Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Here comes the next ice age (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Here comes the next ice age
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would you prefer the Japan Meteorological Agency numbers, Rafi? They list the five warmest years (anomalies) as:
  • 1st. 2015 (+0.46°C)
  • 2nd. 2014 (+0.33°C)
  • 3rd. 1998 (+0.28°C)
  • 4th. 2013, 2012, 2009 (+0.23°C)
So, they show the last 2 years as the warmest as well, and the last 4 years all being among the warmest 5 historically.

Hadley has slightly different rankings, with only 3 of the past 6 years making the top 5, but 1998 still only ranking 6th warmest.

But they all show warming, even over the cherry-picked time period of 18 years (choosing 1997/1998 as the specific starting point).

Are you really suggesting all the land based data set analyses are faking the past?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The satellites show no warming. Are you suggesting those are faked? Where does JMA get its data? Do you know?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, I know that you are actually making reference to UAH, and for the very specific 10-month period during 1997/1998, corresponding to the peak of that years El Nino effects in the lower troposphere, when the satellite numbers do not show a positive linear trend.

Of course, UAH shows a warming trend for the past 15 years, 16 years, 17 years, 19 years, 20 years, etc. if you want to hang your hat exclusively on that type of interpretation.

It just seems funny that you would make that claim in the same post as you accuse other people of "faking" data.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
The satellites show no warming. Are you suggesting those are faked? Where does JMA get its data? Do you know?

No, of course they aren't faked. They do measure different things, however - and the fact is that satellite measurements show similar long term warming as do the surface measurements.

But since you are asking about fake data: are you referring to the "pause buster" adjustments from summer 2015?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. I believe you intentionally misunderstand and obfuscate. There are a total of 5 temperature records upon which global "warming" is based:
quote:
Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).
So to answer the question I asked, and the one you've avoided, JMA gets its data from one of the three surface based data sets. Each of those three gets the data from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce. Those three are all run by extremists in the man made global warming movement.

In other words, you are promoting a fake "consensus" by calling out JMA since all they're doing is parroting the same results as anyone else would and are provided from those with a vested interest in promoting a quack theory.

There is example after example of tampering with the data to promote the desired result. Some stations see adjustment exceeding 1.5 C with no valid basis for such adjustment and have been demonstrated as faked.:
quote:
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
The satellite record shows now warming and, in fact, shows a slight but statistically insignificant cooling over the last 20 years. The only way we get the warming you have been fooled into believing is by making massive, unwarranted adjustments to the source data and propagating it through multiple outlets to make it appear realistic.

It's a scam.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll say one thing which doesn't back Rafi up but makes it very hard to assess these kinds of discussions as a laymen who doesn't study this stuff intensively.

A lot of people claim to 'feel' the temperature change in their daily lives, and attribute all sorts of anecdotal experiences as being evidence that there is climate change. "This was a really hot summer, I can feel the climate changing," or "winters used to be a lot colder when I was growing up, things have definitely changed." I am perfectly happy to say that I think such claims are without any basis in reality and are the perfect example of cluster fallacy, confirmation bias, and even personal perception being shaped by expectation. These kinds of public reassurances that it's really happening can't really be anything more than a collective delusion, and a very simple one to achieve at that as far as so-called 'magick' goes.

None of that, of course, speaks to the reality of climate change at all. Lay people can be completely full of it and there could still be climate change. I'm just saying that the experience of most people is basically irrelevant in adding to the conversation; it's all about the data. And here's the thing: unless I personally go out and verify the sources of data, their methods, their conclusions, etc etc I won't be able to make heads or tails of this issue. I don't know that it's so far beyond me that I simply cannot do this, but it's certainly beyond what I'm willing to do. But to be fair it might be beyond my capabilities also. I'm not qualified to peer review climate scientists' work for various reasons, and so I have to sit on the sidelines and read articles and listen to debate and hope I can come away with something. Based on what I know from MSM in America I have faith in their ability to create a 'consensus' on factual matters that is in fact both fabricated and pushing a political narrative. I'm not saying that's what happening here, but the thought always worries me that if it was happening I wouldn't be able to tell either way.

