.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Dark days ahead - rise above despair

Sou | 8:32 PM Go to the first of 284 comments. Add a comment
Note: Blogger is struggling with the number of comments. To see all the comments, including the latest, scroll to the very bottom and click the word "loading" or the words "load more".


My first reaction on hearing of Donald Trump's probably victory was an emotional jolt, accompanied by the physical sensation of nausea. This is despite the fact that I was partly prepared. I was at a meeting in a tiny town in rural New South Wales, with a number of other people from various walks of life.

Internet reception was patchy (very poor Optus coverage) and I had to take the laptop outside to learn what was happening. When I came back to the meeting and told everyone that Trump was the likely next US President, people were shocked and dismayed. There were comments about Nazi Germany, melting away of life savings, and concerns about how the Putin-Trump relationship would adversely affect global stability, particularly in regard to China. (Australia's security and place in the world is now under threat, and we will need to adapt and find new allies.)

Looking over Twitter and elsewhere on the Internet, I see people looking to blame the Democrats for nominating Hillary Clinton. That's not fair in my view. She would have been the most qualified, capable President in decades - and maybe forever.

What's happened in America is no different to what's been happening around the world. The population is getting dumbed down - or more accurately, people are dumbing themselves down, voluntarily. In Australia, people elected the right wing populist Tony Abbott, wanting - hoping - to believe his lies and succumbing to to the unreasoned fear he incited. In Britain the people voted to shut the doors and kick out everyone who wasn't umpteenth generation English. And now the US people want to build a wall between the US and Mexico, close the borders, stop trading internationally, let people die in the streets without health care, and expel everyone who isn't an umpteenth generation American.

With more than seven billion people now on our planet - trying to shut out the world is not only unrealistic, it's a recipe for disaster on a massive scale. (It's as if we cannot cope with the massive rise in population, and the global freedoms we've achieved with fast travel and rapid transport and open borders, and don't "believe" any of that has happened.)

Why? Is it envy? Is it misplaced greed? Is it fear and hatred of all that is different? Is it an inability to adapt to the world we've created? There've not been any major wars or threats in recent decades, so is it that people are bored and looking for change in their otherwise small and dreary lives?

There is a large segment of the population who have unmet (and unrealistic) expectations. People who've never felt real fear and miss it, so they grab hold of imaginary fears and take them on as their own. Despite the general standard of living rising all over the world, a lot of people may have had the expectation that they would get rich or wealthier than they have. Many people are no better off than they were some decades ago - or don't recognise that they are. A plasma or LCD television isn't enough. Fox tells them they have been deprived and the plebs lap it up.

Victoria tweeted a quote from Carl Sagan's 1995 book: "The Demon-Haunted World" in which he foresaw the catastrophe we are now on the brink of.

When much of the media doesn't do it's job, and uncritically put forth disinformation, and sufficient people don't rebel against this affront to their intelligence - this is what happens. Instead of leaders we elect populist conmen like Donald Trump and Tony Abbott (most are men, but there are some women as well).

All I can say is that it's important to get past the despair that is natural when you see the future crumbling. It's important to rise above it and keep fighting for justice and to protect the future - for coming generations and for all life species. We are facing dark days ahead and probably dark years. There may be widespread civil unrest and possibly major wars. Women and minority groups will have their rights removed. Asylum seekers from war torn countries will have nowhere to go. There will almost certainly be economic upheaval. There will most certainly be more weather and ecological disasters. At the very least we need to document what we, as humans, are doing. And by that I mean what all of us are doing, including the people who voted for chaos and upheaval and regression.

It's obvious that as a species we are not capable of learning from mistakes of the past. That doesn't mean that none of us can learn from our species' mistakes. And it doesn't mean that future generations won't learn from the mistakes made in the twentieth and twenty first century.

So keep your chin up. Don't just ride it out, but keep working for what's right and good. Despite what Americans have just done, there is a lot of good in the world.

Sorry for what reads like a sermon. I feel a tiny bit better for having got that off my chest. I'd love to see your thoughts on what has just happened, and what you plan to do about it.

284 comments:

  1. @ Jammy Dodger

    NATURE GEOSCIENCE | PERSPECTIVE


    Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity

    "Fundamental puzzles of climate science remain unsolved because of our limited understanding of how clouds, circulation and climate interact.

    One example is our inability to provide robust assessments of future global and regional climate changes. However, ongoing advances in our capacity to observe, simulate and conceptualize the climate system now make it possible to fill gaps in our knowledge. We argue that progress can be accelerated by focusing research on a handful of important scientific questions that have become tractable as a result of recent advances.

    We propose four such questions below; they involve understanding the role of cloud feedbacks and convective organization in climate, and the factors that control the position, the strength and the variability of the tropical rain belts and the extratropical storm tracks."


    And in the blurb - tid-bits on the nature of settled science:

    "Climate science needs more mathematicians and physicists. So say prominent climatologists who are trying to spark enthusiasm for their field in budding researchers who might otherwise choose astrophysics or cosmology. Talented physical scientists are needed to help resolve mysteries that are crucial to modelling the climate — and, potentially, saving the planet — the group says, such as the ways in which clouds are formed.

