The temperatures in a single year can hardly be used as evidence of anything - for or against.
Possibly. But it doesn't quite follow from anything you mentioned.
Evidence in favour vs evidence against
- Thread starter El_Machinae
- Start date
The temperatures in a single year can hardly be used as evidence of anything - for or against.
Possibly. But it doesn't quite follow from anything you mentioned.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I wonder sometimes if you're able to change your mind on this. Is there any possible evidence that would convince you humans are heating up the planet?
tokala
Emperor
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Oh, don't worry, the evidence that I've seen repeatedly has me convinced.
But why doesn't it convince everyone? And why does no-one (convinced or otherwise, and including me) do nothing about it?
(I've a good idea why I don't: it's because I really can't be arsed, I hate feeling cold in winter, and I like the convenience of driving about in my car.)
But why doesn't it convince everyone? And why does no-one (convinced or otherwise, and including me) do nothing about it?
(I've a good idea why I don't: it's because I really can't be arsed, I hate feeling cold in winter, and I like the convenience of driving about in my car.)
Mise
isle of lucy
I think when you say "evidence in favour" and "evidence against", what you mean is "data points that are predicted by the standard models of climate" vs "data that does not fit the model" or "data that would require us to change our models in such a way that AGW is thrown into doubt". So when you look at record-breaking years, you're saying "is evidence of AGW", but what you really mean is "this data is predicted by the standard models". Meanwhile, when you say that an unusually cold year "is not evidence against AGW", what you mean is "this data is still predicted by the standard models".
I think the cognitive bias is actually cognitive dissonance, if anything. You have this hunch, that the data doesn't invalidate AGW, and you assume that the existence of this hunch implies "good evidence" or "bad evidence". After all, that's the only thing you can think of right now to explain why you have this hunch. It must be bad evidence, or else you would be wrong to have the hunch. In fact, the hunch is more subtle than that: it's "fits model" or "doesn't fit model". Both record breaking years and non-record breaking fit the model for climate change just fine, and that model predicts AGW. So neither set of data should change our minds. Only data that doesn't fit the model should make us question whether the model is accurate. I believe that this is what you're trying to articulate, except because your mind has gone to "evidence" instead of "fits model", you're questioning your entire thought process. Your thought process is flawed if you're talking about evidence, but if you're trying to figure out whether or not the data fits a model, it makes perfect sense.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
At some point, it's going to be irrelevant what's causing climate change compared to what can be done to offset it. The worst case scenario is that human impact is minimal-to-modest but it's still warming towards dangerous/irreversible levels, because that would require a lot more than emissions standards.
It's hard to sift through all the garbage on this topic. The stuff I've tried to read on it is worse than articles on medicine or even on health/diet. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.
tokala
Emperor
You could try to start here or here, there are a few decent articles on realclimate, or even a introductionary book on the topic.
I disagree, as I'm convinced by the evidence we have already that humans are the cause of most of the warming we've been seeing in the last half-century.
The science is sound, the data is solid, the conclusion follows.
Even the so-called pause in average temperature rise early this century may not be real:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/
The science is sound, the data is solid, the conclusion follows.
Even the so-called pause in average temperature rise early this century may not be real:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/
Well, there was a 'pause' in some places we were measuring. It's not like the total heat didn't stop rising!
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,987
0.6 W/m² - What NASA says the 10 year average surplus is in Earth's Energy budget.
x 510 x1E12 - Approximate area of Earth's surface
x 86400 - Seconds in a day
x 365 - Days in a year
x 10 - Years
-----------------
9.65 x1E22 - 10 year change in energy.
Sorry about the no sourcing. Just typing in very quickly. Already had the discussion here months ago with Tokala.
Where the energy change comes from is up to you to conclude. The slope of the line in the graph quoted does not seem to capture all of it. It looks like about half.
In that terms, it becomes clear that the mean temperature of a single year can never be evidence for anything. A single data point fits any model that includes some variance. Some models are made more unlikely, but it could always be an extreme outlier. To decide whether some data fits a model, you always need multiple data points and even then certainty is only reached in the limit of infinite data points.
The only thing a single data point can do is to push the probability of a model being right or wrong over an arbitrary threshold that I set for myself for believing in a model. And for that purpose, a data point that sits exactly on the models prediction is much more likely to lead to acceptance of a model than a data point that would have to be an outlier.
tokala
Emperor
I cannot see the problem here
You calculate a expected heat content increase of ~1E22J per year for the last years, and the slope of the ocean heat content figure is pretty close to that value for the last 20 years or so.
Some recent paper on that topic:
classical_hero
In whom I trust
UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming
From May 2007.
From May 2007.
If this was a warning about the rapture, then it would be laughed off and yet we keep hearing of such doomsday scenarios nearly every year and yet not one has come to pass yet. The bit in bold shows we're not dealing with science but instead we are dealing with politics, because such language should never be found in scientific literature if you are making a definitive proclamation like we see here. How many more failed predictions do w need befre this nonsense stops?
What was the failed prediction?
