Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

[Cobalt_Kid]

You make a choice. There is no training, no courses on how to be unbiased and no bible to swear on.

The entire discipline of science is based on well developed critical thinking skills applied in a systematic way in a constant testing of theories.

There is no proven science, it's all open to testing or it isn't science. Theories that stand up to repeated testing over years, decades and even centuries become widely accepted.

The science behind the greenhouse effect goes back to at least Joseph Fourier about 200 hundred years ago and has been built on consistently since then by the work of scientists like John Tyndall, Svante Arrehenius, Guy Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Charles Keeling, James Hansen, Lonnie Thompson and many others.

It's ridiculous to state that they all had a common agenda to create a conspiracy to mislead people who in some cases would be centuries in the future. The science behind climate change is about as solid as science gets, the politics behind climate change denial is about as sleazy as politics get when you consider the source and the likely outcome.

 

[Tonington]

You take the courses. You learn to watch out for biases. You attempt to account for all variables. But you can't control for the biases you don't even know you have.

Blinding and randomization. I routinely send biological samples out for histopathological analysis, very pricey, but histology is not in my toolkit. The pathologist is blinded to treatment, and my fish and tanks are randomly assorted. That's the best I can do. Then I write the report. Of course we can't control all bias, and as you said it's a zero sum argument to invoke some phantom bias for results you don't like. The results are. As a scientist you just report them. Of course some will take liberties, but that's why we keep such extensive detail. If you don't think my results and conclusion match up, you're free, and encouraged to perform an experiment that has more robust results, or refutes my own.

You have to show that the results are suspect. It won't do to simply try to wave the bias or uncertainty wand. That is not how scientists are trained. But I will grant that some end up in that sad space.

 

[EagleSmack]

Meanwhile in St. Louis Missouri... it is a "balmy" 41 degrees F (5 Celsius) with rain mixed with snow predicted.

 

[EagleSmack]

So what?

"So what?"... that's all they can come up with these days... "so what"?

 

[EagleSmack]

I don't know... there was something about a global warming happening.

Oh the pain of cooling.. the pain the pain.

 

[EagleSmack]

So if it rains where you are does it rain everywhere?

So what?

 

[EagleSmack]

Does it rain everywhere we it rains on you?

So what?

 

[EagleSmack]

We're talking about this so called warming thing that isn't happening.

Are you following along?

 

[EagleSmack]

Mostly the warming part.

It is becoming more and more the butt of all jokes.

 

[EagleSmack]

How many bank transfers does it take for mankind to completely stop the earth's climate from ever changing again?

 

[EagleSmack]

sigh

Never mind... it's over your head anyways.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Mostly the warming part.

It is becoming more and more the butt of all jokes.

It's not warming at this point....it changed to change for whatever reason.
Perhaps in response to observations like yours? Anyone's guess.

 

[EagleSmack]

True. How arrogant to think we mere mortals can stop the earth's climate from changing.

 

[Zipperfish]

What they really did was start with a theory,went straight to conclusion and then tried to make the data fit the conclusion and of course they got caught out. Same as the anti fish farm crowd did.

No, not even close.

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[EagleSmack]

It is a tough time for the tin foilers. My condolences.

BTW... buy any carbon credits this year?

 

[darkbeaver]

The entire discipline of science is based on well developed critical thinking skills applied in a systematic way in a constant testing of theories.

There is no proven science, it's all open to testing or it isn't science. Theories that stand up to repeated testing over years, decades and even centuries become widely accepted.

The science behind the greenhouse effect goes back to at least Joseph Fourier about 200 hundred years ago and has been built on consistently since then by the work of scientists like John Tyndall, Svante Arrehenius, Guy Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Charles Keeling, James Hansen, Lonnie Thompson and many others.

It's ridiculous to state that they all had a common agenda to create a conspiracy to mislead people who in some cases would be centuries in the future. The science behind climate change is about as solid as science gets, the politics behind climate change denial is about as sleazy as politics get when you consider the source and the likely outcome.

There is of course the problem of the many many many similarly qualified scientists who have debunked same daft theory. The theory "climate change" formally global warming formally the greenhouse effect is incomplete not predictive and not falsifiable, it is a dud. It's far more likely that the likely outcome will be war funded partially by global bloody carbon bloody taxation. Thanks for your environmental concern but. Maybe I'm too critical.

Mission science.

 

[darkbeaver]

Links to published reports please.

I'm sure you meant 'some' links of course. It is late here you' will have to wait till sometime tomorrow. I have to pray before I retire in case I wake up dead.

 

[petros]

True. How arrogant to think we mere mortals can stop the earth's climate from changing.

Can we stop the coming ice age? It's the only thing about the climate that is guaranteed.

Links to published reports please.

What would you do with them if you had them?

It is a tough time for the tin foilers. My condolences.

BTW... buy any carbon credits this year?

That scam came and went. I made good from them one year and the whole thing died for some odd reason.

The entire discipline of science is based on well developed critical thinking skills applied in a systematic way in a constant testing of theories.

There is no proven science, it's all open to testing or it isn't science. Theories that stand up to repeated testing over years, decades and even centuries become widely accepted.

The science behind the greenhouse effect goes back to at least Joseph Fourier about 200 hundred years ago and has been built on consistently since then by the work of scientists like John Tyndall, Svante Arrehenius, Guy Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Charles Keeling, James Hansen, Lonnie Thompson and many others.

It's ridiculous to state that they all had a common agenda to create a conspiracy to mislead people who in some cases would be centuries in the future. The science behind climate change is about as solid as science gets, the politics behind climate change denial is about as sleazy as politics get when you consider the source and the likely outcome.

Yup the greenhouse effect works great in a jar.

 

[Zipperfish]

There is of course the problem of the many many many similarly qualified scientists who have debunked same daft theory. The theory "climate change" formally global warming formally the greenhouse effect is incomplete not predictive and not falsifiable, it is a dud. It's far more likely that the likely outcome will be war funded partially by global bloody carbon bloody taxation. Thanks for your environmental concern but. Maybe I'm too critical.

Mission science.

The theory of global warming is definitely incomplete. Then again, so is the theory of gravity, but that doesn't stop us from using 9.8 m/s2 as the rate of gravity acceleration at sea level.

The greenhouse effect is completely falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified. Global warming not that falsifiable in the short term because we're dealing with complex feedback, nested hierarchies, chaotic systems, yadda yadda yadda. It's possible that average global atmosperheric CO2 concentrations can continue to rise with no commensurate change in temperature. I just don't think it's that likely. Certainly most of the indicators (higher tropospheric temperature, lower stratospheric temperature, ocean heat content, changes in ecosystems, sea ice extent, glacier mass) are consistent with the observation.