toad:
“Gerrit said: If the end is here (where are the religious end time preachers – right up their alley!)…
Funnily enough, denying anything is happening at all Gerrit.”

If you want a party that is denying anything is happening at all, talk to Act.

The Family Party, who you link to, is not saying anything of the sort (and is not a bunch of “end-time preachers”, if we were counting on the end being that near there would be no need to go into parliament!).

We are the only party taking a neutral view on this issue. We don’t believe any politician knows the answers, they (or at least the major parties) mainly pick whatever position may gain most votes. We are wanting to take this out of the hands of vote-buying politicians and put it into the hands of the experts.

This is not “denying anything is happening at all”, if anything it is the opposite. We recognise that if global warming is occurring we will need sensible policies that actually work, unlike the ETS, and will ensure we get sensible policies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

McTap said:
“Theories are accepted if they are supported by evidence i.e. they have not been disproved. ”

This bit I agree with: “Theories are accepted if they are supported by evidence”

This bit is Karl Popper’s contribution to philosphy of science, and not something I agree with: ” i.e. they have not been disproved.”

The problem is that science is actually much more complicated. You go with the best theories and models you’ve got where “best” means it has a bunch of virtues including “supported by evidence” and “able to to be tested” and “coheres with our other ideas about how the world works” and “simple” and etc.

This goes to Bucolic’s comment about climate models: “The truth is that they don’t work – because they haven’t got the Arctic warming right.”

Guess what. Relativity is wrong too. It predicts the period of the orbit of Mercury incorrectly. Model the orbits with Newtonian physics and Mercury’s orbit is wrong. Model it with Relativity and it’s less wrong, but still wrong. That didn’t cause scientists to toss away Relativity.

Because you go with the best theories and most accurate models you’ve got. Not the “perfect” ones because they don’t exist. Just the best you’ve got. That’s science.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP,

WTF?

On cutting carbon output to prevent global warming you seem to have jumped from “it’s not needed” to “it’s too late to do any good”, without touching ground in the middle.

Kevyn,

“Scientists never use mathematical models for predictive purposes.”

That’s certainly news to economists, meteorologists, the scientists monitoring our fishing stocks, astronomers, atmospheric chemists… how long a list do you want? I’m having trouble thinking of an applied science that *doesn’t* do this.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kevyn,

You are wrong. Mathematical models are used every day by meteorologists to predict the weather (quite successfully for the next 3-4 days at least).

On a lighter note, if you are interested in science fiction, the novel “Transcendent” by Stephen Baxter is all about an engineering solution to the problem of methane being released from underground deposits in the Arctic region.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Scientists never use mathematical models for predictive purposes. They use them for extrapolation purposes and analysing the impact of variables. Because the future values of variables can only be predicted in hindsight and modellers must therefore calculate probabilty estimates for the range of appropriate variable values and consequently the model outcome will always be a range of outcomes consistent with the initial probability estimates. In the business world these are popularly known as “what if” models or scenarios. What if we do this, what if we do that, what if we just do “business as usual”. The Club of Romes prediction that the world was going to run out of oil and copper was a “business as usual” what-if scenario. The fact that OPEC and fibre-optics respectively eliminated “business as usual” meant that the “prediction” never came true, precisely as “predicted” by the models. It was the MSM that called the models predictions, not the Club of Rome. You can safely dismiss anybody who cites these “predictions” as being merely poorly informed or possibly willfully ignorant.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yo that Lyn – think of a model as a massive xl spreadsheat BP, if you dont tell it to calculate a variable it won’t – easy as that. And how can you put in unknown data and variables?

Gerrit – I think it is better to advise of the implications, once those who gravitate to challange and problem solving manage to impliment some strat, e.g. a price on carbon, electric vehicles etc., then those that would resign themselves to fate may see enough hope to join the effort – but without jumping back to “she’ll be right”, or “scientists will come up with something and save us”.
It will take a massive shift, not just in technology (we already have much technology) and it will be a bumpy ride, with an energy slide.

But hey, we can do it! if our mammoth hunting ancestors said “fcuk-it, this uckers too big, lets party and eat the little stuff till its gone”, or “hitlers coming, lets get drunk so we dont feel the bullets” we wouldn’t be here to be confronted with this. And don’t go worrying what comes next now – cause AGW is only a symptom anyway.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

oops type – ice sheets (not rice sheets).

