Why do you not trust the experts?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm in two minds about Gray-Wolf's "I wish I had your POV" point. I certainly wish that there was nothing to worry about, thus justifying such a point of view, but I certainly don't wish that I was ignorant of the reality- avoidable problems don't get tackled unless people are fully aware that they exist and of what they are. If I thought there was nothing to worry about, it would stop me from potentially contributing to the effort to get something done about the issues.

[mcweather]

Hi everyone

Have been away for a few days so missed this very interesting thread starting up. The basic premise about why some people don't trust experts is an interesting one.

I think a better educated and more questioning population probably has something to do with it. With particular reference to climate science and very long range prediction It is clear that despite all that we hear about advanced computer models etc. Compared to other realms of science we haven't even got to the stage of ''inventing the wheel''. and a lot of people know this.

From a wider perspective of course ''experts said thalidomide was safe for everyone. hmm. Experts said nuclear was safe but just happened to miss out what happens if theres an explosion at the plant oh yes and of course the left overs that you will have to bury in god knows how many metres of concrete and miles away from any big cities because it so safe.

Plus those of us who are little longer in the tooth can remember the 1970's when the climate research unit at East Anglia university now one of the most ardent pro AGW was predicting that our winters would be more like 63 as we approached and entered the 20th century. The rational response to which is if they were so wrong then and AGW has as they now contend been going on for a least 100 years (so how did they miss it). Why should we believe that they are right now.

I put this not a a personal view of AGW merely to try and meet the heading of this thread.

Hi everyone

Have been away for a few days so missed this very interesting thread starting up. The basic premise about why some people don't trust experts is an interesting one.

I think a better educated and more questioning population probably has something to do with it. With particular reference to climate science and very long range prediction It is clear that despite all that we hear about advanced computer models etc. Compared to other realms of science we haven't even got to the stage of ''inventing the wheel''. and a lot of people know this.

From a wider perspective of course ''experts said thalidomide was safe for everyone. hmm. Experts said nuclear was safe but just happened to miss out what happens if theres an explosion at the plant oh yes and of course the left overs that you will have to bury in god knows how many metres of concrete and miles away from any big cities because it so safe.

Plus those of us who are little longer in the tooth can remember the 1970's when the climate research unit at East Anglia university now one of the most ardent pro AGW was predicting that our winters would be more like 63 as we approached and entered the 20th century. The rational response to which is if they were so wrong then and AGW has as they now contend been going on for a least 100 years (so how did they miss it). Why should we believe that they are right now.

I put this not a a personal view of AGW merely to try and meet the heading of this thread.

ps that should of course read 21st century

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Mcweather!

You have to let things move on you know. Once upon a time you believed in Santa Claus didn't you? I'm not holding that against you now am I?

More data,more info,more idea.

[jethro]

Hi Mcweather!

You have to let things move on you know. Once upon a time you believed in Santa Claus didn't you? I'm not holding that against you now am I?

More data,more info,more idea.

Santa's not real??????

[Thundery wintry showers]

I very doubt that UEA's Climatic Research Unit was as prominnent back in the 1970s as it is now, I remember reading in a 1996 Weather journal that the department developed very strongly in the 1990s. Thus, it's not really comparing like with like, then of course there's GW's point.

Global warming is supposed to have gone on for the past 100 years but with a strong hiccup between 1940 and 1976, such that the overall rise in global temperature between 1910 and 1976 was quite small; there has been evidence of an 0.3-0.4C rise in the Southern Hemisphere since then, and around 0.6C in the Northern Hemisphere.

In the 1970s the mechanics of global climate change were less understood than now. Of course, if there's a strong consensus among climate scientists, that doesn't mean that they are right, but it also makes sense that the more they understand, the more likely they are to at least be reasonably close to the mark.

[Gray-Wolf]

Santa's not real??????

SHHhhhhh! It's only a rumour put about by conspiricists.....

[jethro]

SHHhhhhh! It's only a rumour put about by conspiricists.....

Bloody conspiricists!! How do they explain the old man who fills my stocking every year then eh? He's real I tell ya, real.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi everyone

Have been away for a few days so missed this very interesting thread starting up. The basic premise about why some people don't trust experts is an interesting one.

I think a better educated and more questioning population probably has something to do with it. With particular reference to climate science and very long range prediction It is clear that despite all that we hear about advanced computer models etc. Compared to other realms of science we haven't even got to the stage of ''inventing the wheel''. and a lot of people know this.

From a wider perspective of course ''experts said thalidomide was safe for everyone. hmm. Experts said nuclear was safe but just happened to miss out what happens if theres an explosion at the plant oh yes and of course the left overs that you will have to bury in god knows how many metres of concrete and miles away from any big cities because it so safe.

Plus those of us who are little longer in the tooth can remember the 1970's when the climate research unit at East Anglia university now one of the most ardent pro AGW was predicting that our winters would be more like 63 as we approached and entered the 20th century. The rational response to which is if they were so wrong then and AGW has as they now contend been going on for a least 100 years (so how did they miss it). Why should we believe that they are right now.

I put this not a a personal view of AGW merely to try and meet the heading of this thread.

I wrote a thesis at uni in the mid 80s making a case for the UK's winters becoming more continental in nature; statistically it stacked up.

Times change: more data emerges, our ability to process said data improves, and our overall understanding improves.

Most people would stand up in front of a TV camera and say their child was innocent of a crime if accused. I suspect that the same kind of emotional response attaches to considerations of climate change - people would rather it didn't. ANd I have ti disagree stringly that people are generally well 'genned' up on weather and climate: they aren't.

[Bethany C]

Hello my internet hasn't been working over the weekend. I'm glad you have proved my boyfriend wrong. I did say that i don't care about global warming but maybe that is overstated. I do care and i try to do my best like turning off lights and recycling but it's not going to make a dent if America and China don't join in. That is what annoys me.

Edited October 8, 2007 by sabrina2090

[Thundery wintry showers]

it's not going to make a dent if America and China don't join in. That is what annoys me.

Sadly, that's a very good point...

[snowsure]

This is a serious question, which I want to try to understand. We place our trust in experts of all kinds, all the time.

As at today, this illustrious site has a forecast for tomorrow, for Doncaster suggesting an average max temperature of 21*C (Updated using the 00Z Run on Thursday 11th October 04:43:00 GMT) The BBC forecast for the same day shows a max temp of 17*C.

I assume that both parties are looking at the same models, etc so perhaps this shows why people do not trust the experts.

Or perhaps I do not understand the system!

[parmenides3]

As at today, this illustrious site has a forecast for tomorrow, for Doncaster suggesting an average max temperature of 21*C (Updated using the 00Z Run on Thursday 11th October 04:43:00 GMT) The BBC forecast for the same day shows a max temp of 17*C.

I assume that both parties are looking at the same models, etc so perhaps this shows why people do not trust the experts.

Or perhaps I do not understand the system!

Indeed, Snowsure, a lot of people think that, if weather forecasting is so tricky, then climate projection must be impossible. There are good reasons why this is a common belief, and simple explanations why it is a wrong common belief; you're point is an intersting one, though.

:)P

[snowsure]

How tantalising, P3! I assume that climate prediction continues to work on time-scales of >12 months whereas weather forecasting is based on 3-5 days hence.

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. If the wrong weather data is input into the climate model...

I do understand that numerous (hundreds?) of models are converging on a similar outcome, thus the climatologists speak of their findings in an almost unified voice.

Is there anything else that makes you say "...simple explanations..." ?

[parmenides3]

How tantalising, P3! I assume that climate prediction continues to work on time-scales of >12 months whereas weather forecasting is based on 3-5 days hence.

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. If the wrong weather data is input into the climate model...

I do understand that numerous (hundreds?) of models are converging on a similar outcome, thus the climatologists speak of their findings in an almost unified voice.

Is there anything else that makes you say "...simple explanations..." ?

Does this help, snowsure? : http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-fo...predictions.htm

You might also consider the distinction between a model based on initial conditions (an NWP) and one based on boundary conditions (a GCM), as an explanation, too.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

The fact that the 'reverse modelling' is becoming ever more accurate (the model shows how we got to where we are today) must give us more faith in the then multitudinous runs then used to give an average of that which we are to expect under various forcings.

[Stratos Ferric]

How tantalising, P3! I assume that climate prediction continues to work on time-scales of >12 months whereas weather forecasting is based on 3-5 days hence.

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. If the wrong weather data is input into the climate model...

I do understand that numerous (hundreds?) of models are converging on a similar outcome, thus the climatologists speak of their findings in an almost unified voice.

Is there anything else that makes you say "...simple explanations..." ?

It's not unlike economists modelling the economy. It's easier to predict macro scale movements across weeks and months thasn it is to say which shops will take how much money tomorrow.

It's all to do with the granularity required in the model in order to get a good analogue for reality, and whilst there's an allure in saying it's hard to forecast the weather so climate must be even harder, this is flawed.

[BrickFielder]

There really three types of modelling. Firstly there is short term weather forecasting which take current conditions and predict the weather from there. These models need to look at wind eddies , waves and depending on the scale will or wont get cloud cover right (Hence the 21 -17 C difference). Eddies and waves are very difficult to predict over a long period. The second type of model is the traditional climate model and this is largely based on physics and chemistry and unless you have missed some chemical effect out tend to be fairly accurate over long time scales.

The third type of model is the carbon cycle model which tries to predict where carbon (CO2 typically) will be absorbed or emitted and this type of model tends to be a little experimental at the moment.

A true climate model or earth model should combine all three and each has its strenghts and weaknesses. For example the traditional climate model which is good at modelling earth temperatures overall is actually bad at predicting localized temperature (Like UK temperature) because it does a poor job of modelling the effects of eddies and waves.