Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics

[Josh]

 

(...)

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

And that is a powerful statement against the "science is settled" crowd.

 

Science is never settled, or else it would cease to exist as a topic of study. No one knows how gravity works yet but we're pretty sure the acceleration tends to be 9.8m/s2 at sea level, minus air resistance. Climate change is definitely (always) happening and the science indicates its do to CO2 release. It is certainly possible that this is incorrect, something that is true of almost any scientific theory, but it seems rather unlikely. Given the effect that rising oceans and changing climate issues likely have on our economic well being (and in the third world, out and out survival) I'm all for hedging our bets and addressing CO2 output. That said its likely that well before countries make serious changes to their energy inputs and outputs to address such issues simple economic and technology factors will push the world away from fossil fuels. Renewables and power storage tech seems to be accelerating faster than anytime previous and I suspect will their cost will drop below fossil fuels in many areas/climates within a decade or two. So there you guys go, the free market will move in the direction likely before any governments take meaningful action. Happy?

Edited September 27, 2016 by Josh

[rmgill]

You really don't know the first thing about physics-based modelling do you and are just plodding along with Dunning-Kruger powered pseudo-intellectual ruminations aren't you?

Does a model that's claimed to predict a behavior and then fails to predict that behavior accurately model the behavior?

 

If your model you develop says your warhead will penetrate 4" or RHA and then fails to do so mean your model is sound? I hope that's not how you run your projects Jason because you're stiffing your funding sources.

 

The scientist choses WHICH physical aspects of a system they want to include in the model, they come up with an appropriate mathematical representation of that physics and then they must chose appropriate source terms for those mathematical representations. If it is a computational model they must then deal with the numerical scheme and formulation with which to solve the governing physics.

You mean they picked and chose which physical aspects of a system they want to include in the model...

A model CANNOT tell you what physics controls the system being studying because YOU ARE DECIDING WHAT PHYSICS TO CONSIDER. What a model can tell you is the relative importance of various bits of physics based on the source terms.

 

The models that we've been getting shown have been described as saying that CO2 will make the climate warmer. That's what the IPCC policy conferences have said, repeatedly Jason. IT has not. Now, there is the fact that their models could be taken to not be very good at modeling a 15 year cycle of climate and are only good at longer term periods. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE IPCC IS SAYING.

 

So that's a problem.

 

The physics behind climate models is very well established: it is inviscid flow and subsonic heat transfer. The big unknowns are the source terms because the detailed transport parameters are not know an there are all sorts of effects that change those source terms. That is why model fails.

 

Sure the various bits that they've modeled. But the models are incomplete. That's part of the problem. The'res more to it than what's modeled however due to the larger cycles involved.

 

You have no idea what that paper you linked is saying do you? It is 100% arguing that current warming is due to human greenhouse gas emission.

Is it? It nods to that, but it notes that there's a large gap in the paleo climate data sets and provides infilled data that differs from other data sets for paleoclimate variability. Aren't those early data sets part of the feed data for the climate models?

 

BTW total solar irradiance IS nearly constant (0.2% variation from mean). Variations due to sunspots and flare activity is not an unstudied problem. Stop pretending you're a genius that knows something climate scientists don't. Sunspot and flare effects are very much studied because they obviously do have major effects on climate. That is also a very tough modelling problem.

Sure Jason, it's not unstudied. However it's inclusion by climateolegist is a factor that's not modeled or properly understood by them. It IS studied by .

 

Also, asshole, I'm not pretending I'm a genius. I'm saying that I saw papers pointing to this and got to ruminating. That's why I said it was conjecture. That's unsupported by facts, I fully admit that. But people who ARE studying these aspects are starting to say that what was previously ignored is looking to be a substantial factor that's un accounted for.

 

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

Well, asshole, why does the the fucking UN, your government, my government and every warmist talking head on TV SAY that it does? Why does the various IPCC papers SAY IT DOES? Do you have your head under a rock regarding this aspect of yet another part of the liberal narrative? Apparently so. Get out and smell the roses. What you're saying and what the Climate scientists are saying doesn't match.

 

[rmgill]

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

 

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

[sunday]

 

 

 

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

 

 

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

 

 

I think that your question is not the point. Let me explain myself.

 

Let's say the myriad of IPCC models have shown the plausibility of anthropogenic CO2 causing GW.

 

Let's take an step more, but now outside the umbrella of the prestige enjoyed by the Science of a Newton, a Maxwell, a Einstein, or a Rutherford, and affirm anthropogenic CO2 is actually the culprit.

