01-15-2017, 06:30 AM
Let's keep it contained, shall we?
Mr. let's win baby - I honestly can say I might have gotten the "studies you read" wrong... it sure sounded like you read studies that disprove other studies, say like the IPCC report. Obiously that's not what you wanted to say, so alright.
"Well read", that depends. I cannot claim to understand the science behind many ot the observations, assuptions and such. It's quite complicated. I had my quarrels with "deniers" though, and when they argued their case, there mostly (not always) was utter nonsense to see. Scientific nonsense that is. You haven't, since you just go against "believers" without adding substance to your stance, that's just how it is, but hence this thread.
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.
These models all need huge computing power to contain all the correlatons between the single reference points they lay across the globe. Current adaptions are to be expected and are in no way a disproof of climate change - as you seem to imply. It's not reasonable to assume necessary modifications are a distinct disproof - as I imply.
That's not the best thing to just put a number out there without clarifying what it refers to. This confidence interval - at least that's what I found - is merely about man being responsible for a warming effect. Which is hard to dispute for me, since we do have the risen CO2 levels (that you also do not deny), and we do have a measurable warming effect (all "disproofs" stsating that there is no global warming to be observed are debunked, as far as I know, often debunked quite easily as fraudulant) and we do know that the greenhouse effect is real and CO2 plays a part in that effect (if the greenhouse effect wasn't real, global temperature would be way lower naturally (about -18°C instead of +15), I do guess you know that.)
Yep, that makes me pretty confident too.
If you talk about an other confidence interval than this one, let me know.
Well NO. If there were a sample power, we would already see catastrophic warning. Plus, most scientists do not predict "catastrophic warming" with absolute certainty (those who do are not liked by me either, they are probably just trying to get people, governments and such to listen), but rather as a probability. The models I see mostly present projections of different curves, depending on measures taken, and do not deny that these curves do have certain error bars.
What we already see is a warming. There's no way around it, even that genius republican with the snowball in congress can't change that.
No they're not. But they are far from perfect.
What it says about the conclusions? That it's probably still a "chance" and not 100% certainty, but an ever rising chance that more severe climate change will happen and will have effects on humankind.
The chance that there won't be climate change gets smaller and smaller.
It doesn't seem responsible to take this chances because "coal miners would be out of work" or whatever economic reason is prioritized.
Finally, once more the latest IPCC report. It's a study! For everyone to look thigngs up, and as my basis for any further discussions.
Fifth assessment report - this being the science part. Whoever read studies and denies climate change probably should have read that one. To know what he's opposing.
Mr. let's win baby - I honestly can say I might have gotten the "studies you read" wrong... it sure sounded like you read studies that disprove other studies, say like the IPCC report. Obiously that's not what you wanted to say, so alright.
(01-12-2017, 07:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: A study won't "prove" Global Warming doesn't exist - you don't prove a negative. Can you not understand that's not how it works? Provide a study you think is good, that supports the case, and we can discuss.
You guys are all so well read and versed on the subject I expected you had good studies at your finger tips. Because I haven't found any.
"Well read", that depends. I cannot claim to understand the science behind many ot the observations, assuptions and such. It's quite complicated. I had my quarrels with "deniers" though, and when they argued their case, there mostly (not always) was utter nonsense to see. Scientific nonsense that is. You haven't, since you just go against "believers" without adding substance to your stance, that's just how it is, but hence this thread.
(01-12-2017, 07:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The constant revising lower of past temperatures, changing models, adding and subtracting factors - and you'll find this pretty readily acknowledged, it's no secret. But that's not consistent with good, settled science.
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.
These models all need huge computing power to contain all the correlatons between the single reference points they lay across the globe. Current adaptions are to be expected and are in no way a disproof of climate change - as you seem to imply. It's not reasonable to assume necessary modifications are a distinct disproof - as I imply.
(01-12-2017, 07:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Let's start with the IPCC. Can you tell me how they arrived at their 95% confidence interval?
That's not the best thing to just put a number out there without clarifying what it refers to. This confidence interval - at least that's what I found - is merely about man being responsible for a warming effect. Which is hard to dispute for me, since we do have the risen CO2 levels (that you also do not deny), and we do have a measurable warming effect (all "disproofs" stsating that there is no global warming to be observed are debunked, as far as I know, often debunked quite easily as fraudulant) and we do know that the greenhouse effect is real and CO2 plays a part in that effect (if the greenhouse effect wasn't real, global temperature would be way lower naturally (about -18°C instead of +15), I do guess you know that.)
Yep, that makes me pretty confident too.
If you talk about an other confidence interval than this one, let me know.
(01-12-2017, 07:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Then next can you show me a climate model predicting catastrophic warming that's actually demonstrated out of sample power?
Well NO. If there were a sample power, we would already see catastrophic warning. Plus, most scientists do not predict "catastrophic warming" with absolute certainty (those who do are not liked by me either, they are probably just trying to get people, governments and such to listen), but rather as a probability. The models I see mostly present projections of different curves, depending on measures taken, and do not deny that these curves do have certain error bars.
What we already see is a warming. There's no way around it, even that genius republican with the snowball in congress can't change that.
(01-12-2017, 07:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Their models are bad, and so what does that say about conclusions based on those models?
No they're not. But they are far from perfect.
What it says about the conclusions? That it's probably still a "chance" and not 100% certainty, but an ever rising chance that more severe climate change will happen and will have effects on humankind.
The chance that there won't be climate change gets smaller and smaller.
It doesn't seem responsible to take this chances because "coal miners would be out of work" or whatever economic reason is prioritized.
Finally, once more the latest IPCC report. It's a study! For everyone to look thigngs up, and as my basis for any further discussions.
Fifth assessment report - this being the science part. Whoever read studies and denies climate change probably should have read that one. To know what he's opposing.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