[ November 29, 2015, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand"

You sound grumpy Rafi. You should chill. [Smile]

I figured your information was probably wrong, I just wasn't sure how. For future reference, if you want to know where JMA gets its data, you could simply go to the JMA website.
quote:
JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST (see the articles in TCC News No.1 and this report).
So, for land based temperature measurements, JMA uses GHCN only up to 2001, and it doesn't use any of the same data for sea/ocean measurements as does GISS-LOTI.

This is relevant to my earlier point because the recent NASA updates (the so called pause buster adjustments) that brought their sea based values (ERSST4) more closely in line with Hadley, do not affect JMA at all, since JMA uses its own sea based data set (COBE-SST).

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and this:
quote:
The satellite record shows now warming and, in fact, shows a slight but statistically insignificant cooling over the last 20 years
This is incorrect, assuming you are talking about the UAH product, and calculating a least squares linear trend; then, as I said above, there is only a 10-month period beginning May 1997 and ending February 1998 where the slope is not positive.

At best, you could say that for 17 years and 6 months, there has been no warming, but that would be deceptive.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to clarify why this is deceptive - when calculating a linear trend using least squares, the trend line slope is most susceptible to the values near the two end points, and least susceptible to the values near the middle of the set.

So if there was, say, a theoretical 12-value anomaly somewhere in a 240-value series, if you were to calculate a linear trend based on the values of that series, the placement of that anomaly within the overall series would very much affect the resulting trend line slope. If the 12-value subset was anomalously high, and it occurred near the beginning of the series, the effect would be overwhelm the rest of the series' values, pushing the overall slope value downward.

Similarly, if the 12-value set occurred near the end of the series, this would tend to push the slope value upwards.

If, however, the 12-value subset was located near the middle of the series, it would have only a limited, and possibly no effect on the overall slope.

That's why picking a convenient starting point for a linear trend, then generalizing the meaning of the linear trend to a real-world situation, without context, is deceptive.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
it's all about the data. And here's the thing: unless I personally go out and verify the sources of data, their methods, their conclusions, etc etc I won't be able to make heads or tails of this issue.

If only there were a community who dedicated their lives to scrutinizing data, comparing notes and results, repeating measurements and subjecting work to peer review...
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the problem with Marxism and Fascism; they know how to manipulate such communities.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
it's all about the data. And here's the thing: unless I personally go out and verify the sources of data, their methods, their conclusions, etc etc I won't be able to make heads or tails of this issue.

If only there were a community who dedicated their lives to scrutinizing data, comparing notes and results, repeating measurements and subjecting work to peer review...
You didn't get my point. I didn't say no one does the work. I said that if there was a conspiracy to alter data at the source I would never know the difference.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
You didn't get my point. I didn't say no one does the work. I said that if there was a conspiracy to alter data at the source I would never know the difference.

Oh I get your point, I just think it's a corrosive and harmful one. The absence of trust in *anything* collapses all Prisoner's Dilemma situations into hopeless failures - basically nothing can get done in a society without some degree of trust. Less trust might *seem* like a good thing - except that a lot of the world runs on game theory, and little gets done that way.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes nothing getting done is better than a very bad thing getting done.

When the stakes are high enough, I can respect wanting to check the data and also check the politics and allegiances and bank accounts of those that check the data.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Sometimes nothing getting done is better than a very bad thing getting done.

When the stakes are high enough, I can respect wanting to check the data and also check the politics and allegiances and bank accounts of those that check the data.

For how many decades, Pete? At what point is "needs more study" no longer the appropriate tack? Or is this sort like the mideast peace "process"... just a way of justifying permanent inactivity by dangling the carrot of having a "process" in place?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with checking politics and allegiances is that politics have picked sides. Any climate scientist's natural allegiance is going to be to the side that doesn't call them frauds and cheats. I haven't heard of any climate scientist being particularly wealthy or beholden to a specific set of interests.

