Weather and Climate change - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Weather and Climate change (/Thread-Weather-and-Climate-change) |
RE: Weather and Climate change - Dill - 08-07-2019 (08-07-2019, 06:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I found the article after some searching. My original point stands - what does that article have to do with anything I posted? It's a strawman rebuttal. Well this was your "original point": "Also, would you please tell me what you think that article disproves that I have said? I only get an abstract, the rest is behind a paywall and "no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods" doesn't sound like the article you're referring to." The team of five scientists who undertook the study concluded this: "we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years." Have you NOT been disputing that global warming is 1) "unparalleled" in the last 100 years, AND 2) that it is anthropogenic? Strawman rebuttal how? Although Breech has been begging you for at least one, Beaker's link is the only actual study so far cited on this thread. Sounds like you only read the title of that study and could not make the connection, or read the abstract but did not understand it, and then could not immediately access a science database. A bad look for someone who claims that I "continue to fundamentally misunderstand how science works" and urges virtually everyone else to "educate themselves" on "climate alarmism"--by googling, no less. RE: Weather and Climate change - Dill - 08-08-2019 (08-07-2019, 07:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So again the TL;DR version is that the foundation of climate alarmism is based not on science, but data mining. Such models do provide ideas for further research, but are garbage for forecasting and policy choices. Strictly speaking, your link to Curry is a blog article, not the kind of journal article or "study" which Breech has been requesting, without success. Further, she is no climate denier or even skeptic. Quite the contrary, she has been in the forefront of climate scientists arguing, at once, for the integrity of scientific principles and AGAINST extraction-funded disinformation, which would portray climate science as "junk science." For example, this article from 2006, which sorts out climate denial in the context of debates over the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf. This NYT article includes her message to young graduate students on how to address climate skeptics. https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?pagemode=print. There is this on the climate audit site too: https://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/. Curry's blog is an articulate and interesting discussion of how policy application requires of climate modeling a different kind accountability than mere scientific inquiry would. Her discussion, and the responses below, probably give non-scientists a good indication of how climate science moves forward by critiquing and refining models. But the only reason I can think why you included it here, not to mention the other two links on model fitting (which have nothing directly to do with climate science) is because you have now hung your hat on V & V as the crux of the entire climate change debate and want to show that it is indeed "a thing." The direct disconfirmation of actual specific Climate studies you presume--we can still google that, right? (PS If you did read Curry's blog then it ought to be plain why the IPCC chapter on model evaluation uses the term "evaluation" rather than V & V. "Much of the debate between validation/verification versus evaluation seems to me to be semantic. . . .") RE: Weather and Climate change - Dill - 08-08-2019 (08-07-2019, 09:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is there something wrong with investing in renewable energy? If you make your profits from carbon extraction, then yes, absolutely. Millions of dollars spent in funding climate denial secures billions in profits. No brainer there. There is a phrase used once by Lenin--"useful idiots"--to describe capitalists who would work with Communists (for a profit) to help undermine their own economic system, their interest being wholly focused on personal profit and not the common good or larger political and economic trends. Extraction industries follow a similar model in buying politicians and journalists. The goal is then to create, in the minds of the public, the illusion that the scientific consensus on GW is unsettled--a model borrowed from efforts of big Tobacco to forestall government "interference" in tobacco sales, especially efforts to addict new and ever younger customers to their product. There was a great article on "the denial machine" in Newsweek back in 2007.https://web.archive.org/web/20071022035106/http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/2. As a social phenomenon, denial is in its own right an interesting subject, worthy of study. They often like to flip the script on the science community by claiming their research is somehow driven by a 2 trillion dollar solar energy industry, supposedly the mirror image of big oil. lol RE: Weather and Climate change - GMDino - 08-08-2019 (08-07-2019, 09:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is there something wrong with investing in renewable energy? Yes. It costs money. Now the money it costs us to "show China" we're serious about a trade war is TOTALLY worth it. Military? Spend away. anything to potentially help the country and the earth? Pffft. Why should we do it? RE: Weather and Climate change - Beaker - 08-08-2019 (08-07-2019, 09:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a political football nowThats the biggest problem in my opinion. As far as people changing, they wont. People dont change until they become uncomfortable. Right now, theyre still comfortable. RE: Weather and Climate change - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 08-08-2019 (08-07-2019, 08:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said. I understand. You "challenged people to post good science" and you're not exempt from your own challenge. Lead by example. Don't ask anyone to do something you yourself aren't willing to do. Show me the science. Not editorials from the media you don't trust. Quote:I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise. Again, I haven't asked you to prove anything and I'm not trying to prove anything. Just post the journal articles and let the research speak for itself. Linking an article doesn't prove or disprove man's role in climate change. That's not part of the scientific method. You're not going to prove or disprove anything by showing me an article you read because you aren't doing any research, collecting data, making observations, or drawing a conclusion based upon your experimentation. You're just linking a website to an article. That's it. You don't even have a hypothesis. You have opinions. Yet, you inexplicably claim others don't understand science. Quote:So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong, I want to read the science you read. That doesn't mean I want to prove you wrong. It means I want to read the science. As I have told you before, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic because of the issues you already brought up with the media, the fact this is such a politically polarizing topic that basically splits upon party lines among laymen with no real expertise in the subject, the the amount of disinformation actively being spread, and my general lack of interest in the physical sciences. Quote:or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic. I've never claimed to understand this topic. Matter of fact, I have repeatedly told you my mind is open on this topic. It is quite possible I may not understand the actual science related to this topic because my background is mostly in biology, chemistry, and medicine. So while I readily admit I'm no expert in climate change, I do have a background in and understand science and how science works. Just not this field of science. So I'm not going to waste my time Googling through the massive amount of disinformation on the internet when I have a source such as yourself to point me in the right direction. Because my time would be better spent reading a NEJM article which I can use towards my annual CME requirements than reading an editorial about climate change from some random dude who works as a lawyer. You and I will never know if I will understand the science if you continue to refuse to show me the science. Quote:I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published. And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated. That's not how science works, and I think you know this. That's just not true. That's exactly how Andrew Wakefield's research linking a specific MMR vaccine to autism was discredited. By publishing studies of "non-findings" which refuted the link. Basically, the studies proved a negative; there is no link. Quote:I've said many, many times the "science" behind climate hysteria is junk. Data mining is not science, and I'm not going to go find you a journal article that. Maybe don't mock people when you don't appear to understand even the basics of the science yourself. Mock you? Show me where. I've made the conscious decision not to mock you despite the fact you mocked me in the same sentence you accused me of mocking you in the hope you would rise to your own challenge and . . . just show me the science. RE: Weather and Climate change - Dill - 08-08-2019 (08-08-2019, 12:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Quote:I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published. And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated. That's not how science works, and I think you know this. Excellent point. Independent replication of results is essential to experimental method. And replication often does result in "non-findings," which are important for a research community in assessing findings. Only after replication and correlation to other results can "findings" be judged knowledge and integrated with existing theory. The process of earning a PhD in any field I can think of consists in the process of mastering "the literature" in the field, the published results, including non-findings, which enable a young scientist to evaluate new research and to do original research him/herself, i.e., to see which areas of the field are yet "unplowed." However, such replication is typically made public in conference papers presented to other specialists and in discipline or field specific journals--the latter one typically finds in databases (e.g., Beaker's article linked above) and academic/research libraries. JustWin's link to Chapter 9 of the IPCC report, which discusses evaluation of climate studies, is full of