07-25-2019, 10:01 PM
It's not that the actual science is garbage, or that it reflects the alarmism frequently thrown about in media and politics. For the most part, it doesn't. But the more you dig, the more you'll realize there's a massive disconnect between what is reported in the media and the actual certainty, issues and challenges that the field is trying to address. And the field definitely has an issue anchoring to suspect assumptions, and more problematically tunnel vision.
A few other observations which people may find surprising and informative when reading alarmist claims blaming everything under the sun [no pun intended] on climate change:
• Most of the warming is occurring in the northern 1/2 of the northern hemisphere, at night, and in the winter. So contrary to “hot getting hotter!”, the rise in average temperature is mainly being driven by higher lows. Should make people skeptical of blaming extreme weather on climate change (spoiler alert – there’s no proof of that). Meanwhile, extreme temps all over the planet continue to be blamed on climate change even when the data says otherwise.
• The most frequent cited statistic is we’ve had about 1 degree of warming over the past century. This is surface temps. Again, the troposphere temps are warming only 60-70% as fast – it’s supposed to warm FASTER [more], because that’s where the CO2 goes and that’s where your greenhouse effect starts. The difference is probably still man-made, just not due to CO2. Sure, you can find plenty of “science” attempting to explain why their assumptions weren’t wrong. But as some point you need to question if defending a failed assumption isn’t actually science turned upside down.
• The “pause” in warming went away with an unusually warm El Nino in 2015/16. There is otherwise no warming over the past 20 years. Again, this is problematic for high ECS values….and/or problematic for the assumption all forcing mechanisms other than CO2 are unchanging.
• Came across this article the other day and the below quote really struck me as appropriate. Just substitute “climate change” for “nutrition”:
https://undark.org/2019/07/18/science-of-eggs/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
“Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”
A few other observations which people may find surprising and informative when reading alarmist claims blaming everything under the sun [no pun intended] on climate change:
• Most of the warming is occurring in the northern 1/2 of the northern hemisphere, at night, and in the winter. So contrary to “hot getting hotter!”, the rise in average temperature is mainly being driven by higher lows. Should make people skeptical of blaming extreme weather on climate change (spoiler alert – there’s no proof of that). Meanwhile, extreme temps all over the planet continue to be blamed on climate change even when the data says otherwise.
• The most frequent cited statistic is we’ve had about 1 degree of warming over the past century. This is surface temps. Again, the troposphere temps are warming only 60-70% as fast – it’s supposed to warm FASTER [more], because that’s where the CO2 goes and that’s where your greenhouse effect starts. The difference is probably still man-made, just not due to CO2. Sure, you can find plenty of “science” attempting to explain why their assumptions weren’t wrong. But as some point you need to question if defending a failed assumption isn’t actually science turned upside down.
• The “pause” in warming went away with an unusually warm El Nino in 2015/16. There is otherwise no warming over the past 20 years. Again, this is problematic for high ECS values….and/or problematic for the assumption all forcing mechanisms other than CO2 are unchanging.
• Came across this article the other day and the below quote really struck me as appropriate. Just substitute “climate change” for “nutrition”:
https://undark.org/2019/07/18/science-of-eggs/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
“Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”
--------------------------------------------------------