 

Well, to adopt policies that wreck the economies of countries is STILL another step away from scientific principle, and it means going into the murk, from a scientific point of view, of Economics and social sciences.

 

And there are another kind of policies that one could take to deal with the AGW challenge like mitigation measures, or like leveraging the positive aspects of climate change.

 

So, I think one could respect the science present in the research related to IPCC things (research whose nuances tend to be absent of the abstract for policymakers that is the only document journalists that cover these things skim over, by the way), but still disagree about the only policies designed to deal with the matter.

Edited September 27, 2016 by sunday

[Josh]

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

 

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Josh

[rmgill]

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

 

Except Josh, that is based on evidence in the fossil record. The AGW-CO2 Link is based upon models. There is not evidence to actually look at.

Evidence trumps models or theories.

Edited September 27, 2016 by rmgill

[Paul G.]

 

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

 

Except Josh, that is based on evidence in the fossil record. The AGW-CO2 Link is based upon models. There is not evidence to actually look at.

 

Evidence trumps models or theories.

No, in science evidence and models support theories. Proof is for courts of law.

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

 

Except Josh, that is based on evidence in the fossil record. The AGW-CO2 Link is based upon models. There is not evidence to actually look at.

 

Evidence trumps models or theories.

No, in science evidence and models support theories. Proof is for courts of law.

And mathematics.

 

 

theories and so called "laws" in natural sciences are all with caveat. Until someone thinks up a better explanation or finds new evidence falsifying the current state. It is a constantly developing process. So it cannot be settled. You settle cases in court. And even those get overturned or laws changed at times.

[rmgill]

 

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

 

Except Josh, that is based on evidence in the fossil record. The AGW-CO2 Link is based upon models. There is not evidence to actually look at.

 

Evidence trumps models or theories.

No, in science evidence and models support theories. Proof is for courts of law.

 

Yes. But we're still lacking in evidence. We JUST have models. Models which say the behavior will be increased temperature and which cannot explain why we have NOT seen increased temperature during the pause.

 

So, the evidence conflicts with the models. So, your science isn't settled. And what evidence there is conflicts either directly or at best, doesn't support the models.

[Mike Steele]

 

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

 

 

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

 

I think it proves that Jason is indeed the smartest guy in the forum, and you? posh and tish...

[rmgill]

 

 

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

 

 

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

 

 

I think that your question is not the point. Let me explain myself.

 

Let's say the myriad of IPCC models have shown the plausibility of anthropogenic CO2 causing GW.

 

Let's take an step more, but now outside the umbrella of the prestige enjoyed by the Science of a Newton, a Maxwell, a Einstein, or a Rutherford, and affirm anthropogenic CO2 is actually the culprit.

 

Well, to adopt policies that wreck the economies of countries is STILL another step away from scientific principle, and it means going into the murk, from a scientific point of view, of Economics and social sciences.

 

And there are another kind of policies that one could take to deal with the AGW challenge like mitigation measures, or like leveraging the positive aspects of climate change.

 

So, I think one could respect the science present in the research related to IPCC things (research whose nuances tend to be absent of the abstract for policymakers that is the only document journalists that cover these things skim over, by the way), but still disagree about the only policies designed to deal with the matter.

One could in theory respect the IPCC positions IF they were properly qualified. They're not. They're handed round for policy makers to hand down harsh terms like Paris and Kyoto.

 

Ultimately, this still all ties back into the question of:

 

If CO2 is not what's forcing this. And there IS warming going on, we still may have a problem. If we're just along for the ride, like we always have been, we still have a challenge.

 

1. Is the warming something that will cause problems? Possibly in some places right? In other ways it's good, longer growing seasons are never bad.

2. What is the true rate?

3. What are the actual problems?

4. Is the cost to try to mitigate the warming greater or less than the cost of adapting to the changes as they come or better, before they arrive?

 

If the latter, why hamstring our economies? Why not Adapt to the problems themselves?

 

One of the oddities of the AGW "the seas are rising!!!!" folks is that the sea level ALSO changes due to plate tectonics. At one point I saw a rise and fall of sea level in the Pacific listed as evidence of global warming. Odd, that seems more like that particular plate has tilted ever so slightly. Changing CO2 isn't going to fix that at all.

 

More so, we've had ancient societies die because the plates changed angles and what was a well surveyed canal with a gentle downstream angle to move water was now trying to get water to move up hill.

 

 

[sunday]

 

 

 

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

 

 

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

 

 

I think that your question is not the point. Let me explain myself.

 

Let's say the myriad of IPCC models have shown the plausibility of anthropogenic CO2 causing GW.

 

Let's take an step more, but now outside the umbrella of the prestige enjoyed by the Science of a Newton, a Maxwell, a Einstein, or a Rutherford, and affirm anthropogenic CO2 is actually the culprit.

 

Well, to adopt policies that wreck the economies of countries is STILL another step away from scientific principle, and it means going into the murk, from a scientific point of view, of Economics and social sciences.

 

And there are another kind of policies that one could take to deal with the AGW challenge like mitigation measures, or like leveraging the positive aspects of climate change.

 

So, I think one could respect the science present in the research related to IPCC things (research whose nuances tend to be absent of the abstract for policymakers that is the only document journalists that cover these things skim over, by the way), but still disagree about the only policies designed to deal with the matter.

One could in theory respect the IPCC positions IF they were properly qualified. They're not. They're handed round for policy makers to hand down harsh terms like Paris and Kyoto.

 

Ultimately, this still all ties back into the question of:

 

If CO2 is not what's forcing this. And there IS warming going on, we still may have a problem. If we're just along for the ride, like we always have been, we still have a challenge.

 

1. Is the warming something that will cause problems? Possibly in some places right? In other ways it's good, longer growing seasons are never bad.

2. What is the true rate?

3. What are the actual problems?

4. Is the cost to try to mitigate the warming greater or less than the cost of adapting to the changes as they come or better, before they arrive?

 

If the latter, why hamstring our economies? Why not Adapt to the problems themselves?

 

One of the oddities of the AGW "the seas are rising!!!!" folks is that the sea level ALSO changes due to plate tectonics. At one point I saw a rise and fall of sea level in the Pacific listed as evidence of global warming. Odd, that seems more like that particular plate has tilted ever so slightly. Changing CO2 isn't going to fix that at all.

 

More so, we've had ancient societies die because the plates changed angles and what was a well surveyed canal with a gentle downstream angle to move water was now trying to get water to move up hill.

 

Exactly. So, among other arguments you put forward, the politics/economics aspects of "climate change" are more weak from a dialectics point of view: seems Warmists took the scientific results, choose the most Statist policies to try to deal with the issue, and everyone that disagrees with that choice of policies is automatically labelled as a anti-Science, Reactionary, Creationist, etc. moron. One not needs to disagree with the scientific results. Bjorn Lomborg could be the paragon of people that agrees with the science but disagrees with the policies.

 

Also, going back to that fortunate Jason quote, "can plausibly cause" does not necessarily means "causes". That's Logics 101, and work need to be done until all the remaining mechanisms that could explaining the temperature variation are discarded. And there is also the issue about the temperature register, too.

[Mobius]

 

I'm aware of the problems with sample data. I've no idea how correct his specific data is or how he averaged his results from different data sets; I consider the graphic predominantly humor not hard science. That said I suspect it isn't wildly inaccurate given what the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on. Your mileage may differ.

 

So you consider that today - i am not even going to the past - the temperature measure of earth is reliable to the 0.5 C even if larges earth spaces on earth have no temperature measurements and forgetting that atmosphere is not 2D but 3D, that max and min temps are crude way to measure energy is atmosphere system to the precision required.

 

When I have no way to measure the temperature at a spot on earth and no one else can it is reliable to 0.00001 C.

[Jeff]

 

I want to focus on something Jason wrote.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

Does ANYONE on this thread get the impression from all of the 'experts' that they're NOT saying that CO2 is responsible for the increased temperature of the earth's climate? Anyone at all?

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

 

 

But no one is calling for the large scale reordering of human society based on the theory that humanity originated in Africa.

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

 

Models that crap out repeatedly certainly don't meet the standard.

[Panzermann]

fits here:

 

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives arent even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They cant tell science from scientism  in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types  those who want to nudge us into some behavior  much of what they would classify as rational or irrational (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

read the rest: https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

[Paul G.]

So do you believe sea level is rising or no?

[TTK Ciar]

I've been watching the IPCC models' curves get adjusted and re-adjusted upwards over the years, chasing actual measured temperatures. Graphing the adjustments, it sure looks to me like temperatures are increasing on some kind of superlinear curve.

 

I don't care if it's caused by humans or not, but I do think we need to adapt to changing conditions. By "adapt", I do not mean cut energy use and cripple our economies; quite the opposite.

 

Human civilization suffers from an energy shortage. Anywhere there is drought, it is because we lack the energy to distill water at sufficient scale. Anywhere there is famine, it is because we lack the energy for some or more of: make fertilizer, work the land, irrigate, transport produce. Anywhere there is scarcity of manufactured goods, this too is energy-limited.

 

If we find it in our interests to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can do that, too, with sufficiently profuse expenditure of energy.

 

Petroleum and natural gas are not a scalable solution to this shortage. They are increasingly expensive to get out of the ground and toxic when they spill. Also, we just can't pull them out of the ground fast enough to meet the world's needs.

 

Nuclear power, on the other hand, can scale, if built out correctly.

 

America hasn't done it, yet; expensive, dirty LWR was a flop.

 

Japan and France almost got it right, using breeder/burner-cycle reactors which converted almost all of their waste into more fuel. They treated the excess fuel like waste needing sequestering, though, which made them effectively as dirty as LWR and expensive.

 

If the excess fuel were instead incorporated into radioisotope thermoelectric generators (which are inexpensive, safe, low-maintenance, though admittedly lower-efficiency) and spread around wherever power and heat were needed, that fuel would cease to be a burden and start paying its keep. The average cost per watt of the entire system (B/B reactors plus RTGs) would decrease, and the aggregate output of the system would increase over time as the reactors re-enriched the exhausted fuel.

 

Whatever the cause of climate change, we're pretty sure there will be more droughts. Coastal fleets of nuclear-driven desalination plants would rectify that. We're pretty sure there will be more famine (due to soil salinization). Plentiful water and power would render more land productive. We're pretty sure there will be more need for ponds, dams, culverts and levees. Plentiful power would facilitate construction and the production of construction materials.

 

It also looks like coastal cities will flood, displacing millions of people in the United States alone. Perhaps levees could help mitigate this, but I think some displacement is inevitable. Expect to see a lot of refugees -- people from Texas, Louisiana, Florida, especially New York (all of Manhattan, 1.6 million people from there alone) and the east coast in general. Not so much the Pacific Northwest (though San Francisco and Petaluma at least are screwed). I don't know if abundant power could help rectify this problem, but it wouldn't hurt either.

 

In other words, the solution to at least some of the problems posed by climate change is not scarcity (as the Left would have us believe), nor refusing to change anything (as the Right seems to advocate), but to power up and power through. We've been needing to do this for a long, long time; this crisis is just a handy excuse to go ahead and make it happen.

 

Will it happen? I doubt it. The citizenry thinks nuclear power is The Devil, the oil industry treats nuclear power as a competitor to its own interests, and nuclear infrastructure is tightly regulated by self-serving and reactionary governments.

 

This doesn't bode well. Our descendents will just have to adapt as best they can, and look after their own. Ponds and culverts are a lot easier to build with powered machinery, but shovels will get the job done eventually.

[Guest Jason L]

Does a model that's claimed to predict a behavior and then fails to predict that behavior accurately model the behavior?

 

If your model you develop says your warhead will penetrate 4" or RHA and then fails to do so mean your model is sound? I hope that's not how you run your projects Jason because you're stiffing your funding sources.

What is accurate? 20% is pretty good agreement for an engineering model. Most computational models that aren't dealing with something that can be solved almost exactly generally only get good agreement because they have equation source terms specifically fit to experimental data.

 

The problem with trying to explain modelling to a layman, especially a layman who fancies themselves knowledgeable is that they have zero appreciation of what is actually involved and have no experience with which to match expectations.

 

This is of course a general problem of making science actionable for policy/political discussion. Thankfully politics is driven mostly by feel anyway so it doesn't really matter regardless of the topic.

 

 

You mean they picked and chose which physical aspects of a system they want to include in the model...

 

No, they use the best available knowledge at the time. The link between greenhouse gases is not model driven, it is emprical evidence driven for both anthro and non anthro sources.

 

 

The models that we've been getting shown have been described as saying that CO2 will make the climate warmer. That's what the IPCC policy conferences have said, repeatedly Jason. IT has not. Now, there is the fact that their models could be taken to not be very good at modeling a 15 year cycle of climate and are only good at longer term periods. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE IPCC IS SAYING.

 

No, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that various gases can increase temperatures. The heat transfer and thermodynamics (basic bitch shit that IS straighforward). The models fail because various source terms are wrong. This is admitted in pretty much every paper I've seen. They are very clear about what they don't know.

 

Also fuck off, you've never read an IPCC report in detail. The shit you post makes that very clear.

