Author Topic: Just making life easier for climate deniers  (Read 6078 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: April 30, 2019, 11:45:30 AM »
Quote
Dmitry Yumashev and a team of researchers at Lancaster University have studied the effects of melting ice sheets in the Arctic and concluded that an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, coupled with added absorption of heat from the sun due to a lack of sea ice reflecting sunlight away from the surface of the Earth, will lead to an increase in the cost of global warming by a staggering $70 trillion.

So scary!

Until you dig into the study, and find out that in order to claim the terrifying $70 trillion, they project NPV until the year 2300! I think projecting out 181 years is not only bad science, but also disingenuous.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2019, 12:20:00 PM »
If we can't terraform at least to the extent of maintaining / slight improvements in our own atmosphere less the logistics of transporting that tech to some other dirt ball, I'd be pretty disappointed. 

I shouldn't have to wait till I'm over 300 years old for us to get our *censored* together!

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2019, 12:29:48 PM »
Quote
will lead to an increase in the cost of global warming by a staggering $70 trillion

Sounds like a business opportunity

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2019, 12:31:54 PM »
They don't seem to have included the economic impact of Arctic Spring Break parties, and all that newly available beach front property.  ;)

I can't take a study seriously that attributes an impact to the US pulling out of the Paris accord.

EDITED TO ADD:  Here's a timely opinion piece.  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-paris-climate-accord-democrats
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 12:35:26 PM by Seriati »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2019, 12:52:56 PM »
In the meantime, for one specific Climate Skeptic avenue, complete with ~11 year time lag, Solar Cycle 24 is being rather quiet compared to anything observed since the 19th Century. Upcoming Cycle 25's predictions, even from NASA, are starting to predict it is going to be comparatively calm(compared to the highly active 20th Century).

The more pragmatic one, in terms of Climate Change being valid, but Anthropogenic is minimal, would be that matter of while this may be "the warmest it has been in the last 100,000 years" they're constantly ignoring the matter of their favored epochs largely sitting astride a global ice age.

Based on paleoclimate records, after averaging the reconstructed temperature proxies over the past ~600 million years, we're 5 Degrees (Celsius) below the average. (The further back you go, the higher the average becomes; also keep in mind, the long-term average for the Earth-Sun relationship is supposed to be a warming trend, not a cooling one)

Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

AGW might be contributing to what we're seeing happening today, but its highly questionable that it is the only thing at play. And given the way that AGW has become dogma for much of the Climate Research Community, you might as well be Galileo telling the Roman Catholic Church that the Earth orbits around the sun, and that the only stellar body that orbits Earth is the moon. Only instead of "Earth" replace it with CO2, and instead of orbits, we're looking at warming. CO2 evidently is supposed to explain it all, even if the paleo-record often contradicts such claims.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 12:55:20 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2019, 01:30:06 PM »
Based on paleoclimate records, after averaging the reconstructed temperature proxies over the past ~600 million years, we're 5 Degrees (Celsius) below the average. (The further back you go, the higher the average becomes; also keep in mind, the long-term average for the Earth-Sun relationship is supposed to be a warming trend, not a cooling one)

Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

And if it weren't due to human activity, wouldn't we still want to find a way to stop it? I mean, its not like we want to shrug and accept a 2 degree shift back to the little ice age temps either, let alone a full blown ice age or a neo-Pliocene. The only relevant climates are the ones that existed in the past 6000 years, supporting ever larger human settlements, particularly agriculture. Our pre-civilization ancestors could just keep migrating south ahead of the glaciers, but we don't really have that mobility now. Clearly we need technology to regulate Earth's temperature and keep it in the "nice zone" for massive human populations.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2019, 01:33:45 PM »
Quote
Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

Everything changes and stays the same.

Well before the term climate change was ever discussed I did a research paper in grade school about how a city impacted local weather and environment.  temperature inversions and drainage were the big ones if I recall. No one disputed the facts. Anyway My realization at the time was that at no time in history has so much of the earth been covered - concrete, asphalt, brick... and and that this would change things. To say that our reshaping of the earth surface has zero impart on change, to my mind anyway, is absurd.

The reality is the climate change arguments aren't about climate or mans impact on it. It economical and ironically the fear of change as it pertains to the economy.
 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 01:36:48 PM by rightleft22 »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2019, 01:56:04 PM »
Based on paleoclimate records, after averaging the reconstructed temperature proxies over the past ~600 million years, we're 5 Degrees (Celsius) below the average. (The further back you go, the higher the average becomes; also keep in mind, the long-term average for the Earth-Sun relationship is supposed to be a warming trend, not a cooling one)

Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

And if it weren't due to human activity, wouldn't we still want to find a way to stop it? I mean, its not like we want to shrug and accept a 2 degree shift back to the little ice age temps either, let alone a full blown ice age or a neo-Pliocene. The only relevant climates are the ones that existed in the past 6000 years, supporting ever larger human settlements, particularly agriculture. Our pre-civilization ancestors could just keep migrating south ahead of the glaciers, but we don't really have that mobility now. Clearly we need technology to regulate Earth's temperature and keep it in the "nice zone" for massive human populations.

The questions then become:
"Are we truly having an impact?"
"What is the nature of that impact?"
"How much impact are we making?"

If most of what we are seeing is happening in largest part because of natural variation, it then becomes a matter of determining if we can make the right kind of changes to get the benefit we seek.

It does look like we're warming at present, so it appears to be we're returning to the pre-ice-age average temperatures. So global cooling isn't on our collective radar at present. (Although there are skeptics with predictions ranging anywhere from we're going to start noticeably cooling in the next few years, to the warming trend continues at an anemic rate for about another 20-30 years before it starts to drop, but the drop won't truly be felt(> 0.5C from present) until sometime in the 22nd Century, with people in the 23rd being in a position of potentially wanting to induce global warming in order to avoid what may be coming for them and their 24th century descendants.)

