Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

f.a.s.t.
Wanted Poster
Posts: 3063
Joined: Nov 14th, '11, 09:43

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by f.a.s.t. »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
liv4ski wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
people had been smoking for decades and dying of emphysema and the correlation was quite obvious before if became a debate with tobacco companies.

Can you name ONE / ANY / A SINGLE outcome caused by CO2 which has damaged this planet.
Here is a peer reviewed study published in nature demonstrating evidence that increasing CO2 emissions is harming coral reefs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature1 ... ardian.com

In your mind, what would be a "quite obvious" correlation between CO2 emissions and harm to the planet?
Thanks for the link to the article…even a full pdf!! So we can do some science (evaluate a scientific claim. ) And the article nicely illustrates how poorly field biology is done and how activist propaganda is now published as science.

The paper is full of flaws and does not support the idea that actual damage (not predicted damage) that CO2 might cause has actually happened.

The research actually looks at what happens when you bathe a reef in an alkaline infusion. They claim their evidence suggests a benefit for the increase in alkalinity for an actual reef in situ. They suggest that this shows CO2 is damaging reefs. OH MY GOD!!

Where should one start in critiquing this paper? One of the most egregious flaws is immediately obvious to anyone familiar with measurement of pH and experience in oceanography. The second sentence in the abstract CLAIMS that there has been a “measurable declined in surface ocean pH.” That is utter nonsense.

I have taken hundreds of measurements of ocean pH (and used rhodamine to track flow patterns) and when you investigate the ocean pH… well let me reference a “consensus” scientist site for the awful truth even they must admit.
Here’s a quote from an activist source (you can notice the bias in the phrasing)

“Oceanwide changes in pH levels have been, in the words of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, “profound.” (SOUNDS SCARY!! However...read on for the details.)

"Measuring the changes underway, however, is not straightforward. Most pH sensors produce questionable data, and ocean acidification monitoring stations are growing in number but remain sparse.

Acidity levels in different parts of a sea can be as variable as weather on land, with ocean currents, water pollution and the presence of carbon dioxide-guzzling plants all having an influence. That’s why it’s not possible to extrapolate data from monitoring stations and vessels to assess acidification rates in all of the tidal nooks and deepwater crannies of an ocean.

“Everyone talks about pH, but it’s not usually directly measured — one can do it very crudely,” said Phil Williamson, who coordinates the U.K.’s acidification research program and co-chairs the Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network. “Sensors that directly give you pH are not easy to construct and not easy to handle.” “


This is an admission from a "consensus" (activist) website.

(OK…so when you talk about the ACTUAL pH data…. It is actually …unreliable...tehcnical term for this is “crap”.)

So how do agencies (government activists) like NOAA and IPCC handle this unreliable pH data? A simple mixture of propaganda and fraud:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/31/ ... ntal-data/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/ ... reases-ph/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the “measurable decline” in ocean pH is just propaganda.


A lot like all the other frightening climate metrics. Consensus claims that ocean pH has changes how much? The best you can nail down the claims is a historical change from about 8.15 back in the 1800s to 8.05 current. So the activist claim is that we have changed 0.1 pH units in 100+ years. (and still alkaline NOT acidic) And look at the ACTUAL data. Not impressed. I don’t need someone to interpret graphs for me.
zmwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg
Graph of changes in ocean pH. Look at the ACTUAL DATA. The FEEL (red) graph (not kidding) is the activist interpretation of the actual data notice the blue line (actual moving average) shows increase in pH!!
000zpH data.jpg
What activist CLAIM WILL HAPPEN (notice almost nothing has happened YET)
00ga.png
Field data for MEASURED pH from Monterey Bay...notice how variable ACTUAL pH data is

