Data pins polar warming blame on humans

[The_Animus]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/polar.warming/index.html

Using up-to-date gridded data sets, scientists led by the UEA observed mean land surface temperatures in the Arctic over a 100 year period. For the Antarctic the observation period was shorter -- 50 years -- as there is no station data available before 1945.
They then applied an average simulated response using two models. The first examined natural forcings -- events like solar cycles and volcanic activity which can affect temperatures.
The second model simulated natural combined with anthropogenic forcings -- which included greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and sulphate aerosol.
Scientists discovered that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone.
One of the report authors, Dr Alexey Karpechko told CNN: "In both cases the accelerations are not consistent with natural forcing, which means that natural forcing alone cannot produce such a warming. So in a sense, we can say conclusively that this [warming trend at the poles] is due to human influence."

The entire article is a good read.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I havent read the accompanying scientific publication that outlines exactly what they did (I presume there is one somewhere), but if all they considered was "events like solar cycles and volcanic activity which can affect temperatures. [....] greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and sulphate aerosol." then they dont stand a chance of getting a meaningful answer. Far, far more variables involved. Far too many for any climate model to give really meaningful results for that matter. Why this is such an uncertain science at the moment, and triggers so much debate.

 

[tesscaline]

While I do not discount the overall theory that the earth is getting hotter (i.e. global warming) --

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make "conclusive" statements about the non-existence of something. It's classic inductive logic -- "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist"

I also find it foolish to make "conclusive" statements about the natural trends of a planet that is billions of years old based on the study of only 100 years worth of data.

 

[Scazon]

Nah nah nah nah not listening

 

[lomiller]

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make "conclusive" statements about the non-existence of something. It's classic inductive logic -- "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist"

You have an odd form of skepticism. Most real skeptics are satisfied to say “we’ve looked at all the factors we know could have an effect, if you want to say there is some bogyman, pixy or magic spell that changes all that you need to show it to me first.”

Science never has and never will disprove every possible alternative before reaching a conclusion. That’s why evolution will always be theory no matter how much evidence there is to support it. Suggesting it’s any weaker because of this is decidedly un-skeptic like.

 

[tesscaline]

You have an odd form of skepticism. Most real skeptics are satisfied to say “we’ve looked at all the factors we know could have an effect, if you want to say there is some bogyman, pixy or magic spell that changes all that you need to show it to me first.”

Science never has and never will disprove every possible alternative before reaching a conclusion. That’s why evolution will always be theory no matter how much evidence there is to support it. Suggesting it’s any weaker because of this is decidedly un-skeptic like.

There is nothing wrong with my skepticism, nor are my statements "un-skeptic like."

The scientist in question did not say "we have looked at all the factors we know could have an effect." He said "we looked at a teeny tiny representation of data and made a huge assumption based upon it, thus declaring the non-existence of natural forcing as a cause." He made a claim. He has provided, in my opinion, less than adequate support for that claim -- i.e. 100 years worth of data on something that is several billion years old is not enough data to declare anything "conclusively."

 

[Pipirr]

I havent read the accompanying scientific publication that outlines exactly what they did (I presume there is one somewhere), but if all they considered was "events like solar cycles and volcanic activity which can affect temperatures. [....] greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and sulphate aerosol." then they dont stand a chance of getting a meaningful answer. Far, far more variables involved. Far too many for any climate model to give really meaningful results for that matter. Why this is such an uncertain science at the moment, and triggers so much debate.

Climate models can account for a lot of the variables involved, and they are able to give really meaningful results.

Which is why climatology is becoming a much more certain science. The models are really, really good.

 

[lomiller]

There is nothing wrong with my skepticism, nor are my statements "un-skeptic like."

The scientist in question did not say "we have looked at all the factors we know could have an effect." He said "we looked at a teeny tiny representation of data and made a huge assumption based upon it, thus declaring the non-existence of natural forcing as a cause." He made a claim. He has provided, in my opinion, less than adequate support for that claim -- i.e. 100 years worth of data on something that is several billion years old is not enough data to declare anything "conclusively."

They accounted for all the known natural effects and showed they can’t account for observations. If you think there is a bogyman or magic spell they forgot to account for please say what you think it is.

Saying “science never provides absolute proof so I’m free to ignore it and believe whatever I want” is not what a skeptic does.

 

[Pipirr]

He has provided, in my opinion, less than adequate support for that claim -- i.e. 100 years worth of data on something that is several billion years old is not enough data to declare anything "conclusively."

100 years worth of data on the period of time that humans have been producing CO2 from fossil fuel sources on an industrial scale? That's pretty darn good.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

While I do not discount the overall theory that the earth is getting hotter (i.e. global warming) --

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make "conclusive" statements about the non-existence of something. It's classic inductive logic -- "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist"

I also find it foolish to make "conclusive" statements about the natural trends of a planet that is billions of years old based on the study of only 100 years worth of data.

You're creating a rather unreasonable burden of proof for researchers.