    There is a misconception that the major challenges in physical climate science are settled. 'That’s absolutely not true,' says Sandrine Bony, a climate researcher at the Laboratory of Dynamic Meteorology in Paris. 'In fact, essential physical aspects of climate change are poorly understood.'"

    "The perception that climate science is ‘solved’ is an inadvertent result of pressure on climatologists to convey a simple message to the public — for instance, that all dry regions will get dryer and all wet regions wetter in a warming climate, says Piers Forster, a climate modeller at the University of Leeds, UK. That has made the science 'sound somewhat dull', he says.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ NoNotThatBob

    "The expert doesn't know how she knows, he knows only that she is right."

    This is getting confusing. The expert is prescribing drugs to a child. She say she's allergic to them. Presumably he changes the prescription. What's the problem?

    "Would a specialist accept contradiction from a patient merely because she has been 'genuinely enquiring' with regard to her condition?"

    If he knows she's right he should. If he doesn't he'll face consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ NoNotThatBob

    "An hypothesis that is 'correct' (i.e., it has been verified to be true), is a theory. And indeed, that usually results in most scientists supporting it."

    That's not at all true. A hypothesis can be correct but untested, a theory can prove to be wrong. But it doesn't really matter to my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Survival Acres.

    Give it a rest. No one is interested in your Gish Gallop and conspiracy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Survival Acres

    No answer I notice to the question asking if Obama was born in the USA?

    What? You haven't looked at every crank video and conspiracy theory on the internet that the birth truthers have urged you to investigate?

    That smacks of astounding laziness and is the reason why people won't believe ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. NotThatBob, there are a lot of people who did not properly check what Hansen actually projected. If they had, they'd know that scenario A actually had *lots* of GHGs increasing, while in reality, because of actions to reduce certain GHG emissions, they didn't.

    Maybe you'll learn something here:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/

    I expect you to apologize to Hansen and remove those physicists from your list who told you Hansen was oh-so-wrong and doesn't understand atmospheric physics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nigel, due to the structure of Dutch politics it is extremely unlikely for Wilders to get a majority. He could become the largest party, but will always have to depend on others to create a majority.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...that will accelerate global warming at a breakneck pace?"

    Trying to be 'optimistic', there are two politicians who have been responsible for significant cuts in CO2 emissions in my lifetime.

    The first was Nigel Lawson who pegged the value of the pound at a too high value, destroying British heavy industry.

    The second was Dubya, whose creation of a world economic recession brought about a slump in industrial activity.

    Trump is committed to making the rich richer and the majority poorer. That means less money to be spent and should bring about another slump.

    It is a bizarre world where the only hope for humanity is the sheer incompetence of the major players.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Marco - don't make assumptions about my reaction to a paper, or what I believe, or what my beliefs are, and don't label me. You don't know what my beliefs are."

    MostlyHarmless, we've discussed before, and I know your beliefs from those discussion

    And after I provided you with a reference you say
    "Yes, pteropods do exhibit shell-thinning when pH is reduced in this way. But it's never been observed in the ocean, and never will be."

    Despite the paper saying in the frikkin' abstract:
    "Few studies to date have demonstrated widespread biological impacts of ocean acidification (OA) under conditions currently found in the natural environment. From a combined survey of physical and chemical water properties and biological sampling along the Washington–Oregon–California coast in August 2011, we show that large portions of the shelf waters are corrosive to pteropods in the natural environment."

    IN SITU studies, MostlyHarmless. Directly in the ocean. The stuff you claimed hasn't been observed, directly observed.
    In other words, I correctly predicted your response: you ignored information that contradicted your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Survival Acres, if your post was not about Huma, you sure were pretty good at hiding that. You posted a link to a video that attempted to link Huma to several people by a tactic known as "guilty-by-association", with the added problem of tenuous association. The Snopes link quite nicely shows these tenuous associations. Of course, the whole idea is to discredit Huma and therefore by extension Clinton. Even many prominent Republicans and the Anti-Defamation League have protested about this tactic, which says a lot.

    If you want to show me you are a credible discussion partner, please tell me, for example, why it is OK to link Huma Abedin to Al-Awlaki, for the sole reason that he was president of the same Muslim Student Association as Abedin, but two years after her presidency.

    Also, please explain why your list of newspapers that endorsed Clinton for the 2016 elections is supposedly any evidence that these newspapers are in the pockets of the Clintons. And no, just saying "endorsing her is the evidence" does not constitute evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the good old day Gish Gallop lists of utter drivel, mixed with hearsay and health truths would be text based

    Now these lunatics expect you to sit through hours of YouTube rubbish, complete with spooky music and deep sounding voice over

    I suspect the best they actually "prove" is that HRD is a politician

    Wow who new !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "TadaaaNovember 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM
    Beliefs have no place in science

    Citing "beliefs" in a discussion about scince hits the denier bullsh1t bingo-meter pretty hard "

    I came across this Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) Vid last night (UK)....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

    His vids are banned in WU world.
    To close to the knuckle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Tony

      Hadfield's videos are what taught me about climate science, science in general and the importance of evidence based critical thinking

      He is great - before I saw his vids I think I sort bought into a few of the myths, 70s Global cooling, it used to be called GW,

      I was soon corrected and have peter to thank in the first instance, but I have learnt more than I thought i ever would about climate science from sou and everyone on the blogroll

      Delete
  13. I am not a Climate Scientist. So to determine an expert's competence:
    1. I choose a paper in which the expert has made an observable prediction;
    2. I determine whether that prediction has indeed been fulfilled.