So you linked a paper that does some field biology looking at the effects of increasing pH on coral reefs which somehow proves that CO2 HAS ALREADY damaged coral reefs. And the paper is start to finish activist propaganda (misleading statements in service of an agenda.) Good try though.
Report out this morning, the coral reefs are fine. They are recovering from whatever ailment they had on their own. More proof that global warming is not only the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, but has now reached the criminal level of the biggest financial fraud in the history of mankind. What they are getting away with is a million time worse than what Bernie Madoff did. Thousands need to go to jail for their financial fraud, robbing US taxpayers of billions of dollars, soon to be trillions of dollars.
!!!!!!!!!! MAKE AMERICA LOVE AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

f.a.s.t. wrote:
Report out this morning, the coral reefs are fine. They are recovering from whatever ailment they had on their own. More proof that global warming is not only the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, but has now reached the criminal level of the biggest financial fraud in the history of mankind. What they are getting away with is a million time worse than what Bernie Madoff did. Thousands need to go to jail for their financial fraud, robbing US taxpayers of billions of dollars, soon to be trillions of dollars.
Yeah thanks.

We could easily open a whole new thread (and bore dozens more normal folks silly enough to investigate) that simply looked at how ridiculous claims about coral reefs have become. Just like everything else in "climate science" there are dozens (at least) of factors which influence the health of coral reefs and yet somehow this new version of scientist KNOWS that it is :"warming, sea level rise and ocean acidification" alone which are the significant drivers of damage to reefs. Reefs expand and die off in response to dozens of factors, the majority of which are not significantly impacted by human activities. The last major bleaching in the western Pacific was caused by extremely LOW water levels, which were caused by the El Nino in the eastern Pacific. These factors are entirely "natural" and have proceede for centuries without human impact.

Hoax in probably the best descriptor. Sounds combative but it is pretty accurate. The only other option is that these folks have become so delusional that they have abandoned the very precepts of science. Their "noble cause bias" which commands that they present what should be science as propaganda offends me deeply. So ...hoax sounds right...because they SHOULD know better (if they claim they are SCIENTISTS!)
Ski the edges!
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Yep, a hoax just like that Russian thing. But somebody better tell this guy, apparently he didn't get the memo:

Trump’s defense chief cites climate change as national security challenge

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy where it makes sense. He had also, as commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2010, signed off on the Joint Operating Environment, which lists climate change as one of the security threats the military expected to confront over the next 25 years.

But Mattis’ written statements to the Senate committee are the first direct signal of his determination to recognize climate change as a member of the Trump administration charged with leading the country’s armed forces.

These remarks and others in the replies to senators could be a fresh indication of divisions or uncertainty within President Donald Trump’s administration over how to balance the president’s desire to keep campaign pledges to kill Obama-era climate policies with the need to engage constructively with allies for whom climate has become a vital security issue.

...
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Coydog wrote:Yep, a hoax just like that Russian thing. But somebody better tell this guy, apparently he didn't get the memo:

Trump’s defense chief cites climate change as national security challenge

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy where it makes sense. He had also, as commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2010, signed off on the Joint Operating Environment, which lists climate change as one of the security threats the military expected to confront over the next 25 years.

But Mattis’ written statements to the Senate committee are the first direct signal of his determination to recognize climate change as a member of the Trump administration charged with leading the country’s armed forces.

These remarks and others in the replies to senators could be a fresh indication of divisions or uncertainty within President Donald Trump’s administration over how to balance the president’s desire to keep campaign pledges to kill Obama-era climate policies with the need to engage constructively with allies for whom climate has become a vital security issue.

...
Awkwardly primitive response Coydog.

Once I had hopes for you. But that was simply tribal thinking. You apparently think I am also tribal. Nope. I don't affiliate into a tribe. I think Trump might be right, or at least worth considering, on certain issues (GLAD he dropped Paris promises!!!!) But if he changed his mind tomorrow about it ...I wouldn't. Because I try to base my theories on facts and logic not tribal loyalty.

I could not possibly care less what James Mattis thinks about climate science. I am virtually certain I know more about it than he does.

But your response is further evidence of how YOU think. You are simply a follower my friend. You believe what you are TOLD with the simple caveat that those you will choose to believe are labeled "progressives" and claim to be "scientists." If you see the title PhD and are told that the litany is "peer-reviewed" you are perfectly willing to shut off all powers of critical analysis and simply accept the dictum as stated.

