Solar ... In the news

zeupater

ed110220 wrote: »

I guess the more perceptive of the DM's editors and management realise there is only so much mileage in global warming denial given that it is a matter of scientific fact rather than opinion. Sooner or later those who's opinion is out of kilter with reality will have to adjust it to bring it back into line with reality or become cranks clinging to a fringe theory... much like the church eventually had to accept that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth and that the Earth isn't only six thousand years old.

They are probably thinking about how this U-turn can be performed with minimal loss of face.

Hi

It's probably just a temporary 'blip' in their editorial position ..

Anyway, concerning 'scientific fact rather than opinion' ... the IPCC publish everything as opinion, not fact ... that's what scientific consensus is - current opinion based on what the majority involved believe (consensus) to be the most relevant current research. As a result of different threads of research different theories can develop and therefore consensus has a habit of changing ...

In the 1970's, consensus, based on the research-based evidence available at the time, was that the earth was cooling and we were on the cusp of entering into another 'ice age'. The facts remain the same, but consensus performed a complete U-turn over a period of only 15-20 years ... strangely enough, that's pretty much the same timescale which is claimed as being irrelevant when considering the currently observed temperature stasis/cooling. Directly measured temperature is the only 'fact' which exists, anything else depends on a level of consensus .... for example deducing the level of atmospheric CO2 or past temperature records from ice core samples, clam shells, or tree-rings is just that - deduction, based on current consensus as opposed to 'fact'.

There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.

HTH
Z

Cardew

ed110220 wrote: »

I guess the more perceptive of the DM's editors and management realise there is only so much mileage in global warming denial given that it is a matter of scientific fact rather than opinion. Sooner or later those who's opinion is out of kilter with reality will have to adjust it to bring it back into line with reality or become cranks clinging to a fringe theory... .

zeupater above is absolutely correct. It is NOT a matter of scientific fact, but the current scientific consensus.

Many scientists have a vested interest to argue for and against the 'mankind causes global warming' just as they did about global cooling a couple of decades ago.

If indeed mankind is responsible, then the problems of the burning and destruction of the rain forests, and coal fired power stations opened almost daily in China/India need to be tackled head on. Instead of the self-congratulatory twaddle of those drawing their close to 50p/kWh subsidies.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In the 1970's, consensus, based on the research-based evidence available at the time, was that the earth was cooling and we were on the cusp of entering into another 'ice age'. The facts remain the same, but consensus performed a complete U-turn over a period of only 15-20 years ...

HTH
Z

Hiya Zeup, I thought this was just a common myth, perpetuated by the media? I understood that only a small minority of scientists suggested global cooling, and this view had little support in the wider scientific world.

I'm sure this is just one of those stories that won't go away, a bit like the common myth that there was a cabin boy called Roger in the TV series 'Captain Pugwash'.

Mart.

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

zeupater above is absolutely correct. It is NOT a matter of scientific fact, but the current scientific consensus.

Many scientists have a vested interest to argue for and against the 'mankind causes global warming' just as they did about global cooling a couple of decades ago.

If indeed mankind is responsible, then the problems of the burning and destruction of the rain forests, and coal fired power stations opened almost daily in China/India need to be tackled head on. Instead of the self-congratulatory twaddle of those drawing their close to 50p/kWh subsidies.

Whether or not the Earth is warming due to GHG emissions is a matter of fact not opinion. It either is or isn't. Unlike say whether politician X is better than politician Y, or popstar A is more glamorous than popstar B which are the matters of opinion that journalists are more used to dealing with.

When the vast majority of the world's scientists working in that field publish findings that point to warming and virtually nothing is published to the contrary, that is as close to a fact as there is in the world of science. The writings of politicians, journalists, bloggers etc obscures this and creates the impression of controversy that doesn't really exist.

Of course at least at the philosophical level science must be open to disproval of a theory, but once enough evidence is accumulated this can become so unlikely that for practical purposes it is a fact. For example theoretically a discovery could be made that points to the Earth being flat or six thousand years old, or that the Sun orbits the Earth, but given all the evidence that has been accumulated that would be so unlikely as to render those questions as fact for practical purposes. Certainly if you were planning anything in the real world, say launching a satellite, you would treat the shape of the Earth as fact and be extremely foolish to base your plans on the theoretical possibility that the Earth was flat!

As for China or FIT rates etc I don't see how that has anything about the science of it and is just whataboutery and logical fallacy... the FIT rate is too high therefore the Earth can't be warming due to us, it's not logically liked. In any case the Chinese are now the leaders in developing low-carbon technologies and fully accept the reality of climate change. It would surely be grossly unfair to expect the Chinese, who have only been burning fossil fuels in significant quantities for the past few decades while we have been burning them for far longer, and who have been very poor till recently, to make more sacrifices than us.

I also think once you start questioning generally held scientific positions based on the perceived interests of the scientists, you might as well get rid of science and just pick and choose what to believe based on convenience, ideology, religion etc. Why accept evolution by natural selection or plate tectonics or medical science but not climate science?

