Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-20-2017, 11:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: Good arguments are not "truths". Although I'm for free education, state expenses are a valid argument against free college. Whenever arguments are involved, I carry out my old virtual beam balance, try to attach the appropriate weight to all arguments (which is not 100% objective, of course not) on both sides, see where the balance leans for me and form my opinion. But it more or less stays an opinion.
That CC is true is not so much an "opinion" for me, like evolution is no opinion, or let's say gravity, to be polemic. But I see your follow-up, so that's just for mentioning the difference between preferrably nuanced debates vs. preferrably clear-cut black-and-white debates.

Let's just use the sense of "honest", then.  I'm talking about arguments based in honesty rather than wrong facts.  A sequence of logic where each one is based (or reasonably based) on something that can either be true or reasonably assumed to be true (of course it's not always possible for these conditions to be met), rather than spurious "facts".

Quote:Well, you're lazy then. :)
So, to close for now, many deniers now claim, ok there is some warming, but it's not all that bad, we can adapt. That is the one talking point I still accept as valid (although I do not agree, mostly because of the rist - and the oceans). This debate can be lead. Denying climate change, however, at this point starts to become treacherous. Just let me add this at the end: Deniers get paid. There are huge interest groups that still want to keep that narrative, they spend billions. When the denier's argument is "the CC scientists are greedy and invent CC so they can get money", it makes me mad to my bones. I mentioned already why, but still. The denial still has a huge lobby in your country (and as far as I know, ONLY in your country), your republican party being one of the lobbyists. Hence scientists are kept relevant which probably wouldn't be if the scientific world would do the evaluation of their works and findings (as they should). Voilá.

Fair enough.  Based on Dill's citations, and yours I am starting to lean towards the consensus, and will inform myself some more with these links.  The problem before was that I wasn't comfortable finding links from google which can lead one in many different directions.

[hollodero]

(01-20-2017, 03:10 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Let's just use the sense of "honest", then.  I'm talking about arguments based in honesty rather than wrong facts.  A sequence of logic where each one is based (or reasonably based) on something that can either be true or reasonably assumed to be true (of course it's not always possible for these conditions to be met), rather than spurious "facts".

Fair enough.  Based on Dill's citations, and yours I am starting to lean towards the consensus, and will inform myself some more with these links.  The problem before was that I wasn't comfortable finding links from google which can lead one in many different directions.

Bear in mind that my links also are just the result of quick google searches and by no means the top of the credibility pyramid. Did it in a hurry. It more or less is still up to you to inform yourself.

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-20-2017, 03:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Bear in mind that my links also are just the result of quick google searches and by no means the top of the credibility pyramid. Did it in a hurry. It more or less is still up to you to inform yourself.

And there you have the impetus for our discourse in the first place.  But the NASA link from Dill is a promising starting point.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-16-2017, 03:51 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Aaaaaaaand . . . crickets.

"Crickets" is what I got when I asked you to explain where the IPCC got their 95% confidence interval.  Some of of us have jobs for a living and, yes, I just finished a 16 hour day...on a Friday...

Hollodero made a fair and good post.  I'll respond to him in more detail when I have a chance.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-15-2017, 06:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: Climate models are tough to come by. We do not fully understand the climatic effets or the carbon cycle, let alone possible amplification processes. The lessened albedo is pretty much settled as an amplification, I'd guess (a warmer planet contains less ice surfaces, hence less sunlight gets reflected, hence additiional warming effects) - we know about that one because it also works the other way round and played a major part in coolings /ice ages. How the forming of clouds factor in is hard to debate. We are at a point where we can somehow predict the weather for a few days, but that's about it. So, limited possibilities, sure. Folks work on that..

Lot of good points that I'll try to address when I have more time.

Don't mean to cherry pick, but the above we pretty much agree on.  Pardon the expression, but you think it's "the whole iceberg" while I'm saying it's just the tip.  There's simply too much they don't understand to have confidence in their catastrophic predictions, which have been routinely wrong, and alarmist fixes. 