You do seem like a genuinely nice guy (you really seem to care about the planet) and you are not any kind of actual idiot (you write fairly well) but you simply don't "get" science.

In my map of the world most people(including me) believe many clearly insane things and science is the only pathway to diminishing those beliefs.
Ski the edges!
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Awkwardly primitive response Coydog.
Here's another one for you.

Maybe you should fire off a tweet to Mathis and the rest of the military because they seem hell bent on making significant and costly preparations for climate change. Think of the tax dollars we'll save. In any case, you’ve made it abundantly clear you’re a full member of the Lindzen-Curry-Pielke et. el. tribe seemingly caught up in Mann’s "six stages of denial":

1) CO2 is not actually increasing.

2) Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

3) Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

4) Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

5) Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

6) Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

Look, I’m not a scientist and it is rather apparent neither are you, however I can do numbers and the numbers clearly show this decade will be hotter than the previous and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and, well, you get the picture.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Coydog wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Awkwardly primitive response Coydog.
Here's another one for you.

Maybe you should fire off a tweet to Mathis and the rest of the military because they seem hell bent on making significant and costly preparations for climate change. Think of the tax dollars we'll save. In any case, you’ve made it abundantly clear you’re a full member of the Lindzen-Curry-Pielke et. el. tribe seemingly caught up in Mann’s "six stages of denial":

1) CO2 is not actually increasing.

2) Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

3) Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

4) Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

5) Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

6) Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

Look, I’m not a scientist and it is rather apparent neither are you, however I can do numbers and the numbers clearly show this decade will be hotter than the previous and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and, well, you get the picture.
Ugh.

You find that nonsense compelling?? I haven't had to change my position since first starting this thread years ago. Except for a few trivial late night mistakes, which I immediately apologized for, I haven't had to change a single position on climate. I would have, would still, change my claims if I had been presented with ANY DATA or LOGICAL ARGUMENT which compelled me to make amendments. But...so far....that hasn't happened.

I do agree that you are obviously not a scientist and would generously add that science seems to confuse you.

You are impressed that the earth climate system has gradually warmed during most of the last dozen or so decades. "Modern warming" (post Little Ice Age) started about three decades or more BEFORE CO2 became elevated. So... attribution for CO2 as the "driver" of modern warming is to thoughtful people "problematic."

It rarely feels worthwhile arguing with you because you rarely reference data or scientific logic.

So one more time...
there are much better hypotheses to explain climate patterns than those that claim CO2 is a dominating driver for the system. Data over the last few decades have shown the theory to be reasonably disproven. It seems to linger for political reasons.

The earth is a beautiful but cruel place. Floods, droughts, storms bitter winters, baking summers...all these have always been facts of the earth's climate system. We should continue to develop technologies to help us deal with the ferocity of the earth's climate but not waste any time or energy trying to eliminate CO2 emissions. Governments LOVE the idea that they might have to seize the power to regulate our "carbon footprints" so they will be the last to abandon the ridiculous narrative that supports those policies.

I don't know enough about how economies run or how politics should proceed so I try not to preach on those topics....many of you have very interesting ideas which are helping me become educated in these arenas. But when it comes to climate science...i'll keep trying to encourage the free exercise of science...adversarial dialogue.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

And just to keep y'all current :
global-warming-lies-750.jpg
global-warming-lies-750.jpg (81.59 KiB) Viewed 517 times
According to a recent Danish study, global warming is soooo twenty years ago

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16154/glo ... oseph-curl#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ski the edges!
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

liv4ski wrote:
Mister Moose wrote: 2) Again, get back to me when the certainty of climate prediction equals that with cancer occurrence in smokers.
Millions of smokers died prematurely from cancer by the time that certainty was established. How many worlds are you willing to risk before your desired level of certainty is established?
Your question carries with it an assumption, that the world is at near certain risk of doom from global warming. The world is also at risk from over population, nuclear armed Iran and DPK, and biological weapons.

Compare the proximity of risk with DPK and Iran with Global Warming. Now compare the level of activism and news coverage on each.