 

Sure the various bits that they've modeled. But the models are incomplete. That's part of the problem. The'res more to it than what's modeled however due to the larger cycles involved.

 

Why are you stating obvious fact like it's some special magical skeptic knowledge? This is well acknowledged everywhere, including by the IPCC.

 

 

Is it? It nods to that, but it notes that there's a large gap in the paleo climate data sets and provides infilled data that differs from other data sets for paleoclimate variability. Aren't those early data sets part of the feed data for the climate models?

 

As is typical for you, you didn't actually read what you posted.

 

 

Sure Jason, it's not unstudied. However it's inclusion by climateolegist is a factor that's not modeled or properly understood by them. It IS studied by .

 

You're just throwing words in there. Of course solar ouput influences global temps. It is also and incredibly hard thing to model. Also there is zero empirical evidence based on solar measurements that would explain how the sun is driving what is by all accounts unprededented warming.

 

Science works by likelihoods. It is unlikely that recent warming is based on sun farts, as opposed to cow farts based on current emperical evidence.

 

It doesn't rule out that this is all just sun related, but the likelihood is LOW.

 

Also, asshole, I'm not pretending I'm a genius. I'm saying that I saw papers pointing to this and got to ruminating. That's why I said it was conjecture. That's unsupported by facts, I fully admit that. But people who ARE studying these aspects are starting to say that what was previously ignored is looking to be a substantial factor that's un accounted for.

Of course, no one is disputing that. You do realize that the papers are being written by the same people you think are shitty scientists though, right?

 

Also, the word substantial often means something different in scientific writing, as does "significant". I dislike those words but they are basically unavoidable when building narrative filler.

 

Well, asshole, why does the the fucking UN, your government, my government and every warmist talking head on TV SAY that it does? Why does the various IPCC papers SAY IT DOES? Do you have your head under a rock regarding this aspect of yet another part of the liberal narrative? Apparently so. Get out and smell the roses. What you're saying and what the Climate scientists are saying doesn't match.

I'm not sure what distortion box you listen through, but I have never heard anyone say that the models prove anything. The models show what the various data sources show: that the earth is warming and if you model greenhouse gas emission you recover a warming effect in models.

 

As a validation of data it is not bad by any reasonable scientific standard. Laymen apparently have unrealistic scientific standards.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Jason L

[lucklucky]

What is accurate? 20% is pretty good agreement for an engineering model.

 

Flipping a coin might get better chances than that....

 

 

No, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that various gases can increase temperatures. The heat transfer and thermodynamics (basic bitch shit that IS straighforward). The models fail because various source terms are wrong. This is admitted in pretty much every paper I've seen. They are very clear about what they don't know.

 

 

No they are not clear. Scientists don't even posit the question that might be more sources. Scientists know nothing about history of cloud cover, winds to not talk about temperature.

 

 

You're just throwing words in there. Of course solar ouput influences global temps. It is also and incredibly hard thing to model. Also there is zero empirical evidence based on solar measurements that would explain how the sun is driving what is by all accounts unprededented warming.

 

 

Delirious. "unprededented warming" , you know earth temperature evolution to 0.x degrees in last 50000 years. And i am just restricting to 50000. Amazing!

[Guest Jason L]

 

What is accurate? 20% is pretty good agreement for an engineering model.

Flipping a coin might get better chances than that....

 

 

No, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that various gases can increase temperatures. The heat transfer and thermodynamics (basic bitch shit that IS straighforward). The models fail because various source terms are wrong. This is admitted in pretty much every paper I've seen. They are very clear about what they don't know.

No they are not clear. Scientists don't even posit the question that might be more sources. Scientists know nothing about history of cloud cover, winds to not talk about temperature.

 

 

You're just throwing words in there. Of course solar ouput influences global temps. It is also and incredibly hard thing to model. Also there is zero empirical evidence based on solar measurements that would explain how the sun is driving what is by all accounts unprededented warming.

Delirious. "unprededented warming" , you know earth temperature evolution to 0.x degrees in last 50000 years. And i am just restricting to 50000. Amazing!

 

You plainly have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even understand the difference between error and probability.

 

Go back to K12 plz, k tnx.

[rmgill]

So do you believe sea level is rising or no?

Sure it is. I guess we shouldn't have built all those coal plants back before the start of the Holocene epoch.

Edited September 28, 2016 by rmgill

[rmgill]

What is accurate? 20% is pretty good agreement for an engineering model. Most computational models that aren't dealing with something that can be solved almost exactly generally only get good agreement because they have equation source terms specifically fit to experimental data.