[JustWinBaby]

(01-16-2017, 08:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: As an aside I never got that disconnect that somehow all these scientists are just making stuff up to get rich...but the poor, helpless fossil fuel manufacturers are just trying to keep making, uh, record profits? The "hoax" is what you've been led to believe is settled science....why you believe that would depend on what you've read and haven't read.

Yeah. The money is in denial....

Oh, no no no no no.

No one has said scientists are making it up.  Some in that community are misrepresenting the certainty and magnitude of the science, but it probably tends to be more the media and government. The "hoax" is what's led you to believe it's good, settled science. How you got there and what you read or didn't read to get there is a different matter.

But if you think the big money is in denial, you are absolutely clueless.  Climate change and green energy IS big business.  See if you can find the funding behind Climate Change research that supports your above point - what I've seen suggests govt, pro-global AGT research, is well over 100X the dollars coming from fossil fuels.  Hard to find good numbers, but globally it's pretty clear govt funded research (which tends to be very one-sided, if not politically motivated) is in the billions while industry is only in the tens of millions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-21-2017, 06:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Oh, no no no no no.

No one has said scientists are making it up.  Some in that community are misrepresenting the certainty and magnitude of the science, but it probably tends to be more the media and government.  The "hoax" is what's led you to believe it's good, settled science.  How you got there and what you read or didn't read to get there is a different matter.

But if you think the big money is in denial, you are absolutely clueless.  Climate change and green energy IS big business.  See if you can find the funding behind Climate Change research that supports your above point - what I've seen suggests govt, pro-global AGT research, is well over 100X the dollars coming from fossil fuels.  Hard to find good numbers, but globally it's pretty clear govt funded research (which tends to be very one-sided, if not politically motivated) is in the billions while industry is only in the tens of millions.

Climate change and green energy are bigger business than the oil industry because the real money is in the former rather than the latter?

[JustWinBaby]

(01-20-2017, 03:03 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Thanks for the links.  I will check out NASA's position, but for now, this seems to be a very credible argument in favor of scientific consensus on climate change.  

I'd be right with you guys, if I hadn't seen the exact same thing happening with ETS (second hand smoke) a decade ago.

Not to derail the thread, so let me say I won't respond to ETS.....but I'm not a smoker and certainly didn't like smoke in the bars, but intuitively ETS sounded like bullshit (and as a libertarian I'd defend the property rights).

I read dozens of studies in articles linking the risk.  They were all garbage.  ONE - one study I found -  major study showed a significant benefit.  I only ever saw one GOOD study showing an elevated risk (one that factored in all health outcomes).  I thought, early on, it was an agenda to reduce healthcare costs by reducing smoking by taking away opportunities.  Toward the end, a few politicians admitted exactly that. Basically "yeah, we lied, but if was for a good reason"

So I've already seen junk "science" used as a political agenda.  Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof....so there's something very wrong when good science, in that regard, is labeled "denial" in an effort to dismiss valid questions about questionable science.

I've had this argument many times with friends, colleagues and co-workers.  And the one commonality is none of them have ever read a single study or have a background in training or research.   They are sheeple.

[hollodero]

(01-21-2017, 07:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, no, it's not an accident or luck that I pointed that out.  My responses are "few and substantial" because that's the science.  I said specifically the case begins and ends with positive feedback.  That science is shaky, and empirical evidence would seem to invalidate theory.  That's why their models suck so bad, in a nutshell, because they're making bad assumptions to fit their conclusions.

Very simply, given the magnitude of AGT we are trying to measure...in relation to the quality and precision of the data....an absolute ***** joke.  We have probably 20-30 years of good data, which means practically speaking we are 100+ years away from anything remotely a "good" scientific conclusion (and for you dumbasses that goes both ways).

CO2 warming capacity is precise and can be tested.  But they have no idea how the Earth reacts to offset imbalances and counter "negative" effects (more CO2 being bad is a different thread).  They just assume more CO2 is very bad.  And that's like reason #1 to be skeptical of claims.  Basically they assume - with absolutely no justification - that man is a butterfly and not a gnat.  AND it sounds compelling, intuitive even, to demand evidence that man ISN'T a butterfly....but that's not how science works,  And the "rational" unscientific assumption is that man is the gnat and it needs to be proven otherwise.  And that's basically where this debate is at - a bunch of garbage thrown against the wall to bias you to demand proof man is not the butterfly.