I have heard of climate change "skeptics" accepting a great deal of money from a multi-billion dollar industry that perceives an existential threat to itself.

It's also worth noting that, Rafi's fond ideas of falsified data notwithstanding, we've been looking for explanations about the climate for quite awhile now. For far longer than there's been any political context to it.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NobleHunter's point is a good one. AGW has been studied for far longer than most people imagine.

Can anyone--anyone--guess who was the first President to mention global warming in a speech to Congress? (I'd really be surprised if anyone knows this.)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Oh I get your point, I just think it's a corrosive and harmful one. The absence of trust in *anything* collapses all Prisoner's Dilemma situations into hopeless failures - basically nothing can get done in a society without some degree of trust. Less trust might *seem* like a good thing - except that a lot of the world runs on game theory, and little gets done that way.

Are you sure you get my point? Or I can ask this differently - is there such a thing as a corrosive fact? Because it is simply a fact that if data was being manipulated to create a false consensus I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This isn't a political position, isn't a statement of intent or allegiance, and is not a matter of opinion. Maybe someone highly schooled in climate science could tell, but I couldn't.

Maybe you inferred from this that I assume such a thing is happening, and that I would prefer to do nothing about polluting the world. In point of fact I'm a huge enemy of polluting the environment, and was long before AGW became a popular talking point. Cleaning up the world isn't a political issue to me personally, but nature crusading definitely is a political issue for many others and this can create difficulties.

All I'm saying about AGW is that this is perhaps the first time other than the old evolution debate where the populace at large had to support or not support political policy based on the veracity of a scientific theory. When people can't understand that theory but still have to 'have an opinion' on the subject and vote on it there is an element of the silly that cannot be exorcized from the process. And heck, climate science is way more complicated to understand than the theory of evolution and natural selection. We're talking about one organism, compared with an entire geosphere teeming with ecosystems and countless different organisms, water systems, atmosphere, energy sources, etc etc.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Are you sure you get my point? Or I can ask this differently - is there such a thing as a corrosive fact? Because it is simply a fact that if data was being manipulated to create a false consensus I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This isn't a political position, isn't a statement of intent or allegiance, and is not a matter of opinion. Maybe someone highly schooled in climate science could tell, but I couldn't.

Maybe you inferred from this that I assume such a thing is happening, and that I would prefer to do nothing about polluting the world.

When you introduce a fact into a conversation, it is assumed to have some value. Introducing doubt, for example, is to give legitimacy to that doubt. But saying that "I wouldn't know the difference" is like me saying "well maybe you're just a bot and not a real person - how would I know the difference"? Because in truth I cannot know, but I carry on speaking with you anyways, and that "fact" that I cannot know is rather useless because it carries no weight.

If you want to introduce doubt without giving it any weight of presumed legitimacy, you're basically just kinda trolling the thread.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So giving my perspective or take on a laymen's position in the AGW debate is "trolling"? I suppose the only legitimate kind of post on the topic is dogmatic stating of facts in favor of or opposition to?

My post was about information flow, not about climate. I'm sorry if you don't think that's on topic, but I think it is. For instance, if a group of people were being given reason to dispute AGW and the mechanism facilitating this was the media of information then you'd see that I could just as easily be addressing propaganda in either direction. The very fact I mention, that I'd be none the wiser if there was such a conspiracy, is precisely pertinent because many people think this is exactly the case. It basically means they don't have a great way of learning that they're wrong about that unless they step up and learn a heck of a lot about climate science. Most people just won't or can't do that, and so they're stuck with what they're told by their media sources.

