Author Topic: here comes the next ice age  (Read 52037 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #600 on: January 21, 2020, 12:40:35 PM »
As it concerns the debate on Climate Change I think the intent of those that oppose the idea (oppose any thought of economic disruption - fear economic change) is Omission bias
Confuse the issue so we keep on talking while avoiding any action.

The fact is having policies that aim at clean water, air, energy... (having a debate on such possible policies) can make sense on its own, environmentally and economical, without requiring a resolution to the debate on Climate Change. Those that are linking the two debates aren't being honest with themselves.

As long as we stay stuck in the Climate Change 'he said she said' debate nothing will change which is exactly what many people want

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #601 on: January 21, 2020, 01:33:09 PM »
Au contraire... "...I think the intent of those that oppose the idea (oppose any thought of economic disruption - fear economic change) is Omission bias."

Ridiculous. All Climate scientist agree we are currently in an interglacial pause within an ice age. Any warming is good, to offset the loss of growing seasons and farmland to provide food. Want fact? China is buying land worldwide all around the equator to control land that may be necessary to grow food for their populations. They are doing that now, because they realize the future threat is not warming - but cooling. All those thousands of Climatic Cooling articles that documented the science on cooling was deleted by one of the Wikilinks founders, just to make his unproved opinions less precarious.  Don't ask me for links. Ask that founder.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #602 on: January 21, 2020, 01:45:22 PM »
Thousands of links, eh? Can't find them on the Wayback Machine?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #603 on: January 21, 2020, 01:46:26 PM »
All those thousands of Climatic Cooling articles that documented the science on cooling was deleted by one of the Wikilinks founders, just to make his unproved opinions less precarious.  Don't ask me for links. Ask that founder.
Here ya go, wmLambert: The Solution

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #604 on: January 21, 2020, 01:57:24 PM »
The fact is having policies that aim at clean water, air, energy... (having a debate on such possible policies) can make sense on its own, environmentally and economical, without requiring a resolution to the debate on Climate Change. Those that are linking the two debates aren't being honest with themselves.

As long as we stay stuck in the Climate Change 'he said she said' debate nothing will change which is exactly what many people want
Unfortunately, "having policies that aim at clean water, air, energy" is just another way to avoid taking action on the highest priority issues.  CO2 is a great and necessary fertilizer, and clean coal is clean energy, after all...

And I would dispute the "nothing will change" position: the vast majority of the countries in the world now have policies to reduce their carbon footprint, and this sea change has been the result of explaining climate change and pushing back on misinformation.  Sure, those policies are not as 'radical' as scientists have agreed are necessary, but change at that level is always slow.  Heck even the USA had reasonable policies prior to the current administration, and will likely return to such under the next administration.

Even in the recalcitrant USA, more than 2/3 of Americans are at least "somewhat worried" about climate change, and that number is unlikely to drop any time soon.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #605 on: January 21, 2020, 02:00:10 PM »
Quote
Ridiculous. All Climate scientist agree we are currently in an interglacial pause within an ice age. Any warming is good, to offset the loss of growing seasons and farmland to provide food. Want fact? China is buying land worldwide all around the equator to control land that may be necessary to grow food for their populations. They are doing that now, because they realize the future threat is not warming - but cooling. All those thousands of Climatic Cooling articles that documented the science on cooling was deleted by one of the Wikilinks founders, just to make his unproved opinions less precarious.  Don't ask me for links. Ask that founder.

Notice in my remark that I qualified the Climate Change deniers (globe warming or cooling would qualify as Climate Change) with their real fear of economic disruption.
My point was that as long as we stay stuck in the debate of Climate Change is it or isn't it happening... the end effect is that we will do nothing.

You do make a point in noting that China does plan for the future where in the west six months is considered long term planning


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #606 on: January 21, 2020, 02:05:35 PM »
Quote
Unfortunately, "having policies that aim at clean water, air, energy" is just another way to avoid taking action on the highest priority issues.  CO2 is a great and necessary fertilizer, and clean coal is clean energy, after all...

I agree having policies doesn't always mean action.
The problem as I see it is that we can't even talk about steps to move in the direction of clean without the debate of climate change. The position of many of those that I know that deny climate change is that if its not happening we don't have to change and we can go on abusing the planet as we see fit - keep the money flowing.

