If the quote is shown to be false I will apologise. I hope ypu do the same if it turns out to be true,
Since I’ve already mentioned it twice it looks you’re reading from a script. No GW scientist has ever said that this lull in temp increase means GW is over, none of them, zero, zilch. No phrase, sentence or paragraph I ever write will ever mean that unless I clearly and specifically say it, in all other cases the consensus position is that temp flatness notwithstanding, GW carries on. I won’t say it again.
Since I haven’t mentioned any of that, why would I have to explain it?
Look at my second anser to your post.
[QUOTE]
In a thread started with a Doomsday quote I have to disagree as to its lack of relevance.
I said a scientific truth. All other implications were not covered in my fact unless you deny that the anomaly has not had a statistical change since 1997.
I would love to see any GW model that predicted a 17-year lull.
I would love to see a quote of a GW scientist saying the flat temps confirm GW.
I didn’t say that. I’ve seen GW models that could cope with a decrease in temp, but no scientist says “good, temps are going down, model confirmed”, they say “fallin temps are compatible with our theory”
Really, if temperatures were flat for 100 years while CO2 concentratin keep going up it wouldn’t be logical to revise models?
Global warming will probably be bad for humans. It might be very bad. And there’s a slim outside chance it might even be catastrophic, killing off a significant percentage of the population and/or ruining our current civilization. But there’s no way, no how, that it’ll drive us extinct. We’re just too numerous, spread over too many different environments, and with too many resources at our disposal, for that to happen.
There is a need to repeat it as it is clear that your idea is to avoid mentioning that context to others.
The problem is that then you say it again, the clear implication is that scientists **never **talked about these cycles:
Ah, The Daily Fail and the Torygraph..
Like if it not easier to go for the main sources:
Once again, Peter Hadfiel shows how the retarded Daily Mail and how others continue to get it wrong.
And once again the blogs just pulled “That report of the Met Office” from their ass.
The Met office even told the Daily Mail reporters that there was a warming trend! As Peter Hadfield reported “The reason why this was not reported in other serious media before is that the tabloids pulled it from thin air” And then Fox and others followed it.
“This is not superhuman, anyone could check for a few seconds at the Met office for that report, or to check if that report of the 16 year pause existed in the first place.”
And no, it did not exist.
The continuous “mistakes” from the Daily Mail and others are more than enough to conclude that fabrications are their way of life.
Back when, I too figured it was “obvious” what “flat or falling temperatures” would mean for the theory. And, like you, I had “no idea” how long that amount of time would be – because, like you, I heard a heck of a lot of folks predict warming in general with no specifics in particular; they’d explain away some cooling as irrelevant, without spelling out how much cooling would be relevant. But you go a step further: despite having no idea how long that time is, you still take the claim seriously.
How do you do that? I couldn’t take it seriously until GIGO haltingly laid out how much cooling would be relevant – but you take this seriously without even knowing whether a 30-year plateau is perfectly consistent with predictions? You take the prediction seriously without actually knowing what’s being predicted?
Not 100% sure I understand the question. Two things I can say:
I take GW predictions seriously because it is the consensus view among climate scientists–so much so that it seems there is no serious opposition to it among climate scientists, only disputes about how fast and how it will affect things.
Regarding my point about predictions, it was a very theoretical quasi-philosophical point about how science works, and about the relative epistemological opinions of me and An Gadai. Namely, my point is neither of us really knows much about it (me by admission, s/he by display in this thread) so arguments about “how many years of cooling would negate the hypothesis” are kind of moot til both of us have done a whole lot of reading. That kind of detailed analysis of the claims is not appropriate to this context–the context of a couple of ignorant rubes jabbering about what they read in the papers the other day.
Something else that may be relevant to what you were asking: I assume their models do make predictions about how much cooling there would be (in other words I assume there is a number even though I don’t know what the number is) and that they’re busily checking actual numbers against their predictions, because I know in general that’s how science works.
To the point where you just got through saying you have no idea how long a period of flat or falling temperatures is consistent with that consensus. You replied to his specific point by agreeing that, yeah, well, three solid decades with no warming may fit the prediction, or not, you don’t know, you have no idea.
You know there’s a consensus, but you don’t know what it is, or what it predicts: decades of cooling? A century without warming?
Possibly that’s the difference I was looking for. You can, in the same breath, (a) describe yourself as an ignorant rube who figures the “how many years” question is moot until he’s read more, and (b) still take it seriously even though you have no idea what would negate the hypothesis – even while stating that some amount of time would obviously negate the hypothesis. I can’t do all of that simultaneously.
And you’d keep on believing that a decade from now, two decades from now, three decades from now, without ever actually stopping to ask what it is?
Ask me two or three decades from now. We’ll be in a different epistemological position then–for example, there may come to be more division between scientists at that point.
There isn’t going to be any more division among scientists in the future. Of the 14 warmest years on record since record keeping began, 12 have been the first 12 years of this century. If you can look at that and declare that warming isn’t occurring, you’re an idiot.
