What to do about climate science?

Lets assume that current climate science is flawed. Any science on something so complex and influenced by many things will have flaws and deficiencies and inaccuracies, and will always be a work in progress.

One of the biggest difficulties with trying to measure climate changes is that climate has always changed over time. The last glacial period (Ice Age) on earth was relatively recent, occurring from about 110,000-11,700 years ago, so the climate has changed significantly in the short time since then.

Climate science is very contentious. There is some healthy scepticism and questioning and contesting, as there should be with any science.

There are opponents of climate predictions for political and financial reasons.

There have been deliberate campaigns to disrupt and discredit the science by people with vested interests in doing nothing about the climate or in denial of human influence on the climate.

The vast changes on our planet due to humans must have had and must be having some effect on the climate. The questions are how much, and whether we should care about it.

Assuming that current climate science is far from perfect and far from definitive what should we do about it?

  • Continue with much the same levels of research that we have at present?
  • Improve what we have – put more resources into getting better results and more accurate predictions from climate research?
  • Change to focus of climate research substantially? If so, to what?
  • Ditch climate research, put it in the too hard basket or the doesn’t matter basket, and just react to whatever weather and climate we get regardless of causes?

Or should we take a different approach?

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

37 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  11th March 2017

    The best thing that could be done for climate science is to get politics out of it. That should be the focus. Defund and depower lobby groups. Make funding apolitical and bi-partisan. Ensure that publications stop making claims not supported by or irrelevant to the research presented. Outlaw “could” and “may” weasel words. That would be a great start.

    Reply
    • “Defund and depower lobby groups.”

      Should that be both ways? defund and depower anti climate science lobby groups as well as pro groups?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  11th March 2017

        Yes, of course.

        Reply
      • David

         /  11th March 2017

        Pete the deniers would not exist if the climate change lobby wernt such absolutist, stopped denigrating anyone who questions them and occaisionally got something right for the large amounts of funding they receive.
        Deniers arnt funded out of my taxes and its free speech.

        Reply
  2. David

     /  11th March 2017

    After 20 plus years of predicting disaster and having models getting things so wrong perhaps its not the impending catastrophe its been made out to be.
    Certainly CO2 affects appear to have been higher crop yields and faster growing forests rather than any temperature change so that certainly needs looked at.
    I am a fan of pollution reduction and think resources should be aimed there because that is what is doing the damage and proven to shorten peoples lives. Better emissions, clean coal, more fuel effecient cars etc. but lets just quietly get on with improving the lot of mankind as we always have done and halt the gravy train.

    Reply
  3. Corky

     /  11th March 2017

    [Or should we take a different approach?]

    To solve a problem it must first be defined. As I posted before there will soon be a march by concerned scientists over the direction climate change science has taken.

    That’ll be a great opportunity for a major rethink based on opinions these scientists offer:

    1- Identify vested interests and their associations to climate research.
    2- Root out scientists with vested interests.
    3- Red Flag science proven false, but presently accepted because of political pressure.
    4 -Offer amnesty and protection for any scientist or organisation forced to lie or accept climate change science at face value.
    5- Simplify findings so average people can understand how they were shafted.
    6- Prosecute and shame the guilty as conmen and criminals.
    7- Outlaw HAARP and other weather modification weapons like the Telsa project in Western Australia. Stop such projects poaching our youngest and brightest from our universities.

    Will this happen? Probably not. The only thing people fear more than losing money, is losing their reputation.

    There is no simple solution.

    Reply
    • ” Identify vested interests and their associations to climate research.”

      What about identifying vested interests and their associations with opposing and discrediting climate research?

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  11th March 2017

        Those are easy to identify. They aren’t wormed away in academia. Besides once this fraud is exposed there will be no opposing factions, because they will have been proven correct.

        Reply
        • How do you know if it is fraud if it hasn’t been exposed yet?

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  11th March 2017

            You start with a basic premise of climate change: Our atmosphere is a closed loop system with CO2 unable to escape…hence CO2 builds up thanks to man. The result will be disaster because CO2 levels are rising( so we are told).
            Sounds reasonable…but its bullshit. Our atmosphere isn’t a closed loop system. If it was this planet would have died aeons ago. Those 60 foot ferns dinosaurs munched on were caused by massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere that eventually…….went where???

            I use a product( Lithovit) to produce huge increases in my vegetables and tree growth( 3 meter high sage bush) All this product does is increase the C02 concentration in plants.

            The planet remembers and so do the plants…we once had massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Reply
            • Conspiratoor

               /  11th March 2017

              I’m not sure there is a lot of CO2 escaping the clutches of the atmosphere brother corks. For a start there’s not a lot of it to go around, less than 0.04% and it’s the heaviest gas in the atmosphere. To escape gravity’s pull that lonely CO2 molecule would need to reach an escape velocity equal to the square root of twice the product of the gravitational constant and the earth’s mass divided by the earth’s radius. A gas molecule would need a hearty breakfast to reach that speed!