Our oceans are a mess with or without climate change and we should be able to talk about that without bring up climate change.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #607 on: January 21, 2020, 02:14:03 PM »
Quote
The biggest problem in arguing climate science is that it isn't settled as a matter of science - there's no experiment, there's no way to eliminate other causes.
That may be because you continue to ignore the experimental data, and the specific evidence that eliminates other causes.

No.  It's because there is no climate experiment.  I've walked this through multiple times, including on this thread. 

Point out the experimental study of the climate.  Experimentation in climate sciences is of necessity focused and tiny and not necessarily capable of being generalized to the climate as a whole. 

Quote
For instance:
  • Humanity is generating measurable quantities of CO2, and emitting that CO2 into the atmosphere.
  • CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing due to these human emissions (emission volumes themselves can be estimated, and human emitted CO2 has a particular signature and can be isolated from naturally occurring CO2.)
  • Satellites find that less energy at CO2 wavelengths is escaping into space.
  • Surface measurements of CO2 wavelength radiation is increasing.
  • These changes are consistent with those expected as a result of the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is an experiment to which we have been subjecting the planet for decades now.

This is not an experiment. 

But it could be a proxy for an experiment, if we really understood everything connected to the climate in enough detail that we could "control" for the outside influences.  Instead you have nearly infinite uncontrolled variables.   Its observational data not experimental.  I find that when people need to generate credibility in area where there is a defect in the argument they start redefining things and misconstruing them, which is exactly what's going on there. 

And why bother?  Is it really terrible to make an argument based on observational data and admit there's some uncertainty?

Quote
The killer is that this has been brought up a number of times at Ornery, yet still we get responses from the three wise monkeys as if the examples have never been presented.  There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Me:  You have no proof that monkeys are controlling Washington.

You:  Washington is acting just like we'd expect if it were controlled by monkeys.  And look at the data, I can prove that monkeys exist, and that they will eat bananas, ergo you're a blind fool if you don't accept that my facts prove my opinion and that there's no other possible explanation of how Washington is acting in a universe that includes monkeys.

That's not to say that your argument is literally that bad, just an example of how its misstructured.  Pointing to detailed charts and studies on a related or similar topic doesn't make your central argument correct.  I think we all agree that scientists are working diligently on studying the climate, on determining the actual impacts of humans on the climate and on trying to model what's going on.  I think we all understand that they build the models based on the best understanding of the environment that they can (unless you buy into the argument that they are manipulating it for politics/academic credibility).  But they are still models.  The fact that you can kick but on Call of Duty doesn't make you a soldier, nor is a real human going to limit their responses just to what an AI will throw at you.

The models can't generate a predictive result that deviates from the assumptions we put into them.

Quote
As for the rest of that post (including "they don't know the probability on any of that") let me once again direct you to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2013 version this time)

Lol.  Again, they don't know the probability on any of that.  They don't actually understand the mechanisms involved to the extent that would let them know with any certainty whether there are corrective mechanisms that will reverse or undo these changes, or even over correct for them (and we know they exist from the entrances and exits into glacial periods, and even ice ages).  They are smart and they are constructing theories and trying to understand.  It would be foolish to ignore them, but ascribing them certainty is a delusional belief.

Quote
Finally, you wrote this
Quote
but wait, shouldn't we spend some of that money to detect near Earth orbit objects and redirect them?  No time for that foolishness
I really hope that this was ironic, because the other option is too sad.

That was a joke, that kind of accurately paints a picture of those on the left.  One existential crisis is useful to remake the world in a socialist image, the other not so much, ergo the first is the "real" crisis that no expense can be spared to fight and the second can be ignored.  I mean heck, if you want to get serious on existential crises, where's the funding into understanding volcanism and plate techtonics?  That Yellowstone Caldera is going to wipe out this country at some point and it'l be virtually impossible to mitigate after the fact (unlike climate change, for which we don't really know how easy it would be to mitigate after the fact.  In fact, it's entirely possible that it's cheaper and more effective to mitigate after the fact - we just don't credibly know and it seems risky to bank on it).

It's entirely possible that what we should be doing is "breaking" the climate to try and maintain a homeostasis that woudn't exist in nature. 

