the metaphor. Let's say then that you went to the best 50 brains surgeons in the world, who all tested you independently and arrived at exactly the same conclusion that you "had neuroblastoma that required surgery, but hey, don't believe me, go and ask another surgeon".

Would you then walk out of their offices and claim that they were each was trying to fleece you, or were incompetent and that you believed the quantum healer at the local flea market who said that you had sinusitis?

Because that's basically what the climate change denialists are doing.

The point when getting diagnoses is to understand the competence of the people giving them to you. If you know a doctor's a quack, you don't go to him/her. If you think that you've gone to a good one, but you don't like their diagnosis, you get a second opinion.

The best climatologists in the world are giving thousands of diagnoses, and they all concur. The ones who disagree with this science against all evidence are those selling you carbon, or who are paranoid about being spied on by Big Brother, or who think that Jesus will come when the world is sufficiently fucked up that we can't live here anymore.

Do hyou seriously want to go to the quantum healer at the local flea market for your 6-month long migraine?

[hutch]

[hutch]

Bacon.

You don't need to tell me about iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. I know all about this, having worked in biomedical research for a decade and a half. It's one of my big bugbears.

Come on, let's be a bit real about the metaphor. Let's say then that you went to the best 50 brains surgeons in the world, who all tested you independently and arrived at exactly the same conclusion that you "had neuroblastoma that required surgery, but hey, don't believe me, go and ask another surgeon".

Would you then walk out of their offices and claim that they were each was trying to fleece you, or were incompetent and that you believed the quantum healer at the local flea market who said that you had sinusitis?

Because that's basically what the climate change denialists are doing.

The point when getting diagnoses is to understand the competence of the people giving them to you. If you know a doctor's a quack, you don't go to him/her. If you think that you've gone to a good one, but you don't like their diagnosis, you get a second opinion.

The best climatologists in the world are giving thousands of diagnoses, and they all concur. The ones who disagree with this science against all evidence are those selling you carbon, or who are paranoid about being spied on by Big Brother, or who think that Jesus will come when the world is sufficiently fucked up that we can't live here anymore.

Do hyou seriously want to go to the quantum healer at the local flea market for your 6-month long migraine?

 

Pointless dribble..If I had a brain tumor 50 out of 50 of those brain surgeons would say the same thing...may each have differing opinions on treatment but would in general be about the same. Climate science is nothing like that because there are also good scientists who disagree with you.

You don't need to tell me about iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. I know all about this, having worked in biomedical research for a decade and a half.

Is there anything you are not an expert on? you are cracking me up

[WoodDragon]

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

[snip]

See Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?, Why do glaciers lose ice?, A basic overview of Antarctic ice, An overview of Antarctic ice trends,

East Antarctica is now losing ice, Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?, and

Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?.

I was going to write a few paragraphs as well to give a short explanatory summary of why Antarctica is doing what it is, but I am getting a bit sick of changing nappies here. So my challenge to anyone who really believes that it's all a conspiracy, and that there next denialist talking point will be the one that blows climatology out of the water, is to read these posts, understand what they say, and come back here and tell the thread what the science is actually saying.

Prove to the thread that you're actually reading the material I'm providing for you, and that you are able to critically assess it.

If you're not doing this, then not only am I wasting my time on you, you yourselves are not actually trying to understand what is true and what is not, because you are refusing to get to the nub of the science.

If that's how you're conducting your adventures in this matter, then you're just wasting space, and nothing more.

[Slybacon]

^^^^ I actually know alot about Neuro surgery as well..... My partner having 3 operations. So you don't need to worry about your metaphor not going through....

I will say this.... 3 of AUS best Neuro surgeons told her she would never get the feeling back on her left side.... I told my GF that this was bullshit and anything is possible if you put your mind to it and not get caught up in the beliefs forced apon you by those with "authority"....

Guess What,

She has nearly all her feeling back in her left side, she can even jog again...... Maybe the guy at the flea market is right an no one is brave enough to take him up with true conviction.

[Slybacon]

So my challenge to anyone who really believes that it's all a conspiracy, and that there next denialist talking point will be the one that blows climatology out of the water,

 

Good to see you putting labels on all those who challenge you. Both labels in one sentence this time!

[hutch]

The whole article is a good read....

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

[WoodDragon]

Pointless dribble..If I had a brain tumor 50 out of 50 of those brain surgeons would say the same thing...