The biggest challenge is the sheer scale of mother nature and the systems involved. There are enormous amounts of energy involved in all of this, and any attempt to change things, in one direction or another, is going to require massive amounts of energy to be expended in some shape or form (or place) to accomplish. Be that plants to extract GHG's from the atmosphere, or plants to intentionally release GHG's into the atmosphere. Or construction of Solar Shades in orbit which in subsequent generations may need to be re-purposed into solar collectors/amplifiers as we shift from a warm phase into a cooling phase.

In either case, it requires energy, and it requires resources. Being able to reach a technical capability of having a "net neutral impact" on the climate is the ideal that I think even the most devout among the Skeptics would agree to. So long as the costs associated with those options aren't prohibitive or otherwise crippling.

That said, while "net neutral" on energy is possible in theory. Reality is different. Even the greenest options being touted right now(Wind, Solar) have localized Heat Island impacts. They're only "better" in that they aren't producing tons of CO2 per MWH produced. Even Nuclear has some heat island impact, at least with how those plants are commonly constructed today, although their heat island is much smaller by comparison. There is no reason to expect Fusion to be any different from its Fission counterpart in that respect.

The bigger fly in the ointment in all of this is land use change. People need to eat, and farms also impact both the environment, and their local climate. People also require somewhere to live, and urban areas are particularly infamous for their Urban Heat Islands.

We can minimize our potential impacts on the environment, on both micro, macro, and meta scales. We cannot eliminate it entirely, not without removing all humans from it. And as detailed above, we still have that whole matter of "Climate has been changing since before there were humans" so we need a system robust enough to be able to adapt to whatever Nature decides to throw at us along the way, whether or not we are the cause of it.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2019, 02:11:39 PM »
Stop cutting down old growth forest. Arm Amazon basin natives with ak47s.  Put a dead or alive on fish trawlers that illegally scrape ocean bottoms for fish and rip coral nets.  Use incentives and coercion to stop ocean dumping. Get plants on buildings to reduce heat island effect. Bring buffalo back to the plains and allow them to be hunted for food.  Industrialization isn't the problem;  it's the destruction of carbon sinks.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2019, 02:51:25 PM »
The more pragmatic one, in terms of Climate Change being valid, but Anthropogenic is minimal, would be that matter of while this may be "the warmest it has been in the last 100,000 years" they're constantly ignoring the matter of their favored epochs largely sitting astride a global ice age.

Based on paleoclimate records, after averaging the reconstructed temperature proxies over the past ~600 million years, we're 5 Degrees (Celsius) below the average. (The further back you go, the higher the average becomes; also keep in mind, the long-term average for the Earth-Sun relationship is supposed to be a warming trend, not a cooling one)

Why should I care about the climate when trilobites ruled the Earth?  ??? What does that have to do with our climate now?  We evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.  This is the climate we, and all plants and animals we evolved with (and use as food), are used to.  What makes you think all of them will be unaffected by climate change?

And what were the factors that made the climate so much hotter in the past?  Has the sun insolance become less over the millenniums?  Has the orbit changed slightly?  Are these factors currently affecting the climate? 

Quote
Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

So what if the climate changed before?  We're changing the climate now.  Apparently at a faster rate than past climate changes.  So what if the sun insolance or the Earth's orbit changed the climate a million years ago?  We're concerned with the change that's happening now.

Quote
AGW might be contributing to what we're seeing happening today, but its highly questionable that it is the only thing at play. And given the way that AGW has become dogma for much of the Climate Research Community, you might as well be Galileo telling the Roman Catholic Church that the Earth orbits around the sun, and that the only stellar body that orbits Earth is the moon. Only instead of "Earth" replace it with CO2, and instead of orbits, we're looking at warming. CO2 evidently is supposed to explain it all, even if the paleo-record often contradicts such claims.

We know AGW is definitely contributing, because it is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That alone will increase the heat retained in our climate.  Anyone who denies that is an idiot.

So what do your models say is the major contributor to the recent observed increase in global average temperatures?  What is the consensus opinion among deniers?  How much of the warming is due to other factors like solar insolance?  Can you list those other factors?  How did your computer models calculate those contributions?  Did they take the oceans absorption of heat into account?  How about reflections from ice and rocks?

And please tell me you have these things.  You, who mock the man-decades of work that has gone into climate research and climate modelling.  The least you must have is a computer model that shows that all the rest of the climate research community is wrong.  I mean, I know you aren't basing this on some make-believe "theories" by a few contrarians, or "just-so" stories from internet sites.  Where is your solid science that you are mocking climate science with?  Show me the reasons you believe this, and why your theories and data are better than the scientific consensus.

We wait with bated breath. :)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 02:53:44 PM by Wayward Son »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2019, 02:54:05 PM »
FYI:

Quote
In 2000, Stott and others[64] reported on the most comprehensive model simulations of 20th century climate to that date. Their study looked at both "natural forcing agents" (solar variations and volcanic emissions) as well as "anthropogenic forcing" (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols). They found that "solar effects may have contributed significantly to the warming in the first half of the century although this result is dependent on the reconstruction of total solar irradiance that is used. In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects." Stott's group found that combining these factors enabled them to closely simulate global temperature changes throughout the 20th century. They predicted that continued greenhouse gas emissions would cause additional future temperature increases "at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades".[65] In addition, the study notes "uncertainties in historical forcing" — in other words, past natural forcing may still be having a delayed warming effect, most likely due to the oceans.[64]

Stott's 2003 work largely revised his assessment, and found a significant solar contribution to recent warming, although still smaller (between 16 and 36%) than that of greenhouse gases.[49]

A study in 2004 concluded that solar activity affects the climate - based on sunspot activity, yet plays only a small role in the current global warming.[66]

Wikipedia - I normally dig deeper but I don't expect any amount of authoritative sources will convince anyone who believes that human impact is less than solar variation.

I'm just reading seveneves now, by Neal Stephenson, and it reminds me of the politician character who ignores all the scientists with their predictive models and statistical analysis, and just thinks it would be better to carry out a different plan. I won't go into more details to avoid giving away half the novel.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2019, 03:37:40 PM »
We’re down to only 10 years until it’s irreversible or the planet melts or whatever it is the global warming doomsday cult predicts. Beto just announced it.

AGW is bull*censored*, the whole cult is full of window lickers from the back of the short bus that scream about science while refusing to get vaccinated and insisting there are 2 dozen genders. It’s science bro!

 It’s like talking to really annoying Scientologists except warmists want to force you into poverty while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. At least Scientologist can be ignored. Show me a warmist, I’ll show you a useful idiot for a totalitarian ideology. That’s why this breaks down so cleanly along ideological lines, it’s a totalitarian wet dream.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2019, 03:49:42 PM »
Quote
It’s like talking to really annoying Scientologists except warmists want to force you into poverty while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. At least Scientologist can be ignored. Show me a warmist, I’ll show you a useful idiot for a totalitarian ideology. That’s why this breaks down so cleanly along ideological lines, it’s a totalitarian wet dream.
Can you expand (rather than rant) on this a little?  Is this poverty assessment based upon higher power costs if we went to say solar and wind too aggressively and closing down coal / natural gas plants?  I'll concede that your shadow-boxing opponent is also anti-nuclear, though I think a lot of people are "splitting the difference" and accept nuclear as a huge asset in lowering carbon emissions while maintaining / expanding our power consumption. 

Why totalitarian though?  Is it just that government mandated goals flying in the face of "market forces" for dirtier (or at least higher carbon producing) power = totalitarian?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2019, 04:12:02 PM »
We’re down to only 10 years until it’s irreversible or the planet melts or whatever it is the global warming doomsday cult predicts. Beto just announced it.

First, Beto is not a climatologist.  So why are you worried about what he says, unless it is backed up by the science?

Second, he didn't say "the planet melts" or even "whatever."  If you paid attention to what is actually said by those more knowledgeable than you, you might learn something.  :P

Quote
AGW is bull*censored*, the whole cult is full of window lickers from the back of the short bus that scream about science while refusing to get vaccinated and insisting there are 2 dozen genders. It’s science bro!

You're only showing your own ignorance with rants like that, Crunch.

AGW advocates and vaccination deniers are not the same group.  In fact, I'd wager that there are more AGW-deniers among the anti-vaxxers than AGW-proponents.

And remember that gender is a social construct.  You're probably getting it mixed up with a person's sex (which is not the same thing).

Quote
It’s like talking to really annoying Scientologists except warmists want to force you into poverty while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. At least Scientologist can be ignored. Show me a warmist, I’ll show you a useful idiot for a totalitarian ideology. That’s why this breaks down so cleanly along ideological lines, it’s a totalitarian wet dream.

Booga-booga-booga.  "We'll all be poor if we believe the Earth is warming!"  You're so concerned looking at your wallet, you don't see the bus heading toward you.

Sticking you head in the sand only means you'll be bit in the *ss.  The Earth is warming.  The evidence is all there.  Which were the ten hottest years on record?  Why didn't the global average temperatures decrease after the previous el nino event, like all the deniers kept telling us?  Why is nature conspiring with all those totalitarian ideologists to take away your money and freedom??

It breaks along ideological lines because Fox and the Conservative media has been drumming this lie into your heads for the past few decades.  Because they are afraid that transitioning to power sources that won't warm our planet will cost too much and their stocks will go down.  So what if ocean levels rise, deserts become larger, flooding becomes more common, crops die because of heat and drought, cities become uninhabitable because of heat and humidity, and the oceans become so acidic that much of sea life dies?  They'll have enough money to protect themselves.  Maybe not their children or grandchildren, but that's not their problem...

You think AGW advocates are part of a cult?  Look in the mirror.  :P

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2019, 04:15:20 PM »
After all, science is a democrat thing.  What use would Republicans have with it? :)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2019, 04:28:02 PM »
Crunch outtrolls himself. Bravo.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2019, 04:29:56 PM »
Given how adjusted and extrapolated the temperature records are, it's hard to understand how anyone can have confidence in what's really going on.

I mean our best science produced a data record that showed global warming had taken a pause, and how did they address it?  Our best science decided that they needed to adjust the data differently, and like magic it now eliminated the pause.  So either our best science was wrong, or our best science is wrong. 

What I've read about how temperature is extrapolated from the limited readings we make has never filled me with confidence that we have an accurate "global temperature," let alone that we can precise measure a change in it. 

However, I completely agree that we should be developing the ability to control the global temperature and strongly considering manipulations to keep it inside the range that we know is conducive to our own species.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2019, 05:11:57 PM »
Agree with you on climate, but as for this

Quote
.

And remember that gender is a social construct.  You're probably getting it mixed up with a person's sex (which is not the same thing).




Sadly, you'd have to tell that to Bill Nye the Science guy. Search Nye on gender "science"

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2019, 05:26:18 PM »
What I've read about how temperature is extrapolated from the limited readings we make has never filled me with confidence that we have an accurate "global temperature," let alone that we can precise measure a change in it.

And I guess the glaciers are melting because somebody accidentally dumped road salt on them? Or are those measurements all wrong as well? Or was it just going to happen on its own somehow without a temperature increase? The precision is easily in doubt, but I don't think the trend is.

Quote
However, I completely agree that we should be developing the ability to control the global temperature and strongly considering manipulations to keep it inside the range that we know is conducive to our own species.

Cool!

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2019, 05:37:20 PM »
Why should I care about the climate when trilobites ruled the Earth?  ??? What does that have to do with our climate now?  We evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.  This is the climate we, and all plants and animals we evolved with (and use as food), are used to.  What makes you think all of them will be unaffected by climate change?

Actually, most plant life on the planet uses a form of photosynthesis(C3?) which is horribly suited for CO2 below 300PPM, if CO2 had reached 200PPM, they'd be ready to die out.  And if you look at that paleo-record, CO2 levels for the earth are also at abnormally low levels. In fact, prior to humans starting to help pump CO2 back into the atmosphere, it was at or very near to the lowest levels ever seen... While coming out of an Ice Age no less.

Quote
And what were the factors that made the climate so much hotter in the past?  Has the sun insolance become less over the millenniums?  Has the orbit changed slightly?  Are these factors currently affecting the climate?

I dunno, maybe we need to ask a computer model expert on what their models seem to suggest. That's how climate science works these days right? it's all about what the models tell you. Not what to physical evidence itself says. And ironically enough, the questions you raise are ones most of the AGW advocates completely ignore. Because "the models don't indicate anything currently happening has anything to do with solar activity."

Quote
Quote
Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

So what if the climate changed before?  We're changing the climate now.  Apparently at a faster rate than past climate changes.  So what if the sun insolance or the Earth's orbit changed the climate a million years ago?  We're concerned with the change that's happening now.

Other rapid shifts are indicated in the paleo record, the challenge there of course is the question about "resolution" as it's very hard to tell the difference between a year event and a century+ long one when you're looking at something that is 500,000+ years in the past.

Quote
Quote
AGW might be contributing to what we're seeing happening today, but its highly questionable that it is the only thing at play. And given the way that AGW has become dogma for much of the Climate Research Community, you might as well be Galileo telling the Roman Catholic Church that the Earth orbits around the sun, and that the only stellar body that orbits Earth is the moon. Only instead of "Earth" replace it with CO2, and instead of orbits, we're looking at warming. CO2 evidently is supposed to explain it all, even if the paleo-record often contradicts such claims.

We know AGW is definitely contributing, because it is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That alone will increase the heat retained in our climate.  Anyone who denies that is an idiot.

The forcings they create are in dispute, and it IS being argued that most of CO2's warming effect has already been felt. IE, for AGW to warm the planet another degree, you're probably not looking at another 100PPM, you're probably looking at closer to 300 instead. But hey, the values the computer modelers have used say that the warming effect is more pronounced than what labs have been able to produce because Earth isn't a lab, so whatever.

Quote
So what do your models say is the major contributor to the recent observed increase in global average temperatures?  What is the consensus opinion among deniers?  How much of the warming is due to other factors like solar insolance?  Can you list those other factors?  How did your computer models calculate those contributions?  Did they take the oceans absorption of heat into account?  How about reflections from ice and rocks?

Each one will likely give different answers. Biggest factor in play here is "we don't know some of what we don't know" and we also know several things we know we don't know. The AGW advocates however? Their faith in their models is absolute. Whatever they don't know, doesn't matter, because their models are right. Even if they've demonstrated an amazingly powerful warm-bias over and above anything that has been observed.

The Atlantic was in "a warm cycle" for the past several decades, which could potentially account for significant amounts of the warming observed in the both the Arctic and the Northen Hemisphere in general, it looks to have recently shifted to it's cold phase, so things are likely to start cooling. AGW researchers studying glaciers in Greenland have already been getting some surprises from that, as their precious models have been thrown out of whack again.

The Pacific also appears to moving into a cold phase, so we'll see what happens there. It is rare for those two systems to hit at the same time, as they operate on different intervals.

The Sunspot cycles do appear to have a (weak) relationship with climate on earth, but the AGW models don't factor it in at all. This affects everything from depth of the Troposphere(active sun==deeper Troposphere==more atmospheric insulation==more warming), to stellar winds, to cosmic rays(which may or may not be linked to clouds), which means cloud formation and numerous other things are likely to be impacted in ways we haven't yet begun to  understand.

Quote
And please tell me you have these things.  You, who mock the man-decades of work that has gone into climate research and climate modelling.

I was taught that science is about making a provable hypothesis and verifiable data. So far, Climate Science at it's height of Alarmism has ZERO effectiveness at modeling what has happened to date. Out of 300+ extensive models created since the 1980's they have what? 3 or 4 models that come even close to predicting what we have happening right now? And they're all predicting warmer conditions than we have now, none are cooler? That indicates to me that the theories/hypothesis those models are operating under are rather poor. If a theory cannot reliably predict what happens, the theory is unreliable, and not good science.

Which means other options should be getting considered, but where are they talking about other options? Oh right, anybody who suggests the models might have problems is to be crucified in the press and denounced loudly and often as a heretic and shunned because they're "distracting" the populace from the imminent crises the (flawed) models predict. (Very reminiscent of Galileo in that regard, the Roman Catholic Church didn't go after him for Religious Heresy, they went after him for going against prevailing scientific thought of the time.

I hold the AGW scientists in about the same regard as I do a lot of the crackpots out there on the internet. Until they have some models that show some predictive capability, they're just as nutty as the rest. Particularly in the media feeding frenzy of everything weather now validates AGW.

There are people who've dug through paleoclimate records, done reconstructions, looked for patterns and other such things in the data. There are some arguments that can be made there, they're pretty thin at the moment, and only time will bear them out(much like with the Climate models). Like the one I alluded to where it would seem you had multiple cycles of various durations and intensities hit their "warm phase"(or least, no more cooling) at about the same time starting about 1980.

When you stack "warm signal"(Atlantic) on top of "warm signal"(Pacific) on top of "warm signal"(Sunspots), on top (unknown) "warm signal", on top of (poorly understood/unknown) "warm signal", on top of warm signal(AGW) which can all manifest on one particular metric(heat), you can get one heck of "a hockey stick" to happen.

Thing is, most models only fully acknowledge one "warm signal" in the form of AGW. Thing is, some of those "signals" have durations in the centuries/millenia time frame, while others are decadal. And one of the longer duration ones also tends to pack a bit of power behind it. It's been awhile since I looked at that one, but in that particular example, we're almost at the apex but haven't reached it yet, it is only very slightly warmer than where we are now, but the top is pretty flat(after others get mixed in), but it should start dropping in about 10 years. However, due to being essentially flat" from year to year, you're not likely to notice a decline until the 2040's at the earliest, according to that hypothesis.

The Sunspot people are expecting a solar minimum type event, it's just debatable as to how long it will last(Some think it'll be a "Grand Minimum" other think it won't be that severe), but also doubt we're going to be seeing sunspot activity like we had over the past 50 years anytime in the next century or so. Net result: We're going to start cooling, and sooner rather than later. Their consensus is it can lag anywhere from 11 to 13 years. Some are attributing a fair bit of this past winter's events(in particular the Jet Stream) to changes in the Troposphere and expect more of it to come for the next few winters at a minimum.
 
Quote
The least you must have is a computer model that shows that all the rest of the climate research community is wrong.  I mean, I know you aren't basing this on some make-believe "theories" by a few contrarians, or "just-so" stories from internet sites.  Where is your solid science that you are mocking climate science with?  Show me the reasons you believe this, and why your theories and data are better than the scientific consensus.

We wait with bated breath. :)

I'll call "Climate Science" a "Science" when it demonstrates it can predict things reliably. As the latest model runs are running even hotter than the earlier ones, I don't think that's happening soon.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2019, 05:45:02 PM »
After all, science is a democrat thing.  What use would Republicans have with it? :)

Correction: Science Activism is "a Democrat thing" and the environmental sciences in particular are chock full of Left-leaning activists.

Science is a Conservative thing, how else are we going to maximize profits and resource extraction at minimal cost?  8)

The Republicans do make use of science, they just use it for different ends than the Democrats do, and the Democrats have turned science into a political issue(because so many Scientists want to be activists), and that's bad for Science in general. As the Trump Admin is demonstrating sadly, because they have no time or patience for activists. They just communicate it very poorly.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2019, 05:47:11 PM »
Quote
However, I completely agree that we should be developing the ability to control the global temperature and strongly considering manipulations to keep it inside the range that we know is conducive to our own species.



Setting aside precise measurements, do you agree that such control would probably involve manipulation of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Give me space flight and enough Carbon Hexafloride, and i'd have Mars the temperature of Montana within a few decades. Can you think of a faster way that doesn't involve greenhouse gasses?

I really want to ask Scott Card that, since he's the most science friendly AGW denier I have met.

Problem is that the right nor the left collaborate in obfuscating AGW and the political movement that pretends to do something about it. (Similar cross party obfuscation exist with regard to "embryo abortion" and social justice).

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2019, 05:53:11 PM »
After all, science is a democrat thing.  What use would Republicans have with it? :)

Correction: Science Activism is "a Democrat thing" and the environmental sciences in particular are chock full of Left-leaning activists.

Science is a Conservative thing, how else are we going to maximize profits and resource extraction at minimal cost?  8)


The pro life movement is arguably science activism since it's based on modern imaging.  Bad science but science nonetheless. And Roe v Wade is based on legal doctrine and Tradition.  SCOTUS uses the word tradition more in Roe than Tevye does in Fiddles on the roof.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2019, 06:00:20 PM »
Setting aside precise measurements, do you agree that such control would probably involve manipulation of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Don't know, my suspicion has always been that greenhouse gases have self correcting mechanisms.  Not clear if the Earth decided to cool by 5C if there's anything we could do to correct that by manipulation of greenhouse gases (without wiping ourselves out).

Quote
Give me space flight and enough Carbon Hexafloride, and i'd have Mars the temperature of Montana within a few decades. Can you think of a faster way that doesn't involve greenhouse gasses?

You might be able to get it to Montana temperatures, but could you keep it there?  To my understanding Mar doesn't have enough mass to hold a higher temperature atmosphere for very long.  Long term, I wonder if Earth's atmosphere isn't thinner than it used to be and if we don't have less physical water on the planet than we used to, and what that means for the current and future trend.

What I've read about how temperature is extrapolated from the limited readings we make has never filled me with confidence that we have an accurate "global temperature," let alone that we can precise measure a change in it.

And I guess the glaciers are melting because somebody accidentally dumped road salt on them? Or are those measurements all wrong as well? Or was it just going to happen on its own somehow without a temperature increase? The precision is easily in doubt, but I don't think the trend is.

Didn't say the trend is, though I'm happy to say it's less clear than some would assert.  I'm fully happy to agree that our best guess is that some level of warming is occurring.  I'm less happy to say that we understand why with any degree of accuracy.

I'm completely convinced that the "solutions" are all absolute garbage that make the situation worse and serve political rather than environmental masters.

Correction: Science Activism is "a Democrat thing" and the environmental sciences in particular are chock full of Left-leaning activists.

Science is a Conservative thing, how else are we going to maximize profits and resource extraction at minimal cost?  8)

Science is supposed to be a knowledge thing.  Both Democrats and Republicans are blatantly guilty of ignoring or sabotaging science which imposes on their sacred cows, and using a scientific reality to justify policies that have nothing to do with it.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2019, 06:18:39 PM »
The solutions to eliminate burning things for energy are good without global warming. I've said it before, but I'll recap. Lung disease and other health benefits. Avoiding the creation of man-made earthquakes. Eliminating dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Avoiding the cost of transportation of fossil fuels to refineries, and back to users.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2019, 06:40:26 PM »

Quote
You might be able to get it to Montana temperatures, but could you keep it there?  To my understanding Mar doesn't have enough mass to hold a higher temperature atmosphere for very long.

Doesn't have the mass to hold helium or O2 but heavier CO2 remains.SF6 would stick around.

Quote
  Long term, I wonder if Earth's atmosphere isn't thinner than it used to be


Yes. Less O2 as well. And hydrogen and Helium tend to escape our atmosphere but stay in Saturns because of mass factors.

Sulphur Hexafloride is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas. And heavy stable & nontoxic.

Venus, meanwhile , could be cooled by removing its atmosphere.  There's no atmosphere that would stick to that planet that would not create a greenhouse hell.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2019, 06:49:26 PM »
Quote
Don't know, my suspicion has always been that greenhouse gases have self correcting mechanisms


Earth used to have homeostatic corrections for greenhouse gasses.  Carbon sinks. Rain forests. The buffalo prairies.  Coral reefs.

We'v destroyed the corrective structures over the last 10000 but the damage is not permanent yet. Restore them,

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2019, 07:05:54 PM »
Quote
Don't know, my suspicion has always been that greenhouse gases have self correcting mechanisms


Earth used to have homeostatic corrections for greenhouse gasses.  Carbon sinks. Rain forests. The buffalo prairies.  Coral reefs.

We'v destroyed the corrective structures over the last 10000 but the damage is not permanent yet. Restore them,

It's almost as if over 2/3rds of the earth's surface is water and the water cycle itself couldn't play a role in regulating temperature. Particularly as it relates to cloud formation(which we still don't understand, water vapor is a GHG, but clouds of water droplets are another, much more complicated matter).

Water evaporates, cooling the remaining water and transferring heat into the atmosphere.
The water vapor becomes part of an upwelling of warm, moist air that reaches into higher levels of the atmosphere.
It then proceeds to cool. Where due to being much higher in the atmosphere, the "blanket effect" from GHG's is also diminished, so much of the "latent heat" in the vapor is radiated into space.
Clouds of airborne water form, lowering the albedo of the planet and reflecting more heat away from the planet. Also again above much of "the blanket."
The clouds then begin to precipitate moving cool upper atmospheric air(and water) down to the surface.
The water/cooler air reaches the ground, rendering a cooling effect on the surface.
The cooling effect also triggers further air flows which in turn triggers further upwelling of warm moist air elsewhere.
Rinse and repeat.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2019, 08:14:34 PM »
Water is the primary greenhouse gas on earth but that's fairly constant. It doesn't interfere with the carbon cycle. So not relevant as corrective homeostasis.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2019, 08:45:58 PM »
Water is the primary greenhouse gas on earth but that's fairly constant. It doesn't interfere with the carbon cycle. So not relevant as corrective homeostasis.

Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas, correct.

Water in cloud form is another matter. It isn't a gas, it is literally small airborne particles of either liquid or frozen water. And their models can't handle it. So they hand-wave it away and plug in a constant instead.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 08:48:45 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2019, 08:58:36 PM »
Some quick Google research on "climate modelling and clouds" brings up this from a year ago:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle

Quote
Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us.

“It’s important to get the right result for the right reason,” said corresponding author Amilcare Porporato, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute. “These errors can trickle down into other changes, such as projecting fewer and weaker storms. We hope that our results are useful for improving how clouds are modeled, which would improve the calibration of climate models and make the results much more reliable.”

Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said.

. . .

I do like how they talked both way on this one with "The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us."

But this part is rather significant too, and keep in mind, these guys weren't trying to debunk AGW.

Quote
Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said.

One to two additional watts of energy per square meter from this "oversight" by their numbers, and AGW is supposed to be doing 3.7 watts/square meter?

Seems rather significant to me, even if they're not trying to debunk the models.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2019, 10:10:12 PM »
AGW still applies if the models are imperfect. Humans produce CO2 and destroy carbon sinks that reuptake. CO2. The latter probably has the strongest effect.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2019, 11:34:46 PM »
AGW still applies if the models are imperfect. Humans produce CO2 and destroy carbon sinks that reuptake. CO2. The latter probably has the strongest effect.

/sigh

There is a saturation point, and CO2 is arguably near that point.

And if the vaunted models are screwing up on something as trivial as the time of day for peak cloud cover, and that "oops" resulting in CO2 warming effect to effectively be increased by half again on that one error alone.... Do you really want to take odds on how many more errors that are going to be found in their models?

The models may be the best "that science has to offer," but in this case, it appears that science simply is not to the point where it able to make reliable predictions. They simply don't know enough about certain very significant things involved in the process, beyond knowing they're important and not well understood, but hey we'll shove a proxy value in there for that and call it good. It's jerry rigged with chewing gum and chicken wire. It also hasn't been correct since the 1990's.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2019, 10:30:19 AM »
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, model simulations are not the same as experimental results.  The N on global climate science ='s 1.  The models don't include anything that we don't understand, they don't correctly include anything we misunderstand, they may include things that are irrelevant but that the researchers believe are correct.  It would be a miracle (and maybe even less probable than that) if the model correctly weights any actual factor that impacts the climate.

But yes, it's the best we have and it may have the general trend correct.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2019, 11:31:59 AM »
Define "correctly". Off by an order of magnitude? Within 3 sigma?

There are lots of financial models out there for trading algorithms that also get their weights wrong and don't predict the market, but make lots of money by being mostly right. That's the problem proving a chaotic and stochastic system, its not like proving the law of gravity.

This whole meme that the models have never predicted anything continues to baffle me.

How models are tested

Quote
But is that the whole story? I dove into the WABAC Machine known as Nexis and dredged up a couple of other news reports recounting Hansen's testimony. A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, "Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." That's a much bigger range than between 1986 and 2006.

So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958? According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report in 2009, "U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2ºF over the past 50 years." Two degrees Fahrenheit is just over 1.1 degrees Celsius, which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen. With regard to global average temperatures, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 noted that "the rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years." That implies an overall increase between 1958 and 2006 of 0.65 degree Celsius—at the low end of Hansen's predictions. The University of Alabama at Huntsville's satellite temperature data series (since 1979) is increasing at 0.12 degree Celsius per decade which, if run back backwards, implies a five decade global temperature increase of 0.6 degree Celsius; again, at the low end of Hansen's projections.

Reason magazine is not a liberal hotbed of people bent on a global dictatorship and stealing our freedom

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2019, 12:41:06 PM »
I’m not sure exactly what point you’re trying to make here? That models can be “off” while still being directionally correct (to the best of our current knowledge) within a certain timeframe? If so, I agree. The Reason article seems to admit that the models relied upon are “running far too hot” but that shouldn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think less knowledgeable skeptics would be far more open to this idea if the general conversation didn’t immediately jump to “denier” the moment someone questioned said model's accuracy. Likewise, doom prognostications from idiots like AOC may be on trend, but they do far more damage to the underlying credibility than any skeptic ever could.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2019, 01:38:10 PM »
Sure, the range was too high, but it was in the range predicted. The whole point of declaring a margin of error is to set expectations of reliability. If a carpenter tells me a foot long board will be cut within an 1/8 of an inch, and it clocks in at 11 7/8, it is acceptable.

Skeptics (since you don't like deniers) like to claim that the estimates are wildly inaccurate, instead of accurate within a stated range. Note that the predictions from the article were made in 1986, and models have improved in the past three decades as well. I chose that one, because there has been a long time period with which to judge it.

I'd be perfectly pleased if policy used the bottom of the predicted range as truth rather than the middle or the maximum. It would be a start.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2019, 01:42:01 PM »
It seems like the man-made global warming advocates are not being completely level in one regard which has been brought up in this conversation, quite astutely.

Global warming advocates say we need to keep the planet from changing, at least too much too fast. But what they really mean is that we need to be able to control the climate so that we can change it constantly with man made climate change in order to keep it from changing overall with natural climate change, just like with setting a thermostat, or perhaps more technically we are the air conditioner motor and compressor that has to work harder when it's hotter and not so much when it's cooler, constantly changing to keep the temperature comfortable.

It's just a different way to frame what is really being asked of us here. When you look at it that way, it makes a lot of sense that it would take a whole lot of money for people to successfully keep the Earth at a constant temperature, just like the electric bill over the Houston summer, though I doubt we have the technology for it yet.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2019, 02:21:10 PM »
...
Global warming advocates say we need to keep the planet from changing, at least too much too fast. But what they really mean is that we need to be able to control the climate so that we can change it constantly with man made climate change in order to keep it from changing overall with natural climate change, just like with setting a thermostat, or perhaps more technically we are the air conditioner motor and compressor that has to work harder when it's hotter and not so much when it's cooler, constantly changing to keep the temperature comfortable.
...

One of the things that often get overlooked when people talk about changes in climate on a geological scale is that rapid periods of climate change are often associated with mass extinctions. High levels of vulcanism (which has been a significant driver of atmospheric changes in the past) is associated with rapid changes and mass extinctions. So is human driven activity changing the composition of the atmosphere in similar ways? If the answer is yes then we should be worried, mass extinctions would lead to failures in crop yields and mass starvation. So even if you care nothing about the animals going extinct you need to worry about humans being a driving force of causing change rapid enough to destroy ecosystems because we depend on them for food.

The second issue is that looking back at some past big changes in climate the rate of change was often lower. When we are talking about a change in climate 300 million years ago its hard to say with any certainty if the change took 100, 1000, or 100,000 years. The consequences to life on Earth are much greater with rapid change vs gradual change.

But yes ultimately some level of geo-engineering is probably going to be needed to maintain the level of complex society we have today. The amount of infrastructure needed to feed everyone isn't designed to cope well with rapid climate shifts.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2019, 02:34:03 PM »
Monsanto has probably already patented crop strains that thrive in higher CO2 and temperature.  :P

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #40 on: May 01, 2019, 03:29:10 PM »
Monsanto has probably already patented crop strains that thrive in higher CO2 and temperature.  :P

No need,  C3 Photosynthesis, which is the most prevalent form of it(something on the order 3/4ths of all plant life, including virtually ALL trees, IIRC), does best in the 500+ PPM range(what it evolved under, it would really prefer CO2 in the 1,000+ PPM range though). Less than 250 PPM is nearly lethal for it.

C4(corn) does well in the sub-300 range for CO2, but does even better the more CO2 you give it.

CAM likewise does well with higher levels of CO2.

High CO2 increases plant yields, and reduces water consumption across the board for all three common types of photosynthesis. Monsanto isn't going to need to engineer anything to take advantage of high CO2, Monsanto would prefer CO2 levels to drop, as that would give incentives for modifying plants to use C4 in order to  cope with low CO2.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2019, 03:39:37 PM »
Well, temperatures then, but that's some pretty good info.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2019, 03:53:13 PM »
Sure, the range was too high, but it was in the range predicted. The whole point of declaring a margin of error is to set expectations of reliability. If a carpenter tells me a foot long board will be cut within an 1/8 of an inch, and it clocks in at 11 7/8, it is acceptable.

Skeptics (since you don't like deniers) like to claim that the estimates are wildly inaccurate, instead of accurate within a stated range. Note that the predictions from the article were made in 1986, and models have improved in the past three decades as well. I chose that one, because there has been a long time period with which to judge it.

I'd be perfectly pleased if policy used the bottom of the predicted range as truth rather than the middle or the maximum. It would be a start.

I think skeptics would argue that these models in and of themselves are only as good as the input parameters and source data that is fed into them. Lots of room for healthy skepticism in that dynamic. One can be fully onboard with acknowledging that humans generate additional CO2, CO2 can have adverse (and positive) effects, we should minimize the degree that we influence natural CO2 levels (whatever "natural" is?) AND still believe that long term climate prediction is still very much a guessing game.

My philosophy is basically a climate version of Pascal's wager: we should conduct ourselves as if reducing CO2 and other human badness is really important, but be cautious of predictions and solutions offered up by an area of study still in its infancy.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #43 on: May 01, 2019, 05:00:32 PM »
Quote
My philosophy is basically a climate version of Pascal's wager: we should conduct ourselves as if reducing CO2 and other human badness is really important, but be cautious of predictions and solutions offered up by an area of study still in its infancy.

I'm fine taking that approach, especially since there are so many other benefits. Science, like any other quality approach, is a continual process of improvement. You're always going to see things like this:

Climate change: Concerns over report on ocean heating

Lock phasers on target! Climate change is a hoax!

Quote
The initial report suggested that the seas have absorbed 60% more than previously thought.

But a re-examination by a mathematician showed that the margin of error was larger than in the published study.

The authors have acknowledged the problem and have submitted a correction to the journal.

Except that's how science is supposed to work. There are going to be bad measurements, bad studies, and bad models. For anything. I should know, I've gotten my MTBF calculations wrong before. Luckily a colleague reviewed it and we saved the product.

Quote
Since 2007, scientists have been able to rely on a system of almost 4,000 Argo floats that record temperature and salinity in the oceans around the world.

But prior to this, the methods used to measure the heat in the ocean had many flaws and uncertainties.

So, scientists see their own uncertainties and devise methods to gather data and reduce that uncertainty.

Quote
They were discovered by a mathematician, Nicholas Lewis, who has long been critical of climate models, arguing that they are over-sensitive to emissions of carbon dioxide.

Obviously, critics serve an important role in the process.

Quote
According to the scientists involved in the original study, the ocean is still probably warming more than the estimate used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the errors mean that it has a larger range of probability - between 10% and 70%. This is in line with other studies.

"Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Ralph Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."