    As Marco points out, you haven't understood the detail of Hansen's ABC scenarios and have therefore fallen prey to online misinformers. Hint: compare projected and actual forcing with projected and observed GAT before pissing on the predictive skill of even a crude and long-obsolete model.

    This leaves us with you freely admitting that you don't know what you are talking about and unable to provide a scientifically-supported argument to bolster your politically-motivated contrarianism.

    Why are you still here?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually what is clear is that he 'never chose a paper' at all. Did he really - out of 1000s of papers to choose from pick one that - by a miracle - is routinely misrepresented by climate change deniers? Obviously not: he just went over to some denialist website which happened to be parroting crap about Hansen's paper and mindlessly lapped it up. So to add to his mental incompetence we can add the obvious conclusion that he is also a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As these trace gasses have not been reduced since 1988, we should find the actual anomalies are up there with Scenario A, or at worst B. 

    Currently, however HADCRUT4 and GISS are each closer to Scenario C - drastically reduced trace gasses.

    Either Hansen displayed a limited grasp of atmospheric physics, or he lied to Congress.


    Hansen's grasp of atmospheric physics was state of the art three decades ago and probably still is today. He used an early version of the GISS climate model; this had a climate sensitivity of about 4C (for doubled CO2), work done in the intervening years has improved our estimates, and the modern value is nearer 3C, so if our estimate is good, one would expect the 1988 projections to overshoot reality.

    But shall we look at the data? The projections can be found here

    http://www.realclimate.org/data/scen_ABC_temp.data

    The projection for 2015 under Hansen's 'most plausible' Scenario B was 1.00. The actual number from GISS was 0.99C.

    Not so shabby, and certainly good enough to make talk of 'lying' or incompetence look very silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. In line with the revised comment policy NoNotThatBob's comment (and a previous one today) has been deleted.

      Delete
    3. @ Phil Clarke

      As this post contains nothing to offend Climate Sensitivities, hopefully it will not be spirited away.

      "The projection for 2015 under Hansen's 'most plausible' Scenario B was 1.00.
      The actual number from GISS was 0.99C.
      Not so shabby, and certainly good enough to make talk of 'lying' or incompetence look very silly."

      Unfortunately, you are not comparing like with like.
      Each data set has a different base-line for their Temperature Anomalies.

      The 'Temperature Anomaly for Scenarios ABC' are base-lined at [typo corrected] 1957.
      http://www.realclimate.org/data/scen_ABC_temp.data:

      Temperature Anomaly from control Year
      Temperature anomaly (C)
      year Scenario_A Scenario_B Scenario_C
      ...
      2015 1.262 1.000 .647
      ...


      The 'Global Station Temperature Index' Anomalies are base-lined at 1951-1980.
      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt:
      GLOBAL Station Temperature Index in degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
      sources: GHCN-v3 1880-10/2016 (meteorological stations only)
      using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
      Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing

      AnnMeanYear
      ... J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON
      ...
      2015 ... .99 .96 1.02 .93 .81 1.07
      ...


      (During 2015-16, temperatures were raised by a 'Very Strong' El Nino.)

      Delete
    4. I don't get what you're trying to say, Bob. The baselines are the same. It looks to me that the scenarios are against observations in Hansen et al 1988, which are presented as anomalies from the 1951-1980 mean. (See the caption under Figure 3.)

      More at realclimate.org and at Nick Stokes blog - from last year and just a couple of days ag.

      Delete
    5. @ Sou

      "I don't get what you're trying to say, Bob. The baselines are the same....(See the caption under Figure 3.)"

      Which states:The zero point for observations is the 1951-1980 mean.
      The zero point for the model is the control run mean.

      The Control Run was a 100 year run with the presumed forcings of 1958.
      [My typo correction was, apparently, incorrect, and my original post, correct.
      But, hey, even Gavin wrote "These experiments were started from a control run with 1959 conditions"]

      Consequently, the GISS and 'Scenario B' anomaly values for any year cannot be compared.


      "More at realclimate.org and at Nick Stokes blog - from last year"

      Been there, done that. The Blackboard, too.


      "and just a couple of days ago."

      Great, that graph works for me now.

      Delete
    6. I replied.
      But, as usual, it has disappeared.

      Read Hansen's 1988 paper.

      Carefully.

      Funny site.

      Delete
    7. All that tells me is that you don't understand climate models, Bob. Hansen compared them and so did lots of other people.

      (I don't know why deniers spend so much time talking about old models, and don't consider the latest ones, which are a lot more sophisticated than the early ones. Particularly when they don't seem to have much (any) understanding of climate, let alone climate modeling. There are a lot better worldwide temperature observations now than there were 30 years ago, and a much deeper and broader understanding of the intricacies of climate and weather now, too.)

      Delete
    8. lol, they are still fighting yesterdays battles

      Delete
    9. It's all moot anyway, Sou, since the actual forcings are actually slightly below Hansen's scenario B. People who still compare it to scenario A are either not paying attention, or willfully disingenuous.