Are you willing to bet your job and career and welfare on such a computational model? You're willing to bet OTHER people's jobs and careers. But somehow I suspect you're not willing to bet your own.

 

We're not talking engineering models here asshole. We're talking weather models. Not quite the same thing are they?

 

And 20% of what? 20% off course is bad. 20% speed variability that'd be a problem. 20% nose down when you're supposed to be level would be a problem too.

 

No, they use the best available knowledge at the time. The link between greenhouse gases is not model driven, it is emprical evidence driven for both anthro and non anthro sources.

Which ignores factors they don't yet understand. LIKE Solar wind and other interactions with the magnetosphere.

 

No, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that various gases can increase temperatures.

Sure. But how they work in reality with the larger system, of carbon sinks, heat sinks and other factors is another question.

 

The heat transfer and thermodynamics (basic bitch shit that IS straighforward). The models fail because various source terms are wrong. This is admitted in pretty much every paper I've seen. They are very clear about what they don't know.

Yes again, but the larger picture of how that all works in a big system with chaos theory driving the system is another question entirely. You're trying to use modeling what an explosive does 20 miles away to the weather in my house. Close up you don't have a lot of variability. Far away and distributed over large volumes of space, it doesn't work as well.

 

If all this was simple weather prediction would be 100% accurate all the time. It's not.

 

 

You're just throwing words in there. Of course solar ouput influences global temps. It is also and incredibly hard thing to model. Also there is zero empirical evidence based on solar measurements that would explain how the sun is driving what is by all accounts unprededented warming.

Bullshit. I've seen and discussed some of these effects with people in the field relating to cloud formation. Remember that little experiment from grade school where you put a beta emitter into a cold chamber and get little cloud traces?

 

Subatomic particles create cloud effects.

 

Cloud formation changes albedo.

 

Cloud formation changes the energy input.

 

Is that simple for you?

 

 

Science works by likelihoods. It is unlikely that recent warming is based on sun farts, as opposed to cow farts based on current emperical evidence.

 

Of course, no one is disputing that. You do realize that the papers are being written by the same people you think are shitty scientists though, right?

If you're going to understand a system you must understand ALL of the system. Not knowing what coronal mass ejections, solar wind, magnetosphere effects and such is idiotic.

 

MANN is one of the shitty scientists.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what distortion box you listen through, but I have never heard anyone say that the models prove anything. The models show what the various data sources show: that the earth is warming and if you model greenhouse gas emission you recover a warming effect in models.

We've established that you live under a rock in other areas. We've now established that you live under a rock and just apparently read Google Scholar. Come out into the real world. Look at what the politicians are actually doing and saying.

 

When they say the science is settled. That's what is indicated.

 

The models show what the various data sources show: that the earth is warming and if you model greenhouse gas emission you recover a warming effect in models.

Circular argument is circular. Especially when you adjust the numbers for the current data set. Sorry. Homogenize.

 

The models show MORE warming than what has been observed. They don't match reality.

 

As a validation of data it is not bad by any reasonable scientific standard. Laymen apparently have unrealistic scientific standards.

One really must wonder what sort of standards you have. Hopefully you're not skimming 20% off your contracts.

 

And again, I must observe that you're making claims which are entirely distinct from what the general view of the Global Warming Debate is. The arguments are not that the models might indicate a problem. They're cited as proof that there IS warming and that it is caused by human industry emitted CO2. The only way to deal with that is curtailing human industry. That is the result of the IPCC papers as conveyed to the people writing policy for US EPA regs, Kyoto Protocol and the Paris treaty. Trying to argue that the models aren't really proof, but just warnings, just a scenario, is utterly fatuous.

[Mobius]

 

As a validation of data it is not bad by any reasonable scientific standard. Laymen apparently have unrealistic scientific standards.

 

A lot of money is being spent on this small subject. Those in this industry talk up their own book.

[Josh]

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

Except Josh, that is based on evidence in the fossil record. The AGW-CO2 Link is based upon models. There is not evidence to actually look at.

 

Evidence trumps models or theories.

 

Are there models that say either the temperature isn't rising sharply in the last 50-100 years relative to the last 20,000? One assumes if models are flawed, there multiple models that predict the opposite. So is there a model for global cooling? I'm honestly asking.

[EchoFiveMike]

Meh, scientists are just props used by politicians to justify their fuckery upon the taxpayers. No politician of significance actually gives a shit what they say, only how it can be used to further their goals. S/F....Ken M