15th of February 1989....

[Lucky13]

Well, obviously some people have their heads so far up....that they see daylight!

15th of February 1989....

In February 1722 all trees were Green.

Of course there have been warm winters before.
Gunnar Carlberg SMHI downfall controller (or whatever it would be in English) in Finspång have looked into old album and found the following....

In 1172 the winter as that warm in January that the trees were still green, the birds built their nests and shed feathers in February.

In 1269 no winter was noticed at all.

In 1421 the trees blossomed in Mars and the vines in April, when you also had ripe gooseberries.

In 1538 the trees were in full bloom in December.

In 1585 the grain stood ready in Easter.

In 1588 the trees blossomed in February.

In 1538, 1607, 1617, 1650 and 1659 there were no snow or frost.

In 1722 all trees were still green in February.

In 1863 you could pick daisies in full bloom in Skåne in February.

 

[bf109xxl]

Well, it is obvious that some people disregard the work of scientists and believe that it can be replaced by naive reasoning based on primitive logical constructs and non-representative data samples.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If we're in another warmer age, wouldn't it be smart to not make it worse? This is the false dichotomy I referred to in the other thread.

 

[bf109xxl]

If we're in another warmer age, wouldn't it be smart to not make it worse? This is the false dichotomy I referred to in the other thread.

In this particular case, it is much simpler: a non-representative sample of the warmest winters was taken, while the coldest ones were ignored. But there were also cases when the coldest months were in autumn and spring! For example, there was a case when frosts in March devastated grain crops in the Nordic countries (1696). As usual, in case of a high variability, trends are often ignored.
The most difficult thing is to convince non-specialists that scientific understanding now requires knowledge of a large amount of facts and mastery of mathematical tools for statistical estimates. Non-specialists seem to think that they can understand anything solely through their special intellectual abilities. Usually, this is just a naive illusion.

 

[11bwmech]

They once spoke in the same way about people who had the ridiculous idea that the world was round. Science is not infallible. If one of their premises is faulty, it throws a thousand conclusions into a cocked hat.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They once spoke in the same way about people who had the ridiculous idea that the world was round. Science is not infallible. If one of their premises is faulty, it throws a thousand conclusions into a cocked hat.

The beauty of the scientific method is that it is self-correcting. Premises regularly get questioned. Overturning accepted science is difficult, but doable. The science behind CO2 heat retention is valid. The science behind CO2 levels is valid. The science behind thermometers is valid.

That science has been wrong in the past, but has since been corrected, points to its strength, not its weakness. There is no better way for humans to interrogate this reality. The fact that you missed some questions on your seventh-grade algebra test doesn't mean that the calculations you did last week are invalid.

 

[special ed]

That's why the theory of gravity remains a theory. Many times and places in my shop I find gravity to be excessive, while other times gravity seems greatly reduced.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's why the theory of gravity remains a theory. Many times and places in my shop I find gravity to be excessive, while other times gravity seems greatly reduced.

I was the second trick operator at Queens tower. The first trick guy would have to give me a job briefing (the "transfer") before I could take over. He would frequently include gravity conditions of various areas in the tower.

 

[11bwmech]

The beauty of the scientific method is that it is self-correcting. Premises regularly get questioned. Overturning accepted science is difficult, but doable. The science behind CO2 heat retention is valid. The science behind CO2 levels is valid. The science behind thermometers is valid.

That science has been wrong in the past, but has since been corrected, points to its strength, not its weakness. There is no better way for humans to interrogate this reality. The fact that you missed some questions on your seventh-grade algebra test doesn't mean that the calculations you did last week are invalid.

You missed my point. Science is not automatically wrong, bit neither is it aitomatically right. Time, observation and continued research will determine that. And if science is not automatically right the doubter is not automatically wrong. So give him a break.

 

[11bwmech]

You missed my point. Science is not automatically wrong, bit neither is it aitomatically right. Time, observation and continued research will determine that. And if science is not automatically right the doubter is not automatically wrong. So give him a break.

My 92-year-old fingers are clumsy and I can't find the edit function. So pardon the typos.

 

[SaparotRob]

Science is magic with electricity.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You missed my point. Science is not automatically wrong, bit neither is it aitomatically right. Time, observation and continued research will determine that. And if science is not automatically right the doubter is not automatically wrong. So give him a break.

No one argued that science is automatically right, which renders this statement of yours a subtle but clear straw-man, especially since I've acknowledged that science does commit error, yet can still self-correct.

My point was that in this case the science is indeed well-founded -- and not all skepticism is justified. Not all doubts are equal. Doubting unicorns is not the same as doubting photons, even though neither can be directly viewed.

_________________________________________

Another thing that always irks me about AGW discussions is this idea that warming can only be either man-made or natural. It is quite possible that warming may be sourced both natural and man-made. And if indeed it is partly natural, does it still not make sense to reduce man-made emissions in order to avoid aggravating the warming? If there is skepticism, is not the safer move still reducing human emissions?

It's a secular form of Pascal's Wager, and one that makes much more sense than blank denial and radical skepticism.