      Delete
  18. A damming verdict on the current state of US politics, but actually Trump is better than Cruz be a long shot

    Trump maybe a cheap snake oil salesman but deep down he does not believe some of what he is selling

    Cruz is a 100% believer with the certainty that can only come from religious crackpots

    And that is scary,

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'll ignore the ignorant trolls, who are resorting to insults, the tactic of the intellectually challenged and morally barren, and respond to Anonymous.

    Firstly, no doubt influenced by others in this thread, you're misunderstanding what I said, putting words in my mouth, and becoming aggressive. I didn't say areas of anomalously low pH and correspondingly low aragonite don't exist. They clearly do, in many places around the globe.

    "Again, undersaturated waters already exist. I'm curious as to why you think we should expand these areas."

    Why I think what? Are you losing the plot? I didn't mention such areas at all, so I couldn't have said or implied such nonsense.

    You're missing the point entirely. What I was trying to explain, is that in areas with lower aragonite, small shelled sea-creatures won't develop thicker shells which will later "dissolve". They'll have thinner shells from the start, corresponding to the aragonite present. If aragonite levels reduce over time, subsequent generations will exhibit thinner shells. Individual fauna won't live long enough to see what amounts to a change big enough to harm them. Any effects on individual species will be gradual. Except in poorly designed lab experiments of course.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You're missing the point entirely.

    No, you are. Or more precisely, you are dodging it. Warm the ocean and shift its pH with unprecedented rapidity and there will be a widespread extinction of marine biota.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why is it that the poor downtrodden rural folk accurately understand exactly what's messed up about the government... then vote for the party that wants to make it *more* like that.

    Choice: one candidate grew up middle class and has become rich; the other grew up rich and managed to stay that way despite driving companies into the ground. Twice now, clearly the one who was born rich is the one who understands the rural middle class.

    One candidate wants to "bomb the [expletive] out of them" and has a party that's experienced at that; and the other wants to build strong alliances and has a party that's executed on that. The people vote for the former because they're worried the latter will get them involved in wars.

    On banks: one party fights tooth and nail to regulate banks; the other fights to deregulate them. The people vote for the latter party because they're worried the banks are too powerful.

    And on and on. Other than hating on immigrants and muslims, all the things that supposedly worry the middle class and poor Trump voter are priorities the Democratic Party is in favor of fighting for -- and the GOP has a long track record of fighting against!

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ Millicent

    The Scenario put to jp and Jammy Dodger was that of a 15 yo girl and a medical specialist, an authority, whose expertise is questioned:
    "A medical specialist diagnoses a 15 yo girl's health issue, and prescribes a course of treatment.
    Reading the prescription, the girl tells the specialist that two of the drugs are contraindicated.
    She is evidently sceptical of his expertise."

    The question put was:
    "What are the chances of a happy ending to that scenario?
    Would a specialist accept contradiction from a patient merely because she has been 'genuinely enquiring' with regard to her condition?"

    Your 'argument':
    "If she then runs off to a new age healer or similar fraud then virtually nil."
    is a non sequitur because it does not address the question asked.

    Merely wandering out of the given Scenario and off into a supposition of the kind of treatment the girl might seek and how that would end badly is hardly an 'argument'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm sure I'll be thanking Russell Cook for obstructing climate action when my Florida home is under water.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It turns turkeys do vote for chtistmass

    ReplyDelete
  25. Now you are just wittering.

    Where's the scientifically-supported argument that you were asked for? Not got one? Then you have no argument (which is obvious btw). Time to go.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well first off your analogy is a stupid one because the planet does not come with a prescription written down for us all to read. Shifting the analogy to one where the conflict is between that of a specialist and a quack is accurate, the quacks of course being various tobacco scientists recycled as climate scientists and 'citizen scientists' who don't even make the grade as rational beings.

    But I will forgive that because I recognise that given the faulty position you have to defend you are clutching at straws. But the analogy fails because the specialist is probably correct. Prescriptions will list all manner of 'side effects' which have to be gauged against the medical history and condition of the patient. A 15 year old is not in the position to do that.

    But hey, at least this time you managed to write something that merited a response rather than derision.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Sou

    Is anybody else having problems with seeing postings on this thread? Or is Sou deleting stuff that is deemed unsuitable? I have tried clearing my browser cache but I still cannot see stuff I have posted and, for example, this one from Millicent at 16:20.

    "Well first off your analogy is a stupid one because the planet does not come with a prescription written down for us all to read. ..."

    It makes it all a bit disjointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The page seemed to revert to an earlier version at one point but I can now see the posts that went AWOL agin.

      Delete
    2. No, I've not been deleting any comments. When the thread got this long in the past, some people had similar problems of not seeing all the comments straight away. Blame Hillary :)

      Delete
    3. If you click on the link from the 'recent comments' panel to find this one - you won't! Because, thanks to evil WarHawk Hillary Rodham Clinton (May President Caligula Punish her Unrighteousness in Perpetuity!) blogger has reached its limit in coping with a comment thread. It's a conspiracy! But it probably isn't...

      Delete
    4. @ Millicennt

      "Well first off your analogy is a stupid one because the planet does not come with a prescription written down for us all to read."

      Well, first off, it is a scenario, not an analogy.


      "But the analogy fails because the specialist is probably correct."

      Then the scenario doesn't fail, because 'probably' does not mean 'always'.