 

[tesscaline]

All I'm saying is that without knowing the actual natural trends without human involvement, you cannot conclusively say that humans are to blame. You can hypothesize, but you cannot state something definitively. If that's unreasonable, so be it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Climate models can account for a lot of the variables involved, and they are able to give really meaningful results.

Which is why climatology is becoming a much more certain science. The models are really, really good.

And even as we speak scientists are crusing through the SE Pacific to gather direct data that will make the models even better.

And the Third International Polar Year has not yet borne its full fruit. The uncertainties are being pushed into ever-tighter corners,

 

[CapelDodger]

All I'm saying is that without knowing the actual natural trends without human involvement, you cannot conclusively say that humans are to blame. You can hypothesize, but you cannot state something definitively. If that's unreasonable, so be it.

Observe how it works out for you, and then make your own judgement.

 

[CapelDodger]

You're creating a rather unreasonable burden of proof for researchers.

I see it more as creating an unreasonable comfort zone. Which is nothing unusual.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nah nah nah nah not listening

Are you old enough to remember when there was snow on the hills for months at a time in winter? Folk like us don't need to to be told that something's going on.

 

[The_Animus]

While I do not discount the overall theory that the earth is getting hotter (i.e. global warming) --

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make "conclusive" statements about the non-existence of something."

So you are religious then I take it? Otherwise you'd be making a conclusive statement about the non-existence of God. It's not like you can account for everything in the universe to show there is no God.

If that's unreasonable, so be it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I havent read the accompanying scientific publication that outlines exactly what they did (I presume there is one somewhere), but if all they considered was "events like solar cycles and volcanic activity which can affect temperatures. [....] greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and sulphate aerosol." then they dont stand a chance of getting a meaningful answer. Far, far more variables involved. Far too many for any climate model to give really meaningful results for that matter. Why this is such an uncertain science at the moment, and triggers so much debate.

I take it you haven't actually been keeping up with the IPCC, have you?

 

[tesscaline]

So you are religious then I take it? Otherwise you'd be making a conclusive statement about the non-existence of God. It's not like you can account for everything in the universe to show there is no God.

Um. No.

What is it with you people and strawmen?

If I were a homeopath saying the kind things that this scientist has said to support the idea that homeopathy worked, you'd be down my throat so far I wouldn't be able to sit down.

Basing a "conclusive" opinion upon a sample set that is equal to less than .0001% of the whole and does not have a control set of any sort is pretty much useless in the scheme of things.

 

[The_Animus]

Here is what I'm seeing.

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make "conclusive" statements about the non-existence of something."

In the context of this thread "something" refers to "a rise in temperature due to natural trends".

So your statement reads something like "I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make 'conclusive' statements about the non-existence of a rise in temperature due to natural trends."

And you used the word "something". So regardless of what "something" we are talking about you hold that the logic behind your statement should remain true.

Yet if we were to replace the phrase "a rise in temperature due to natural trends" with "God" you would no longer agree with your own argument.

"I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make 'conclusive' statements about the non-existence of God."

Saying there is no God is a conclusive statement about the non-existence of God.

Therefore you are saying that you do not take people seriously who say there is no God.

This is essentially a logical argument constructed of premises and a conclusion. If you believe it is in error please explain which premise is false and why or why the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Basing a "conclusive" opinion upon a sample set that is equal to less than .0001% of the whole and does not have a control set of any sort is pretty much useless in the scheme of things.

Is this not what atheists do? We don't even have a sample set for our universe. We essentially have a single data point, and even the accuracy of that data point isn't complete because there is so much we don't even understand about our own universe. There certainly isn't any sort of control set. So by your reasoning how can one assert that there is no God?

 

[tesscaline]

Here is what I'm seeing.

In the context of this thread "something" refers to "a rise in temperature due to natural trends".

So your statement reads something like "I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make 'conclusive' statements about the non-existence of a rise in temperature due to natural trends."

And you used the word "something". So regardless of what "something" we are talking about you hold that the logic behind your statement should remain true.

Yet if we were to replace the phrase "a rise in temperature due to natural trends" with "God" you would no longer agree with your own argument.

"I find it hard to take someone seriously when they make 'conclusive' statements about the non-existence of God."

Saying there is no God is a conclusive statement about non-existence.

Therefore you are saying that you do not take people seriously who say there is no God.

This is essentially a logical argument constructed of premises and a conclusion. If you believe it is in error please explain which premise is false and why or why the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Is this not what atheists do? We don't even have a sample set for our universe. We essentially have a single data point, and even the accuracy of that data point isn't complete because there is so much we don't even understand about our own universe. There certainly isn't any sort of control set. So by your reasoning how can one assert that there is no God?

Your assumption that I think you can assert that there is no god is the failure in your logic.

By my reasoning, someone cannot assert that there is no god. I don't assert that there is no god. I don't assert that there is one either. I say that there isn't enough evidence in support of either position. And yes, I do not take people seriously who say, definitively, that there is no god. Nor do I take people seriously who say, definitively, that there is a god. Not when it comes to science.

Now. Are you done with your strawman yet? Or are you going to waste more bandwidth with your baseless assumptions and inductive reasoning?