In the meantime if you want me to take you seriously on this, propose solutions that aren't leftist.  Tell me how you'd solve the problem and in doing so give power to the right.  If it's really a matter of life and death, surely even giving control to the other side should be worth it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #608 on: January 21, 2020, 02:20:06 PM »
As it concerns the debate on Climate Change I think the intent of those that oppose the idea (oppose any thought of economic disruption - fear economic change) is Omission bias
Confuse the issue so we keep on talking while avoiding any action.

I think that's an incorrect analysis.  I've seen zero evidence that anyone believes that harmful effects occur and is trying to avoid correcting them.  We put in place air quality controls long before we understood the risk of warming.  We put in anti-pollution controls when we understood impacts pollutants have on life without even thinking about the overall environment.

The evil mustache twirling CEO may be out there, but I doubt it.

Quote
The fact is having policies that aim at clean water, air, energy... (having a debate on such possible policies) can make sense on its own, environmentally and economical, without requiring a resolution to the debate on Climate Change. Those that are linking the two debates aren't being honest with themselves.

I agree that green makes an independent sense.  But I thin you are misconstruing who is linking the debates.  There is no mandate for fighting climate change on an International level, there's just a mandate for redistribution.  The linking of the two is solely to try and pressure first world countries into economic redistribution by targeting their passionate citizens (who've already pioneered the way into clean tech).

Quote
As long as we stay stuck in the Climate Change 'he said she said' debate nothing will change which is exactly what many people want

Who wants that exactly?  Seriously, bogey men are not out there.

Industry is already making big money from environmental action.  The right is not anti-fixing the environment, that's just propaganda.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #609 on: January 21, 2020, 02:34:45 PM »
And I would dispute the "nothing will change" position: the vast majority of the countries in the world now have policies to reduce their carbon footprint, and this sea change has been the result of explaining climate change and pushing back on misinformation.

I'm not sure you know when you are spreading false information.  Outside of Europe, virtually no country in the world is on a downwards carbon trajectory.  The US is going down, but it was going higher for longer than Europe.  N.Korea is down - they switched to more nuclear and have less industry, similarly many of the former states of the USSR are down because they have less industry.  And that's kind of it, everyone else is generally sharply increasing.

Deluding yourself to think that Paris Accords where they "promised" in non-binding promises things that still increase carbon are  "reducing their carbon footprint," is just that - make believe.

Quote
Sure, those policies are not as 'radical' as scientists have agreed are necessary, but change at that level is always slow.  Heck even the USA had reasonable policies prior to the current administration, and will likely return to such under the next administration.

The US still has reasonable policies.  It's still environmental death to cut production in the cleanest factories in the world to allow "economic" redistribution to production in the worst.   But please tell us how pursuing the US cuts more policies are going to help.

Quote
Even in the recalcitrant USA, more than 2/3 of Americans are at least "somewhat worried" about climate change, and that number is unlikely to drop any time soon.

Good lord. US is one of the world leaders in carbon cutting, and is the leader in green tech development.  You laud the rest of the world where economics are ALWAYS given primacy over pollution.  It's one of those backwards thinking things the left does where they 'splain things for so long they actually come to support policies that DIRECTLY undermine the supposed goals justifying the policies.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #610 on: January 21, 2020, 02:52:47 PM »
Quote
But I thin you are misconstruing who is linking the debates.

For that just go to any article that has anything to do with a specific issue of the environment and observe the comments and watch how quickly it goes to arguing about Climate change even if the article isn't about that.

Any discussion I've ever had with a climate deniers end in the same way. You can't prove its happening, and even if you do prove its happening you can't prove human activity is having any impact on it. So shut up, no reason to *censored* with the economy. The economy being the real concern.

Watch how proud Trump is about removing regulations so dishwashers could use more water then they need to.  I know its not a real issues any company that isn't trying make their products as efficiently as possible won't last. But its the message he's sending behind the silly statement.  We can use and abuse earth's resources as we wish what matters money.

FYI talk to any hard core evangelist and climate denier they will make you cry.

Quote
Good lord. US is one of the world leaders in carbon cutting,
To clarify I'm taking about the debates. I know behind the scenes companies aren't being stupid, changes are happening. Just don't tell anyone involved in the Climate debate
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 02:56:53 PM by rightleft22 »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #611 on: January 21, 2020, 03:15:40 PM »
Quote
But I thin you are misconstruing who is linking the debates.