              There are other mechanisms at work but they don’t have a lot of impact on the volume of gas that gets through. I think we are safe for a while yet

            • Corky

               /  11th March 2017

              If that’s the case than climate change science is on solid ground and we have a closed loop system with no CO2 escaping. There must be other things at work….because the CO2 from yesteryear went somewhere.

              ‘To escape gravity’s pull that lonely CO2 molecule would need to reach an escape velocity equal to the square root of twice the product of the gravitational constant and the earth’s mass divided by the earth’s radius. A gas molecule would need a hearty breakfast to reach that speed!’

              Great stuff!!

            • Conspiratoor

               /  11th March 2017

              ‘Sinks’ brother corks …of the carbon not the kitchen variety. For those with an interest in separating fact from fiction I would recommend this as a good read

              The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Future of Humanity

            • Corky

               /  11th March 2017

              Ain’t working at the moment. Or is that the sea? Or is it really escaping the atmosphere?

            • Corky

               /  11th March 2017

              Its called Sequestration.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  11th March 2017

              Correct brother corks …”The ocean is Earth’s largest single sink for CO2 outside of the planet’s crust itself…..the amount stored is tremendous: “It’s really yuuuuge. It’s comparable to all the carbon dioxide in the air.”

              http://theresilientearth.com/?q=category/blog-tags/carbon-dioxide&page=4

            • Corky

               /  11th March 2017

              Apologies,you are right, Conspiratoor. Carbon dioxide doesn’t leave the atmosphere, but solar radiation does. Radiation doesn’t continually build up. That’s what I should have stated regarding this founding experiment. I mixed that up with some gases that do escape in the upper atmosphere. Green house gases do not stop radiation escaping and only 17% of radiant energy is absorbed into matter.

              Motto of the story .Don’t watch TV and post at the same time.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  11th March 2017

              That’s okay brother corks. I need a win. Sir Al’s just shattered a useless piece of trivia I’ve carried with me for 50 years. Turns out it’s a myth

  4. pdm

     /  11th March 2017

    Why not just go back to the basic.

    Climate change is happening and it is caused, as has always been the case, by NATURE!!! Therefore there is nothing we can, or need, to do.

    Simple really.

    Reply
  5. PDB

     /  11th March 2017

    As mentioned above the politics needs to be taken out of the science whereby currently a pre-determined position is taken by govts/the United Nations etc that man-made climate change is going to cause the end of the world and scientists are only funded if their work supports this position. Other scientists whose findings go against this pre-determined conclusion are currently bullied, denied taxpayer funding, and labelled as nutters.

    A good start would be to;

    *Enable open debate (rejecting the idea that science can ever be ‘settled’ would be a good start).
    *Open up govt funding to those scientists that may disagree with the ‘man-made’ theory thus encouraging a healthy debate of ideas.
    *Include some well-respected scientists with a skeptical view of man-made climate change within the top echelon of climate scientists that are directly influencing climate-change policy.
    *Go back & fully investigate all previous govt research for error and possible corruption of data (hence include ‘whistle-blowing’ incentives for those that may know of any such corruption).

    Start with a clean slate and go from there.

    Reply
  6. Brown

     /  11th March 2017

    Science should be about the pursuit of truth but as soon as politicians can see a control mechanism in it it becomes truth as the politicians may like it. The climate change industry is the biggest scam so far and the fraud has been revealed by the infamous hockey stick nonsense, the released emails that embarrassed so many supposed scientists and the 99% (or whatever) of scientists agree rubbish. To be brutal Pete I suspect that your political aspirations have clouded your free thinking about how reliable and honest politicians are and the quality of the information the funded bodies supply. The attitude reminds me of my mate that believes it because he saw it on the BBC.

    I don’t think I’d like Trump at a personal level (and its of no consequence anyway) but he’s frightened the liberal elites shitless by rocking the boat and I’m happy with that for the time being. If there was truth in all this “science” why would they care? They care because its fear mongering for control and the mask is slipping at last. Truth is always light no matter how dazzled you may be initially.

    Reply
  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  11th March 2017

    Here in NZ we’ve got MoE making plain stupid predictions of sea level rise and local governments feeling they have to act on them. That sort of crap has to end as well as the carbon credit rackets that are rorting consumers and taxpayers.

    Reply
  8. What if current research and predictions have underestimated climate change problems?

    New research: Earth’s oceans are warming 13% faster than thought, and accelerating

    New research has convincingly quantified how much the Earth has warmed over the past 56 years. Human activities utilize fossil fuels for many beneficial purposes but have an undesirable side effect of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates. That increase – of over 40%, with most since 1980 – traps heat in the Earth’s system, warming the entire planet.