This is the particular issue of AGW. Not the facts, but that the populace must make decisions about facts they simply have to take on faith. No one has to vote based on current theories of quantum entanglement. But they do have to vote based on this. Imagine if for some reason the situation was reversed, and maybe you'll see what I'm saying. Most people in Western culture simply cannot stand having their official position as "I don't know enough to form an opinion." They've been trained too deeply as discriminating consumers to tolerate having to admit such a thing.

[ November 30, 2015, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...it is simply a fact that if data was being manipulated to create a false consensus I wouldn't be able to tell the difference
This is not a fact - it is, at best, a proposition.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think laymen like me are capable of reasoning through what that kind of conspiracy would look like and concluding that it is unlikely, and concluding that it makes sense to trust the experts. e.g. would the anti-AGW lobby be incapable of tempting someone to break ranks? Would no one want to be a famous and lauded whistleblower?

I do not think that such a conspiracy exists, because I don't find it plausible that it would remain intact. There have certainly been enough efforts to find one, and they have come up pretty dry. (I know that Rafi believes otherwise, but he's pretty bad at reckoning with the facts that don't agree with his position on this topic - just based on his lack of engagement with the arguments that DonaldD and others bring up here.)

That it makes sense for reasons unrelated to AGW to do most of the same things that AGW would prompt us to do is just gravy.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most people in Western culture simply cannot stand having their official position as "I don't know enough to form an opinion."
Indeed- which is why that phrase is followed by, "So I trust the input of specialists who do know enough to sort and interpret the evidence unless I have a clear and compelling reason not to."

When you posit that the experts are unreliable as a possible fact, without providing any evidence to actually support the implicit accusation, then you're sowing doubt, not actually raising a valid, evidence based concern.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you guys are overthinking it by a bit. It doesn't take a "conspiracy" for this to occur. What it takes is a system of training "climate scientists" that introduces a consistent bias, which is exactly what we have. Who goes into research on global warming who's not passionate about the impact of man on the environment? How does their training encourage them to uncover and remove systematic bias, rather than increase it?

There's no controversy about whether the data is manipulated, it's not a fact that is in contention. The scientists who compile and use the data set out exactly how, and why, they make adjustments to the raw data. They do it to correct for different types of biases that have been introduced overtime at various locations.

What's disputable is how valid those adjustments are, and the impact they have on the climate models. This is not impossible for lay people to have judgments on, though it can be pushing the boundaries. But there is so much fudge factor involved in climate science that it's virtually impossible for the systemic analysis not to produce the result the person studying it expects to see.

I've mentioned it many times before, but climate models are pretty much guaranteed to be too complicated to produce the level of significance that climate scientists claim. And there's virtually no chance that the models, at our current level of science, actually reflect even the most meaningful factors correctly. What they've actually done is create a very precise measurement system, without controlling sufficiently for its accuracy. This leaves bystanders with a false impression of significance, and brings us lovely threads like these ones.

Taking one side or the other and aggressively attacking anyone with it is almost too silly for words, and can't be anything, really, but an exercise of faith.

[ November 30, 2015, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I *don't* trust the experts in what looks like a political morass, it seems unreasonable to suppose that we could NOT have damaged the earth's climate with all the Carbon sinks that we have destroyed. The Earth cannot adapt when we systematically destroy its homeostasis mechanisms.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't trust anyone who capitalizes "The Earth" as if it was a religious label when discussing (what one hopes are) matters of science. [Razz]

But it's already politicized, why not made into an official religion?

Further review indicates I may not know my capitalization rules and am projecting. Heavenly bodies indeed...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's only a political morass because some influential and wealthy businesses really, really, really don't want climate change to be real but have no actual data to back it up.