For that just go to any article that has anything to do with a specific issue of the environment and observe the comments and watch how quickly it goes to arguing about Climate change even if the article isn't about that.

Or one could just read any write up on climate change.  Given that the position is always a call for "urgent action" which is rarely a call for consideration of a range of responses.  Or look at any "climate change" treaty - which have little to do with the environment.   Or the green new deal which is majority not climate related.

Quote
Any discussion I've ever had with a climate deniers end in the same way. You can't prove its happening, and even if you do prove its happening you can't prove human activity is having any impact on it. So shut up, no reason to *censored* with the economy. The economy being the real concern.

So don't have discussions with climate "deniers."  That's a small group.

Quote
Watch how proud Trump is about removing regulations so dishwashers could use more water then they need to.  I know its not a real issues any company that isn't trying make their products as efficiently as possible won't last. But its the message he's sending behind the silly statement.  We can use and abuse earth's resources as we wish what matters money.

See I think the message he's sending is one that anyone that washes their own clothes or dishes understands.  The amount of water used in a modern washer often doesn't clean the clothes or dishes.  One has to wonder what the chemical load really is for washing clothes with little water and little agitation.  Doesn't it seem like maybe more water and safer soap could have a better result?  Particular if we do better on waste water treatment.

Quote
FYI talk to any hard core evangelist and climate denier they will make you cry.

Talking to anyone that has a closed mind will make your head hurt.  Doesn't matter which side their are on.  Atheists are as irrational (as a matter of logic) as hard core evangelists, and climate deniers are little worse than irrational climate activists.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #612 on: January 21, 2020, 03:33:07 PM »
Quote
This is not an experiment.
Of course it is - it's a natural experiment.  It's why I asked you what you defined as an experiment.  I expect you do not believe that plate tectonics is a thing, either.
Quote
Lol.  Again, they don't know the probability on any of that.
You don't believe them, of course.  But that doesn't mean they have have not provided probabilities for referenced attributions and ranges of effects, or that those probability ranges are in significant doubt.

That you can't understand how the previously referenced, and relatively straightforward, experiment shows how human activity is affecting the Earth's energy balance suggests that you simply aren't open to the science.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #613 on: January 21, 2020, 03:59:52 PM »
Quote
This is not an experiment.
Of course it is - it's a natural experiment.  It's why I asked you what you defined as an experiment.  I expect you do not believe that plate tectonics is a thing, either.

It's important to distinguish between huge natural phenomena where really all we can do is draw data and try to make models, versus being able to run conclusive lab experiments. I don't think the standard anyone is asking for is to create an Earth-sized artificial planet, and that this is the only valid experiment. But on the other hand if the only experiments available are much smaller-scale, and necessarily not involving all the real elements that exist in the world, then the experiments can only help try to figure out the system; but they can't be said to be a solution unless a general theory emerges that, as Seriati has mentioned, has predictive power.

We have similar situations in astrophysics, where obviously we cannot go into the sun's core to really determine what makes a star go. That actually does mean that we have to be cautious about making claims that "all scientists are in agreement that nuclear fusion fuels stars." We actually do not know that! But it's the model I've heard the most that is the most supported, which is fine for now. I would be super-surprised to hear it referred to as 'settled science', even though it's what's been taught in classrooms for decades already. We really cannot conduct experiments that can really validate whether this is the case, although to be sure tons of data is always going to be compared to theoretical models of how a fusion-powered star might work. The question is always going to be - do we really understand how fusion would work in a star, or are we shaping the peg-hole to fit the only peg we have?

It is appropriate to have a leading model, even one that lacks conclusive experiments, and which contains many variables that we probably can't account for. We keep that in mind while for the time being treating the theory as valid while we work. There is no need to call anything 'settled' to employ a theoretical model. Nothing is lost, other than time, by utilizing a model that may be obsoleted (or refuted) down the line. Normally this is ok; but in the climate science arena once again the issue becomes the 10-year countdown, and the call to make huge sacrifices now based on an early model. I call it early in the sense that this field has not been around for all that long.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #614 on: January 21, 2020, 04:18:19 PM »
Quote
and that this is the only valid experiment.
No, it really isn't.  It hasn't been for geology as just one example (over which we control none of the variables, and it certainly isn't for the effects of CO2, where we actually are responsible for the input variable (although we cannot go back a re-do the experiment).