BP – the models can’t predict what they don’t know. In this case I can’t remember seeing any estimates for mc’s in those locations that high.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I presume these are methane clathrate deposits? Is there a reference to the studies paper anywhere?

Oh thanks stuey (I read back through the comments). I see that they’re just coming back from the expedition.

I haven’t seen any estimates for the mc volumes that high up on the continental shelf. But it figures, the tempatures are in the right range. I wonder how much is below the ross sea and other rice sheets in the south.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

They use them for predictive purposes – prediction of global temperature rises. That’s what the theory is all about, isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Still think it is time to party,

Better go out with a bang then a wimper!!

For if it is all to end, lets use of what there is, drink and be merry, and go out with a much satisfied smile of a life lived to the full.

We will all be gone and mother earth can rebuild over the infinite rhytme of time and get ready for another darwinian cycle.

The problem for the Greens with their constant messages of doom is that people will take them serious, and take on a fatalistic attitude. If it is all so bad, it cant get any worse so lets that enjoy what we have for the time available and forget the consequences.

Interesting doco on TV about how quickly mother nature takes over once the people have gone. The studies in the chernobal exclusion zone are interesting to say the least. Even the birds and animals are making a comeback in that human uninhabital environment.

Those plants and animals that can, through darwinian natural selection, tolerate the radiation are taking over in the exclusion zone.

One can almost hear mother earth heaving a sigh of relieve to have mankind gone from her care.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So no, it’s not a (scientific) objection, or even a reasonable objection, although either would be welcome – but I doubt you are capable.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP said “It’s a reasonable (scientific) objection if said scientists are using models to prove a theory” here lies your fundamental misunderstanding of science. Theories are accepted if they are supported by evidence i.e. they have not been disproved. As Gareth says, the models are an indication that there is still a great deal that is unknown about the climate system and feedbacks.

It is pretty difficult to run an experiment with a climate system – and were running this real time, and it looks like we will find out the hard way. Metaphorically, the models are attempting to feel the way and give some indications of a likely range of possibilities, unfortunatley we are well in to the upper and worst case range by the look of it, which means that we can expect at least the upper range of sea level rise this century also.

So no, it’s not “a (scientific) objection, or even reasonable objection, although either would be welcome.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>haven’t even got back home from their sampling trip yet …

Then perhaps the first post has jumped the gun somewhat.

>>One of the standard sceptic tropes is that the models don’t work

It’s a reasonable (scientific) objection if said scientists are using models to prove a theory.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Sure your course of action is right?”

Reasonably.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Models: One of the standard sceptic tropes is that the models don’t work – that they exaggerate likely warming in the future. The truth is that they don’t work – because they haven’t got the Arctic warming right. Until they can model the events we’ve seen in the Arctic over the last couple of years, they can only give us a hint of what might happen. And until we know the likely size of the carbon cycle feedbacks (methane bubbles), it’s really difficult to suggest what might happen.

We need to be lucky.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP, give the scientific community a break for heavens sake, the researchers who discovered the plumes of bubbling methane haven’t even got back home from their sampling trip yet …
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://isss08.wordpress.com/
let alone crunched the data and published their findings – you can’t update models without numbers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Those who want to do nothing are the ones to answer questions about being irresponsible and murderous.

Opportunity cost.

Huge.

Sure your course of action is right?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You just had to have a dig, didn’t you

You know I’m right.

So, what does this do to the models? Anyone?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes, I’m surprised this doesn’t get much traction Frog. I’ve been blogging about methane all year, but this is just about the first time a major paper has run with the story. It is very scary indeed, and for once I agree with BP. If the methane is bubbling up fast enough to boost global atmospheric concentrations (and we’ll know that fairly soon), then the carbon cycle feedback will make a mockery of attempts to mitigate carbon emissions. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, though, and partying with the oil is obviously not wise. But then neither is BP…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

kahikatea, from what I know of the the Family Party, they will encompass a broad spectrum of fundamentalist Christiandom. Some are apocolyptic, but there will be others who will not be.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)