- #1741245Hero42 January 23, 2020 at 4:27 pm
There are those who fear we have already crossed some of the climate tipping points.#1741247Hero42 January 23, 2020 at 4:42 pm
I was just giving the over view but the detailed figures for the UK are as follows:
Cheers 🙂#1741250rob023 January 23, 2020 at 5:28 pm
hero42, I’ve looked at the starting point you suggested but it’s a
fail I’m afraid.
I did politely request that you provide scientific articles that exclude statements that include ‘could’ or ‘may’ or ‘might’ or other similarly vague verbs.
Going on the number of appearances on the home page, it’s likely there’ll be plenty of other vague statements throughout. Thus it could be given the title ‘just another climate activist’ site.
“The unprecedented bushfires could affect the diversity of eucalypts”
“The seed may have travelled there on a gust of wind, its flight aided by a winglike attachment to the nut. Or it could have been planted by a bird”
“Climate change could make compound events more likely”
“Relying on climate models to look at single variables could understate the risk”
“some have adopted policies that could significantly reduce carbon”
“That could cause catastrophic sea-level rise”#1741267halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 5020halcyon January 23, 2020 at 9:09 pm
Unfortunately rob021, you will be lucky to find many scientific publications that make definitive statements. Most peer reviewed publications are couched in suggestive terms like “may” or “could”. I would suggest that happens for two reasons. First, their findings relate only to the sample under test. Therefore another researcher may find a different outcome when they replicate the trial. The strength of certainty of the finding is expressed by several indicators. i.e. the Confidence Interval and the “p” value. A finding of p=0.1 is a stronger finding than a finding of p=0.5. Basically p=0.1 means that the researcher would only expect to find an outcome that size in one chance in 100 if the finding was due to chance. In other words, the researcher is 99% sure of their findings.
The second reason is due to my cynical nature. Researchers compete for funding to pay their wages. Would you make a definitive finding when such a statement would negate the need for further research on that topic. Most scientific reports have a final paragraph that “suggests” further research is needed and often suggests the direction of that research. (A direction that they are admirably equipped to undertake.) This will form the basis of their next application for research funding.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)
#1741270rob023 January 23, 2020 at 10:32 pm
- This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by halcyon.
Halcyon, looks like you’ve caught the tail end of the saga, sigh, around the word ‘could’.
Head back to post #1741047 and work your way forward, if you so wish.
If you look back or just think back to what you’ve read in the past, you’ll see as I have using ‘could’ in a sentence about cc is perfectly acceptable one day but not a week later ‘depending’ ya know? Another reason afaic is the word ‘could’ is so often used by so called scientists it’s becoming obvious to more and more by the day that the whole cc scam isn’t just any old scam **
eg ‘the water could rise by three feet’ because there’s no scientific evidence the water will rise by any amount let alone three feet. Coulds and maybes and mays and mights is just not science.
** send me a message if you’d like some real good oil but reply will be tomorrow as my eyelids are slamming shut.
It’s ok if you disagree with me, I can’t force you to be right#1741276halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 5020halcyon January 24, 2020 at 10:01 am
I may have come in at the end of a discussion rob023. But that does not mean that I am unable to see a flaw in your understanding of science.
Lets examine your example “the water could rise by three feet”. And let us assume that statement relates to the increase in mean sea level in the year 2050. In addition let us assume that the figure “three feet” is an extrapolation based on the annual rise of the sea level over the last 100 years. Therefore it is reasonable to state “the water could rise by three feet“.
However, can we be sure that in 2050 the world will still be in existence? According to The Guardian today, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the doomsday clock forward to 100 seconds to midnight. The closest to catastrophe the world has ever been.
Given that there is a risk, albeit even a small one, of an atomic war, it would be a rather silly scientist who would make a definite prediction about sea levels in 2050. The best they could safely say is ” the water could rise by three feet“
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)#1741286rob023 January 24, 2020 at 12:44 pm
Fair enough Halcyon, all taken aboard.
What I really object to from the ‘scientific world’ is there’s seldom if any regard to The Natural Supply‘s contribution to everything humans, plants, animals etc require not just to sustain life but to continue advancements.
Furthermore it’s rather picky to say we shouldn’t dig up some stuff but it’s fine to dig up other stuff.
Plus it’s not fine to say we need to cease some bad pollution while continuing to allow other bad pollution.
Anyway, there’s something in your inbox.
cheers 🙂#1741288Hero42 January 24, 2020 at 1:17 pm
I don’t have a problem with could or may. It was you that had a problem as you quoted a source that said could and you interpreted as would.
But putting a precondition on scientific studies just so you can ignore them doesn’t make them less valid.
That isn’t a problem with the studies or the science it is a problem with the reader not being prepared to accept than when predicting what will happen there is a degree of variability.
As the old saying goes, “There are no so blind as those who choose not to see”
Cheers 🙂#1741289Hero42 January 24, 2020 at 1:24 pm
The other reason that studies say could is because, while they understand the scientific outcomes based on projections, they don’t know for certain what man is going to do in the future.
For example the idea that a politician could be elected who would pull out of the Paris Agreement is hard to factor in.
Or the technology for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere could be refined to be economical and then the CO2 levels would drop.
Or the melting of the permafrost in the arctic could pass a tipping point and release a lot more methane than anticipated.
It is a very foolish man who states things will definitely happen. Just look at all the false prophets who have claimed the world is coming to an end at a certain date or time and it hasn’t.
I am curious to know given Rob023 doesn’t like scientific articles that allow for variables is he prepared to make definitive predictions on what will happen in the near future. I say near future so we can check his accuracy.
Cheers 🙂#1741290Hero42 January 24, 2020 at 1:33 pm
How accurate have past scientific predictions been. Unsurprisingly good.
From the article
“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”
We know they aren’t going to get it right every time but a 83% success rate is very good and the ones that weren’t indistinguishable from what actually occurred were close.
On the other hand how well have those who deny climate change been with their predictions. So far 100% fail by being way out. Check the predictions by Easterbrook (A and B), Akasofu, Mclean and Lindzen if you want more details.
I say way out as they all predicted cooling which hasn’t happened.
I know that isn’t a lot of denialist predictions using scientific data but if there are other that are more accurate feel free to let me know about them.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.