Redefining words like this for partisan reasons is not helpful.  Oh, and by the way, "lab experiments" are not actually "conclusive" either.

And of course our understanding of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere has predictive power: we've been validating those effects for decades now. Leaving one's head in the sand in the face of evidence is not actually a reasonable position, no matter how much one pretends to be reasonable...

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #615 on: January 21, 2020, 04:23:56 PM »
Quote
This is not an experiment.
Of course it is - it's a natural experiment.  It's why I asked you what you defined as an experiment.  I expect you do not believe that plate tectonics is a thing, either.

That's a bizarre thing to assert.  Plate tectonics (which I referenced myself) is observational.  Do we understand much about them?  Some yes some no.

It's not a natural experiment either, there is no control and there is only one study subject (ie, N=1).  Again, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about notwithstanding that you seem entitled to be rude about it.  It is possible that we could advance to the point where we have sufficient ability to account for other factors such that we could run an open climate experiment and get a meaningful result.  For the time being though, we aren't there.  We have a deductive result based on observations.

Quote
Quote
Lol.  Again, they don't know the probability on any of that.
You don't believe them, of course.  But that doesn't mean they have have not provided probabilities for referenced attributions and ranges of effects, or that those probability ranges are in significant doubt.

Lol.  They can provide it all they want, they're speculating out their asses.  There is little "significant" doubt that their modeled projections match their modeled assumptions, there is enormous doubt that their modeled assumptions match the reality in play or that their certainty extends to reality.  Or to put another way, there are very likely no "probabilities" in what will happen, only certainties that change as events feeding into them alter.

They don't understand the existing interactions enough to make a projection, and they can't understanding the mechanisms they haven't seen operate.

Quote
That you can't understand how the previously referenced, and relatively straightforward, experiment shows how human activity is affecting the Earth's energy balance suggests that you simply aren't open to the science.

That you can't understand the difference between questioning of what the science can prove and can't prove and failing to "understand" or be open to science, shows that you  shouldn't be lecturing others on the topic.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #616 on: January 21, 2020, 04:55:34 PM »
Quote
It's not a natural experiment either, there is no control and there is only one study subject (ie, N=1).
By definition, natural experiments do not have a control.  What do you think a natural experiment is?

And if by "one study subject" you meant only a single iteration of the experiment, then this is also incorrect.  We observe the variables over separate periods of time; we continue to do so.  The results from 1990 can be compared to 1991 or 2017; the results from the 1980s can be compared to the 2000s.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #617 on: January 21, 2020, 05:20:33 PM »
Quote
and that this is the only valid experiment.
No, it really isn't.

You...may want to reread my comment :)

Quote
Redefining words like this for partisan reasons is not helpful.  Oh, and by the way, "lab experiments" are not actually "conclusive" either.

ibid. And also I find it amusing, in a mildly galling sort of way, to be called a partisan on this issue when I'm much closer to being a pro-environment evil-corporation person than I am a 'leave industry alone' person. Although we're taking a similar tack on this one issue Seriati and I are probably very far apart in terms of our leanings in this arena. But funny that any objection is called "partisan". You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means...

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #618 on: January 21, 2020, 05:22:39 PM »
How about you take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment, and in particular note the difference between a natural experiment and an observational study.

There are controls in a natural experiment, which is part of what separates it from an observational study.  Again, it seems like you're using terms without understanding what they man.

N=1 because we have one climate.  We don't have a control group.  Using different time periods is not a replacement for having more subjects.  Or to put another way a study with 50 subjects for a random variable is better than a study with a single person treating 50 weeks as separate persons.  I am not sure there's a point in this, you seem very convince of your conclusions even if not warranted.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #619 on: January 21, 2020, 05:51:07 PM »
How about you take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment, and in particular note the difference between a natural experiment and an observational study.

There are controls in a natural experiment, which is part of what separates it from an observational study.  Again, it seems like you're using terms without understanding what they man.
Did you even read the article to which you just linked, or just not understand it?
Quote
A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) are exposed to the experimental and control conditions that are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators. The process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment.

