Should we believe the experts or the politicians regarding climate change?

[Pete in Panama]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.

From the link:

"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century..."

We can agree that people say the temp's gone up 0.9C. So far nobody on this thread has posted either a "planet's average surface temperature" for this week, nor that of 1890. If this were a scientific discussion then a measured temp. increase would simply be the difference in measured temps. It's not. This is a political/religions feud where scientific reasoning is unwelcome.

 

[ratiocinator]

I just wish they would put forth real evidence instead of theoretical models all the time.

Theoretical models is what science does, in fact the very purpose of science is to produce theoretical models. Ones that match reality (observations and the results of experiments). Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and relativity are all theoretical models.

The "real evidence" is the match between the models and reality.

Just like any models in science, climate models are produced, tested against observations, and modified if necessary. They are also applied to past situations to see if they correctly model what has happened in the past.

If they don't explain the science involved behind the modeling then it's completely worthless.

The climate is an extremely complex system and so are the models. What exactly do you want? All the equations? The source code perhaps? Maybe you think you'll spot an error? That's kind of what peer review is for - do you regard yourself as qualified?

There's plenty of popularised stuff if you want to look for it, but, as with all pop-science, it can only give an indication of what's involved.

There's quite a lot of information on models and evaluation here: Climate Models and Their Evaluation (edited to correct link).

 

[ratiocinator]

From the link:
We can agree that people say the temp's gone up 0.9C. So far nobody on this thread has posted either a "planet's average surface temperature" for this week, nor that of 1890. If this were a scientific discussion then a measured temp. increase would simply be the difference in measured temps. It's not. This is a political/religions feud where scientific reasoning is unwelcome.

Global temperature record

 

[Guitar's Cry]

From the link:
We can agree that people say the temp's gone up 0.9C. So far nobody on this thread has posted either a "planet's average surface temperature" for this week, nor that of 1890. If this were a scientific discussion then a measured temp. increase would simply be the difference in measured temps. It's not. This is a political/religions feud where scientific reasoning is unwelcome.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[PureX]

How many experts work for an agency that is funded by, ran by, or over seen by the government/politicians?

I don't see what you're trying to imply.

 

[Flankerl]

Life survived.

What a fantastic bare minimum.

Who cares if 99% of all people die and with them most other lifeforms.

Some will survive.


#goteamcoal
#greatdyingreduxelectronicboogaloo

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why would you believe a politician in the first place? Of course you go with what the scientific consensus on the subject is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too many people pervert the phrase "observable science" away from the idea of a tool for inquiry and use it as a foundation of a belief system; examples:

• "I don't believe in God I believe in observable science."
• "Observable science tells us to raise taxes to save the planet."

Nobody has observed scientifically men (or women for that matter) creating carbon atoms to the point that an average atmospheric incease in carbon is measurable. It's a tenet of belief just like deciding that the average temp. of the globe has increased 1.5C since 1760 even though there're no measurements of the average global temperature for today and for any day in 1760.

The average surface temp. of the sun has been observed w/ an accuracy to four significant figures. Observing that of the earth is prevented by politics.

Wrong on several points. First we have observed man releasing carbon to the atmosphere that has not been there before. You should have asked how we know thus. Second they have measured global temperature increases in more than one way. Again, if you do not know you should be asking how. And it is relatively simple to measure the average temperature of the surface of the Sun. It takes a bit of work to measure the Earth's average temperature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they don't explain the science involved behind the modeling then it's completely worthless. Just throwing a chart out there and saying, "I'm the expert believe me" is not exactly going to win any awards.

And yeah definitely explain the science. People want to know what was done behind the scenes.

They have explained their modeling. But if one wants to get into the specifics then one has to learn the science. For example, I hope you know that there is no doubt at all about the Greenhouse Effect. Understanding that is a first step in understanding AGW.

 

[We Never Know]

Maybe we will find out soon enough

Hi levels of co2 in humans causes hallucinations. Think the oracle at Delphi. I have a hypothesis that the same effect occurs in the bible belt of the US. There is much industry and major cities both coasts. Prevailing winds carries pollutants inland. It rains causing acid rainfall. So far this is known. My hypothesis is that the limestone bedrock (which almost exactly mirrors the bible belt) gasses co2 causing hallucinations.

I believe this is about indoor work plsces.

Exposure to carbon dioxide can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, and increased heart rate.

