Poll

[POLL] Is AGW a sure thing?

Yes, no doubt at all.
46 (34.1%)
No, something smells fishy.
39 (28.9%)
The IPCC's "very likely" 90% scenario sounds about right.
50 (37%)

Total Members Voted: 132

Author Topic: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers  (Read 36369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Country: pl
Perhaps there's not a 97% consensus among engineers (not even those in Oregon) WRT AGW, let's find out, shall we?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 09:30:55 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
git diff *
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30130
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2017, 03:20:09 pm »
This was a ridiculous poll. Only giving the option of "absolutely certain", and "I smell bullshit"
The IPCC themselves put AGW generally as "very likely", which if you bother to read the report footnotes (most people don't), "very likely" has a specific meaning which is >=90%.
It does not say "virtually certain" which means >=99%.

Warning, if this thread tuns into a mess it will be shut down.

 
The following users thanked this post: AF6LJ

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Country: pl
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2017, 03:38:51 pm »
The American Physical Society says "the evidence is incontrovertible":

git diff *
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
  • Country: us
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2017, 03:42:10 pm »
First had to Google what AGW is.  Then voted with the caveat of a very loose definition.  Climate change is somewhere between "It is a little warmer" and the "the seas are going to rise by many dozen meters".  Also the caveat that all extrapolations are a crapshoot.  As long as the models are right and all of the assumptions stay the same.

It is all a recipe for whoever wants to to look back 50 years from now and say they were right.
 
The following users thanked this post: Frank, Kilrah, JPortici

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30130
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2017, 03:50:54 pm »
The American Physical Society says "the evidence is incontrovertible":

You can't beat a hugely reputable scientist who was very anti-AGW (one of the ones the anti-AGW community trumpeted in fact) actually going to the trouble to form his own group to re-analyse all the data himself and came to the conclusion that's it real. Oops, how embarrassing for the skeptics  :-DD


« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 04:01:45 pm by EEVblog »
 
The following users thanked this post: Gumbysauce, james_s

Offline daveyk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 212
  • Country: us
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2017, 04:37:58 pm »
I blame it on the aliens
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2017, 05:04:07 pm »
little brainfood/snack ;)
why is greenland called greenland ? and why it was inhabited and abandoned many times again and again in the distant past ? probably caused by re-occurring climate changes , so it was inhabited during warmer periods and abandoned during colder ones ?
we have only a century worth of temperature recordings, but many millennia of existence... probably it's not a bad idea to correlate with archaeological evidence. Also the small population of the very distant past must have been very advanced that they triggered a climate change to melt-down the ice-age :-DD
i'm not saying we're not contributing... we definitely do... but we're definitely not triggering the change !
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Country: pl
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2017, 05:12:16 pm »
Hahaha, Dave, are you kidding me? You've added a third option!

You now provide TWO pro AGW options to choose from? Why not add say ten more, just in case?

That's not longer a clear cut yes/no poll. Choose the wording as you like Dave, but must leave just two options, IMO.

 >:D
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 05:20:29 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
git diff *
 

Offline Domagoj T

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: hr
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2017, 06:49:14 pm »
That's not longer a clear cut yes/no poll. Choose the wording as you like Dave, but must leave just two options, IMO.

 >:D

The answers are not the problem, the question is.
Nothing is "sure", so by default the answer can be nothing but "no", whichever words you want to use.
That is not to say that anthropogenic global warming (that is what we're talking about, right?) is not occurring, or that the global warming that is occurring is not anthropogenic, just that we can never be certain.
However, all the data we have point that way, and if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has face like a duck, it's most likely a duck*.
Instead of complaining about Dave adding another answer as an option, perhaps you should work on the question itself.

* It could also be our supreme reptilian overlord in a duck body.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline Ian.M

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8117
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2017, 06:58:45 pm »
If you want to post a poll, you should avoid taking sides till the results are in - unless of course you aren't interested in the answer but just want ego-stroking support for your own bias.   IMHO the sooner someone Godwins this thread so Dave is forced to lock it the better.
 
The following users thanked this post: janoc, bitwelder, thm_w, tpowell1830, Nusa

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3582
  • Country: us
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2017, 07:18:38 pm »
This won't end well.

And the poll, regardless of the outcome, will be meaningless, for several reasons. Most forum members will probably wisely avoid this thread (Yes, I know, the irony of my response here ;D).  But, the most obvious problem is that anyone can easily game it by opening multiple new accounts and voting more than once.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ian.M, newbrain

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Country: pl
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2017, 07:44:27 pm »
you should avoid taking sides till the results are in

It's Dave who has "taken sides" not me! First in the vidjeo and then in this very same thread. It's a controversial matter thus the controversial poll options >:D

I just don't think the answer is as clear-cut as Dave seems to believe, not even close.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2017, 12:02:13 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
git diff *
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18019
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2017, 08:19:27 pm »
As soon as you are talking about believe then any discussion is pointless. The fact is that there is very little that can and will be done no matter what cause & effect analysis you throw at it. Getting a wamer global climate is a reality (*) and for some people this will mean radical changes. Adapt and live with it. After all earth is a continuously changing environment and thinking it will stay the same or can be shaped is just ignorance. As an example I could point to some maps which show the radical changes the country I live in underwent during the last 1000 years.