      "Prescriptions will list all manner of 'side effects' which have to be gauged against the medical history and condition of the patient.

      A 15 year old is not in the position to do that. "

      Why? An intelligent 15 yo can research and understand their condition, medical history, and treatments sufficiently to know when drugs are contra-indicated.

      Doesn't make them as knowledgeable as a doctor. But it does offer a level of protection if the pharmacist doesn't spot the error.

      Delete
  28. @ Bellman
    "This is getting confusing."
    I apologise. I was trying to address the "How does she know?" question.

    Her reference to contraindication would either trigger his memory, or he would refer to an appropriate source and either refute or confirm her claim.

    The child with an allergy is not exhibiting scepticism of his expertise, merely informing him of something of which he was not aware.


    "If he knows she's right he should. "
    And writes a new prescription, true.
    But :
    "What are the chances of a happy ending to that scenario?
    Would a specialist accept contradiction from a patient merely because she has been 'genuinely enquiring' with regard to her condition?"

    So, does he :
    - Tell her that she is wrong, but to set her mind at rest he is prescribing an alternative treatment;
    - Congratulate her for being so well informed, and thank her for bringing his error to his attention?

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ NoNotThatBob

    "Tell her that she is wrong, but to set her mind at rest he is prescribing an alternative treatment"

    Why would he do that? He knows she's right - if he tries to persuade her she's wrong he risks her going with the original prescription with serious repercussions for both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I thought it was me.
    Disappearing posts!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Still wittering.

    No evidence-based scientific argument, just noise.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As these trace gasses have not been reduced since 1988, we should find the actual anomalies are up there with Scenario A, or at worst B. 

    Currently, however HADCRUT4 and GISS are each closer to Scenario C - drastically reduced trace gasses.

    Either Hansen displayed a limited grasp of atmospheric physics, or he lied to Congress.


    Hansen's grasp of atmospheric physics was state of the art three decades ago and probably still is today. He used an early version of the GISS climate model; this had a climate sensitivity of about 4C (for doubled CO2), work done in the intervening years has improved our estimates, and the modern value is nearer 3C, so if our estimate is good, one would expect the 1988 projections to overshoot reality.

    But shall we look at the data? The projections can be found here

    http://www.realclimate.org/data/scen_ABC_temp.data

    The projection for 2015 under Hansen's 'most plausible' Scenario B was 1.00. The actual number from GISS was 0.99C.

    Not so shabby, and certainly good enough to make talk of 'lying' or incompetence look very silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he has even been sworn in yet and he has broken the internet !!!!

      Delete
  33. @ Bellman

    "An hypothesis that is 'correct' (i.e., it has been verified to be true), is a theory. And indeed, that usually results in most scientists supporting it."

    "That's not at all true."
    I'm afraid it is.
    Of course, before verification a true hypothesis is correct, and a false hypothesis is incorrect.

    However, until put to the test and verified, you cannot, scientifically, accept or refute either.

    "a theory can prove to be wrong."
    They can indeed.
    Most scientific 'Theories' shown to be wrong could not be verified at the time of their promulgation, and were thus actually Hypotheses.


    "But it doesn't really matter to my argument."
    Which was:
    "The number of scientists supporting a hypothesis does not cause a hypothesis to be correct, but you should expect a hypothesis that is correct to result in more scientists supporting it."

    "The number of scientists supporting a hypothesis does not cause that hypothesis to be correct."
    True and thee corollary of which is:
    "The number of scientists not supporting a hypothesis does not cause that hypothesis to be incorrect."

    "You should expect a hypothesis that is correct (i.e., a THEORY) to result in more scientists supporting it."
    I do, and I also expect an hypothesis that pays good money to those who research it, to result in more scientists supporting it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I also expect an hypothesis that pays good money to those who research it, to result in more scientists supporting it."

    Now there is something we can agree on. The people at the George Marshall Institute were prolific in their creation of hypotheses for first the tobacco industry and then the fossil fuel industry. The failure of their hypotheses to pass the test and progress to theories was notable.

    And those are the guys whose side you are on.

    ReplyDelete
  35. That CO2 is an effective climate forcing is not a hypothesis. There's enough evidence from palaeoclimate behaviour, the observational record and modelling to counter that gambit.

    I keep asking you to provide an evidence-based, scientifically-supported counter argument and you haven't done so. Which we both know means that you can't.


    ReplyDelete
  36. For a democracy to be successful, the electorate must be well informed. I give you America, where keeping up with the Kardashians is seemingly more important than keeping up with anything of actual substance.

    ReplyDelete
  37. SurvivalAcres buys into wacky conspiracy theories. Yes, he or she could well be a birther, a 911 truther, thinks NASA faked the moon landing, that HAARP and 'chemtrails' are used for mind control, that Diana was murdered and isn't dead, or all of these.

    Of course if the HAARP/'chemtrail' conspiracy theory is true, then that could be what's causing SurvivalAcres to "believe" wacky conspiracy theories :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. "I do, and I also expect an hypothesis that pays good money to those who research it, to result in more scientists supporting it"

    Millions could be earned by the scientist that shows CO2 doesn't do anything, or extremely little. The fossil fuel industry will gladly pay that person lots and lots of money, and the scientific community will give out a Nobel prize for this amazing new finding.

    NoNotThatBob completely ignores that in many countries in the world there is no money to be obtained by 'supporting' AGW. And yet, also there scientists agree.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Millions could be earned by the scientist that shows CO2 doesn't do anything, or extremely little. The fossil fuel industry will gladly pay that person lots and lots of money, and the scientific community will give out a Nobel prize for this amazing new finding."

    Yes, and furthermore they had a golden opportunity, didn't they? at ....EXXON

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Survival Acres

    Fairly sure the system has lost a post. So apologies if I am repeating this.

    You have not answered the question on whether you believe Obama was born in the USA. Perhaps you detected the trap and decided that venturing into that swamp was not a good idea.

    My point being that if you do believe it then I could just accuse you of not looking hard enough. If only you would look harder and longer at every crackpot idea on the internet you would come to the truth.

    If you do believe he was born in the USA then I could just give you 20 hours of crackpot videos to wade through. I would understand why you might decline the offer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Either Hansen displayed a limited grasp of atmospheric physics, or he lied to Congress.

    Or, mystery option C, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Up until recently, net radiative forcing tracked Hansen's scenario C pretty closely; now, it's somewhere between C and B. Exactly like temperature. Hansen was bang on target.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "I do, and I also expect an hypothesis that pays good money to those who research it, to result in more scientists supporting it."

    Perhaps - I'm sure there are scientists who are prepared to lie for money, they're only human after all. But it's difficult to see how this could result in most scientists coming to the same conclusion.

    If we are talking about climate scientists, who would be giving them so much money to be prepared to risk being exposed as frauds. If anything there are vested interests who would be paying for them to refute global warming. Coal and oil companies and governments.

    Given who's going to be the next president it will be interesting to see if there will be a widespread change in scientific opinion if the US government start offering financial inducements to find evidence against global warming.

    ReplyDelete
  43. As a scientist myself, I have tried to cause some paradigm shifts. Sadly, in all but one cases I merely found myself confirming that the prevailing opinion was a much better explanation. In the single case where it wasn't, praise was my prize.

    Trying to get funding by saying you are going to just do what everyone else is doing is like throwing small pebbles in the ocean: nothing is happening, other than a brief wrinkle on the surface. You get funding by showing something new. In other words, the current system already strongly supports those who came with truly novel ideas. They just need a solid ground to stand on first, and so far those who try to disprove AGW often start with long-debunked arguments as their basis.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Depends on whether it is a relative contraindication or an absolute contraindication. Don’t know the context of the 15 year-old patient contradicting a specialist e.g. Is she pregnant and has an acne condition? These days, it's difficult to make combination prescription errors, etc. given pharmaceutical companies provide doctors (and pharmacists) with computer software that detect problems with combinations of medications and dosages, etc.
    "What are the chances of a happy ending to that scenario?" Pretty good if the benefits outweigh the risks.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Wilders is slowly and very calculatingly escalating. And he has a serious chance to win next year's elections imo.

    ReplyDelete
  46. True, too, Marco - always a coalition here. Also perhaps the Flemish way of 'cordon sanitaire' might be adopted, though not openly.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I can't speak for others, but in my mind these are not secondary matters. We Americans have just elected an emotionally volatile man who panders to the very worst of human instincts in his followers to our highest public office. He, and he alone is authorized to order nuclear strikes. Call that alarmism on my part if you wish, but even large-scale conventional war could kill millions in a matter of weeks. There's no such thing as mitigating bombs, or possibly adapting to lethal doses of radiation once they've been released.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "It turns turkeys do vote for chtistmass"

    They do when Rupert Murdoch tells them they will have a wonderful time.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You know, before the election about half the left, which I now refer to as the Alt-Left, in honour of their Alt-Right allies, were enthusiastically effectively campaigning for Trump, and generally carrying on as if the candidate that didn't want to deport anywhere between 2 and 11 million Mexicans, ban about a 5th of the global population from entering the country, encourage violence against those protesting their policies, and threaten to jail their opponent upon assuming office, was the 'fascist'.

    They'll now get at least four long years to appreciate the wisdom of the adages 'be careful what you wish for', 'my enemy's enemy is *not* my friend*, and 'never let the perfect become the enemy of the good'.

    Now a substantial chunk of the remaining, 'sane' left, is indulging in a nauseatingly servile revisionist normalization of both Trump and Trumpism. Jeebus!

    I'm with John Oliver: 'A Klan-backed misogynist internet troll is president'. Not to mention climate-change, ecology and science-denying kook and fiscal incompetent. If people cannot identify *this guy* as an enemy, and never forget it, we are simply going to freefall into the Collapse...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Heh, poor Sou.

    It's over, you're going to have to find a new quasi-religious belief to evangelise,

    Would you like a tissue?

    Or possibly you could get someone to slip you a 'Hot Whopper'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Walker you have just proved incontrovertibly what a very nice person you are. A fundamentalist person who projects his crazy beliefs and fantasies on others including an obsession with euphemisms for the lack of your own inadequacy. Bert

      Delete
    2. Bert, David's not the first denier to talk about his HW fantasies :(

      Delete
    3. Sou I think it is called one handed internet surfing. In communication terms, full positive feedback. Bert

      Delete
    4. @ Bert

      lol, made me chuckle, so true

      more projection from the deniers

      Delete
  51. 'People who understood the risk of Trump/GOP control stayed in their towers when they should have been out screaming their heads off before the election.'