And yada yada yada...the more you read, and start looking into sun spots, solar, volanic activity, cloud feedback, etc....the more you'll realize they just don't know nearly enough to give you a forecast you can have confidence in.

I said "few substantial", not "few and substantial". You post a lot, but there usually is a loooot of self-confidence, but no substance behind it. Calling the science garbage and us dumbasses isn't substantial, your strange butterfly analogy means absolutely nothing, the claim we only have 20 years of good data is nonsense, your whole post contains not much to even respond to.
I got into the whole climate sensitivity thing, I take whatever specific points you offer for a debate, as few as they are. We do see the things I got into in lengthy posts, sour oceans, melting glaciers, a warmer planet - all this is true, right? You can either debunk warming as a whole - or give me some alternative explanation for the warming. Sun spots or volcanoes as cause for the current warming are refuted 10.000 times, though. That much so I don't think it's sensible to still mention those.

Forecast with confidence, well. When I see a distinct rise in CO2 levels and a warming of 0.8°C in global average temperature - and I also do know that the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 and other substances in the atmosphere is real (it would be 33°C colder on earth if it weren't) - I'd say there's something to the whole theory that additional CO2 causes the additional warming. Almost every person more educated than me agrees, so there's that as well. How big is my confidence? Probably not 100%, but close. Doubt is always a part of predictions, there's hardly any prediction that is 100% doubt-free. See the CKwi88' post on page one. I see a very slight chance that you're right and there's nothing behind it after all. But that's just an unlikely scenario, and by applying that view as a reason to do nothing about CC isn't smart. Even if science were erroneous in some respects.

- I made this point a thousand times, but the one who has NO doubt AT ALL is YOU. You are completely, 100% certain man-made CC is un-real, misguided, stupid idiotic stuff only believed by inferior people. If you demand doubt from me, I demand doubt from you, or else you're just insincere towards your own "we can't know for it's way too complex" - stance.

Two more things, one, the consensus is not "we're heading towards catastrophic warming", it's "human causes climate change". Whenever you attack alleged "doomsday predictions", you do not attack the science behind CC, just some specifics (I admit that some outlets are maybe too pessimistic to get more attention, that I can imagine and if so, I condemn it). 
Second, the money aspect, CC is not only resarched in the US. I do not know about your system, but in my country and others a lot of research in general is publicly funded, universities, certain facilities, .... Foundational research in all kinds of scientific fields usually is. Hence, public funding does in no way mean political influencing, and that connection is populisic nonsense. Our chancellor does not call the universities to tell them "hey, that bone you found you want to date now, make sure it's at least 6.000 years old or you don't get paid!" - or whatever else is researched at different universities, be it CC, cat hairs or mental disorders or [50.000 more examples]. If any, my country has no interest in CC being a real thing, none whatsoever.
Political influence for what reason? Who pays for the CC narrative?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-21-2017, 07:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is a non-sequitor.  Re-read what I wrote and try to understand what is being said instead of trolling.  And if you're not trolling then, well, I'm just sorry.  Really, really sorry.

What you wrote is a non-sequitur. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-21-2017, 07:43 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd be right with you guys, if I hadn't seen the exact same thing happening with ETS (second hand smoke) a decade ago.

Not to derail the thread, so let me say I won't respond to ETS.....but I'm not a smoker and certainly didn't like smoke in the bars, but intuitively ETS sounded like bullshit (and as a libertarian I'd defend the property rights).

I read dozens of studies in articles linking the risk.  They were all garbage.  ONE - one study I found -  major study showed a significant benefit.  I only ever saw one GOOD study showing an elevated risk (one that factored in all health outcomes).  I thought, early on, it was an agenda to reduce healthcare costs by reducing smoking by taking away opportunities.  Toward the end, a few politicians admitted exactly that.  Basically "yeah, we lied, but if was for a good reason"

So I've already seen junk "science" used as a political agenda.  Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof....so there's something very wrong when good science, in that regard, is labeled "denial" in an effort to dismiss valid questions about questionable science.