    Fortunately, a paper just published today in Science Advances uses a new strategy to improve upon our understanding of ocean heating to estimate the total global warming from 1960 to 2015.

    We were able to extend our techniques back to the late1950s and show that the rate of global warming has changed significantly in the past 60 years. One main outcome of the study is that it shows we are warming about 13% faster than we previously thought. Not only that but the warming has accelerated. The warming rate from 1992 is almost twice as great as the warming rate from 1960. Moreover, it is only since about 1990 that the warming has penetrated to depths below about 700 meters.

    If climate research has been unreliable then things could turn out to be:
    – not as bad as the predicted ranges
    – about the same as the predicted ranges
    – worse

    You can’t say that current research is unreliable and then just assume things aren’t as bad.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  11th March 2017

      A 13% increase in sea level rise will make an insignificant difference towards the extrapolation the MoE is forecasting. To reach its forecast level rates would have to be multiple times the current rate.

      Reply
      • The research found a 13% greater warming of the oceans, with a 40% increase overall since 1980,and accelerating.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  11th March 2017

          The MoD’s planning forecast of 0.8m of sea level rise over the next 80 years means an average of 1cm/yr which itself is six times the current rate it gives as 1.7mm/yr and therefore requires an even more ridiculous rise rate later in the period given there is no evidence of significant acceleration in NZ at present.

          http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise

          Fatuous.

          Reply
          • The are not planning on a 0.8m rise to 2100.

            “At the very least, all assessments should consider the consequences of a mean sea level rise of at least 0.8m relative to the 1980–1999 average.”

            “At the very least” and “at least” – and if it turns out to be warming faster than previously thought then that “at least”could be under further upward pressure.

            And sea level rise isn’t the only potential issuer. Greater evaporation and therefore heavier rain is also a possibility. Some think the world is already seeing signs of that.

            Another possible issue is a tipping point. If the sea can no longer absorb most of the warming then air temperatures could rise more quickly.

            And there’s ice melt at the poles and Greenland that could also accelerate.

            Or whatever tips the planet into ice ages could kick in and balance out the increases.

            There’s more questions than answers, but we should at least be as well informed as possible.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  11th March 2017

              I’m not sure what you are quibbling about. Presumably the 1980-99 average is about 3 cm below present. So they are saying 77 cm rise in the next 8 decades for planning assessments and a base assumption (which I assume means minimum) of 47 cm rise in that time [equivalent to an average rate three times the current rate].

              These are just numbers plucked out of the air with less credibility than next year’s weather forecast.

              Of course we should keep doing research. But acting on the current level of ignorance is beyond stupid.

  9. My advice is do not panic, plant more trees and shrubs and fruit trees and veggies. They all rely on processing CO2 by photosynthesis to produce the sugars that produce atmospheric oxygen. Now climate changes because of the influences of the Sun, the Moon, and atmospheric disturbances including sea temperatures in seasonal cycles. Most of these effects are not caused by humankind nor are manageable by mankind. e.g King Canute and the tide!

    Reply
  10. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  11th March 2017

    Yesterday I posted a link to 91 recently published scientific papers that indicate the warming that has been detected at certain locations over the last 100 years is not anything exceptional.
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/22/the-hockey-stick-collapses-50-new-2016-scientific-papers-affirm-todays-warming-isnt-global-unprecedented-or-remarkable/#sthash.sHgrhTeO.dpbs

    What does this indicate? That all these researchers are mistaken?
    Hardly… It indicates that the dogmatic paradigm that the climate models cannot be questioned is being exposed. Real data/empirical evidence trumps models.

    But all scientists need to operate in a transparent manner. They must make their data, available for critical, independent appraisal. That is the only way science can progress. Once you have a select group of people controlling the data capture and interpretation at every stage, and refusing to have their work critiqued, you have Lysenkoism, not open science.

    Reply
    • Brown

       /  12th March 2017

      “Real data/empirical evidence trumps models.”

      And that, said Pooh, is that.

      Reply
  11. Zedd

     /  12th March 2017

    This issue is being dominated by the extremist views.. rather than evidence. (I have been even been called one.. by the opposite side)

    The facts is that CO2 concentration is rising, as more cars & industry belch out more & more of the stuff. The debate has now shifted to ‘does CO2 increase in the atmosphere, really effect the climate ?’ All I can say; Is CO2 really a ‘Green house gas ?’ IF, yes then any large increase, has to have a warming effect. Unfortunately there are others who now claim, it is having NO effect & any change is just ‘part of a ‘normal cycle’. We hear words like El Nino & La Nina, as if this somehow negates the FACT that CO2 is on the increase & human activity can not possibly have any such effect.

    Putting you head in the sand.. will not make the issue go away people.. 😦

    Reply
  1. No Title - Open Science - Evidnt.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s