Carbon dioxide levels and potential health problems are indicated below:

250-350 ppm: background (normal) outdoor air level

350-1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange

1,000-2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air

2,000-5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air; poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.

>5,000 ppm: This indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases also could be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.

>40,000 ppm: This level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

Carbon Dioxide Detection and Indoor Air Quality Control -- Occupational Health & Safety

 

[We Never Know]

What a fantastic bare minimum.

Who cares if 99% of all people die and with them most other lifeforms.

Some will survive.


#goteamcoal
#greatdyingreduxelectronicboogaloo

We are just another animal species here on this rock. We are also the most destructive and wasteful. Does that makes us special?

 

[We Never Know]

I don't see what you're trying to imply.

Not implying anything.

"How many experts work for an agency that is funded by, ran by, or over seen by the government/politicians"

One could imply that the politicians and experts get paid by the same place.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Too many people pervert the phrase "observable science" away from the idea of a tool for inquiry and use it as a foundation of a belief system; examples:

• "I don't believe in God I believe in observable science."
• "Observable science tells us to raise taxes to save the planet."

Nobody has observed scientifically men (or women for that matter) creating carbon atoms to the point that an average atmospheric incease in carbon is measurable. It's a tenet of belief just like deciding that the average temp. of the globe has increased 1.5C since 1760 even though there're no measurements of the average global temperature for today and for any day in 1760.

The average surface temp. of the sun has been observed w/ an accuracy to four significant figures. Observing that of the earth is prevented by politics.

Global temperature record

[from the wiki link]

We started w/ a corruption of word "science" that moved us from the idea of reasoned observable inquiry over to an ideology of a political mob. What we're getting into now is a further distortion of the language intended in an Orwellian bent to push a political ideology. Wikipedia does not show global average surface temperature readings. The Y-axis only shows a calculated "temperature anomaly" --something that can end up being anything we want.

The measured surface temperature of the sun is reported thus: "The temperature of the Sun's surface is 5,778 K (5,505 °C)." There's no need for evasion using an "anomaly" calculation for the sun's surface because there's no political controversy involved.

Nobody wants to say what today's average earth surface temperature is because the measurement would either have to be made accurately and in good faith or it be obviously silly. Even more so for a global average surface temp for 1890. This is why ideological advocates turn to "anomalies", it's the only path that can be used so as to appear in support of the 0.9C increase.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...it is relatively simple to measure the average temperature of the surface of the Sun. It takes a bit of work to measure the Earth's average temperature.

So where does that leave us, that we simply have no idea what the Earth's average temperature is? If that's so then we can't say it's up or down.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Wrong on several points. First we have ...

If we don't have a clue what the temp is then we can't say it's up or down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we don't have a clue what the temp is then we can't say it's up or down.

Yes, it is a good thing that is not the case. Now deniers may have no clue, but who cares what they say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So where does that leave us, that we simply have no idea what the Earth's average temperature is? If that's so then we can't say it's up or down.

Oh drat. I thought that you were talking about others. You don't have a clue about temperature. That is not the case in the world of science.

 

[PruePhillip]

My mother still talks of the summer of 72, one of the longest hot spells on record.

But conspiracy theories abound, perhaps that cold spell was the first indications of climate change

It's like all science, all reality in fact - everything is complicated.
Captain Cook arrived in Australia during a drought. We still have droughts, the climate skeptics
remind us - but now we have more frequent droughts, longer droughts and hotter droughts.

Peak temperatures, on average, are rising a little. But the bottom temperatures (ie winter,
early mornings) are substantially warmer. Seasons are shifting, glaciers are vanishing, polar
ice is getting thinner etc.. No old timer saw this - not in human history.

 

[PruePhillip]

If they don't explain the science involved behind the modeling then it's completely worthless. Just throwing a chart out there and saying, "I'm the expert believe me" is not exactly going to win any awards.

And yeah definitely explain the science. People want to know what was done behind the scenes.

During the black death in Europe, about half the population perished. Farms and towns
vanished, the forests returned. As a result the CO2 level in the atmosphere dropped and
then we had the "little ice age."
We can control the earth's temperature just be adjusting the CO2. As of today that CO2
is not only dangerously high for temperature control, but super dangerous for our marine
life.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So where does that leave us, that we simply have no idea what the Earth's average temperature is? If that's so then we can't say it's up or down.

Not sure where I said what you quoted me saying...