    They were rather silenced. By allies. By people who kept thinking that diplomacy and discussion would bar thuggery.

    In hindsight I should have treated this as a game. It's easier to sigh 'game over' than the real thing. Planet over.


    ReplyDelete
  52. "Any effects on individual species will be gradual."

    You're confusing absolute changes in individual carbonate structures, assuming a pre-acidification baseline, with temporal population impacts.

    Apples and pineapples.

    ReplyDelete
  53. jqb, because the USA is less important than you think. It is just 16% of CO2 emissions. We have to get to zero by 2050. Thus 4 years of Trump would just be a few % delay. More important is that there will be somewhat fair elections in 4 years to get rid of him. Large wars to distract from his incompetence and rally support are also not fun.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ Marco

    My apologies for the tardy response, just too busy to do anything on-line but answer e-mails.
    I very seldom comment on blogs, and I am surprised at the number (and nature) of the responses I have aroused.
    However, 'rain stopped play' has opened a slot today. so here goes.

    No, I am not going to apologize to Dr. Hansen, what I said was:
    "Either Hansen displayed a limited grasp of atmospheric physics, or he lied to Congress."
    He lied to Congress. The paper he presented was written as a Climate Activist.

    Scenario A is described as 'Business as Usual' - untrue. It is driven by an exponential forcing deliberately skewed to warming by the inclusion of a Trace Gasses Forcing (warming), and the omission of the Volcanic Forcing (cooling).

    Result: 'Business as Usual' equates to "Doomsday".

    Scenarios B and C had no Trace Gasses Forcing and included Volcanic Forcing, thus running cooler.

    Hansen did indeed say that Scenario B was the "most plausible", but that the actual forcing would lie between the A and B.
    However, it was the scary Scenario A that got the air time.


    "... scenario A actually had *lots* of GHGs increasing, while in reality, because of actions to reduce certain GHG emissions, they didn't."

    Yes, it certainly did have 'lots' of GHGs, CFCs and halons are decreasing, but HCFCs and HFCs are stepping into the breach. The net radiative forcing of these gasses remains virtually constant (AGGI 2015).


    Real Climate.
    I followed Tamino's link to Real Climate. Gavin's post on Hansen's 1988 presentation and paper looked familiar, must have read it circa the 2009 brouhaha.

    Gavin gave a concise description of Hansen's Scenarios:
    "Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards."

    He then recalculated an Actual Forcing from current emission data, etc. It follows Scenario B pretty closely. well enough for Gavin to conclude:
    "Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected."


    Compare and contrast::"Scenario B has decreasing rates of GHG growth rates such that the annual increase of the Greenhouse Climate Forcing remains approximately constant at the current level." (Hansen 1988)
    "Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings" (Gavin 2007)

    The annual increase of the Greenhouse Climate Forcing was approximately constant at the 1988 level through 2015. (AGGI 2015).
    Other than the lack of decreasing GHG growth rates, the Actual Scenario is similar to Scenario B in that it generates a 'roughly' linear increase in the Actual Forcing.


    Tamino
    Hadn't seen Tamino's post, but by 2014 I was 'well fed up' with the bickering of 'believers' and 'deniers'.

    Tamino adopts Gavin's approach, but does not provide as much detailed information.

    Compare and contrast:
    "Scenario C drastically reduces GHG growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the Greenhouse Climate Forcing ceases to increase after 2000." (Hansen 1988)
    "Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards." (Gavin 2007)

    Again, the annual increase of the Greenhouse Climate Forcing was approximately constant at the 1988 level through to 2015 and there was no drastic reduction in GHG growth between 1990 and 2000. (AGGI 2015)

    The Actual Scenario is thus nothing like Scenario C, so any resemblance between the Climate Forcing of each appears to me to be merely fortuitous.

    Footnote
    Taking the forcing at Year 2000:
    2007 - Gavin has ~0.8 Watts per square meter;
    2014 - Tamino has ~0.5 Watts per square meter.

    I look forward to the 2021 edition of "Hansen’s 1988 Predictions".

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ BBD

    My apologies for the tardy response, just too busy to do anything on-line but answer e-mails.
    I very seldom comment on blogs, and I am surprised at the number (and nature) of the responses I have aroused.
    However, 'rain stopped play' has opened a slot today. so here goes.


    "As Marco points out, you haven't understood the detail of Hansen's ABC scenarios"
    I have posted my response to Marco.


    "and have therefore fallen prey to online misinformers.".

    When I drink hair restorer, I follow it with a swig of depilatory.
    I.E., If you read Climate Audit, you should read Real Climate, and vice-versa.


    "This leaves us with you freely admitting that you don't know what you are talking about"

    So not being a Climate Scientist implies that one knows nothing about Climate Science.
    Gee,who knew?


    "provide a scientifically-supported argument"

    Firstly, I would have to determine each scientist's competence.
    And when I establish that and have selected a paper, you will tell me that I have fallen prey to misinforming scientists, because their argument would undermines your politically-motivated conformity.