Doesn't sound like they are in on the global conspiracy to convince everyone about the terrors of climate change and the anti-human agenda.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #44 on: May 01, 2019, 05:39:35 PM »
I think skeptics would argue that these models in and of themselves are only as good as the input parameters and source data that is fed into them. Lots of room for healthy skepticism in that dynamic. One can be fully onboard with acknowledging that humans generate additional CO2, CO2 can have adverse (and positive) effects, we should minimize the degree that we influence natural CO2 levels (whatever "natural" is?) AND still believe that long term climate prediction is still very much a guessing game.

My philosophy is basically a climate version of Pascal's wager: we should conduct ourselves as if reducing CO2 and other human badness is really important, but be cautious of predictions and solutions offered up by an area of study still in its infancy.

The issue at this point, and why they're starting to back off on 1.5 degrees of warming(It's going to become a higher target now), is that by the current models, which run even hotter than the earlier ones, we'd need to be at negative CO2 emissions within 30 years. Not reduced emissions, not zero emissions, negative emissions, we'd need to be removing more than we're putting in based on current trends.

This is why the Greenies are all over trying to get to Carbon Neutral in ten years.

Not happening, at least, not with wind and solar.

And still they're not talking about adaptation, they're ignoring Nuclear(or flat out opposed to it). Plenty of apocalypse talk though. That is my biggest problem with the AGW crowd.

But then, with Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore, we've been ten years away from the Earth "becoming uninhabitable" for the past 20-some years.

I'm not convinced they truly believe what they're talking about. I'm not convinced their models are reliable, again, the models only managed to reliably peg the 1990's. Everything after has been largely a wash. Most of the years they've been using to claim "See it's still warming!" over the past 20 years have also been El Nino years, which distorts weather in North America by causing a "warming" signal. And the margins of that warming is near noise level to start with.

15 years ago the mantra was Weather is not Climate, the models failing was a "minor setback" (due to weather) and the "Climate Change evidence" would continue to amass in the decades to come. They've got great documentation that the Atlantic was on a warm cycle(which has evidently ended), and that El Nino does a very good job of warming North America and Eurasia. We'll see what the next 5 to 10 years bring. I'm thinking we're going to see a very slight downward trend over the next few years.

Of course, we've been predicting that for some time now as well. But then, AGW has no provision for a protracted cooling period, they get one, they're sunk.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2019, 07:43:03 PM »
Premise 1:
The earth 's temperature is mitigated by the freezing and thawing of glaciers and polar caps.

conclusion:
If the earth maintains more or less the same temperature, but most of the ice caps melt, the earth's
Conclusion 1: if we want to sustain our way of life without massive sudden population reduction, the ting of the polar caps should concern us.

Surprise and delight me Crunch and respond to what I just wrote rather than arguing against what other greenies have said elsewhere.

I think Kyoto and Paris are something of a croc (hello ethanol) but I think we should be very concerned about depletion of coral reefs, old growth glaciers, and glaciers. Hell, if we could figure out how to turn off Antarctic volcanoes, we should.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2019, 12:06:47 AM »
Surprise and delight me Crunch and respond to what I just wrote rather than arguing against what other greenies have said elsewhere.

I think Kyoto and Paris are something of a croc (hello ethanol) but I think we should be very concerned about depletion of coral reefs, old growth glaciers, and glaciers. Hell, if we could figure out how to turn off Antarctic volcanoes, we should.

Reportedly, a number of those Bleached Coral areas are alive and thriving once again. Considering they're millions of years old, and first evolved in an environment with much higher CO2 concentrations than currently seen, that shouldn't be entirely shocking.

Some other "bleached" areas are not so lucky, but that wasn't due to ocean acidification from increasing CO2 levels. Chemical pollutants from coastal areas were to blame.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2019, 05:21:16 AM »
Bleached coral May regenerate, when not otherwise poisoned like you said.

But coral reefs ripped down by fishing trawlers, or budied in China's great wall of sand, is gone forever. These are natural fish nurseries as well as carbon sinks.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2019, 08:20:20 AM »
Bleached coral May regenerate, when not otherwise poisoned like you said.

But coral reefs ripped down by fishing trawlers, or budied in China's great wall of sand, is gone forever. These are natural fish nurseries as well as carbon sinks.

Still not an AGW issue on its face, but a human activity one. Apart from the lost carbon sink.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2019, 08:29:51 AM »
Quote
It’s like talking to really annoying Scientologists except warmists want to force you into poverty while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. At least Scientologist can be ignored. Show me a warmist, I’ll show you a useful idiot for a totalitarian ideology. That’s why this breaks down so cleanly along ideological lines, it’s a totalitarian wet dream.
Can you expand (rather than rant) on this a little?  Is this poverty assessment based upon higher power costs if we went to say solar and wind too aggressively and closing down coal / natural gas plants?  I'll concede that your shadow-boxing opponent is also anti-nuclear, though I think a lot of people are "splitting the difference" and accept nuclear as a huge asset in lowering carbon emissions while maintaining / expanding our power consumption. 

Why totalitarian though?  Is it just that government mandated goals flying in the face of "market forces" for dirtier (or at least higher carbon producing) power = totalitarian?

Sure.

The warmists want to tell you exactly how to live your life. For them, it’s a moral imperative thst you do exactly what they say to avert their version of doomsday (which for over 30 years has been 10-15 years away). From the bags you can use at grocery stores to the car you drive or even how you dipose of trash, they have rules for you to follow. They want to control how many children you have, what you eat, how warm or cool you keep your home, it goes on and on. They want to reach into every single facet of your life and tell you how you must live it despite having no idea what they’re talking about. For example, AOC having never been on a farm, will tell you how farmers should run it. 

Ask any of the warmists, they’ll tell you about how to make “correct“ choices in literally every single aspect of your life. Seriously, they will. That this level of control over you won’t make one damn bit of difference to the global climate is totally irrelevant because it’s not about climate, it’s about control. It’s about the power to tell you how to live your life.

And, in true totalitarian tradition, the political elite and high priests of the cult are exempted from these rules. Being the ones in control has privileges, you know.