(*) It cannot be denied that the average temperature has been increasing steadily for about a century.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 08:22:11 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3631
  • Country: ca
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2017, 08:30:42 pm »
I have no clue what "reality" you talking about.
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2017, 08:36:58 pm »
(*) It cannot be denied that the average temperature has been increasing steadily for about a century.

correct, and we have ONLY the data from that very last century.. no temperature recording are available from earlier.
 

Offline retrolefty

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1606
  • Country: us
  • measurement changes behavior
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2017, 08:43:56 pm »
There is little doubt in my mind that political ideology has corrupted the science on this topic.

 In reality any ideology is infectious to good science.   |O

 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2017, 08:50:32 pm »
If you go to Google Earth and look at heavily glaciated areas you can see the effect of global warming by using the time slider. The earliest photos are in the 1980s (usually landsat) and they have enough resolution to see where glaciers existed 50 yrs ago. In many cases (glaciers in mountains farther south than the Arctic.) entire glaciers are now just gone. Totally gone.
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18019
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2017, 08:51:08 pm »
(*) It cannot be denied that the average temperature has been increasing steadily for about a century.
correct, and we have ONLY the data from that very last century.. no temperature recording are available from earlier.
That doesn't really matter. It is getting warmer NOW and the how and why isn't relevant. Besides that it has been well established that warmer and colder periods have passed so there are recordings from earlier just not down to the exact year and centigrade.

BTW: Interesting article about using temperature/climate indicators to determine the temperature over the last 1000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1764
  • Country: ch
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2017, 08:55:40 pm »
If you go to Google Earth and look at heavily glaciated areas you can see the effect of global warming by using the time slider. The earliest photos are in the 1980s (usually landsat) and they have enough resolution to see where glaciers existed 50 yrs ago. In many cases (glaciers in mountains farther south than the Arctic.) entire glaciers are now just gone. Totally gone.
This only says things have gotten warmer - no information at all on what the multiple sources of that change are and what their respective influences are.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Country: pl
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2017, 09:19:04 pm »
If you go to Google Earth and look at heavily glaciated areas you can see the effect of global warming by using the time slider. The earliest photos are in the 1980s (usually landsat) and they have enough resolution to see where glaciers existed 50 yrs ago. In many cases (glaciers in mountains farther south than the Arctic.) entire glaciers are now just gone. Totally gone.

OTOH it is also true that until ~200 thousand years ago everything everywhere north of the mediterranean was an inmense ice desert just like the polar caps (and the Sahara desert back then was green and had lots of fresh water), all of Europe and China and Russia the USA and Canada... etc. De-icing has been the trend for the last 200 thousand years, since long before we began to burn any fuels.

I enjoy listening to both sides of the debate  >:D
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 07:36:36 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
git diff *
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30130
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2017, 10:20:44 pm »
Hahaha, Dave, are you kidding me? You've added a third option!
You now provide TWO pro AGW options to choose from? Why not add say ten more, just in case?

Yes, because the only pro option was "Absolutely certain" which is ridiculous. Even the IPCC are not "absolutely certain". Go read the report.
Have more than one option will not skew the result.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30130
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2017, 10:21:54 pm »
There is little doubt in my mind that political ideology has corrupted the science on this topic.

That might be true, but it doesn't make it wrong.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3582
  • Country: us
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2017, 11:49:30 pm »
There is little doubt in my mind that political ideology has corrupted the science on this topic.

That might be true, but it doesn't make it wrong.

And it also presumes that the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide are all on one side of the political spectrum and base their science on this.  There is zero evidence this is true.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18019
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Still there many 'scientific' reports which have a strong bias towards the outcome which would please the people who paid for the report. If one report claims A and the other report claims B then which one is right? Especially when it comes to things like weather and climate the answer just isn't clear.

I just looked up a summary of the IPCC report and it basically sums up trends which where observed and which are likely to continue. Only history will tell if AGW is some kind of mass extinction event or an incovenience.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 12:20:44 am by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline gildasd

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 930
  • Country: be
  • Engineering watch officer - Apprentice Officer
    • Sci-fi Meanderings
I work on a big boat laying big electrical cables in the bottom of the sea.
Where we are laying the current one, there was ice scrapping the bottom less than 30 years ago, making such things not really feasable. Nowadays, about enough to cool a martini floats about.

And it's the same everywhere, now new ships have bigger coolers to compensate.

For me, it's not a maybe, but something I'm reminded of daily when i do the temp readings of the ship.
I'm electronically illiterate
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf