• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Dog

Climate news

630 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:
 
I've been thinking about this statement, quite a bit, and wondering why it hit me so hard. I think it boils down to the fact that this guy is promoting an "explanation" that has absolutely no credibility, whatsoever. His disclaimer regarding not being in a Science class in years might have relevance if he was promoting a theory that was once discussed as possible. But, it's not, and he just pulled this out of his ass. It's hard enough to teach Science and critical thinking without having to compete with stupidity and folks who believe this kind of hornswaggle is as valid as a Scientific Theory.  We have seen this in recent years with politicians prefacing comments with statements like "I'm no scientist, but....."
 
Please remember this crap the next time you hear someone bash the state of education in the US.

 

And 38% of the American public believe it without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Doggy says ....

But why pick 8,000?  Let's do 800.000!

CO2_concentration_800k_years_and_to_2100

Doggy is a lying shill.

Why stop there.

2ng8wi0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, d'ranger said:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

..from the source....."our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/04/man-made-greenhouse-gases

..addresses only the manmade component, not the global natural and manmade emmissions.

 

Do you read much????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

..from the source....."our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/04/man-made-greenhouse-gases

..addresses only the manmade component, not the global natural and manmade emmissions.

 

Do you read much????

I read more than your president does  How Trump gets his fake news

You don't have to read the entire article - it leads off with

Quote

 

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Trump.

Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter.

 

Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an Internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it.

 

Too bad someone caught it - That's the story that made Dog a skeptic, at least according to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I read more than your president does  How Trump gets his fake news

You don't have to read the entire article - it leads off with

Too bad someone caught it - That's the story that made Dog a skeptic, at least according to him.

OFGS... there may be a fake Time magazine global cooling cover circulating but that doesn't mean the story is fake. It was real and Time did publish stories about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG - Leonard Nimoy says Winter is Coming.  Guess what Dog, a few papers were published supporting it, about the same number that you subscribe to now. Fool me once, shame on you fool me twice, Hi I am Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

 

My interactions with energy companies are pretty consistent with those of the article.  They're going forward on the assumption that climate change is real and they're going to need to cut / address emissions.

I've been told point blank that the whims of the current administration don't really matter in their thinking.  When projects last decades and you can be held retroactively accountable, logic and science don't really matter.   It's too late the the game for that.  You're dealing with public perception (marketing) and liability cases (legal).

The 'global warming' ship has sailed and they are planning accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doggy says it's all bullshit.  Energy companies say it's not.

Who do we believe?  Should Doggy send them a few words, or a chart of the Holocene stuff he uses? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New article out in Natural Geoscience acknowledges the discrepancies between observations and climate model simulations and also that the probability is low that the discrepancies are accounted for by natural variability. This one can't be written off as denier propaganda, the authors include some alarmist heavy hitters including Ben Santer and Michael Mann.

"Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)"

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea.. Last year, Nature had a special article on climate modeling (I linked it at the time) where the primary authors flat out said they knew the models weren't accurate and literally begged physics and thermodynamicists to come up with better parameters and boundary conditions.  They even identified the four major areas where they were having problems.  The challenge is that physicists get paid to search for god particles, not refine IR feedback models.

"We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

That's a fancy way of saying they guessed wrong on some of the coefficients.  Given they only have one experiment to observe and they're doing it in real time, that's pretty much expected.  And when some of your equations go as the 4th power of temperature, little errors in guesses make big errors in results, particularly if you extrapolate from your data set very far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Dog said:

model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed

Nothing to see here.

2016-02_p3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Yea.. Last year, Nature had a special article on climate modeling (I linked it at the time) where the primary authors flat out said they knew the models weren't accurate and literally begged physics and thermodynamicists to come up with better parameters and boundary conditions.  They even identified the four major areas where they were having problems.  The challenge is that physicists get paid to search for god particles, not refine IR feedback models.

"We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

That's a fancy way of saying they guessed wrong on some of the coefficients.  Given they only have one experiment to observe and they're doing it in real time, that's pretty much expected.  And when some of your equations go as the 4th power of temperature, little errors in guesses make big errors in results, particularly if you extrapolate from your data set very far.

 

Looks to me like some of the most vociferous  alarmists have found themselves a bit far out on the global warming limb for comfort as their failed predictions accumulate. They look to be inching their way back to safety leaving true believers like Random to sway in the breeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

Looks to me like some of the most vociferous  alarmists have found themselves a bit far out on the global warming limb for comfort as their failed predictions accumulate. 

That's basically it.

FWIW, I do believe that human activity is a significant source of CO2 and I do believe that increasing CO2 concentration can cause all kinds of disruptions.  Anyone that looks at 429 quadrillion BTUs of energy per year - increasing by 50% over the next 3 decades BTW - and says 'Nope, nothing to see" is just being ridiculous.  If I were Bill Gates or Musk or Gore or anyone else that claims to love the planet, I'd hire good modelers and donate their time to the climatologists.  This is an easy one and the only reason I can conceive of them NOT doing that is because they're not being honest.  They're in it for a buck, not the truth.

I believe that conservation is a good thing a priori.  People shouldn't be wasteful or haphazard because those are both morally bad things to do.  No justification needed - we should be good stewards of our planet, regardless of whether CO2 is a pollutant, and that means good land use, good water use, and good energy use.   

I believe that pollution and environmental damage should be included in the cost of energy.  As a society, we've done a very poor job of factoring in 'end of life' questions universally and that includes what to do with buildings, mines, wells, etc. after all the good stuff has been produced or extracted.

The only time I get really annoyed is when harmful activities are dressed up in the cloak of moral goodness.  That just pisses me off, particularly when it's so freaking obvious.  I think the solar cult is actually harmful.  Good technologies have been delayed by decades as solar mystics have sucked the air out of energy research.  Just like ethanol.  The 'quick fix moralists' just annoy me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

FWIW, I do believe that human activity is a significant source of CO2 and I do believe that increasing CO2 concentration can cause all kinds of disruptions.  Anyone that looks at 429 quadrillion BTUs of energy per year - increasing by 50% over the next 3 decades BTW - and says 'Nope, nothing to see" is just being ridiculous.  If I were Bill Gates or Musk or Gore or anyone else that claims to love the planet, I'd hire good modelers and donate their time to the climatologists.  This is an easy one and the only reason I can conceive of them NOT doing that is because they're not being honest.  They're in it for a buck, not the truth.

I believe that conservation is a good thing a priori.  People shouldn't be wasteful or haphazard because those are both morally bad things to do.  No justification needed - we should be good stewards of our planet, regardless of whether CO2 is a pollutant, and that means good land use, good water use, and good energy use.   

I believe that pollution and environmental damage should be included in the cost of energy.  As a society, we've done a very poor job of factoring in 'end of life' questions universally and that includes what to do with buildings, mines, wells, etc. after all the good stuff has been produced or extracted.

The only time I get really annoyed is when harmful activities are dressed up in the cloak of moral goodness.  That just pisses me off, particularly when it's so freaking obvious.  I think the solar cult is actually harmful.  Good technologies have been delayed by decades as solar mystics have sucked the air out of energy research.  Just like ethanol.  The 'quick fix moralists' just annoy me.

 

+1 those quick fixes are worse in the long run, the problem is that long run fixes cost WAY more and don't show any improvement soon enough to maintain as policy.

The times when I have talked with people who don't believe human activity is contributing to climate change, I always ask them "How much oil are we, all mankind on Planet Earth, burning per day? How much coal? What is the overall mass of fossil fuels being burned, and how many BTUs are released?" Not all at once, I try to sneak this into the conversation as we go along. Usually they cannot believe the answers, and I think this is part of the problem.

1- a lot of people do not want to associate real-life well-known facts with their politics, like the guy who had to sue Donald Trump to get paid for his contracting work BUT still voted for the deadbeat.

2- a lot of people have the old-fashioned idea that mankind is a few villages huddling on the edge of the wilderness; that we still need to build fences to keep out tigers & bears rather than build fences around the tigers & bears to protect them from the overwhelming hungry masses of us.

-DSK

* the answer for those interested: roughly ~90 million barrels per day ... extra credit for working out how many gallons this represents ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

+1 those quick fixes are worse in the long run, the problem is that long run fixes cost WAY more and don't show any improvement soon enough to maintain as policy.

The times when I have talked with people who don't believe human activity is contributing to climate change, I always ask them "How much oil are we, all mankind on Planet Earth, burning per day? How much coal? What is the overall mass of fossil fuels being burned, and how many BTUs are released?" Not all at once, I try to sneak this into the conversation as we go along. Usually they cannot believe the answers, and I think this is part of the problem.

1- a lot of people do not want to associate real-life well-known facts with their politics, like the guy who had to sue Donald Trump to get paid for his contracting work BUT still voted for the deadbeat.

2- a lot of people have the old-fashioned idea that mankind is a few villages huddling on the edge of the wilderness; that we still need to build fences to keep out tigers & bears rather than build fences around the tigers & bears to protect them from the overwhelming hungry masses of us.

-DSK

* the answer for those interested: roughly ~90 million barrels per day ... extra credit for working out how many gallons this represents ;)

No doubt atmospheric CO2 contributes to warming but it is becoming increasingly clear that  the warming effect has been exaggerated. That the IPCC has been incrementally lowering its assessment of the warming effect of CO2 and articles like this one make the point. I think in time we will be talking more about the toxins like SO2 and NOx as the real villains of fossil fuels energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

No doubt atmospheric CO2 contributes to warming but it is becoming increasingly clear that  the warming effect has been exaggerated. That the IPCC has been incrementally lowering its assessment of the warming effect of CO2 and articles like this one make the point. I think in time we will be talking more about the toxins like SO2 and NOx as the real villains of fossil fuels energy.

Not sure what you're saying here. Something like "OK it's not as bad as those darn libby-rulls were claiming" ??

At a time when record high temps are causing catastrophic damage and death, how bad does it have to be?

At any rate, I agree that the sulfides and nitrides are real villians; most large plant SO2 emissions are way way down from what they were in the early '90s thru better combustion control technology. It would be better if we could make it go away entirely.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Annihilator said:

I truly wonder when, or if, the lefty loons will let go of their weather religion.

Nothing to see here!

2016-12_p14.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not sure what you're saying here. Something like "OK it's not as bad as those darn libby-rulls were claiming" ??

At a time when record high temps are causing catastrophic damage and death, how bad does it have to be?

At any rate, I agree that the sulfides and nitrides are real villians; most large plant SO2 emissions are way way down from what they were in the early '90s thru better combustion control technology. It would be better if we could make it go away entirely.

-DSK

First, your 'record' high temperatures refer only to the recorded record which is infinitesimally short period in geologic terms. Second, these "record" high temperatures are relatively cool compared to the Holocene average . Third, the "record' only covers a warming period so new "record" highs are to be expected. And finally, your claims of catastrophic damage and death are bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

First, your 'record' high temperatures refer only to the recorded record which is infinitesimally short period in geologic terms. Second, these "record" high temperatures are relatively cool compared to the Holocene average . Third, the "record' only covers a warming period so new "record" highs are to be expected. And finally, your claims of catastrophic damage and death are bullshit.

Tell that to the people in the south western US, or in Portugal.

Your problem is that you don't know the difference between bullshit and "I don't wanna hear that."

Gee in 1965 there were all these scientific studies showing that smoking cigarettes was good for you! What happened?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that think dealing with climate change is too expensive and might hurt the economy,

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/20/533662790/its-too-hot-for-some-planes-to-fly-in-phoenix

Phoenix had to cancel flights for hours because it was too hot for the smaller jets to fly.   Boeing had 6 degrees to spare.   A portent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dog said:

First, your 'record' high temperatures refer only to the recorded record which is infinitesimally short period in geologic terms. Second, these "record" high temperatures are relatively cool compared to the Holocene average . Third, the "record' only covers a warming period so new "record" highs are to be expected. And finally, your claims of catastrophic damage and death are bullshit.

Is Holocene your word for the day (month). Note, it is irrelevant how warm it was 10,000 years ago (Ok, it was cold then), or 100,000  or 20 million years ago. We are talking about the environment within which seven plus billion live. We have established that population and learned how to feed it within certain climate parameters. Change those parameters a few degrees, either up or down, and it is not going to work. We cannot adapt quickly enough. The evidence of this is abundant and you should know about it, it only takes half a brain. To give just one specific example, the projection for the Canadian prairies, a major grain and vegetable oil producer and exporter, is that things will get warmer and drier (no hope for irrigation since the regions rivers come from dramatically reduced ice fields in the Rockies. The areas to the north of the Prairies will get warmer and should have enough moisture for agriculture - problem is that the soils here are poor or non-existent and it would take a few thousand years for the soils to develop and we ain't got the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lark said:

For those that think dealing with climate change is too expensive and might hurt the economy,

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/20/533662790/its-too-hot-for-some-planes-to-fly-in-phoenix

Phoenix had to cancel flights for hours because it was too hot for the smaller jets to fly.   Boeing had 6 degrees to spare.   A portent.  

Ooo wait! I wanna play a TrumpTard for the answer to this one... can I huh? huh?

It was warmer during medeival times before thermometers were invented! It was warmer during dinosaur times, according to the scientists who are completely different from the scientists we don't believe about climate change! It's getting warmer on Mars and I suppose you blame human activity for that too!

You libby-rulls are all like Chicken Little! You're so-o-o stupid and gullible, and your incessant calls for violence and your emphasis on voting rights is un-American.

There how'd I do?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

s the reason your climate change faith is nothing more than a religion

You are a dirty steeeenking Farrrrking shill.  That line was dreamt up by an Exxon funded think tank.

Science is science,  The same science that has probably kept you alive and allows you to post shit in the net.  But it is only climate that you reject science on, strange hey.

2016-12_p14.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ooo wait! I wanna play a TrumpTard for the answer to this one... can I huh? huh?

It was warmer during medeival times before thermometers were invented! It was warmer during dinosaur times, according to the scientists who are completely different from the scientists we don't believe about climate change! It's getting warmer on Mars and I suppose you blame human activity for that too!

You libby-rulls are all like Chicken Little! You're so-o-o stupid and gullible, and your incessant calls for violence and your emphasis on voting rights is un-American.

There how'd I do?

-DSK

You forgot to say RUSSIANS !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Is Holocene your word for the day (month). Note, it is irrelevant how warm it was 10,000 years ago (Ok, it was cold then), or 100,000  or 20 million years ago. We are talking about the environment within which seven plus billion live. We have established that population and learned how to feed it within certain climate parameters. Change those parameters a few degrees, either up or down, and it is not going to work. We cannot adapt quickly enough. The evidence of this is abundant and you should know about it, it only takes half a brain. To give just one specific example, the projection for the Canadian prairies, a major grain and vegetable oil producer and exporter, is that things will get warmer and drier (no hope for irrigation since the regions rivers come from dramatically reduced ice fields in the Rockies. The areas to the north of the Prairies will get warmer and should have enough moisture for agriculture - problem is that the soils here are poor or non-existent and it would take a few thousand years for the soils to develop and we ain't got the time.

Sure, and the arctic ice cap will be completely gone by 2013. I'm not going to debate predictions because I can't know if they will pan out or add to the long and growing list of failed climate predictions. Your welcome to take it all on faith but I'm a skeptic. I will note that to date the observed effect of warming and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 has been a greening of the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Your welcome to take it all on faith but I'm a skeptic

This is Doggy, his name is Dog.

Dog does not understand what science is, he believes that life is just one belief system against another.

But Dog doesn't know what to believe other than anything that is good for the planet is bad.  CO2 is good.

So Dog adopts the recommended Exxon approach to attack science by claiming to be a skeptic, which really means he he does not believe what science reports.

Doggy does not like to talk about what is actually happening to the planet, he only likes to talk about how the predictions of what will happen are wrong, something shiny over there!

Doggy is a;

  1. shill for Exxon
  2. dumb cunt
  3. liar

But while you are contemplating which one or more of the above applies, here is some stuff Doggy doesn't like the talk about.  No models to go wrong here!

  • Global average annual carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are steadily increasing; they reached 399 parts per million (ppm) in 2015, and the annual value for 2016 is almost certain to be higher than 400 ppm. Current levels are likely the highest in the past two million years.
  • 2015 was the warmest year on record for the globe since reliable global surface air temperature records began in 1880. The last 15 years are among the 16 warmest years on record.
  • Globally-averaged ocean temperatures and heat content are increasing. Observations reveal this warming extends to at least 2000 m below the surface.
  • Globally-averaged sea level has risen over 20 cm since the late 19th century, with about one third of this rise due to ocean warming and the rest from melting land ice and changes in the amount of water stored on the land.

2016-02_p3.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

Nothing to see here!

2016-12_p14.png

RanDUMBERTHANfuck, thats all nice and dandy.  0.1 degree in the oceans is billions of joules. How confident is anybody when the measuring devices are accurate to only +/- 2.1 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warbird said:

How confident is anybody when the measuring devices are accurate to only +/- 2.1 degrees.

I think it was Grade 9 Physics when I learned how that worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Moderate said:

You forgot to say RUSSIANS !!!!!

That's because it goes without saying

B)

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's because it goes without saying

B)

-DSK

 Perhaps your right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walking Dude said:

 

But...

Is it weather or climate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walking Dude said:

oh you're asking for people to think here.

Big mistake.

We need to talk about time on a planetary scale. All else is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of planetary scale?

2016-03_p4.png

2016-13_p15.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

Of course you were.  Something shiny over there look!

So what percentage of that record were humans thriving in?

It was pretty warm during the Cretaceous. Did higher taxes cool things off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you want to blame warming during the Cretaceous on dinosaurs using coal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

your first step should be geologic time. 

Glaciers retreating etc. 

I prefer the longer game

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Dude said:

They don't grasp that. 

They're trying to scare the morons. 

Being confronted with science sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Dude said:

Damn, you mean the glacial period was just part of a normal cycle? 

I thought Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble caused it. 

And higher taxes solved it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idiot #1 and idiot #2 are having a wankathon, thousands of unbiased scholars and scientists all over the world would probably agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Walking Dude said:

They don't grasp that. 

They're trying to scare the morons. 

Obviously not working with a couple of the morons here. The 'evidence' you two are presenting in your mini-circle jerk here is at best a non-sequiter and unrelated to the topic of what has been happening for the last century or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moderate said:

Who would have thought the Earth changes ?

 

Why don't you show us when it was changing as fast as it is now?

2016-13_p15.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's your mango crop this year? Have you figured out what triggers flowering yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, random said:

This sort of planetary scale?

2016-03_p4.png

2016-13_p15.png

Give us a link to the AUSTRALIAN sea surface temperature monitoring platforms.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, warbird said:

Give us a link to the AUSTRALIAN sea surface temperature monitoring platforms.....

http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/   Not what you asked for, but I'm sure a caring expert in all things climate as yourself will volunteer to help these poor folks, since they putting their own economy in danger by mistaking a lab accuracy issue for reality.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries   I have a report to read, but you might find something of interest here.  Again, these are AUstralian government employees, therefore automatically incompetent and in need of your expertise.   Before you dismiss it, ACORN is Aus Climate Observation something something, and  not a liberal PAC of some sort.   Please copy us on all your correspondence to Australia, so we can learn with them.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=Expert-review&-network=   The government dweebs did seek some outside counsel, perhaps you will be able to explain to them why they went to the wrong experts.   

You represent the Republican party well in this, but don't you feel like the stewardess on the crashing plane walking up and down the aisle briefing passengers on delays in connecting flights, reassuring them that the second wing was redundant, and explaining that the altimeter is notoriously inaccurate when the plane is falling faster then the dial can spin therefore it shouldn't be believed.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/   Not what you asked for, but I'm sure a caring expert in all things climate as yourself will volunteer to help these poor folks, since they putting their own economy in danger by mistaking a lab accuracy issue for reality.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries   I have a report to read, but you might find something of interest here.  Again, these are AUstralian government employees, therefore automatically incompetent and in need of your expertise.   Before you dismiss it, ACORN is Aus Climate Observation something something, and  not a liberal PAC of some sort.   Please copy us on all your correspondence to Australia, so we can learn with them.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=Expert-review&-network=   The government dweebs did seek some outside counsel, perhaps you will be able to explain to them why they went to the wrong experts.   

You represent the Republican party well in this, but don't you feel like the stewardess on the crashing plane walking up and down the aisle briefing passengers on delays in connecting flights, reassuring them that the second wing was redundant, and explaining that the altimeter is notoriously inaccurate when the plane is falling faster then the dial can spin therefore it shouldn't be believed.

   

Thanks, a quick scan does not revel HOW the data is generated. Also, what I saw, there was no SEA SURFACE sensors. If  I am wrong, feel free to point them out. Data gathering. Are they using meat thermometers?  Mercury in glass?  Third grade science experiment data?

Presenting data is what the Church of Climate change is all about, always shy about the validity of that data however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, warbird said:

Thanks, a quick scan does not revel HOW the data is generated. Also, what I saw, there was no SEA SURFACE sensors. If  I am wrong, feel free to point them out. Data gathering. Are they using meat thermometers?  Mercury in glass?  Third grade science experiment data?

Presenting data is what the Church of Climate change is all about, always shy about the validity of that data however.

https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/129885/why-does-increasing-the-sample-size-lower-the-variance

Here is a partial answer to your hang up on sig figs of thermometers vs ability to measure change.   I regret I'm not the person to give a short course in statistics.  They give me a headache.  A buddy did his PhD in this area, he'd just laugh at me trying to understand years of study in an afternoon.   Short version is many imprecise measurements increase the power of any experiment to identify small change.   Data points are each data station each time a measurement is taken.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lark said:

 

https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/129885/why-does-increasing-the-sample-size-lower-the-variance

Here is a partial answer to your hang up on sig figs of thermometers vs ability to measure change.   I regret I'm not the person to give a short course in statistics.  They give me a headache.  A buddy did his PhD in this area, he'd just laugh at me trying to understand years of study in an afternoon.   Short version is many imprecise measurements increase the power of any experiment to identify small change.   Data points are each data station each time a measurement is taken.  

Hah. Stand back and let a calibration tech explain.

If you measure something once, you know the measurement within the accuracy of that instrument. If you measure something 3 times, you don't know the measurement hardly at all! But if you measure it ten thousand times, then the precision of the instrument matters far far less... consider the statistical method of deriving the exact measurement as a sort of overlay: match up all the measurements and see the point(s) where they all overlap. It's likely to be an extremely small range, and it's likely to be far more accurate than a much more accurate instrument.

This is what won me over to electronic instruments, back in the day. Yeah they were crude and unreliable. They got a lot more reliable but they didn't need to get more accurate. You just need to know what to ask.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Hah. Stand back and let a calibration tech explain.

If you measure something once, you know the measurement within the accuracy of that instrument. If you measure something 3 times, you don't know the measurement hardly at all! But if you measure it ten thousand times, then the precision of the instrument matters far far less... consider the statistical method of deriving the exact measurement as a sort of overlay: match up all the measurements and see the point(s) where they all overlap. It's likely to be an extremely small range, and it's likely to be far more accurate than a much more accurate instrument.

This is what won me over to electronic instruments, back in the day. Yeah they were crude and unreliable. They got a lot more reliable but they didn't need to get more accurate. You just need to know what to ask.

-DSK

So, statistically there is warming, the data for those statistics being inaccurate, that is not as much as the statistical models predicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, warbird said:

So, statistically there is warming, the data for those statistics being inaccurate, that is not as much as the statistical models predicted?

Let me put it this way... claiming that the measures are wrong because the instruments feeding data are "only" XYZ accurate, makes you look like you don't fucking comprehend basic measurement. Claiming that the climate model is inaccurate is a whole 'nother ball game. That's a large mathematical model depending on a lot factors.  But think for a second.... how accurate does it need to be to satisfy you that things are not going the way we'd like, climate-wise? Do you know where we can get another planet if it turns out that we've rendered this one uninhabitable? The stakes are pretty high to be shrugging off facts you don't like.

It does not seem "conservative" to me to say that we should just keep right on fucking things up; when it's pretty damn well proven that yes things are fucking up. To quibble over just exactly how bad it is, or to say that you don't believe very plain facts because of some quibble, is a mug's game. Are you a mug?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

Thanks, a quick scan does not revel HOW the data is generated. Also, what I saw, there was no SEA SURFACE sensors

Where is your data and information?

It might be just coincidence, but your approach to science is exactly in line with how Exxon plays it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Let me put it this way... claiming that the measures are wrong because the instruments feeding data are "only" XYZ accurate, makes you look like you don't fucking comprehend basic measurement. Claiming that the climate model is inaccurate is a whole 'nother ball game. That's a large mathematical model depending on a lot factors.  But think for a second.... how accurate does it need to be to satisfy you that things are not going the way we'd like, climate-wise? Do you know where we can get another planet if it turns out that we've rendered this one uninhabitable? The stakes are pretty high to be shrugging off facts you don't like.

It does not seem "conservative" to me to say that we should just keep right on fucking things up; when it's pretty damn well proven that yes things are fucking up. To quibble over just exactly how bad it is, or to say that you don't believe very plain facts because of some quibble, is a mug's game. Are you a mug?

-DSK

One small edit to suggest.  "Claiming that the climate model<s> are wrong...."   Think of it as hurricane projections only more so.   There is a wedge of probability.   There are several wedges of probability, constantly being revised.  Different groups look at different data.   Some are meta-studies looking at everything from tree ring data or CO2 in ancient ice to establish a baseline.   

Steam hits upon my biggest problem with the Republican party.   They are being very radical in their casual disregard of 97% of the experts.  Is conservative yacht design a Brentboat origami without floors or bulkheads, that considers maintenance as an unnecessary expense interfering with cruising?   Is conservative seamanship ignoring NOAA?   Just eyeball the sky.   Don't plot a course or plan for reciprocals.   You don't need a compass if you have a GPS.   Life jackets waste valuable space, so leave them on shore.   Reefing points are for pansies.   Don't replace the safety flares and hope the hand held works if a storm comes!   Part of self reliance is planning for possible scenarios, taking corrective actions and making sure you don't need a bailout.   Republicans rely on FEMA and ignore reality.   

         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The models are wrong and the article I linked to above demonstrates that even alarmist heavy hitters like Michael Mann are acknowledging the fact. Observations now fall completely outside the 95% confidence cone of the early models. Newer models look a bit better but don't have much of a predictive record and assume a lower warming effect for CO2. The case for skepticism (which is fundamental to the scientific method) gets stronger by the day. Alarmists once predicted the demise of arctic ice, winters without snow, polar bear extinctions, more hurricanes...on and on. Were skeptic wrong to be skeptical of those predictions? Anyway....It's not like you can choose to believe if you're skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lark said:

...    ....    Is conservative seamanship ignoring NOAA?   Just eyeball the sky.   Don't plot a course or plan for reciprocals.   You don't need a compass if you have a GPS.   Life jackets waste valuable space, so leave them on shore.   Reefing points are for pansies.   Don't replace the safety flares and hope the hand held works if a storm comes!   Part of self reliance is planning for possible scenarios, taking corrective actions and making sure you don't need a bailout.   Republicans rely on FEMA and ignore reality.   

         

Except that Republicans hate and mistrust the gubbermint, so that rules out relying on NOAA and FEMA. Unless it's convenient and you think nobody is watching, of course.

 

24 minutes ago, Dog said:

 ...   ...    Newer models look a bit better but don't have much of a predictive record

No shit Sherlock

...   ...  The case for skepticism (which is fundamental to the scientific method) gets stronger by the day. Alarmists once predicted the demise of arctic ice, winters without snow, polar bear extinctions, more hurricanes...on and on. Were skeptic wrong to be skeptical of those predictions? Anyway....It's not like you can choose to believe if you're skeptical.

Science is not a matter of belief, that's where you fascist shills / dumbass followers go all wrong. You're not a skeptic, you're looking for a bat to smack those goddam libby-rull pinkoes over the head with. Unfortunately you keep hitting yourself instead. Will you ever learn? You'll never land a job at Fox this way.

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Except that Republicans hate and mistrust the gubbermint, so that rules out relying on NOAA and FEMA. Unless it's convenient and you think nobody is watching, of course.

 

Science is not a matter of belief, that's where you fascist shills / dumbass followers go all wrong. You're not a skeptic, you're looking for a bat to smack those goddam libby-rull pinkoes over the head with. Unfortunately you keep hitting yourself instead. Will you ever learn? You'll never land a job at Fox this way.

-DSK

 

Dude...Republicans don't hate government, they are the government. But you're right in that science is not about belief but tell that to the believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Where is your data and information?

It might be just coincidence, but your approach to science is exactly in line with how Exxon plays it.

WarpedBird, you must have missed this... where is your data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, random said:

WarpedBird, you must have missed this... where is your data?

Oops, wrong thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...Republicans don't hate government, they are the government. But you're right in that science is not about belief but tell that to the believers.

Water runs down hill whether you believe it or not. Magic!! oh wait...

And are you trying to reverse the longest-held deepest-running Republican dogma, that government IS the problem?? Republicans can both hate it and be it at the same time.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I thought.  The denier posters have nothing, nothing but attacks on science.

Still waiting for some evidence that the information I posted from scientists is wrong.

filing-nails-at-work-300x250.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're waiting for evidence of something posted here Randumb? Now that's rich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chum said:

You're waiting for evidence of something posted here Randumb? Now that's rich...

Yep, you got nothing, other than attacks on science.  Exxon would love you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Walking Dude said:

How is your left or right hand doing? Seems as if you have multiple dates.  

But that's just me, judging a multiple loser like you. 

How's your butt buddy Sol doing?

How's your butt buddy WarpedBirp doing?  Stepping in to cleanup his mess, or are you his sock and forgot to switch accounts?

The warped Bird account has been made to look fucking stupid lately, bent over and reamed, probably needed to leave the stinky name behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, random said:

Just as I thought.  The denier posters have nothing, nothing but attacks on science.

Still waiting for some evidence that the information I posted from scientists is wrong.

 

200.gif#1-grid1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

200.gif#1-grid1

You posted a series of graphs indicating that the planet has warmed in recent years. I don't think anyone refutes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

if the data came from East Anglia I would refute it all day long. 

Yeah, but where is your data?

200.gif#1-grid1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Dude said:

some of us aren't looking for government grants and don't give a shit. 

You go ahead though and waste your time. It's your religion so I won't deny you your articles of faith.

Yeah but you must have same data to prove the bad scientists wrong ... right?

I wanna see it.

200.gif#1-grid1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

were there ever glaciers in Oz? You ARE from Oz correct?

So do you or don't you have credible information to disprove the information I posted in this thread?

Nuh? Yeah?  Still waiting with interest.  This should be good.

200.gif#1-grid1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

To understand causation requires a model of understanding or mechanism of action.  Cause and Effect.  Data and result.  The point of the original article is that the current model didn't work, is likely incomplete, and needs to be modified to account for new observations.  Many climate scientists said last year this was likely the case and asked for help, including detailing the areas they felt were least accurate.  That is science in action.  This happens all the time.  If science were easy, somebody else would have done it.

The geocentric models of the solar system were 97% accurate at predicting the locations of celestial bodies and 100% wrong in mechanism.  If you follow astrophysics, you'll find a growing body of data that says our understanding of the big bang may be wrong.  The inflation model has some pretty glaring holes that are getting harder and harder to cover up as more and more data comes in.  In genetics, the big thing is epigenetics - it turns out that DNA may contain all the instructions but WHEN you read them matters as much as what they say.  This is all normal research.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

To understand causation requires a model of understanding or mechanism of action.  Cause and Effect.  Data and result.  The point of the original article is that the current model didn't work, is likely incomplete, and needs to be modified to account for new observations.  Many climate scientists said last year this was likely the case and asked for help, including detailing the areas they felt were least accurate.  That is science in action.  This happens all the time.  If science were easy, somebody else would have done it.

The geocentric models of the solar system were 97% accurate at predicting the locations of celestial bodies and 100% wrong in mechanism.  If you follow astrophysics, you'll find a growing body of data that says our understanding of the big bang may be wrong.  The inflation model has some pretty glaring holes that are getting harder and harder to cover up as more and more data comes in.  In genetics, the big thing is epigenetics - it turns out that DNA may contain all the instructions but WHEN you read them matters as much as what they say.  This is all normal research.

 

 

 

That's fucking awesome.  SO happy you came along.  That Walking dude's got nothing to offer.

So you must have some data/information to prove those guys at NASA/NOAA/ AUS BOM wrong ... right?  I can't wait for you to send it along.

200.gif#1-grid1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, random said:

That's fucking awesome.  SO happy you came along.  That Walking dude's got nothing to offer.

So you must have some data/information to prove those guys at NASA/NOAA/ AUS BOM wrong ... right?  I can't wait for you to send it along.

200.gif#1-grid1

 

They have the data already.  Publications are always  1-2 years after the fact.  Even fast non-reviewed tracked "Letters" typically have a 3-6 month delay.

We should be conserving hydrocarbon fuels for materials fabrication.  We NEED the advanced plastics and chemicals that come from these precursors. Frankly, burning natural gas and oil for heat is like making penny nails out of titanium.  They work but it's a pretty expensive way to make them in the long run.  We should stop subsidizing coal and fossil fuel exploration.  Those costs should be handled as the cost of doing business and come out of profits. We should be investing in distributed energy and soft-start motors.  We should have an honest conversation about smart grids and time of use pricing and the true costs of water and sanitation.

We should absolutely be focusing on advanced air conditioning.  Two BILLION people are about to start buying window units - if they end up buying the $100 dollar walmart versions, the climate is doomed, regardless of CO2.  As the Paris Climate treaty affirmed - generation is not the problem - conservation is the problem.  We need to move away from concrete as the primary building material and use those hydrocarbons we're burning for insulation and structural components instead.

I'm sorry to point this out but your method of persuasion isn't working.  There's all kinds of reasons to do advanced development but CO2 was the wrong beach to have this fight.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

They have the data already.  Publications are always  1-2 years after the fact.  Even fast non-reviewed tracked "Letters" typically have a 3-6 month delay.

We should be conserving hydrocarbon fuels for materials fabrication.  We NEED the advanced plastics and chemicals that come from these precursors. Frankly, burning natural gas and oil for heat is like making penny nails out of titanium.  They work but it's a pretty expensive way to make them in the long run.  We should stop subsidizing coal and fossil fuel exploration.  Those costs should be handled as the cost of doing business and come out of profits. We should be investing in distributed energy and soft-start motors.  We should have an honest conversation about smart grids and time of use pricing and the true costs of water and sanitation.

We should absolutely be focusing on advanced air conditioning.  Two BILLION people are about to start buying window units - if they end up buying the $100 dollar walmart versions, the climate is doomed, regardless of CO2.  As the Paris Climate treaty affirmed - generation is not the problem - conservation is the problem.  We need to move away from concrete as the primary building material and use those hydrocarbons we're burning for insulation and structural components instead.

I'm sorry to point this out but your method of persuasion isn't working.  There's all kinds of reasons to do advanced development but CO2 was the wrong beach to have this fight.  

 

 

 

 

Thank you so much for attempting to answer my question, but all I can see in your answer if bluster.

I'm looking for solid data to prove that those lying cunts at NASA/NOAA/ AUS BOM are wrong.  So you also got nothing?  Just like the Walking Dude?

I'm really disappointed now.

1060x600-37ffec47450e8c0e3c0fa22a23ebab7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that burning fossil fuels produces toxic gasses, CO2 however is not one of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not to mention that burning fossil fuels produces toxic gasses, CO2 however is not one of them.  

That's so fucking awesome that you came by Doggy.  Walking dude and ccMilkman seem unable to send me data to prove that NASA/NOAA are wrong about climate change being a threat to the security of the USA and the rest of the planet.

Can you send some credible info for me please?

Thx in advance.

200.gif#1-grid1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

They have the data already.  Publications are always  1-2 years after the fact.  Even fast non-reviewed tracked "Letters" typically have a 3-6 month delay.

We should be conserving hydrocarbon fuels for materials fabrication.  We NEED the advanced plastics and chemicals that come from these precursors. Frankly, burning natural gas and oil for heat is like making penny nails out of titanium.  They work but it's a pretty expensive way to make them in the long run.  We should stop subsidizing coal and fossil fuel exploration.  Those costs should be handled as the cost of doing business and come out of profits. We should be investing in distributed energy and soft-start motors.  We should have an honest conversation about smart grids and time of use pricing and the true costs of water and sanitation.

We should absolutely be focusing on advanced air conditioning.  Two BILLION people are about to start buying window units - if they end up buying the $100 dollar walmart versions, the climate is doomed, regardless of CO2.  As the Paris Climate treaty affirmed - generation is not the problem - conservation is the problem.  We need to move away from concrete as the primary building material and use those hydrocarbons we're burning for insulation and structural components instead.

I'm sorry to point this out but your method of persuasion isn't working.  There's all kinds of reasons to do advanced development but CO2 was the wrong beach to have this fight. 

Any climate discussion locked so tightly to controlling CO2 is pointless.

Any solution locked to taxing something to subsidize or punish any form of generation is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, random said:

Thank you so much for attempting to answer my question, but all I can see in your answer if bluster.

I'm looking for solid data to prove that those lying cunts at NASA/NOAA/ AUS BOM are wrong. 

Wrong about what?  That the temperature is going up?  I don't think they're wrong. 

Be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no ccMilkman!  But I thought you said "There's all kinds of reasons to do advanced development but CO2 was the wrong beach to have this fight.  "

So I was really hoping that you could help me because that's not what NASA/NOAA/ AUS BOM say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

To understand causation requires a model of understanding or mechanism of action.  Cause and Effect.  Data and result.  The point of the original article is that the current model didn't work, is likely incomplete, and needs to be modified to account for new observations.  Many climate scientists said last year this was likely the case and asked for help, including detailing the areas they felt were least accurate.  That is science in action.  This happens all the time.  If science were easy, somebody else would have done it.

The geocentric models of the solar system were 97% accurate at predicting the locations of celestial bodies and 100% wrong in mechanism.  If you follow astrophysics, you'll find a growing body of data that says our understanding of the big bang may be wrong.  The inflation model has some pretty glaring holes that are getting harder and harder to cover up as more and more data comes in.  In genetics, the big thing is epigenetics - it turns out that DNA may contain all the instructions but WHEN you read them matters as much as what they say.  This is all normal research.

 

 

 

So global warming is real.   Carbon is rising.   It is possible there isn't a cause and affect, and the worlds scientists who don't work for big oil and coal are mistaken.   Therevfore the conservative reaction is to do nothing and risk the future and grandkids just in case no action is necessary.

BS builds a conservative boat, since frames and floors may not be necessary.  Math and stability design is academic.   Some Orogomi experts say they are expensive wastes.   Maintenance puts an unnecessary burden on the cruisers' economics.

Rimas is a conservative sailor.   Planning is overrated, it's better to drift along and trust to fate or god,   Working toward the future you want isn't necessary, just radio the FEMA tow service when necessary.   Why plan for an uncertain future by inspecting dock lines?   Why risk the Starbucks money making sure ground tackle deploys?    It's  possible you won't have to anchor.   It's possible the tide will flush you safely on to your next adventure.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lark said:

So global warming is real.   Carbon is rising.   It is possible there isn't a cause and affect, and the worlds scientists who don't work for big oil and coal are mistaken.   Therevfore the conservative reaction is to do nothing and risk the future and grandkids just in case no action is necessary.

 

Why are scientists who work for big government more believable?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saorsa said:

Why are scientists who work for big government more believable?

 

I'm so fucking glad you are here Sao, because I'm getting no help at all from the others.

Can you send me data to prove that NASA/NOAA are wrong about climate change being a threat to the security of the USA and the rest of the planet.

Can you send some credible info for me please?

Thx in advance.

200.gif#1-grid1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saorsa said:

Why are scientists who work for big government more believable?

 

Finances to start.   Science in general is sometimes poor at producing full disclosure statements regarding where funding comes from.   If Pfizer paid for the study it is given less weight then if UCLA did, since Pfizer had no reason to submit the other three studies showing no benefit for this new off label use.    If Pfizer paid for the new research lab at UCLA that is also relevant.   A career NASA scientist risking his career under BUsh or Trump who still says it's real, and causal, has far more credibility then one getting funded by 'clean' coal.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lark said:

So global warming is real.   Carbon is rising.   It is possible there isn't a cause and affect, and the worlds scientists who don't work for big oil and coal are mistaken.   Therevfore the conservative reaction is to do nothing and risk the future and grandkids just in case no action is necessary.

BS builds a conservative boat, since frames and floors may not be necessary.  Math and stability design is academic.   Some Orogomi experts say they are expensive wastes.   Maintenance puts an unnecessary burden on the cruisers' economics.

Rimas is a conservative sailor.   Planning is overrated, it's better to drift along and trust to fate or god,   Working toward the future you want isn't necessary, just radio the FEMA tow service when necessary.   Why plan for an uncertain future by inspecting dock lines?   Why risk the Starbucks money making sure ground tackle deploys?    It's  possible you won't have to anchor.   It's possible the tide will flush you safely on to your next adventure.    

 

The degree to which you invest in mitigation against a potential threat depends on your perception of the risk. That's true whether you are conservative or liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

The degree to which you invest in mitigation against a potential threat depends on your perception of the risk. That's true whether you are conservative or liberal.

Doggy can't see a threat worth mitigating.

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

By Andrew Revkin, ProPublicaMar. 14, 2017 , 1:00 PM

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

The degree to which you invest in mitigation against a potential threat depends on your perception of the risk. That's true whether you are conservative or liberal.

Agreed.   The military considers global climate change to be a huge risk for future wars.   Republicans are telling them they cannot plan for it, even when it will affect their readiness,    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/military-leaders-urge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/

the official UN stance is that climate change poses a huge risk.   http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/11/climate-change-threatens-irreversible-dangerous-impacts-options-exist-limit-effects/

 

edit.  For understandability by Republicans please replace huge with ginormous,  I think that's the official adj now.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

Doggy can't see a threat worth mitigating.

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

By Andrew Revkin, ProPublicaMar. 14, 2017 , 1:00 PM

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.

I'll really sit up when I see the people who tell us it's a serious threat start behaving like it's a serious threat and when the solutions offered by them would actually do something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lark said:

So global warming is real.   Carbon is rising.   It is possible there isn't a cause and affect, and the worlds scientists who don't work for big oil and coal are mistaken.   Therevfore the conservative reaction is to do nothing and risk the future and grandkids just in case no action is necessary.

BS builds a conservative boat, since frames and floors may not be necessary.  Math and stability design is academic.   Some Orogomi experts say they are expensive wastes.   Maintenance puts an unnecessary burden on the cruisers' economics.

 

 

It's never that bimodal.  Temperature is rising.  CO2 is rising. The question is to what degree the two are correlated.  The answer, thus far, is not as much as we originally thought.  That doesn't mean they're NOT related - it just means the coefficients aren't as big and that there may be other factors.  My personal boogieman is HFCs and CH4 but we'll see.  I don't know enough about the models to know what their assumptions are - I can only judge based on what THEY actually say.

Your boat analogy isn't far off.  How safe do you want to be?  CO2 is integrally tied to most energy production, either directly or indirectly, and energy production is literally the lifeblood of a modern economy. The argument has gone religiously toxic.  To reject any principle of global warming is to threaten GAEA herself.

The conservative reaction is not to do nothing.  That's a straw man.  There's 1.5 TRILLION dollars going into energy production and research globally.  There's VAST piles of money being thrown at fusion, fission, advanced turbines, hydro, solar photovoltaics, solar concentrators, geothermal energy, wind, tidal, carbon capture and storage, advanced oil extraction, advance battery technology, flywheels, gas storage, hydrogen production, advanced fertilizers, and biochar, just to name a few of the things.

 Do you truly believe that all that work is being done ONLY by liberals?  That conservatives truly don't care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

WarpedBird, you must have missed this... where is your data?

Amidst remodeling two houses, winding down at the Labs I retire from next week, working with builders on the downsized retirement home and racing my sailboat, your silly fuckin' request is low on the list. I pointed out that Australian websites  put forth here above did not list their sensor platforms.  That might suggest they rely on NOAA.  NOAA platforms lack any real accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, random said:

Yep, you got nothing, other than attacks on science.  Exxon would love you guys.

I haven't expressed an opinion one way or another you idiot. Show me where I've posted anything regarding climate change arguing one way or the other. I'm here pointing out how you're hiding like a little bitch from the thread devoted entirely to the crackpot 911 shit that you constantly spew all over other, non related threads. You're as dumb as a post Randumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

It's never that bimodal.  Temperature is rising.  CO2 is rising. The question is to what degree the two are correlated.  The answer, thus far, is not as much as we originally thought.  That doesn't mean they're NOT related - it just means the coefficients aren't as big and that there may be other factors.  My personal boogieman is HFCs and CH4 but we'll see.  I don't know enough about the models to know what their assumptions are - I can only judge based on what THEY actually say.

Your boat analogy isn't far off.  How safe do you want to be?  CO2 is integrally tied to most energy production, either directly or indirectly, and energy production is literally the lifeblood of a modern economy. The argument has gone religiously toxic.  To reject any principle of global warming is to threaten GAEA herself.

The conservative reaction is not to do nothing.  That's a straw man.  There's 1.5 TRILLION dollars going into energy production and research globally.  There's VAST piles of money being thrown at fusion, fission, advanced turbines, hydro, solar photovoltaics, solar concentrators, geothermal energy, wind, tidal, carbon capture and storage, advanced oil extraction, advance battery technology, flywheels, gas storage, hydrogen production, advanced fertilizers, and biochar, just to name a few of the things.

 Do you truly believe that all that work is being done ONLY by liberals?  That conservatives truly don't care?

In reverse order of your concerns.

Of course some conservatives are truly conservative in their environmental cause and affect approach.   The American Conservative party (R) gives the process a bad name by preventing even the navy from taking risk minimization actions that might affect national security, odd since they military is the only government agency left that the Republicans universally like.  (Even intelligence is on the questionable list, since they dared comment on Comrad Putin having his hooks in half of Trump's inner circle.)   So when Republicans try to prevent NASA and NOAA observations and order the military not to prepare for predictions, they taint the conservative brand name.   Just as some conservatives have been a great ally for prairie conservation (sustainable grazing and hunting), I would welcome American conservatives ceasing to be obstructionists and joining the world in protecting the world from climate change.

The Conservative reaction in the US is not the conservative reaction globally.   The US is promoting coal and eliminating black lung regulations.     We just reached 10% renewable energy, to the embarrassment of the Republican party.   Even more embarrassing, Texas makes a lot of it.   I admit curiosity on how high that can go while allowing for peak capacity during the dog days of summer (hot and windless).    But our policy "drill baby drill', 'dig baby dig' is not a straw man.  It is what the Republican party promotes.   Minimize conservation.  Review and water down CAFE standards.   Eliminate tax breaks for energy efficiency.   Don't tax carbon, subsidize it.   Can you give examples of Republican actions that are actually good for the planet?   Or actions where Conservatives thwart the Republican party to protect the planet?  Have Republicans considered how CAFE standards help protect the US automakers from badly polluting Chinese cars?   

The degree of preparedness has to be based on worst likely predictions, not best case scenarios.   I presume a conservative family man would protect his family with adequate insurance just in case he croaked, despite the expense.   I invest heavily in my health savings account even though I don't feel sick.    I'm buying a harnesses, because I don't trust my girlfriend not to panic if I fall overboard on Erie.   I could swim to shore eventually, but she may not fair as well.    Like a conservative sailor, I consider the involvement of any rescue service to be an extreme embarrassment due to my failure to plan and prevent adequately.  

I agree a thinking individual can come to a minority opinion on climate change.   Carless Dude is an extreme example, others have more polymodal view of the world.   I assume you would agree that Venus is an example of runaway global warming not explainable by proximity to the sun alone.   I would assume you accept that laboratory models and testing show a 'blanket' affect from CO2, CH4, O3, etc.   II assume you disagree with that Republican politician that blames body heat.   But we disagree on how much of an affect each has and which of the climate models are most accurate.   Would that be correct?

So if we agree so far, how much do we prepare for an uncertain future?   Dog argues that it makes no sense to do anything since nobody is doing enough.  (There is a big leak, so there is no reason to bail.   Just relax on the deck and hold your nose plan.)    Carless Dude says President Trump (R) is right, its all bogus.    What say you?   What would you do, knowing your children / grandchildren (if applicable) will depend on your getting it right?   Wouldn't the conservative approach be to take aggressive action to minimize the risk of changing their world further?   Germany proves sustainable energy production can be economical.   Several islands are doing fascinating things partially to avoid the costs of importing fossil fuels.   Foreign owned companies especially are doing quite well making and inventing renewable or energy efficient equipment,    Updating our aging infrastructure, decentralizing our power grid and simultaneously adding renewables is not only conservative engineering of the non BS tradition, but also provides jobs much less subject to automation and outsourcing then coal mines or pipelines to move Canadian oil to Gulf Coast supertankers.   Watering down every standard and regulation just because the Republicans can prevents long term planning and is actually bad for business.   I think we are missing a great opportunity because the Republican Party painted itself into a corner at the behest of its political donors.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now