I can't say I blame them, I'd rather climate change be fake, too. But I've seen nothing that suggests the Earth isn't hotter than it "should" be; that humans aren't the cause; or that the results won't be bad. Every single smoking gun gleefully announced by deniers has been all smoke and no gun.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It's only a political morass because some influential and wealthy businesses really, really, really don't want climate change to be real but have no actual data to back it up

It's a political morass because the proposed solutions have massive economic impact, and there seems to be a real trend to incorporate redistributionist philosophy in as well. For a single example, the carbon capping treaties almost uniformly encourage closing and underutilization of the most efficient western factories in favor of production in the least efficient and most polluting non-western factories. Hard to accept that "solution" as a legitimate answer to a global warming problem. Easy to see it as a feel good piece of political thought though.
quote:
I can't say I blame them, I'd rather climate change be fake, too. But I've seen nothing that suggests the Earth isn't hotter than it "should" be; that humans aren't the cause; or that the results won't be bad.
In the first instance, we don't have an actual information on how hot the Earth should be. We have an assumption that the Earth should be in homeostasis (Pete even called it out above), when every bit of historical data indicates the climate is always on the move (I grant you, not necessary quickly, but also notoriously difficult to judge from a deep historical perspective).

There's plenty to indicate that humans are making changes, there's, however, very little that's convincing that says they are the only cause or even a primary cause (and to even get there you have to have accept the Earth is warmer than it should be). There's also no reason to believe that Carbon production is the primary vector. Maybe its a change in water vapor levels caused by the massive irrigation of farm land, maybe its changes in animal waste levels caused by over production of food animals, maybe its a change in the composition of animal life in the ocean by the removal of megatons of edible ocean life, maybe it really is changes in solar activity levels.

And most importantly, its just an assumption that life would be better on a colder planet. There's every possibility (even likelihood) that life would be better on a warmer planet. Granted you'd want a controlled rate of increase if that was the case, and certainly not an uncontrolled and potentionally out of control one if that were the case. But there's no convincing research that shows a warmer earth wouldn't be better for humans, other than an argument from ignorance.
quote:
Every single smoking gun gleefully announced by deniers has been all smoke and no gun.
I'm not sure that doesn't apply to all smoking guns by both sides at this point. Certainly none of the most dire climate change predictions have come true as predicted. Not to say they can't, just that they have not.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think people overthink AGW. They think it is based on climate models, and observed warming, and other complicated factors that the layman can't understand. And it really isn't.

It's based on some simple facts.

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It "traps" infrared heat. This is easily demonstrated in the lab. (It was first discovered in the 1800s, IIRC, which shows you how simple it is. [Smile] )

2. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing in our atmosphere. Just google Keeling Curve, and look how it keeps rising (and rising faster now than in 1960).

3. Since CO2 is rising in our atmosphere, and it "traps" infrared radiation, then it is warming our planet.

That's really about it. Even AGW deniers acknowledge this.

So the question is now whether CO2 is warming the planet, but what is its effects? And that's where we get into the complex climate models and all that. Exactly how it will change is not known.

But it doesn't take a supercomputer to know that increasing our average global temperature by 4.9 - 6.1 degrees C (which is what the estimates of greenhouse gases predict if CO2 concentrations reach 660-790 ppm--and we have good models of the effects of greenhouse gases, having used them to model the temperatures of other planets in our solar system), is going to have a major effect on our world's climate.

Do we really want to monkey around with our climate like that when we aren't absolutely certain of the outcome, especially when demand for food is expected to double within the next 55 years? [Eek!]

Climate deniers shouldn't be wasting their time debunking climate models and historical records. They should be putting money into climate models. Because they need to prove that rising CO2 levels isn't going to mess up our world.

Because there is no doubt that CO2 is warming the Earth.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do we really want to monkey around with our climate like that when we aren't absolutely certain of the outcome, especially when demand for food is expected to double within the next 55 years? [Eek!]
Yes! Terraforming beta test, take one.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any potential solution is going to be political but that the science itself has become a political football is the result of entrenched interests. To contrast: no one disputes that smoking is unhealthy but it becomes a matter of politics when a solution is attempted.