Not sure if tihs was clear, so I’ll clarify: The point was purely hypothetical. I was asked what I would say after twenty or thirty years of flat or lowering temperatures. In that case, were it to happen, what I would say would depend on what the scientists were saying. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started revising their models, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had real disagreements about how to do so–in which case my position would be “I don’t know if GW is happening or not” rather than “I think GW is happening.” (Or, if they all came to a new consensus that GW isn’t happening, that’d be my view as well.)
Well, yes and no. I mean, I’m an ignorant rube when it comes to why we can’t possibly build a spaceship that rockets astronauts to other worlds faster than the speed of light – but I know what the speed of light is, and how fast stuff would have to move from Point A to Point B to prove the consensus false.
I know the expert consensus about perpetual-motion machines: crackpots have invariably failed, something something friction, something something law of thermodynamics – I don’t need to know the specifics, I’m content to be an ignorant rube who gives an endorsement. But I could, if pressed, describe a hypothetical perpetual-motion machine that would prove them all wrong; I don’t believe anyone will ever build one, but I realize what it would be.
I’m guessing you think there’s a certain number of observations of a certain type which would serve to show that there is no Higgs Boson after all–that the recent observations which have suggested it may have been found were actually explainable by some other means.
I’m also guessing that, though you believe there’s some such number, you don’t have any idea what the number is–and aren’t particularly bothered by this. I’m guessing you figure the physicists know what they’re doing on this one.
Standing alone, that seems like insufficient evidence. What if each year was cooler than the one before, and the next three decades follow suit? What if all of them were locked in a dead-even tie, and that plateau continues? If you’d declare that to be warming, are you an idiot?
[QUOTE=Frylock]
I’m guessing you think there’s a certain number of observations of a certain type which would serve to show that there is no Higgs Boson after all–that the recent observations which have suggested it may have been found were actually explainable by some other means.
I’m also guessing that, though you believe there’s some such number, you don’t have any idea what the number is–and aren’t particularly bothered by this. I’m guessing you figure the physicists know what they’re doing on this one.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure I’d go quite that far. As I understand it, the observations thus far are consistent with a boson that has no spin and no charge, right? I’d like to think I’m minimally competent to say, “If they observe a spin or a charge, that’d ruin their predictions.”
My understanding is that in particle collider physics, there’s not really such a thing as “observing a spin,” rather, there’s a recording of billions of reactions, and a complex process of analyzing these reactions statistically, with the result of assigning probabilities that among those reactions were some involving a particle where a higgs boson might have been expected, but which had charge.
Also, concerning Higgs, all the observations are compatible, statistically, with the possibility that there’s no Higgs there after all. Though they’re currently very suggestive (and afaik the consensus–though not as strong as GW by any means–is that Higgs has basically been found) it is not impossible (though most might think it improbable) that after a number of further experiments they might decide what they saw earlier was a statistical fluke or statistically normal for some non-Higgs particle.
On this model, even if it can be done in a single experiment (which it probably can’t) fundamentally what would be happening would be a threshold number of individual observations (among the billiions) would be reached at some point where the consensus among physicists would be that within acceptable error margins almost certainly the higgs isn’t where it is supposed to be according to the Standard Model.
A physicist doper might be able to set one of us straight here, though.
This is dumb argument IMNSHO. What if the temperature rockets up 2 degrees and then levels off again for another decade. Would this be proof that warming has stopped? I believe we had another level period in the 60s and 70s, did warming stop then?
It isn’t going to happen that way. I’ll say this, if you obsess over 1997, you’re an idiot. The earth isn’t like a human where you take a single reading and know the internal temperature. If you consider the totality of the oceans and the atmosphere, the earth can (and is) warming each year despite the fact that when you try to quantify it, you’re limited to what you can measure. If the places where you happen to have instruments don’t show each year to be warmer than the year before, all that proves is that there may be heat flow from places you can measure to places where you can’t.
I’m not especially interested in 1997. (I’m mildly impressed by your ability to sidestep the ban on insults with a conditional, but in this case it’s irrelevant.)
Well, that’s slightly terrifying. You’re saying decades could pass without showing any rise in temperature – indeed, with the instruments showing that each year is cooler than the one before – and all it proves is, well, there may be heat flow from places you can measure to places where you can’t?
Imagine someone blithely handwaved away your evidence in like fashion: “Sure, your instruments show a rise in temperature – but all that proves is there may be cooler temperatures where your instruments aren’t.” Wouldn’t you promptly hit him with one of those conditional insults, suggesting that he’s an idiot if he believes that?
[QUOTE=L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]
This is dumb argument IMNSHO. What if the temperature rockets up 2 degrees and then levels off again for another decade. Would this be proof that warming has stopped?
[/QUOTE]
Kinda?
I mean, even Frylock grants that it’s obvious a plateau of some length would suffice; he doesn’t know whether it’s three decades, or more, or less, but at some point it’d be fair to say warming has stopped. (I’ve been told that even a single decade is practically enough to do it: that the current prediction is for 2017 to be at least a tenth of a degree warmer than 2007, and for 2027 to be at least a tenth of a degree warmer still – and if 2027 is equal to or cooler than 2017, or if 2017 falls short of 2007, then it’s time to rethink a bunch of stuff. Strikes me as a weird and error-prone yardstick, but I didn’t come up with it.)
A moot point as it was pointed before, the experts report that indeed the warming has not stopped.
“Though it’s also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming).”