I invite everybody to watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY
A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.
A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.
John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%.
It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.
A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
There was no scientific misconduct there, only climate denialists taking messages out of context. Even then you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see anything into it.
I don't think anyone ever stashed (or could stash) a whole century of research into a single Github repository, but around 95% of what you seek is out there.
For the data source I would start with the Global Historical Climatology Network (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access).
And if this is such an important issue, and so many people remain to be convinced, wouldn't it behoove researchers to make their research as transparent, clear and reproducible as possible? Seems that can only help the debate move forward in a productive manner.
UPDATE: I followed your link, and things that stand out to me:
- Images showing station concentration shows only in fairly recent history that stations are global. Before then they're mostly concentrated in the US and Europe, and the station data only goes back to the mid 1800s, and is pretty sparse up until the last few decades. It is unclear how such sparse temperature data can give us a clear understanding of how world temperatures have changed over the past few centuries due to industrialization.
- The unfiltered 'all' category is not easily accessible. I'd either have to download a whopping 2.9G tar, or visit the directory that does not seem to load very quickly. I'm thinking it is just a flat dump of the files without hierarchical organization, so FTP tries to fetch everything.
- The accessible 'yearly' category readme.txt states the data is not raw, but 'merged together' and subjected to 'quality assurance review' just like the monthly counterpart, which I assume is the 'all' category. So, even if I did download the 2.9G tar, I cannot get the raw readings from the ground stations.
This is the sort of lack of clarity and transparency that does not improve the skeptic's perception on the matter.
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...
I am pretty sure that if you looked at North Korea today, you could find some weird scientific national consensus, which obviously does not mean anything.
It seems to be the consensus of a portion of the scientific establishment, which is certainly not representative of the whole world.
And, if, for sake of argument, we grant this scientific consensus represents the perspective of the world, it still does not follow this somehow precludes faulty reasoning and groupthink. "Science" is not a magic wand that automatically eliminates the normal sources of human bias, especially as recent news illustrates the rampant fraud and unreproducible results in the scientific establishment.
One can admit to degrees of model uncertainty without insinuating that climate change is a matter of opinion.
You talk about the russian roulette with climate, but the issue is far more complicated. There are bunch of other russian roulettes to consider with policy and society. What if society needs carbon to run the economy and keep the jobs and peace? What if oil-dependent countries collapse and turn to war, terrorism or mass-migration? Those are substantial risks that can kill many people and affect the quality of life for the worse globally too. You see what happened in France when they raised the fuel tax. It's not hard to imagine some worse scenarios.
Did you listen when they agreed that proposed measures will not stop ocean water levels from rising? Did you listen to the cost-benefit analysis and socio-economic impact? Why are you ignoring this point? You don't think it's important?
If climate models are as likely to undershoot then how do you explain that ALL the best models in consideration overshot the last 30 years and not a single model undershot? If it was just as likely shouldn't we be seeing some models undershooting?
Yes, every climate model overshot air warming leading up to 2014. But they also all undershot ocean warming. That's because, for some reason nobody understands, from 1998 to 2014 all the extra thermal energy caused by CO2 forcing went into the ocean. But since 2014 air temperatures have shot up very rapily and now we're back on the trend-line predicted by models.[1] But really, you could just as easily have argued that models were undershooting because they all predicted cooler oceans than we got. And Ocean warming is the important part for determining sea levels. Christy was dishonestly cherry picking stats to make it look like errors only go in one direction when really they go in both.
If all you know about the global warming debate is what was in that video I can see how you found it convincing but it's actually a very shallow treatment of the whole topic. It's really hard to get into depth in a video, that why so many of us are reluctant to watch them when someone links to one.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/med...
EDIT: And in the future, can you try summarizing things from a video like this you found persuasive rather than just telling people to watch the video? If you had mentioned the "Overshot for the last 30 years" thing it should have been immediately obvious to people who follow climate science what was happening and how you'd been mislead. Then I wouldn't have had to wade through an hour long video trying to figure out what you found persuasive in it. I'm generally reluctant to watch videos linked off of Hacker News because they usually aren't worth it and after this I think people are going to find it even harder to persuade me to do so without better evidence.
You can't just say Christy was dishonestly cherry-picking, because those data points are what was represented in the IPCC reports as concerning. They are the important data points that dictate the policy, not the undershooting data points. IPCC already cherry-picked these data points with the overshoot to raise the alarm.
Things I found persuasive? You are suggesting the the video represents only one side. This is a debate and both sides raised valid questions. You are exactly what they talked about when asked if they feel embarrassed by the tribal behaviour on either side.
The big picture seems pretty certain tho
i'm still to hear the "other side" of CO2 molecules absorption spectrum, specifically in infrared. 200 years and still no such "other side" ...
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
"Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. "
While CO2 promoters point out the fact that solar irradiance changes are relatively small over time, they ignore that those same irradiance changes correspond to changes in solar magnetism, which means changes in cosmic ray incidence on planetary atmospheres. It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation.
It's really not as clear cut as you have been taught.
The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent.
"It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation."
Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect in the real, present-day atmosphere is very tiny.
"Cosmic particles would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.”
"If clouds were affected by cosmic rays, they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed."
This work offers a new understanding of global particle
formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than
binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant
role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming
aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate
from nucleation
This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change.
The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This represents less than 10% (several per cent) of the total particle formation from nucleation, a major, but subdominant role. Nucleation (the creation of big enough particles) itself plays a 43% role, the rest is particles already in the atmosphere. So cosmic rays is less than 10% of 43%.
In any case if cosmic ray created aerosols would have such a large effect on clouds, so would other aerosols, such as those from air pollution.
Clouds themselves play a less than 10% role in climate change, so it's like 10% of the 10% (cosmic ray nucleation) of 43% (nucleation), as I said a tiny effect. Clouds also not just trap heat, but reflect sunlight back, cooling the planet.
As Ken Carslaw, one of the authors of the paper suggested: "It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important". https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-glob...
Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.
Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009.
See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment
Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground.
I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper. The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe.... Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim. The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02692.pdf
4 Conclusion
We have shown a strong correlation between solar and
tropospheric variability, in that swings from El Ni˜no
to La Ni˜na are related to the phase of the solar
cycle’s “fiducial clock,” and that that clock does not
run from the canonical solar minimum or maximum, but
instead resets when all old cycle flux is gone from the
solar disk. While the exact mechanism remains to be
elucidated, changes in cosmic ray flux appear to the be
the driver of these ENSO swings.
Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF
variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year
or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However,
should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO
swing then we must seriously consider the capability of
coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture
“step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth
connection is, with particular attention to the relationship
between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over
our oceans.They plan to establish causation by predicting ENSO changes based on solar activity, which is good. Once they do that, they will need to prove that cosmic rays are more important in cloud microphysics than the CERN CLOUD experiments suggests so far.
This is what real science is. Great find.