Thread: Global Warming oops itself again

Originally Posted by Epy

Again, who really cares about arguing over whether or not global warming is real?

I sort of do. Can't help myself, when there's a significant tendency by academics, scientists, and the press in general, to discuss Global Warming in scientific terms.

The Global Warming debate has done no good to the near disreputable state of modern science in the eyes of the general public. And with good reason. It's perhaps the biggest example of pseudo-science masquerading as real science since Percival Lowell. And has conjured similar public hysteria.

The Global Warming debate has done no good to the near disreputable state of modern science in the eyes of the general public.

O_o

If the general public is so put off of science because a debate that has more to do with politics, do you really want them in your field?

I don't; you might get people thinking that the position of a '*' is a scientific problem.

[Edit]
Plus the "LOL My parents made me do my science homework. I'm such a nerd." crowd should be eliminated by something quite painful.
[/Edit]

Soma

Originally Posted by Matticus

Yeah, what do those scientists know, anyway.

I have to wonder.
That's the same community that said we were experiencing global cooling not too long ago. Then it was global warming. Then that became climate change.
Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Originally Posted by Matticus

Have you even looked? There are several eminent scientists who make it their duty to explain science to the public in "easy to understand" language. Try looking into the statements of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrass Tyson, Bill Nye, Brian Cox, etc.

Yup. Plenty of graphs to look at and everything. But I want to see what raw data they used, and why they are using that particular data.

Originally Posted by Matticus

Besides, it's not the job of science to sit you down and patiently explain all the details of how things work - just like you can't stroll in to a programming forum and say, "How do I use fgets?". You have to actually do research yourself. That is, if you care to really understand the material.

Yes, if I am a programmer, or studying programming, I ought to be able to find out all I need about "fgets" on my own. But very few of us are geoscientists. I shouldn't have to study it to determine if they all know what they're talking about. So If they want me to believe them, then it is their job to explain it.

As Albert Einstein said, "Anyone who cannot explain his craft to a layman is a charlatan"

Originally Posted by Matticus

I've seen this a few times in this thread. It should be pointed out that climate != weather.

I was being facetious.
But doesn't weather affect the temperature readings? Are lower temperature readings causing the weather, or is the weather causing lower temperature readings?
Correlation is not the same as causation.

Originally Posted by Elkvis

Weather is fueled by heat. Global warming could cause virtually any variety of weather changes.

Couldn't global cooling also do that?

Originally Posted by Elkvis

They measure the temperature of the earth by combining data from official weather stations all over the world, and take the average for the year. A hundred years ago, they were using mercury thermometers, and not every part of the world could have its temperature measured regularly or reliably enough for statistical significance. Now they use electronic devices, as well as infrared satellite imagery, and ocean buoy telemetry to determine the average temperature of a much larger portion of the earth. Unfortunately, reliable records only began to be kept in 1880, so my opinion is that we don't have enough info, over a long enough period of time to know for sure what the earth's climate state is, relative to earth normal. We probably don't even know what "normal" is.

Thanks for the information.

Scientific measurements go back a long ways. But just how concerned was anyone in 1900 with the accuracy of ocean temperature?
Were those thermometers really accurate to 0.1 degree C?

-

The media tends to distort science even when it's not a political at all. I can remember years ago, there was a paper put out about non-carbon based life. At first Scientific America did a story on "A new form of life". By the time it got on the TV, the claims from the paper had been blown up to something along the lines of "Are Aliens among us? Tune it at 10 to find out!".

By the time it got out to the public, the moderate claims in the paper were gone, and what was in it's place looked ridiculous. That was just a tiny thing with no political drive to spin the truth.

That was just a tiny thing with no political drive to spin the truth.

O_o

[Edit]
In case the comment wasn't clear, I'm drawing connection because the media spins up such nonsense to get more views which is in turn to get more money.
[/Edit]

To be sure though, economics is the reason for a lot of the political bull........ surrounding this issue.