I've had this argument many times with friends, colleagues and co-workers.  And the one commonality is none of them have ever read a single study or have a background in training or research.   They are sheeple.

Industry denialism. That's why we will never see a single one of those actual studies you have read. Just bullshit about butterflies and gnats. 

[JustWinBaby]

(01-21-2017, 09:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Industry denialism. That's why we will never see a single one of those actual studies you have read. Just bullshit about butterflies and gnats. 

Once again, there's no point in me posting failed studies I've read.  I don't believe in the catastrophic warming theory.  I don't have to prove it doesn't exist (if you actually understand the scientific method, which we've established you don't).

I'm anxious to read studies to the contrary.  I invite you to post them.  We know you will not because you've never read anything on the subject - which, by the way, you've admitted.

Thanks for trolling.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-17-2017, 10:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: So why the fuzz? It's the amplifications that cause the fuzz. The indirect effects of CO2 and temperature change, that's what it seems to come down to.  IPCC used to arrive at way higher climate sensitivity, e.g. higher temperature rises, because of additional effects that are caused by a rising temperature (not to forget other greenhouse gasses we release), but not directly by CO2.

And what of amplification?  Where is the evidence?

This was first being proposed 20+ years ago...and if it was correct, we should be much warmer than we are now.  And that's clearly not the case, not before the latest lowering of past temperatures.

But when you look at the troposphere (or whatever it's called), measurable warming is, at most, no more than on the surface (despite all the faults with surface temperatures).  That's a 100% fail for the argument.  That's where water vapor or other amplifying effects would be seen - but there's no evidence of it.  Nada.  Which is a pretty simple explanation of why the catastrophic warming models have failed.  Because they're shitty models that don't actually understand that which they pretend to describe.

[hollodero]

(02-28-2017, 06:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And what of amplification?  Where is the evidence?

This was first being proposed 20+ years ago...and if it was correct, we should be much warmer than we are now.  And that's clearly not the case, not before the latest lowering of past temperatures.

Yes, that is true and that was what I said. It's warming less rapidly as assumed from IPCC.
But it still has gotten 0.7° warmer.

(02-28-2017, 06:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But when you look at the troposphere (or whatever it's called), measurable warming is, at most, no more than on the surface (despite all the faults with surface temperatures).

Well, we live in the troposphere. Or in scientific terms, in "whatever it's called".
So well, it's about the warming in said sphere. Not about the warming in earth's core, not about the warming in the Exosphere. But the one we live in. That might be a bit anthropocentric, but well, that's how I roll.

[quote='JustWinBaby' pid='349158' dateline='1488274647']
  That's a 100% fail for the argument.  That's where water vapor or other amplifying effects would be seen - but there's no evidence of it.  Nada.  Which is a pretty simple explanation of why the catastrophic warming models have failed.  Because they're shitty models that don't actually understand that which they pretend to describe.

What are you even talking about.
Again, we have a measurable warming in, yes, the troposphere, in which greenhouse effects take place. The warming is about 0.07 C° per decade right now, the fastest rise in about 60 million years. 2016 was the warmest year in probably 115.000 years and the warmest year ever measured, followed by 2015 and 2014. Global temperatures rise, they have risen about at least, at least 0,7°C since pre-industrial times. These are things that aren't theory, these are the things that are there.
So you can now either say:

a) That's all not true, those numbers are forged for all scientists are liberal dumb-dumbs who follow their leader's agenda or get filthy rich by doing so, some yuge conspiracy.
b) That is true, but there's a whole other explanation. It's the increase in space worm mating that warms earth. These mating spaceworms sure heat things up. Or you have an even better explanation, but then, produce it. Don't babble incoherent stuff about the scientific method.

You obviously choose c) the warming is not "catastrophic" (for whatever that means), hence it all is irrelevant, for scientists earlier claimed otherwise, hence lies lies lies. And I get so tired of that argument. No serious scientist would have prognosed with absolute certainty how things will pan out. There are "bad apple" sensationalists that maybe exaggerated on purpose, sure. But that factor doesn't disprove global warming in any way, shape or form. Yes, they deal with models, and maybe these models were, as you so eloquently said, "shitty" - because that's what usually happpens when models deal with complex systems full of yet unknowns. They don't produce 100% accurate predictions. And have to be continuously enhanced.
Then again... there's real warming that can be observed, so it's not like they failed completely.