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Zeup, I thought this was just a common myth, perpetuated by the media? I understood that only a small minority of scientists suggested global cooling, and this view had little support in the wider scientific world.

In the 1960s, the approach of a new Ice Age certainly was 'mainstream science'.

Although I have to admit that my sources (along with most other people's) could be described as 'the media' (in my case I was reading Times, Telegraph & New Scientist fairly regularly about then). But just how many of us actually chat regularly to leading scientists on any topic ? I'd suggest we're nearly all finding things out from 'the media' !

EricMears

ed110220 wrote: »

Whether or not the Earth is warming due to GHG emissions is a matter of fact not opinion. It either is or isn't.

It may well be true that the Earth is either warming or not and that if anyone finds that out for certain it will become a fact.

However, there are a host of perfectly reasonable alternative methods for determining what the temperature is today and they don't necessarily agree with one another.

When you go back a hundred years or so the information is rather less accurate and when you're relying upon indications from fossil records from hundreds of thousand years ago or even longer then the results you get are little more than guesswork.

Even if there were clear evidence that a particular bit of rock or fossil was at a particular temperature at a particular period, it's not absolutely certain whereabouts on the surface of the planet that particular specimen would have been at that time.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Zeup, I thought this was just a common myth, perpetuated by the media? I understood that only a small minority of scientists suggested global cooling, and this view had little support in the wider scientific world.

I'm sure this is just one of those stories that won't go away, a bit like the common myth that there was a cabin boy called Roger in the TV series 'Captain Pugwash'.

Mart.

Hi

If it was then there were a number of GCE 'O' level & 'A' level science reference books which were printed based on myth, not science!! ... It was mainstream enough for cyclical glaciation and our current position within the cycle to be taught alongside other subjects with scientific consensus such as plate tectonics and the central place theory .... it all had myself & loads of others of my age looking at leaving a note asking the last person to leave the country to 'kindly remember turn off the lights' .... or was that a result of the relationship between government & unions at the time? ...

... come to think about it, at some time I even had a really brightly coloured authentic Scandinavian winter coat, just-in-case the 'boffins' were right ....

HTH
Z

zeupater

ed110220 wrote: »

Whether or not the Earth is warming due to GHG emissions is a matter of fact not opinion. It either is or isn't ....

Hi

The point at hand is that the above statement is wrong ... It is only accurate recorded data which is fact, everything else is conclusion, and agreement on conclusion forms consensus.

For example, if an accurate dataset which encompassed the entire planet showed a level of change within a particular period, the only facts are the data and the averaged change within that period, and even the methodology of averaging could require a great deal of consensus. Conditions before the dataset can be deduced by other methods, and there would likely be need to be a great deal of consensus on the overlaying of multiple sources, which in itself is open to a degree of manipulation by parties so as to protect their particular vested interests. On the other side of the fact/consensus is the future ... and that's purely guesswork, whether it's based on complex models reflecting scientific consensus, or simply using a crystal-ball or some dry seaweed.

As previously raised .... 'There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.'

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

If it was then there were a number of GCE 'O' level & 'A' level science reference books which were printed based on myth, not science!! ... It was mainstream enough for cyclical glaciation and our current position within the cycle to be taught alongside other subjects with scientific consensus such as plate tectonics and the central place theory .... it all had myself & loads of others of my age looking at leaving a note asking the last person to leave the country to 'kindly remember turn off the lights' .... or was that a result of the relationship between government & unions at the time? ...

... come to think about it, at some time I even had a really brightly coloured authentic Scandinavian winter coat, just-in-case the 'boffins' were right ....

HTH
Z

I must be just a little younger than you, as I remember junior school with us all wearing near identical 'Harrington' jackets. They'll come back into fashion one day!

I know I read a debate somewhere that concluded that the 'ice-age' argument was really just media hyped, and not consensus. But I can't find it. So have resorted to Wiki (not sure whether you value that or not):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

[Edit: I didn't mean to imply that it's a myth that there was some conjecture, I meant isn't it one of those urban myths (like the Pugwash reference) that it was a consensus view, but has now entered 'history' as a consensus fact. M.]


Regarding the media controlling our opinions, and scientists being very bad at getting their arguments over, there was this interesting article a while back which looked at the scientific consensus being extremely high for decades, but our belief that a genuine argument still existed:

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate"

It was several years back, but I remember New Scientist running an article on the struggle that scientists face, when competing with the media (but it wasn't on AGW in particular, possibly MMR (memory letting me down)).

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

. So have resorted to Wiki (not sure whether you value that or not):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Without starting another row, input to Wikipedia is often by scientists who wish 'rewrite history' to cover up their earlier pronouncements.

In my lifetime the scientific community have not exactly covered themselves with glory. I well remember scientists bankrolled by the tobacco industry claiming that cigarettes could do no harm, and indeed menthol fags were beneficial in that 'they cleared airways'.

Lead in petrol was harmless etc etc.

That said, I personally have little doubt that mankind contributes to global warming. However it ain't a proven fact, and above all that contribution is not quantified