1) You have symptoms:

migraine

or

melting glaciers, shifted phenologies, altered ranges, warming temperatures, increasing atmospheric CO2, increasing ocean acidification, etc.

2) You consult a qualified professional or a hundred, and they say:

neuroblastoma

or

'greenhouse' gas induced retention of infrared radiation leading to a heating planet

3) you speak to a:

quantum healer

or a

denialist

4) They tell you that it's

sinusitis

or

not happening/ it's happening but it's natural/ it's happening but it's good for you/ it's happening but it's too late for the operation now because you've been listening for me for too long, and it's inoperable now

Of course 50 out of 50 brain surgeons would say the same thing, if it were a tumour and not sinusitis. Just as thousands out of thousands of climatologists will tell you that it's 'greehouse' gas-induced warming, when it's not in fact one of the denialists' fairy stories.

[Slybacon]

If 50 000 scientist told you you were ugly, would you believe them, considering 45 000 of them were trained to recognize the significance between beauty and how your brain interprets it...... That metaphor is about as useful as the one you provided

[WoodDragon]

^^^^ I actually know alot about Neuro surgery as well..... My partner having 3 operations. So you don't need to worry about your metaphor not going through....

I will say this.... 3 of AUS best Neuro surgeons told her she would never get the feeling back on her left side.... I told my GF that this was bullshit and anything is possible if you put your mind to it and not get caught up in the beliefs forced apon you by those with "authority"....

Bacon.

You're belabouring the metaphor a bit here, and I say this with sensitivity because I have had the same issue in my family. That's why I picked the metaphor in the first place. Fortunately in family's case though it was decades ago, and the operation was successful.

But let's keep going with the analogy anyway. With a maligant brain tumour it is inevitable that it will kill you, if nothing is done to remove it. Similarly, it is inevitable that the planet will warm if nothing is done to reduce missions.

If a tumour is operated upon some surgeons might tell you that you won't get feeling back in your left side, because it's hard to predict how much damage was done, and because they don't want to raise hope unnecessarily. Similarly, if we do halt emissions, some scientists might tell you that we can't get ice back in the Arctic in the future (assuming that it melts before that time), but perhaps we will. If surgeons and scientists have more information, they are able to make finer-grained predictions.

A great deal about the outcome depends on the timing of the operation, and the damage that is caused by the tumour up to that point. Leave it too long, and there will be no feeling in the left side - or there will be no more ice...

As to you partner, I truly hope that she recovers well. Brain surgery is a horrendous thing, someting that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and it is emotionally devastating for both patient and family. A good attitude is an enormous help in recovery. I wish you all the best in the future.

[WoodDragon]

If 50 000 scientist told you you were ugly, would you believe them, considering 45 000 of them were trained to recognize the significance between beauty and how your brain interprets it...... That metaphor is about as useful as the one you provided

?!

[Slybacon]

A great deal about the outcome depends on the timing of the operation, and the damage that is caused by the tumour up to that point. Leave it too long, and there will be no feeling in the left side - or there will be no more ice...

 

And of course, the right scientist/surgeon to do the job..... Assuming that scientist/surgeon works for the right people, and that the scientist/surgeon is acting on reliable information.

Because , They are all in it for the good of the planet aren't they. No one has personal interest in Global Warming do they.

I will read the articles about Antarctica that you posted when I have more time. I'm at work now, but I will read them. Just as I have in other threads we have debated

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[WoodDragon]

Maybe the guy at the flea market is right an no one is brave enough to take him up with true conviction.

So, if 50 of the world's best have MRI scans, biopsies, histo and path reports, symtpomologies, and genetic fingerprinting, all indicating that it's a neuroblastoma, and the quantum healer at the flea market looked at a photo of the person with the migraine and decided in two seconds that it's sinusitis, you'd still believe the quantum healer?

Dude, this isn't a case of the emperor not having any clothes.

Please, be real. Undertand the metaphor just for what it is, instead of trying to twist it so that you avoid the original point.

And please, can we actually start addressing whatever it is about the science that is supposedly wrong? I've been posting for days now, and all I get is dissemblance and goalpost-shifting*.

Why is the physics wrong?

[Edit:

* I'm not referring directly to you here Bacon. I have in fact appreciated some of your questions!]

Edited January 13, 2011 by WoodDragon