There was even an example provided:
Quote
Of course, the exposure to the polluted water was not under the control of any scientist. Therefore, this exposure has been recognized as being a natural experiment.[6][7][8]
Right there in your link - it was a natural experiment exactly because the exposure  was "not under the control of any scientist"

<edit>
Oh, and a natural experiment is, by definition, an observational study.  Observational studies may also be non-experimental, which is what you might have been thinking of.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 05:58:48 PM by DonaldD »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #620 on: January 21, 2020, 06:13:48 PM »
Quote
They can provide it all they want, they're speculating out their asses.
I get it - thousands of scientists, whose full time job is the analysis of data, are all wrong and making stuff up, because Seriati, who doesn't even know what an experiment is even when linking to the actual article says so. :)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #621 on: January 21, 2020, 06:50:30 PM »
Quote
They can provide it all they want, they're speculating out their asses.
I get it - thousands of scientists, whose full time job is the analysis of data, are all wrong and making stuff up, because Seriati, who doesn't even know what an experiment is even when linking to the actual article says so. :)

Appeal to authority, Lysenkoism at its finest.

There are thousands of scientists that disagrees with AGW. Why are they not accounted for in your logical fallacy?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #622 on: January 21, 2020, 08:16:58 PM »
Quote
Appeal to authority, Lysenkoism at its finest.
Don't be foolish.  Firstly, this was a response to Seriati's claim that these scientists were incorrect - pointing out what Seriati was claiming cannot be an appeal to authority in and of itself.  Secondly, appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious when the authorities are actual experts or, as in this case, a broad scientific consensus.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #623 on: January 21, 2020, 11:45:33 PM »
How about you take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment, and in particular note the difference between a natural experiment and an observational study.

There are controls in a natural experiment, which is part of what separates it from an observational study.  Again, it seems like you're using terms without understanding what they man.
Did you even read the article to which you just linked, or just not understand it?

I am utterly fascinated when someone takes some time to read a link, only to come back with proof they didn't understand anything they read.  You missed pretty much the entire point of what a Natural Experiment is.  It's a situation where nature assigns the subjects to the "control" group and the "study" group.  It's literally a situation where some process of the environment operates to separate out subjects on the specific factor to be studied, by exposing only those subjects to the study question.

You seemed to have missed EVERY PART OF WHAT IT IS other than that it occurs in nature.

Quote
A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) are exposed to the experimental and control conditions that are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators. The process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment.

So you quoted, and bolded the parts that referenced control in a way that you think supports your position, and ignored the part that undermines it?  "A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) are exposed to the experimental and control conditions that are determined by nature..." 

Notice the reference to experimental and control conditions.  The part that is "out of control" is the assignment process - which is normally made through randomized selection of subjects to the groups to reduce risk of other influences.  And that's exactly the point the pieces you decided to bold explains.   

In each of the examples there is a control group that is naturally not exposed to the experimental condition (the control group) and a group that is naturally exposed (the test group). 

Quote
There was even an example provided:
Quote
Of course, the exposure to the polluted water was not under the control of any scientist. Therefore, this exposure has been recognized as being a natural experiment.[6][7][8]
Right there in your link - it was a natural experiment exactly because the exposure  was "not under the control of any scientist"

Amazing, you managed to grab a part of a paragraph that you think backs you and somehow ignore the rest that undermines you:

Quote
In this example, Snow discovered a strong association between the use of the water from the pump, and deaths and illnesses due to cholera. Snow found that the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company, which supplied water to districts with high attack rates, obtained the water from the Thames downstream from where raw sewage was discharged into the river. By contrast, districts that were supplied water by the Lambeth Waterworks Company, which obtained water upstream from the points of sewage discharge, had low attack rates. Given the near-haphazard patchwork development of the water supply in mid-nineteenth century London, Snow viewed the developments as "an experiment...on the grandest scale."[5] Of course, the exposure to the polluted water was not under the control of any scientist. Therefore, this exposure has been recognized as being a natural experiment.

The control group was supplied with Lambeth water, the experimental groups with Southwark and Vauxhall water.  The Scientist didn't pick whose water was supplied by each company, effectively randomizing the water given to the entire population.  That's what's meant by a natural experiment - that nature allocates between the test condition and the control condition.

That has nothing to do with climate science where there is no control group, only the experimental group.   

Quote
Oh, and a natural experiment is, by definition, an observational study.  Observational studies may also be non-experimental, which is what you might have been thinking of.