[Edit]

Yup. Plenty of graphs to look at and everything. But I want to see what raw data they used, and why they are using that particular data.

Repeating on Matticus: have you looked?

Exactly that sort of nonsense is why I get frustrated about this sort of issue.

Just because you personally haven't looked at the data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist or even that scientists are fabricating the data.

Seriously, just go look at the data if you are so interested.
[/Edit]

Soma

Originally Posted by megafiddle

I haven't looked at it because I haven't found it. I am talking about temperature data around the globe, not "averages" used to create graphs. If you know of such data, please inform me about it.

-

And, he is talking about the real raw data; not the data massaged by secret methods the public are not allowed to know what they are.

You know the stuff the so called scientists claim to have lost some of it; when the public asked to see it. The public in this case are people who wished to check their math. Since, NASA can NOT do math on AGW, I see no reason to think the people who holds the AGW data is any better.

Tim S.

You know the stuff the so called scientists claim to have lost some of it; when the public asked to see it.

O_o

Whether that missing data was hidden with ill intent, simply an accident, or never existed doesn't magically validate or invalidate that missing data. If they now claimed they recovered the data, would you trust the data? The trust was lost; that data and models derived from it is no longer trustworthy. There is a very simple solution: don't use that data or draw conclusions based on models generated from that data.

So, you can't look at the CRU data? Do you and megafiddle think that the lost CRU data is the only data ever recorded? That loss happened years ago if it ever happened at all. (I've always been of the mind that the raws claimed never truly existed.) Why is that data still so interesting? (The failing of science is certainly interesting, and a good story to draw attention to the need for scientific rigor.) Do you think every model done the last few years are still based on that data?

Regardless of your opinions, that lost data is no longer useful. (Science can no longer trust that data to be pollution free.) Sure, there was probably a major ethical lapse; that is an issue that needs to be, should have been, addressed. More important than the lost data to current understanding, other data has been and is being mined for many current models. Are you willing to look at those models? (Or the data used to generate those models.) Or are you going to ignore the work accomplished in the intervening years solely to harp on bad scientific rigor from more than five years ago?

The phrase "Salem was wrong." comes to mind.

Obviously, more data is usually better; however, neither side of this discussion needs that data anymore. (Unless your goal is only to show that CRU has or doesn't have an ethics problem.) You can use work done after that loss to build models. Different interpretations, different applications to account for different scenarios, of that work can be used to show that humans are the best explanations. Absolutely, you can interpret the data differently which shows that humans aren't best explanation. The data your asking for is polluted; we know that the data is polluted; good scientists on both sides of this issue have stopped using that data. (Some, on both sides, have though used algorithms based on other data and known corrections in other CRU data to unhomogenize the lost data.) Asking for the lost data isn't debating anthropogenic global warming; you are punishing good scientists, again on both sides of the issue, for the lapse of a few bad scientists.

I get the feeling that the answer to my question was "No.".

Soma

Soma: So, you do NOT know where the data is?
Because you are NOT saying you do!!

Tim S.

So, you do NOT know where the data is? Because you are NOT saying you do!!

O_o

Or are you going to ignore the work accomplished in the intervening years solely to harp on bad scientific rigor from more than five years ago?

A "Yes." would have saved us both a little time.

Furthermore, you should really try to pay attention; I already answered your question.

As I said, I don't care about the lost CRU data. I wouldn't trust it even if I knew.

Soma

I was referring to the data that doesn't seem to be available. Not because it's gone, but because it's simply not published.

O_o

I can't discuss that data with so little information.

o_O

Ironic.

It does make a difference why the data was "lost". If it was innocent, then yes, it should simply be ignored. But if it was deliberate, then it has meaning - it likely contradicted the proposed theories.

I agree completely; that is also exactly why I don't trust that lost data.

If the data was (*wink*) lost, then whatever data shows up as the lost data would likely have been doctored before (*wink*) discovery.

Soma