references to "non-findings," which are listed in its bibliography. JustWin is correct, however, if he means "non-findings aren't typically published" in newspapers and on websites and message boards. The latter is where one typically finds people throwing up individual, de-contextualized studies or news articles "proving" that global warming or evolution or vaccine-induced autism is or is not "true." It's in this sphere that one finds sweeping, theologically framed invitations to "find out the truth for yourself" about global warming or evolution etc . . . . RE: Weather and Climate change - Dill - 08-09-2019 (08-07-2019, 07:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I asked you to go google ECS and then look at where IPCC gets there values from. The IPCC takes those values primarily from the climate models. That's inherently problematic. The long and short of it is the science DOES NOT reject the default assumption of low climate sensitivity, which as I already pointed out is most likely between 1 and 1.5 based on the actual temperature data. But then the climate alarmism falls apart, and with it a giant deflation of a $2T+ industry (among other things). How are you defining "climate alarmism" here? Are you referring to pronouncements of some environmentalist groups, or to the IPCC? Are you following a journalist agreement among some publications to use the term? Without reference to specific studies and arguments, it is hard to follow a claim that the IPCC "takes its values from climate models," and that that is "inherently problematic" in some way not already acknowledged and addressed by the IPCC. If you have seen and can specify some exact point where your claim is substantiated, I don't understand why you can't refer me directly to that. Perhaps you do not know how to cite or incorporate textual evidence into an argument? (My complaint here is the same as Breech's; you make general claims which look like they came from specific support, but at the moment any scientist would cite that support, you gesture vaguely towards Google while saying we obviously don't understand how science works. That looks like you are working with someone else's summary.) You speak of an "unvalidated model" as if there were only one in question here, as if validation of open-ended systems is the same as validation of closed, and as if the global warming thesis depended only on models. One can grant all the criticism of data mining in your links to non-climate science discussions without assuming that, in itself, invalidates climate modeling--an ongoing project of many models and many forms/sources of data. That climate scientists themselves, working with physicists and mathematicians, criticize such models to constantly improve them, is hardly in itself sufficient evidence of "junk science." So you are still a LONG WAYS from establishing that an undefined "climate alarmism" is, somewhere out there, based primarily upon data-mining, which is bad because discussions of V & V unrelated to climate science say it is bad. I am not disputing it is bad, just saying you have really made no specific connection. RE: Weather and Climate change - GMDino - 08-12-2019 Just throwing this out there as an example of why we can't have nice discussions:
RE: Weather and Climate change - Belsnickel - 08-12-2019 Deforestation, Agriculture, and Diet Are Fuelling the Climate Crisis Quote:In the Amazon, or in the parts of the Amazon that people have mowed down and converted into grazing pasture, the average abattoir-bound cow has nearly three acres to himself. Nice for the cow, perhaps, but senseless and dangerous in every other way. Every year, on average, tropical deforestation accounts for fifteen per cent of global greenhouse emissions. About half of the contributing deforestation occurs in South America; deforestation in the Amazon recently increased. If the trend continues, scientists have found, it could lengthen the forest’s dry season, triggering even greater warming and drying, killing trees in the nearby (still intact) forest, and eventually causing mass tree mortality and an entire ecosystem shift—from rainforest to savannah. The tipping point for such a collapse in the Amazon is between twenty and twenty-five per cent deforestation—fifteen to seventeen per cent is already gone. “If you exceed the threshold,” Carlos Nobre, a Brazilian climate and tropical-forest expert, told me, “fifty to sixty per cent of the forest could be gone over three to five decades.” RE: Weather and Climate change - GMDino - 08-14-2019 Let's break up the very serious discussion with a moment of levity courtesy Ben Shapiro. Note: the video is NSFW. It has one bad word in it. Screamed. Very loudly.
RE: Weather and Climate change - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 08-16-2019 (08-07-2019, 08:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said. I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise. So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong, or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic. I took statistics at Miami University as part of a program for gifted high school students. I took Earth Science in 10th or 11th grade at a shitty little high school in southern Ohio where cow tipping is a right of passage into manhood. What's your level of expertise with data mining, statistics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and meteorology and atmospheric science? |