About the amplifications. Their existence can't be fully proven unless by experiment - just in this case, when they are proven, we already have a much warmer planed that has drastically changed. So what they are at this point are dangers. I don't really know what happens, maybe there aren't amplifying affects, maybe warming slows down, and then phew! Or it doesn't and you got your "evidence" by seeing an unpleasantly warmed planed. Now then what.

The occurrence of ice ages pretty much shows amplifications, per se, have taken place, just in the opposite direction (think ice surfaces). You can paint the possible warming amplifications as pure imagination, an invention to scare good, oilloyal people like you. My guess is they're not, at least not all of them. And even if they are, we would still have to battle the warming that already is there to see.
You can say we can handle that then. But whatever, I don't really want to take the slim chance that all scientists got it dead wrong and that one condescending big-mouth no-fact guy from the bengals board - and some republicans who don't know anything about science - got it right. By all logic, that is a very unlikely outcome.

[hollodero]

(02-28-2017, 06:38 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes, you really embarrassed me with your science there.

Nope, it's really not me or "my" science that does that. You're a big boy, you did it all on your own.
I wish you wouldn't, really, I dislike the feeling of external shame.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 06:25 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And I'd love for you to read something to make you less ignorant.  When you read something interesting, maybe post it and we can discuss.  Well, probably not literally you and me but maybe me and other people capable of discussing it.

Otherwise, you continue to show what an ignorant sheeple you are.  I'd love to discuss climate research with you, but I realize before that I'd have to teach you basics of research and statistics and, well, anyone who has read your posts know that's a lost cause.

Seriously, I'm gone for a month for work and vacation and life and this thread died?  I guess the lesson is to be intellectually curious one has to first have a brain.

(02-28-2017, 06:27 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Once again, there's no point in me posting failed studies I've read.  I don't believe in the catastrophic warming theory.  I don't have to prove it doesn't exist (if you actually understand the scientific method, which we've established you don't).

I'm anxious to read studies to the contrary.  I invite you to post them.  We know you will not because you've never read anything on the subject - which, by the way, you've admitted.

Thanks for trolling.

Riddle me this; if there is no point in posting what you have read, what is the point of me posting anything I have read?

Yes, I have admitted I haven't read any climate change studies.  Thus there aren't any studies I have read to post.  Whereas you have claimed to have read actual studies.  Thus there are actual studies you can post.  

For the umpteenth time, I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything.  I'm just asking you to post the actual studies you claimed to have read so I can read them for myself.  If you were as smart as you claim or knew as much as you claim or weren't trolling, you would understand.  Matter of fact, I know you understand because I don't believe you're as stupid as you pretend despite the charade.

I don't believe or not believe in "the catastrophic warming theory," so what exactly am I an "ignorant sheeple" for believing?  Am I an ignorant sheeple for withholding judgment before making an informed opinion? Or am I an "ignorant sheeple" for giving you the benefit of the doubt you have read the "actual studies" you claim to have read?

[Rotobeast]

All this arguing is a waste.
Mathematically speaking, an asteroid will hit the earth, kill half of us, eject matter into atmosphere, create another ice age, and reconstitute the poles, way before we're growing oranges in Ohio.
I'll scan my calculations, later.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*michaelsean*]

It was 75 and sunny a few days ago. I'm good.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 12:17 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: All this arguing is a waste.
Mathematically speaking, an asteroid will hit the earth, kill half of us, eject matter into atmosphere, create another ice age, and reconstitute the poles,  way before we're growing oranges in Ohio.
I'll scan my calculations, later.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

You say that now, but just wait until our Sun turns into a Red Giant.

[Rotobeast]

(02-28-2017, 02:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You say that now, but just wait until our Sun turns into a Red Giant.

Ooohhh a Gary Johnson quote, providing you knew that was one of his sarcastic answers on climate change....lol