My understanding is that normative statements of what the temperature should be is based on extrapolation from long term trends. It's not that the Earth's climate should be the same as it was prior to human interference but that it has begun to change in ways that can only be explained by human activity. I'm reasonably sure water vapour has been assessed for its effects, likewise with solar activity. Neither can explain the apparent increase in temperature change. I don't know about animal waste or marine life but I haven't seen them proposed as causes either. You seem to be suggesting that CO2 levels were selected as an explanation without due caution. Given how widespread the consensus is, I'd say you need to do more to back up your assertions.

It's not that a colder planet is better it's that our infrastructure is suited to the one we have. Breadbaskets turning into deserts or sea-levels rising are bad. It doesn't matter if there's more arable if none of it's under cultivation and the fields we do have dry out. Disruption is almost always bad in the short term. Long term benefits are irrelevant if the short term consequence are severe enough. And that doesn't even include things like the Gulf Stream failing.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes! Terraforming beta test, take one.
Great. I bet it'll be just as successful as any Windows beta test. [Crying]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
That's really about it. Even AGW deniers acknowledge this.

To be fair, it is a fair question whether conditions in a lab can be extrapolated to an Earth-sized system, not even taking into account possible feedback processes that might work against the CO2 effect.

quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
It's a political morass because the proposed solutions have massive economic impact, and there seems to be a real trend to incorporate redistributionist philosophy in as well. For a single example, the carbon capping treaties almost uniformly encourage closing and underutilization of the most efficient western factories in favor of production in the least efficient and most polluting non-western factories. Hard to accept that "solution" as a legitimate answer to a global warming problem. Easy to see it as a feel good piece of political thought though.

Well, not all solutions being proposed are redistributive, but I do see this fear on the part of many. For instance, carbon pricing is not necessarily redistributive, nor are population controls or education (well, education maybe, but I don't think that's what you meant).

quote:
We have an assumption that the Earth should be in homeostasis (Pete even called it out above), when every bit of historical data indicates the climate is always on the move (I grant you, not necessary quickly, but also notoriously difficult to judge from a deep historical perspective).
Well, no, we do not have such an assumption - certainly not anybody who studies climate. I do see this being brought up by those arguing against the idea that the rate of change of the climate is unprecedented and will lead to many undesirable effects, but it's basically a straw man argument that wastes everyone's time and effort.

quote:
There's plenty to indicate that humans are making changes, there's, however, very little that's convincing that says they are the only cause or even a primary cause (and to even get there you have to have accept the Earth is warmer than it should be).
This is a non sequitur. It is perfectly consistent to believe that you would like the Earth to be warmer, for there to be no permanent ice pack in the Arctic, and to also believe that human activity is leading us in that direction, and is even the primary cause of recent warming. This goes back to the homeostasis straw man.

quote:
And most importantly, its just an assumption that life would be better on a colder planet.
Who wants a colder planet? I'm sure you can find yahoos on the internet that support anything, but the major risks that climate scientists are calling out have to do with the rate of change being unprecedented, and will lead to very real costs over time frames that will not be easily managed.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be fair, it is a fair question whether conditions in a lab can be extrapolated to an Earth-sized system, not even taking into account possible feedback processes that might work against the CO2 effect.
Fortunately, as I mentioned, our models for greenhouse gases explains the temperatures on other planets, so there is little doubt that they will work on ours. [Smile]

Now feedback processes are a possibility, and there are a few that we have identified. But that is the reason I carefully phrased my statement, that CO2 gases are heating the planet. Perhaps some other system or systems will kick in and cool it. But we have to know that that these systems will cool it as much as the CO2 is heating it, and that they are not limited and will suddenly stop working while CO2 continues to work.

Which is why we need good climate models. And why deniers must have good climate models, to show these things. Otherwise, they are relying on wishful thinking. [Roll Eyes]

And so far, I haven't heard of any good climate model that shows these things. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right. But that requires additional faith and/or knowledge above just the simplified 3 points that your earlier posited as sufficient - specifically, you suggested that understanding AGW did not involve basing one's position on "climate models, and observed warming, and other complicated factors that the layman can't understand."
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Certainly scientists are capable of manipulating their theories based on their biases.

