Check Out Our Shop
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 61 of 61

Thread: Climate Change is not a Political Issue.

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    10,834
    Quote Originally Posted by BGnight View Post
    Bravo! People getting all huffy puffy about Trump and the Paris accord have no idea why they're mad. It's pure knee jerk idiocy. The Paris accord is a joke. I need to find the article but a scientist figured out if we did everything in that accord, according to IPCC projections, it would slow down warming by some ridiculously miniscule number. World gov'ts don't have yours or the earth's interests in mind. You're incredibly naive if you think any of these CO2 treaties first, will do any good, and second, are in the interest of humanity. We should be solely focused on creating more renewable energy projects locally and funded by the private sector. If it wasn't for government we'd already be commuting in zero emissions flying cars by now. Everyone wants government to save them. They're the same asshole bureaucrats that literally made it illegal to live off the grid and collect rainwater. And all of you want these same asshat politicians to save the world from evil CO2.
    Sez the genius afraid of teh chemtrailz!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by mcski View Post
    Sez the genius afraid of teh chemtrailz!
    First, that's inaccurate. Second, ad hominen much?

    Here's an obvious troll: it's funny that no one mentions the fact that the west currently has one of the fattest snowpacks in recorded history (with the fattest snowpack I've personally seen at lower elevations this winter). Must be a precursor to more drought and rising ocean levels.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by BGnight View Post
    Second, ad hominen much?
    Name:  tumblr_n5jd0lMjtl1rfwfq9o1_500.jpg
Views: 237
Size:  48.3 KB

    destroyed with LOGIC, SIR!

    I also love the "it's cold this year, how about that snowflakes?? DESTROYED WITH LOGIC"

    Great argument, you sound like a smart person who thinks for himself.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    1,344
    Why the fat shaming bro?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    the Can-Utardia / LMCC VT
    Posts
    11,491
    Because obesity is the largest drain on health Care, and gluttony is an original sin?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hohes View Post
    I couldn't give a fuck, but today I am procrastinating so TGR is my filler.
    Quote Originally Posted by skifishbum View Post
    faceshots are a powerful currency
    get paid

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by steepconcrete View Post
    Meanwhile over at Breitbart they have 58 peer reviewed studies from 2017 and 80+ graphs disproving climate change!!!'

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...c-papers-2017/
    I didn't read these and obviously you didn't either, but if they truly are peer reviewed studies, do you think breitbart actually wrote them? I guess if a right wing news source quotes a study then it automatically means that study is nonsense. Amirite?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    9,701
    Quote Originally Posted by BGnight View Post
    (with the fattest snowpack I've personally seen at lower elevations this winter).
    2010/2011....

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Vanity Fair
    Posts
    2,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Moose View Post
    So when they say it it's a 'non-sequitur implication' but when you say it it's ...not?

    I'm glad the latest models are more closely able to predict the past. However at the end of the day that amounts to nothing more than curve fitting. Note that I'm not saying direct manipulative curve fitting. But the field is still modifying its model as it learns from its mistakes, and that still is a form of curve fitting. Having a model that correctly predicts future events is when you have it right.

    I agree that CO2 is a source of warming, and I agree some glaciers are receding and I agree research is a good thing. I haven't seen yet definitive data on what amount of current warming is from man made sources, and how natural warming or cooling is caused and at what rate it will change. I agree that well educated specialists know more about their field than the rest of us do. We may not be capable of knowing all that they know and comprehend. That does not relieve them of the burden of providing predictable, repeatable results from their theory. Some are willing to do so, I am not.

    Discovery does not emanate from debate, or the majority, or the consensus, it emanates from correctly ascertained relationships.
    Heh, you got me there with "normal". Change is indeed normal. The kind of change we are currently seeing is not what I consider normal, though of course you can have long debates about the meaning of the word normal.

    The change we are currently seeing is the subject of so much discussion because humans are causing the majority of it, as opposed to other, non-human factors, which previously caused climatic changes (and also currently influence climate but not as much as humans). I believe the figure the IPCC currently gives for the probability of this is 95%. What they mean by that is that judging by what we know of the system, there is a 95% probability that the current changes are not due to the natural variability of the system, so „not normal“ in the statistical sense (I fully admit that is not what I was thinking of in the post you quoted).

    It is possible but very unlikely that we do not understand something very fundamental about the system as such, i.e. that we are missing some factor that nobody has ever thought of that influences climate in a very significant way.