Life is about risk management, not obtaining an absence of risk. Accuracy of a forecast does determine the level of resources devoted to certain risks. We don't send in FEMA until the hurricane is 1 or 2 days out. Then the forecast has at least a smallish cone of certainty. FEMA is only staged, and once the landfall occurs it is then when resources are deployed. Do predictions of 10 years ago for global warming have that smallish cone of certainty? It would seem not.

I support further research on climate change. I don't support US economy crushing lopsided feel good taxation. I don't support distributive payments to countries that have a poor record of funds getting to their intended use. Less than 2% GDP growth here is a warning sign. (China is 7%, India is 7.5%, Philippines 6.8%, Vietnam 6.4%, Israel, 4.0%, US is embarrassing at 1.6%, Cuba is a close 1.3%.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rowth_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So on a scale of Cuba to India, the US is only 5% above Cuba, and 95% below India. Doesn't that sound bad to you?

The national debt is a warning sign. I pay more attention to those. I value the survival of the US economy over the ocean rising a few inches, and Greenland becoming closer to what was once green-land.

My state is in deep throes of financial mismanagement. People and companies are leaving because the unfunded liabilities are huge and the taxes are already too high. They are voting with their feet and the tax base is shrinking. The governor of Florida was here this week courting companies and individuals to leave. It's bad.

The nation is not far behind if irresponsible spending continues and corporate taxation is not competitive with other countries. Paris was irresponsible spending, not a shared burden.

So I don't see adopting a measured view of climate change as risking the world, and I see far greater risks that should get added attention.
Image
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by freeski »

Mister Moose :like
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote: 1) Not sure what a 'locale' is in your useage, see Clean Indoor Air Act in Connecticut but my point that it is still legal in some situations. You're hair splitting. Smoking is still legal, rights of others have been introduced, but you can purchase them without a permit and can smoke anytime in your car, outdoors, or in your house. I'm not sure a good argument exists to replace funding the government on a non discriminatory basis (such as income tax) with taxation of personal habits, or use of a certain legal product, or engaging in a certain legal activity. Excise taxes - been around forever whether a good idea or not
2) Again, get back to me when the certainty of climate prediction equals that with cancer occurrence in smokers. And then take note that even with that degree of certainty, the manufacture of cigarettes is legal. I can still choose to smoke or not. Nope, at least not without legal consequences in Connecticut in enclosed workspaces including bars an restaurants - many states have similar laws Nitpicking. I can still choose to smoke or not. You are supporting inequitably taxing my economy based on carbon usage due to an unproven yet worth studying hypothesis.
Yet despite all the studies and data, no one can predict with any degree of certainty how smoking tobacco will affect you, but I bet you accept the scientific consensus.
I would bet the rate of cancer in the general population of smokers can be estimated fairly accurately. Yes, I accept that repeatable predictable result as worth paying attention to. Climate change to date cannot approach that degree of accuracy, or the repeated results over time from multiple studies.
Image
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote: You find that nonsense compelling?? I haven't had to change my position since first starting this thread years ago. Except for a few trivial late night mistakes, which I immediately apologized for, I haven't had to change a single position on climate. I would have, would still, change my claims if I had been presented with ANY DATA or LOGICAL ARGUMENT which compelled me to make amendments. But...so far....that hasn't happened. Because you refuse to engage in anything approaching scientific discourse. You are wedded to your belief, which is obviously way more political than scientific. You filter all information through that bias, accepting information, no matter how absurd, you feel confirms your belief and rejecting information, no matter how compelling, that refutes your belief. Hey, we all do it, perfectly natural, which is why the true enterprise of science is so difficult and why so few are truly successful at it

I do agree that you are obviously not a scientist obviously and would generously add that science seems to confuse you. yes I agree, well at least your attempts to apply science confuse me

You are impressed that the earth climate system has gradually gradually? warmed during most of the last dozen or so decades. "Modern warming" (post Little Ice Age) started about three decades or more BEFORE CO2 became elevated. So... attribution for CO2 as the "driver" of modern warming is to thoughtful people "problematic." man-made climate change on top of natural variability is hardly "problematic" for most to understand

It rarely feels worthwhile arguing with you because you rarely reference data or scientific logic. quite the opposite, but you rarely accept data or scientific logic

So one more time...
there are much better hypotheses to explain climate patterns than those that claim CO2 is a dominating driver for the system. and you have yet to put forth one, i.e. a much better one Data over the last few decades have shown the theory to be reasonably disproven. post, please It seems to linger for political reasons. that you feel run counter to your own

The earth is a beautiful but cruel place. Floods, droughts, storms bitter winters, baking summers...all these have always been facts of the earth's climate system. We should continue to develop technologies to help us deal with the ferocity of the earth's climate but not waste any time or energy trying to eliminate CO2 emissions. Governments LOVE the idea that they might have to seize the power to regulate our "carbon footprints" so they will be the last to abandon the ridiculous narrative that supports those policies. again, you deny the vast body of science because you do not like some of the proposed political remedies

I don't know enough about how economies run or how politics should proceed so I try not to preach on those topics....many of you have very interesting ideas which are helping me become educated in these arenas. But when it comes to climate science...perhaps you should heed your own advice regrading economics and politics i'll keep trying to encourage the free exercise of science...adversarial dialogue.
You realize you have now espoused every one of the denials I listed above, shifting from one to another in almost predictable fashion. Basically, as much as you will no doubt deny it, your view is not based on science, you base your "science" on your view. Your entire argument against climate change over all these pages boils down to you don't like the politics that spin around it, you believe some of the proposed solutions are too draconian for your taste, too expensive, too inconvenient, perhaps too liberal. Well that's fine, that's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it and can even be respected for it. However please recognize that your opinion has very little to do with science as practiced by actual scientists.

But whatever your opinion, the data (and pretty much all the data) shows it's getting hotter and it's getting hotter faster than ever before. You may think this is natural or harmless or even beneficial, but you can't even seem to come to grips with this simple and objective fact.

And buddy, that ain't science.
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Mister Moose wrote: I would bet the rate of cancer in the general population of smokers can be estimated fairly accurately.
But the rate of cancer for a specific population of smokers cannot be estimated accurately. And no one can predict with any degree of accuracy how tobacco will affect you, but you willingly accept the scientific consensus.
Mister Moose wrote: Yes, I accept that repeatable predictable result as worth paying attention to. Climate change to date cannot approach that degree of accuracy, or the repeated results over time from multiple studies.
So what sort of metric would you find acceptable and what do you mean by repeated results?

Climate ultimately spans centuries - you're gonna have to wait a very long time to assess the predictive accuracy of a particular climate model. If you want to gauge a model based on how well it simulates the past, climate models already do this quite well. Human impact on the climate in terms of releasing sequestered carbon at a rapid rate is relatively new on the climate time scale and as such it is not well represented in the historical record. A model that accurately simulates the pre-industrial past and also accounts for this newer phenomenon is obviously much more difficult than simple statistical assessments you seem to readily accept. What I find interesting is climate models that simulate the far past well also simulate the recent past well when your introduce the rise of C02 as a parameter. Now perhaps this is just nothing but a fancy curve fit with no real physical modelling and no meaningful predictive power, I really don't know.

With that said: The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

So again, what is the specific performance of climate model would you would find acceptable? What do you not accept about current climate models?

But I strongly suspect there's really no climate model that you would really accept because you, like SEB, don't believe the climate is changing or if it is changing, humans are not significantly responsible for it, or if we are, climate change is just not that big of a problem in relation to every other problem we have or if you believe any of that, you simply don't like some of the the proposed solutions.
Last edited by Coydog on Jun 21st, '17, 04:29, edited 1 time in total.
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Coydog »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:And just to keep y'all current :
Image
Yeah, a bit like saying since it was 58.7 degrees on January 21 and 58.7 degrees on June 21, it didn't get hotter in between.

And just to keep you current without getting too sciencey:

Global Climate Report - Annual 2016

With the contribution of eight consecutive high monthly temperature records set from January to August, and the remainder of the months ranking among their five warmest, 2016 became the warmest year in NOAA's 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The global temperatures in 2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the year.

This marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.
liv4ski
Bumper
Posts: 619
Joined: Oct 5th, '09, 11:10

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by liv4ski »

Mister Moose wrote: Your question carries with it an assumption, that the world is at near certain risk of doom from global warming.
Scientists predict this doom scenario if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced quickly to prevent the climate from reaching a tipping point beyond which a doomed planet would be irreversible for centuries.

It appears you believe the risk of doom is low based on the evidence you have seen or not seen. You support further research on climate change. Without waiting for the doom to occur, what evidence, and from whom, would persuade you that the risk of doom has reached a high enough level where society must take meaningful efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

To be clear, I am not arguing for or against the doom predictions. I am more interested in how you assess the risk with respect to the doom predictions, and more importantly, how you think our leaders should assess the risk.
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

Had to take a few days off from KZ due to a work overload, so I'm playing catch up here...

SEB - So you have a master's degree and are a high school teacher now? Wow. Yikes. That's freaking impressive. (Not.) I had a HS physics teacher just like you - he would berate and scream at all of us and had an overwhelming need to do so. We all hated him and physics was the one class in school that I did do poorly in - IMHO due to his unencouraging and nasty teaching style. I did well in college physics, so I'm pretty sure that I'm right on that opinion about Mr. Jensky. Almost nobody did well in that HS teacher's physics class. I sincerely hope that your statement about "this is the internet" truly means that you DO NOT treat your young students this way.

Honestly, I think your adamant insistence that all of these climate change arguments MUST BE PROVEN BEFORE any preventative actions are taken is absolutely idiotic. That is where we differ. Gee - my afore-mentioned almost-father-in-law behaves the same way. He'll send me scientific study after scientific study on how it has never been proven that Chinese Medicine/Acupuncture etc are beneficial, but never responds to the facts I present him on people and animals who accept or are given treatment in those medical practices and then see drastic improvement in their conditions. When I send to him peer-reviewed double blind placebo controlled studies on a certain plant remedy or non-mainstream medical treatment that does absolutely work (e.g. Yunnan baiyao herb blend actually STOPS a hemangioscarcoma rupture, or acupuncture actually DOES make it possible for a 14 year old large-breed K9 with an degenerating spine to stand up, eat, walk around and poop happily) he just doesn't respond. I've seen before and after films on a K9 (Mr Killy's) with a HS rupture who was given a Yunnan baiyao injection. The results were dramatic and my local (non TCM) vet was astounded.

Nobody responded to my earlier statement (re-stated below) that falls right in line with my very first post on KZone:

"DON'T BE A (SELFISH) DICK TO OUR PLANET JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NOT YET ANY DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS BAD."

I see this as common sense and I most certainly don't need to physically observe scientific proof on climate change to choose to behave this way and to encourage others to do so too. I strongly believe that common sense dictates that we take more precautions in OUR treatment of our planet since it is almost certain that none of us will be alive when the effects of climate change actually DO make earth uninhabitable by humans. Maybe this is uninhabitability is unavoidable even if humans had never evolved, but why-the-f RUSH it?

Moose - I hope you quit smoking. I hope you can admit to yourself that your nicotine addiction is what is fueling your viewpoint on this topic. If you happen to be one of the people whose body will eventually react negatively to the effects of carcinogens, I already feel sorry for you. If I misunderstood your posts and you actually aren't a smoker but were just making statements to prove a point, then please disregard this paragraph.

IMO Scientists who disparage Sagan and deGrasse Tyson are only jealous of their successes. A high school teacher who is an unknown in the scientific community is a perfect example of this. SEB - have you ever worked for NASA? Have you ever had tenure at a university? Please stop disparaging scientists who are more successful than you (career-wise) just because you subscribe to the thought that popularizing science so the mainstream can better understand it is bad. It's not. Have you ever taken your kids to a science museum? Did they like it? Did they start learning about things that they had never thought about before? Probably. I have taken several young children to the planetarium at the Natural History Museum in NYC and it was really exciting to see them so happy to be there. What exactly, pray tell, is bad about that?
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
Post Reply