No less a scientist than Einstein invented the cosmological constant to make the universe fit his theory.

Nobody gave a crap about whether the universe was expanding or static, except maybe the Vatican and the scientists themselves.

There have been proposals and counter proposals over time - even though surely all cosmologists had become "biased" toward the expanding universe as it was long accepted theory and certainly all of them were trained in this understanding.

Now, if we actually had to DO something about the Big Crunch, or the Heat Death of the Universe, I'm sure we'd all be fighting over that also.

The other situation, is that the US was (and continues) to be cast as the "bad guy" in this discussion. A lot of this stems from Kyoto, and the fact that we had more CO2 emissions than any other nation until recently. This provokes a natural backlash.

I think this turns into a kind of tit-for-tat "your side must be biased because they are on your side" view that doesn't produce useful results.

What we need is better solutions that people aren't going to fight as hard about, but the climate change crowd not only sets their solutions in new taxes, but also privation and altruism. Instead, they might better get conservatives on board if the solution involved bombing the oil.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I don't trust anyone who capitalizes "The Earth" as if it was a religious label when discussing (what one hopes are) matters of science. [Razz]

But it's already politicized, why not made into an official religion?

Further review indicates I may not know my capitalization rules and am projecting. Heavenly bodies indeed...

Indeed. The Bible and other religious codes I am familiar with leave earth uncapitalized. I was treating it as a planet. Should have said Earth rather than the Earth.

[ November 30, 2015, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
What we need is better solutions that people aren't going to fight as hard about, but the climate change crowd not only sets their solutions in new taxes, but also privation and altruism. Instead, they might better get conservatives on board if the solution involved bombing the oil.

I agree with this, although maybe not specifically the oil plan! But as a person I care about the planet and I would support any rational action to combat the polluting of the environment just on principle. Insofar as this is my position I don't even care about AGW or warming or anything like that. I would want to clean the place up not to stop warming, but because it matters to me in and of itself. The AGW debate may attempt to define a possible time limit on getting this done (before Bad Things happen) but if anything I wonder whether the political aspect to the debate hasn't hurt the issue rather than help it.

You'd think anyone with a brain would embrace clean and renewable energy, and yet we're going to see certain political factions slouching their way to admitting that it's maybe not so bad to see certain countries predominantly energy green.

The smart way to approach AGW right out of the gates to get the Republicans on board should have been to dress the problem as an economic opportunity. Instead of demanding sacrifices a la Kyoto the private sector should have been sicked on the problem with promises of government rewards, and Republicans should have come on board in order to find ways to help allow this new area to create jobs. The oil men would never have played ball but I doubt all Republicans are on the take from big oil.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
he smart way to approach AGW right out of the gates to get the Republicans on board should have been to dress the problem as an economic opportunity. Instead of demanding sacrifices a la Kyoto the private sector should have been sicked on the problem with promises of government rewards, and Republicans should have come on board in order to find ways to help allow this new area to create jobs.
Except of course that the Republicans have made adamant opposition to such assistance a central point of dogma, not to mention it being completely wrong to present such a solution as being somehow at odds with Kyoto as opposed to exactly what it should have encouraged. The idea that it requires sacrifices instead of innovation is propaganda right out of the playbook to preserve the current status quo in favor of the entrenched fossil fuel companies and prevent investment in alternatives.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That may be so, but let's say by hypothesis that Kyoto was a bad plan. Maybe the Republicans would have even rejected a good plan anyhow, but by offering a bad plan they can offer sensible reasons for the rejection. If the plan had been good, whatever that means, then they'd be left with nothing but having to fool people into thinking they had a reason.

You may think these two scenarios are identical since either way they make the same claim, but I don't think they're identical. The fact of one statement being true and the other being false...I think it would affect things somehow.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1