    None of the known natural causes of climate change can account for the amount of change we are currently seeing. Yet, considering what we know of how greenhouses gasses work in the atmosphere, the amount of greenhouse gasses we are emitting explains those changes very well. Though GHG are the main factors, there are some other human caused forcings (eg aerosols, land use, etc), which are also accounted for.

    You seem to agree that there is a warming trend if I understand your post correctly. What do you think is causing that trend? Honestly curious, not trying to troll.

    There are many publications that go into detail quantifying the different radaitive forcings that influence global temperatures. The AR5 IPCC report did so like this. The whiskers on the plot indicate the 33 and 66% probabilty values („likely range“) for the forcings. This figure is based on the results of various recent (at the time of publication of the last IPCC report) fingerprint studies that use various methods to assess the contribution of the different forcings.



    Figure caption: Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHG), other anthropogenic forings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT), and internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black with the 5–95% uncertainty range due to observational uncertainty.

    Chapter 10 of the IPCC AR5 (the most recent one) deals with the subject of change detection and attribution and explains in detail how different kinds of attribution studies work. It gives values for how certain people are about anthropogenic causes of the more specific sub-sections of "climate change“, such as precipitation changes, extreme weather events, cryospheric changes, etc. Note that these values change depending on what the specific issue is. It also gives you the references to the studies whose findings contributed to the report.

    Discovery does indeed not emanate from debate (at least not alone and generally in the natural sciences, though I’m sure some people would love to have a debate about that). The discoveries made in studies that ascertained relationships are bundled together in the IPCC reports so as to provide a source of information to people who do not want or have the time to read a whole bunch of different studies, or do not have the expertise or will power needed to understand absurdly dense scientific language on highly specific issues from multiple fields of science.

    The IPCC does not actually do any science. It just sums up what other people do, in case there was some confusion about that. The cutting edge of science is usually something experimental and cool that someone tried and that gave them a new idea. That idea is then improved upon until it is no longer experimental but tried and tested many times. The cutting edge of science is not "the consensus“. The consensus is the boring but useful thing you end up with once the experimental phase at one cutting edge is over and the cutting edge shifts somewhere else. It is also what policy makers need.

    Regarding the thing with the models: they have correctly predicted the future. Personally, I think the Pinatubo eruption is the most illustrative example, though it is limited in the processes and temporal scale it exemplifies. Another frequently cited example is the result of this study. There are plenty more. Improvements in modern GCMs are not curve fitting, in the sense that a function is constructed so that it fits data points, but process based, as in "ascertaining relationships“, not drawing a best fit line. GCMs represent the actual physics happening in the atmosphere. In the most general sense they use the Navier Stokes equations on a rotating sphere. The IPCC chapter on model performance gives an overview of how they work, what they do, how predictive skill is assessed, and how they are improved, as well as, again, references to specific studies the report is based on.

    The field certainly makes mistakes (what field of science doesn’t?) and at least tries to learn from them
    Ich bitte dich nur, weck mich nicht.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    OREYGUN!
    Posts
    14,563
    Quote Originally Posted by BGnight View Post
    I didn't read these and obviously you didn't either, but if they truly are peer reviewed studies, do you think breitbart actually wrote them? I guess if a right wing news source quotes a study then it automatically means that study is nonsense. Amirite?
    No you are not right. Klar showed why they are nonsense above

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    20
    In terms of the current change of climate being normal, or not, we don't even know what the distribution of change has been since the last ice age. As far as whether the change is "different," yes it makes sense that because we've released a lot of CO2 that we've impacted to some extent the warming of the last 100 years. Climate scientists get themselves in trouble all the time with bad statistics, though, and I think have gotten used to not being called on it. For instance, the study a week or two ago out of UNLV that noted alarmingly that the warming of the last 100 years was 70x greater than the average for the last 7,000. Well, we can't really know well what every 100 year period over the last 7,000 years shows in terms of rate of change, so the 70x figure is currently just noise.

    The same goes, as pointed out already, for stating that the models work well on historical data as a selling point. It's actually a sign of lack of good models. A stock trader who tells you he's backtested extensively, and also been right a few times in the last 20 years of live trading, shouldn't get to manage your money without telling you how often he's been wrong, and several other important bits of information.

    To me this emphasizes why climate change is in fact political. We have to decide how many resources we want to allocate socially (through government) to address a clear risk of unknown size and unknown probability. Some people have a vested interest in exaggerating the size and probability, and distribution, of the risk, and some people have a vested interest in saying there is no risk. This is different from a public health issue like smallpox, where you can more clearly define costs and benefits.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Impossible to knowl--I use an iPhone
    Posts
    13,182
    Townpump isn't smart enough to understand klar. Sad.
    [quote][//quote]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •