WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RGCheek said:
Lol, no, that is not how it works.

If I say that B is true and you state that B is false, it is not on you to prove that B is false.

All you would have to do is prove where my facts or logic are wrong.

There is NEVER an obligation to prove a negative. One simply has evidence and logic in support of it with corresponding critiques from critics and you go on from there.
Click to expand...
Well, that is not quite how it works, either.

If you say that B is true and I give proof that your facts or logic are wrong, what I have shown is that B is not necessarily true. I haven’t, necessarily, shown B to be false.

If I want to insist that B is false, then the burden IS on me to prove B is false, not merely to show that you do not have sufficient warrant for claiming B to be true.

There is an obligation to prove the negative if you want to show the negative to be true.

If you merely want to show the affirmative is not necessarily true then it is sufficient to debunk the case for the affirmative - but that isn’t what you seem to be claiming.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This line of argument, if true, could be used to discredit any and all deductive science. It establishes unreasonably high epistemological standards on all truth.
Click to expand...
No, it means that a pile of numbers is a pile of numbers. The “truth” comes from the analysis step mentioned earlier.
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes, because the images can be used to analyze a wide variety of sample periods.
Click to expand...
30 years is hardly a wide window of sample intervals. It’s more of a delta function compared to the interval since the last global glaciation.
LeafByNiggle said:
You don’t have to know the noise sources in detail. You merely observe that the deviation from the hypothesis of a melting trend is much smaller that the trend itself. That places an upper limit on the noise, whatever its source.
Click to expand...
If all things were equal, you’d have a point, but all things are not equal in this issue. The observation period you cling to is only 30 years, not enough to claim a limit.
LeafByNiggle said:
The question of how the ice interacts with the rest of the climate system is indeed complex. But the question of whether the observed trend is for melting can be answered without knowing the complex details of that interaction.
Click to expand...
See the previous comment. If you do not know the historical record, how can you claim a “meaningful” trend? You are making an absolute statement about a melt trend based on a tiny window, with a bit of hand waving thrown in.
 
sps49 said:
No, it means that a pile of numbers is a pile of numbers. The “truth” comes from the analysis step mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
I cited images, not a pile of numbers. The truth established by those images does not take a lot of fancy analysis. If you asked any kid looking at September 1980 and September 2014 which one was a bigger ice cap, he would have no trouble telling you. So let’s not hide behind “the difficulty of analysis” on such a simple question.
30 years is hardly a wide window of sample intervals. It’s more of a delta function compared to the interval since the last global glaciation.
Click to expand...
That depends on what fact you are trying to establish. If you are trying to establish that the ice cap is smaller now than 30 years ago, 30 years is the perfect sampling interval.
If all things were equal, you’d have a point, but all things are not equal in this issue. The observation period you cling to is only 30 years, not enough to claim a limit.
Click to expand...
Again, that depends on how much the observation over time differs from the hypothesized trend. If there really was as much noise as you fear, it would be possible to take advantage of that noise to pick two dates reasonably far apart that show the opposite trend. I invite you to try, if you think the samples are that noisy.
See the previous comment. If you do not know the historical record, how can you claim a “meaningful” trend? You are making an absolute statement about a melt trend based on a tiny window, with a bit of hand waving thrown in.
Click to expand...
What you call “hand waving” doesn’t not seem so to me. It looks like I am finding enough support in the historical record (or lack of record) to make long natural cycles an unlikely explanation of the obvious trend. But if you think otherwise, please be specific about what in my argument you don’t like (besides the fact that it supports a conclusion you don’t like.)
 
*THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed. *

*John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. *
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.

express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I cited images, not a pile of numbers. The truth established by those images does not take a lot of fancy analysis. If you asked any kid looking at September 1980 and September 2014 which one was a bigger ice cap, he would have no trouble telling you. So let’s not hide behind “the difficulty of analysis” on such a simple question.
Click to expand...
Um, images are a pile of numbers. Previously you claimed that the images were “raw data,” and then walked back the “raw data” claim and rationalized away the data set truncation as not important. Your comment about a kid looking at the differences of the representations of ice cover between 1980 and 2014 says nothing about a trend, just that there was a difference between those two dates. The only “hiding” that I can see is the opacity of the basis of your claim.
LeafByNiggle said:
That depends on what fact you are trying to establish. If you are trying to establish that the ice cap is smaller now than 30 years ago, 30 years is the perfect sampling interval.
Click to expand...
Which fact do you wish to establish, that something that changes year to year (ice, always has, always will), or that it is representative of a larger trend? What you are looking for is validation that the last 30 years represents a “significant” trend, and the satellite record does not cut it.
LeafByNiggle said:
Again, that depends on how much the observation over time differs from the hypothesized trend. If there really was as much noise as you fear, it would be possible to take advantage of that noise to pick two dates reasonably far apart that show the opposite trend. I invite you to try, if you think the samples are that noisy.
Click to expand...
Since I do not buy into your claim that a 30 year sample window is adequate for this test, the test itself is meaningless. If by “too noisy” you refer to my claim that we do not know what the noise is, then fine. No one knows. As far as the “hypothesized trend” goes, future predictions of sea ice extant have had extremely low skill, hence my comments about uncertainty.
LeafByNiggle said:
What you call “hand waving” doesn’t not seem so to me. It looks like I am finding enough support in the historical record (or lack of record) to make long natural cycles an unlikely explanation of the obvious trend. But if you think otherwise, please be specific about what in my argument you don’t like (besides the fact that it supports a conclusion you don’t like.)
Click to expand...
I have been specific. I have pointed out that the uncertainties in the data record, models, and the resulting low skill of predictions support a claim against detection of a meaningful trend. You have decided for yourself that the uncertainties are insignificant enough to make cycles longer than 30 years “unlikely,” and that as a result, you see a trend.

What conclusion is it that I don’t like? That’s a very good question, and you’re lucky that I am here to answer it for you. Here it is, wait for it, wait for it…

Conclusions based on limited data, and incomplete knowledge of a system and its measurement and modeling uncertainties. There, all better now?
 
This claim has been made many times over with alleged “evidence”. Basically it boils down to one’s opinion expressed with prejudice regardless of whatever source one cites. Despite your assertion the jury is still out on this subject.🤷
 
SCHULTZZKOPF said:
This claim has been made many times over with alleged “evidence”. Basically it boils down to one’s opinion expressed with prejudice regardless of whatever source one cites. Despite your assertion the jury is still out on this subject.🤷
Click to expand...
PRETTY MUCH. I dont really care for climate change debates, they get insane.
 
ialsop said:
And then people just end up from both sides throwing internet links at each other…
Click to expand...
I have, on those threads, expressed a number of times that it represents nothing so much as a high school debate. “My quote is better than your quote.”

It would be laughable if political global warming ideology wasn’t so harmful to ordinary humans while simultaneously being so enriching to the already rich.
 
SCHULTZZKOPF said:
This claim has been made many times over with alleged “evidence”. Basically it boils down to one’s opinion expressed with prejudice regardless of whatever source one cites. Despite your assertion the jury is still out on this subject.🤷
Click to expand...
I didn’t make an assertion. I was quoting an article
 
🍿 🍿 🍿

Not that meny years ago (about 30 to 50 years ago) there was going to be the ‘big freeze’ and then there was going to be the ‘big burn’ and now it’s just called ‘climate change’. ::confused: 😉
 
estesbob said:
*THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed. *

*John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. *
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.

express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
Click to expand...
This is news? It looks to me like a few people’s opinion based on no new research or proofs. Come back when you have some real news.
 
I can’t believe that no one has told you that John Coleman is NOT a meteorologist. He has done no actual research on climate change. Just not a credible source. OTOH, 97% of real, published, climate researchers DO believe in climate change.
 
The world is warming. That is a fact. Are humans responsible or is this just a natural change as has happened in the past? That is the question. If humans may be responsible for some of it wouldn’t it be prudent to try to diminish our share. The ice sheets that have been there for centuries are disappearing. The threat to some coastal areas is real. If you lived in one of these you may think differently. I agree there is a lot of hype about it. There is no absolute proof either way. Mr. Coleman has a right to his opinion and so do you. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top