    Again, in order to determine an expert's competence when you have little or no knowledge of their subject:
    1. Choose a paper in which the expert has made an observable prediction;
    2. Determine whether that prediction has indeed been fulfilled.
    Repeat, until you are confident.

    I chose Hansen 1988 because every climate believer/denier has heard of it.
    The paper was politically motivated not pure science.
    Its predictions (projections, if you will) were wrong.


    .to bolster your politically-motivated contrarianism.

    You know me so well - not.

    ReplyDelete
  56. When I drink hair restorer, I follow it with a swig of depilatory.
    I.E., If you read Climate Audit, you should read Real Climate, and vice-versa.


    That's a rather silly false equivalence. CA is a conspiracy blog run by a non-scientist who gets most of what he says wrong.

    Firstly, I would have to determine each scientist's competence.

    But you couldn't. You've already admitted that. This is called 'impossible standards' and is a rhetoric of avoidance.

    And when I establish that and have selected a paper, you will tell me that I have fallen prey to misinforming scientists, because their argument would undermines your politically-motivated conformity.

    Accepting the scientific consensus is not a political act, it is a rational one. Denying it from a position of relative ignorance is a political act. Again, more twisted nonsense.

    I chose Hansen 1988 because every climate believer/denier has heard of it.
    The paper was politically motivated not pure science.
    Its predictions (projections, if you will) were wrong.


    A misrepresentation already dealt with.

    You know me so well - not.

    You've admitted that you don't know what you are talking about so establishing that your contrarian rhetoric is not based on any scientific argument. This leaves politics. Pity you lack the strength of character to stand by your political convictions instead of hiding behind all this obfuscatory waffle.


    ReplyDelete
  57. @ Millicent

    My apologies for the tardy response, just too busy to do anything on-line but answer e-mails.
    I very seldom comment on blogs, and I am surprised at the number (and nature) of the responses I have aroused.
    However, 'rain stopped play' has opened a slot today. so here goes.


    "Actually what is clear is that he 'never chose a paper' at all. Did he really - out of 1000s of papers to choose from pick one that - by a miracle - is routinely misrepresented by climate change deniers?"

    Well, obviously I chose the first incorrect Paper that came to mind. Hansen 1988 is the most Famous/Notorious, even you have heard of it.


    "Obviously not: he just went over to some denialist website which happened to be parroting crap about Hansen's paper and mindlessly lapped it up."

    I read it when I got involved with monitoring the Carbon Footprint of our Plant and Transport Division. Around 2004/5.

    Those interested in 'Global Warming' used to talk about it, so I read it.


    "So to add to his mental incompetence we can add the obvious conclusion that he is also a liar."

    Sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well, obviously I chose the first incorrect Paper that came to mind. Hansen 1988 is the most Famous/Notorious, even you have heard of it.

    This nonsense has gone on long enough.

    From memory, Hansen88 used a model with a sensitivity of >4C* per doubling which means that although actual forcing change post-1988 was roughly in line with Scenario B observed warming is closer to Scenario C. And that's it.

    Only contrarians think that pointing to an obsolete modelling scenario from decades ago somehow undermines the scientific consensus on AGW. It doesn't. It makes absolutely no difference at all. You shouldn't pay attention to misinformers like Pat Michaels or you will get muddled up.

    Sensitivity is not parameterised in modern AOGCMs; it is an emergent property of model physics. IIRC GISS Model E has a sensitivity of ~2.7C, well below that of the model used in 1988.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ Marco

    "I expect an hypothesis that pays good money to those who research it, to result in more scientists supporting it."

    Was a sardonic remark.


    "Millions could be earned by the scientist that shows CO2 doesn't do anything, or extremely little.
    The fossil fuel industry will gladly pay that person lots and lots of money, and the scientific community will give out a Nobel prize for this amazing new finding."

    I doubt that. The properties of CO2 are not seriously questioned, surely.

    As I understand it, it is the complexity of the climate systems that requires to be researched.

    (Hence the attempt to lure competent Physicists and Mathematicians from astrophysics.)


    "NoNotThatBob completely ignores that in many countries in the world there is no money to be obtained by 'supporting' AGW. And yet, also there scientists agree."

    So? Most scientists world wide, whether paid to or not, 'support' the AGW hypothesis.
    We are living the experiment that will determine whether it is true.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "I read it when I got involved with..."

    What a load of nonsense. And the next day you went on an Apollo mission. The day after that you married Miss World.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @BBD If you read Real Climate you should read StoryNory.com for some 'balance'.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @NotThatBob

    It would probably help if you could maintain the same story. Originally you were interested in the scientist and chose that paper to determine his competence.

    Now you tell us that you read it because people were talking about that paper.

    "Liar, liar pants on fire" would appear to be the appropriate expression at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @ Millicent

    "What a load of nonsense. And the next day you went on an Apollo mission. The day after that you married Miss World."

    What on earth are you bleating about now?

    When I am discussing work, I might say 'our car park', 'our HR department', 'my manager', etc.
    Have done so all my working life.

    Until you, no one has ever interpreted this as meaning that:
    - My vast estate offers parking facilities;
    - I have numerous household personnel that require managing;
    - I have someone who markets my talent to film and recording companies, and arranges gigs.
    No, they have all understood that the car park, HR department, etc., were those of the company I worked for, and that the manager was my boss.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.