Yep, natural experiments are observational (so are actually experiments by the way - or did you think no one takes the results from them), but they are distinct from other observational studies in that through nature they actual separate into control and experimental groups, which allows for causative conclusions.  Observational studies do not so allow.

So, by my read you've literally just proven you don't understand even the basic concept, notwithstanding that you brought it up.  I think your claim that climate science is a natural experiment is almost certainly false, but you've given no actual argument on that front.  Just asserting that it's "in nature" isn't remotely on point.

Quote
They can provide it all they want, they're speculating out their asses.
I get it - thousands of scientists, whose full time job is the analysis of data, are all wrong and making stuff up, because Seriati, who doesn't even know what an experiment is even when linking to the actual article says so. :)

I don't know what to tell you.  Do you believe fortune tellers too?

You really don't understand what a climate model is if you think it generates predictive power over calamaties with certainty.  A probability estimate is by definition a guess.  Unless you have an extensive data set showing the event's actual occurrence it's a wild ass guess.  It took weather satellites that could see the clouds and rain before weather prediction got to be worth anything, and even now it's hardly certain.  Predicting a long term climate trend is extrapolating form dark ages tech, closer to reading sheep guts than satellite data.

[/quote]
Quote
Appeal to authority, Lysenkoism at its finest.
Don't be foolish.  Firstly, this was a response to Seriati's claim that these scientists were incorrect - pointing out what Seriati was claiming cannot be an appeal to authority in and of itself.  Secondly, appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious when the authorities are actual experts or, as in this case, a broad scientific consensus.

Lol, interesting read there on Lysenkoism.  Hadn't heard of that one.  Not sure it's really appropriate, though you may have a point on how the science gets used by the politicians, I think the scientists are honest and not the "true believers" that argue about it on message boards.  I think certain posters understand headlines better than the facts behind them, leading them to make conclusions that the scientists themselves know are not accurate.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #624 on: January 25, 2020, 08:25:58 AM »
Let’s walk through this from the Scientific American, Jan 2019:
Quote
While much of the human concern about climate change focuses on its effects over land—rising air temperatures, changes in weather patterns and so on—accurate estimates of ocean warming are deeply important to scientists’ understanding of global warming. Determining how fast the oceans are warming helps scientists calculate how sensitive the planet is to greenhouse gas emissions and how quickly it may warm in the future.

“The ocean, in many ways, is the best thermometer we have for the planet,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-author of the new analysis.

Ok, the ocean is the thermometer. What’s it saying?

Quote
As the new review reports, multiple studies now agree that the oceans are warming at a faster rate than older estimates suggested. And these revised calculations also match up better with climate model simulations than previous estimates, giving scientists more confidence that model projections for the future are on track.

And if the models are accurate, continuing to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate could result in dire consequences for the global oceans. As the new analysis points out, models suggest that a business-as-usual climate scenario could cause nearly 1.5 degrees of ocean warming—the equivalent of nearly a foot of sea-level rise by the end of the century.

Now, this is important. They are saying the oceans will warm by 1.5C in 80 years. That’s the consensus. It’s what environmentalists believe and what they base their worldview and politics on.

Quote
Taken together, the research suggests that the oceans are heating up about 40 percent faster than previously estimated by the IPCC. Since the 1950s, studies generally suggest that the oceans have been absorbing at least 10 times as much energy annually, measured in joules, as humans consume worldwide in a year.

That’s a lot of joules, right?

The problem with that is it’s all bull*censored*. It’s impossible to heat the ocean that much. We have real ways to determine what it would take to heat the oceans with proven math and science.

Quote
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

That’s real science, real math, real numbers. Anyone can run these calculations, everyone can repeat them. This is not some computer model guess, it’s the math and it’s 100%, undeniably, accurate based on well understood and accepted thermodynamics.

What environmentalists are claiming is going to happen is, literally, impossible. The atmosphere will never heat that much - or if it did we wouldn’t survive to care. The atmosphere, trapping heat through CO2 concentrations, will never trap enough heat to warm the oceans the 1.5 C environmentalists claim. Not in 80 years, not ever.

The only thing that can heat the oceans like this is the sun. The direct heat of a local star is what’s required to drive that much heating. It’s impossible for human activity to accomplish it.



TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #625 on: January 26, 2020, 03:14:21 PM »
You do realize that the ocean doesn't mix itself like a frosty mug of beer, yeah? When they measure ocean temperatures they are on the surface. They are not submerging a thermometer in the trenches. Or did you think that the ocean is the same temperature regardless of depth?  :-[

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #626 on: January 26, 2020, 10:17:48 PM »
You do realize that the ocean doesn't mix itself like a frosty mug of beer, yeah? When they measure ocean temperatures they are on the surface. They are not submerging a thermometer in the trenches. Or did you think that the ocean is the same temperature regardless of depth?  :-[

I don't know how they do these calculations, but it seems to me that if all that's measured is ocean surface temperature then that could be impacted by several factors other than just average air temperature. For instance I imagine a change in cloud cover would have a much larger impact on the surface temperature of large water bodies than a 0.1 degree change in air temperature would. Does anyone here know if or how they take this kind of thing into account when deciding that an increase in ocean temperature means that "the world" is heating up? I remember back when the ozone layer scare was going on in the 80's/90's that there was some concern for UV radiation and other effects; could a change in atmospheric dampening also affect how much of the sun's energy impacts on the ocean, and therefore change its temperature?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #627 on: January 26, 2020, 11:16:04 PM »
I was mistaken. I'll address the central idea raised when I am at a desktop computer.

Argo is an international collaboration that collects high-quality temperature and salinity profiles from the upper 2000m of the ice-free global ocean and currents from intermediate depths.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #628 on: January 26, 2020, 11:17:57 PM »
This is what I was thinking of.

These sea surface temperature maps are based on observations by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. The satellite measures the temperature of the top millimeter of the ocean surface.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #629 on: January 27, 2020, 12:43:51 PM »
”The only thing that can heat the oceans like this is the sun”

Well if this crunch thinks that global warming means a source for heat other than solar heat, no wonder he’s a disbeliever. LoL

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #630 on: January 27, 2020, 01:05:57 PM »
Quote
So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

Thermodynamics written in crayon. That's not how heat transfer works, for one thing. Radiant energy passes through the thin air striking the ocean's surface (and land) with heat that passes through the air largely undisturbed.

This moron is assuming that all the heat transfer is through conduction, which it most obviously is not. That's real science. You might also realize that convection is in play. The air doesn't hover over the ocean surface in steady-state.

Here's some remedial reading: 3 ways to transfer heat

The whole main concept is that heat that should radiate back into space gets reflected back to earth and gets trapped there heating things up.

I'm seriously astonished that anyone would think that this random chemist troll somehow uncovered a flaw in global warming theory with an introductory high school textbook.

Oops, I guess no graduate students figured this one out, but this Australian politician has set us straight!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #631 on: February 14, 2020, 11:51:14 PM »
Speaking of "main stream science" starting to push back against the extremists.

Enter Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

Quote
In the lead-up to the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), researchers developed four scenarios for what might happen to greenhouse-gas emissions and climate warming by 2100. They gave these scenarios a catchy title: Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). One describes a world in which global warming is kept well below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial temperatures (as nations later pledged to do under the Paris climate agreement in 2015); it is called RCP2.6. Another paints a dystopian future that is fossil-fuel intensive and excludes any climate mitigation policies, leading to nearly 5 °C of warming by the end of the century. That one is named RCP8.5.

RCP8.5 was intended to explore an unlikely high-risk future. But it has been widely used by some experts, policymakers and the media as something else entirely: as a likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature.

This is particularly problematic when the worst-case scenario is contrasted with the most optimistic one, especially in high-profile scholarly work. This includes studies by the IPCC, such as AR5 and last year’s special report on the impact of climate change on the ocean and cryosphere. The focus becomes the extremes, rather than the multitude of more likely pathways in between.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #632 on: February 15, 2020, 07:45:24 AM »
The world ends in less than 12 years. What do we care about the temperatures 100 years from now?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #633 on: February 15, 2020, 12:43:51 PM »
The world ends in less than 12 years. What do we care about the temperatures 100 years from now?

Only according to the RCP8.5 model, which only had a 3% chance of happening when it was initially created for the AR5. Since then, the decommissioning of many coal power plants in favor of Natural Gas, as well as several other changes in the energy sector have given that one a damn near 0% chance of happening outside of some rather extreme theories(meaning they have little scientific evidence--as per Nature no less--  to support them), even among the alarmists, happen to pan out.