• 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.  
ajbram

SCIENCE!

Recommended Posts

I believe the 97% was a count of peer reviewed papers.  Some of Christy's papers were in the 97% and some in the 3%.  I do not believe it was a count of scientists.  I gave a link.

Share this post


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

Says the purported scientist who knowingly allows his funding source (National Geographic) to publish outright fabrications concerning AGW with no protest or clarification....

Significant flaws with Hansen's "Hockey Stick" were highlighted years ago ...But I do understand that it is a Canon of your Global Warming Religion.

Now, does speaking such apostasy make me a (gasp) denier? No. Far from it actually, but that's how you tar anyone who does not cleave to your orthodoxy...

Just to test this hypothesis, lets just see how you react to this Monsoon:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. – John Christy

The whole thing is worth a read.

 

I took the liberty of bolding the parts of your post that were completely made up, disingenuous, sarcastic and confrontational and/or complete bullshit.

PS - Outlier Judith Curry quoting outlier John Christy is hardly compelling evidence of anything beyond your gullibility and deep affinity for confirmation bias.

 

Share this post


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

I took the liberty of bolding the parts of your post that were completely made up, disingenuous, sarcastic and confrontational and/or complete bullshit.

PS - Outlier Judith Curry quoting outlier John Christy is hardly compelling evidence of anything.

 

The reaction is as expected...

The tested hypothesis verified.

"SCIENCE!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The only 'hypothesis' you're testing is whether wrapping your mindless regurgitation of anti-science BS with a veneer of unpleasantness will somehow make it more palatable. It's safe to say that the answer is 'no'.

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ The only 'hypothesis' you're testing is whether wrapping your mindless regurgitation of anti-science BS with a veneer of unpleasantness will somehow make it more palatable. It's safe to say that the answer is 'no'.

:)

 

Still nothing of substance from you. Wasn't expecting any.

Bottom line: There is still no definitive link to human contributions to the rise in CO2. While there is no doubt we certainly have an effect, no one can claim with any real certainty how much. There is no proof that rising CO2 is an imminent threat to mankind or the planet. None. Therefore, there is no justification at this juncture to impose the draconian economic policies that are incessantly espoused by The Faithful.

The Global Warming Religion was -in fact- born in cheap political theater:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

59dc912e6d5bb_hansenfl.thumb.JPG.12c4df91d5e58c74466b0229ae8afe35.JPG

 

And  The Gospel can only be supported by outright fraudulent claims like this whopper...

1499918889.thumb.jpg.57e3a5aa67f5f658313bd253c13962a8.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You should've read the letter rather than focusing on the pic of a bear. But of course, cherry-picking is the only way you can support your false narrative. The smell of desperation hangs thick over that last post.

P.S. What 'draconian economic policies' are you referring to? Not that it matters - most of the planet is moving forward with renewable energy, and emerging technology will make fossil fuels as uncompetitive as they are toxic and destructive at every level from extraction to accelerating climate change.

Share this post


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

Still nothing of substance from you. Wasn't expecting any.

Bottom line: There is still no definitive link to human contributions to the rise in CO2. While there is no doubt we certainly have an effect, no one can claim with any real certainty how much. There is no proof that rising CO2 is an imminent threat to mankind or the planet. None. Therefore, there is no justification at this juncture to impose the draconian economic policies that are incessantly espoused by The Faithful.

The Global Warming Religion was -in fact- born in cheap political theater:

My 2c. Fossil fuels will become more scarce and eventually run out. I would imagine that as this happens the competition for what is left will become violent.

The status quo seems to rely on the USA making friends with some regimes who have a huge effect on the world oil supply, some of  who's values run counter to our own. Cozying up to the Saudi's just so we can keep wheels turning doesn't seem like an ideal situation.

Burning fossil fuels causes air pollution and smog in a few major cities, this causes respiratory problems for a lot of people, surely this is something we could improve.

To align with your argument, it seems fairly likely that fossil fuels are contributing in some way to climate change which may cause a problem in the future.

 

All of the above seem like enough reason to look at changing our energy infrastructure, and even if we turn around in 100 years and it turns out that climate change wasn't much of a threat, I think changing the way we powered the world would still have been worth it.

 

Share this post


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

Says the purported scientist who knowingly allows his funding source (National Geographic) to publish outright fabrications concerning AGW with no protest or clarification....

Significant flaws with Hansen's "Hockey Stick" were highlighted years ago ...But I do understand that it is a Canon of your Global Warming Religion.

Now, does speaking such apostasy make me a (gasp) denier? No. Far from it actually, but that's how you tar anyone who does not cleave to your orthodoxy...

Just to test this hypothesis, lets just see how you react to this Monsoon:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. – John Christy

The whole thing is worth a read.

 

I am very familiar with Judy's criticisms of Mike Mann.  If she really thinks the 'Hockey stick' is bunk then she should gather her evidence, write a paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.  That she has not is all you need to know about the validity of her claims.

The problem you and Mr Lioness have is that you simply have no idea how little you know about climate.  You read a few blog posts and a few WSJ editorials, all from right wing sources that reconfirm your preconceived suppositions, and think you're an expert.  Again, you know so little that you can't even begin to imagine how little.

This is all very thoroughly plowed ground and I'm tired of dealing with know-nothings like you.

The fact is that an enormous group of the world's best climatologists and paleoclimatologists all got together and reviewed decades of scientific results contained in thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed publications and they wrote a treatise containing their conclusions.  Here it is: http://www.ipcc.ch/

If you choose to ignore it at least have the self-awareness to realize that you're doing it because of your own political prejudices, not based on any reasoned consideration of the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, move this back to political anarchy, where you all can continue chasing your tails....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

The average American needs to get on a bicycle. 

If you refer to commuting: http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/

American Commute Distance (One Way) Percent
1-5 Miles 29 %
6-10 Miles 22 %
11-15 Miles 17 %
16-20 Miles 10 %
21-25 Miles 7 %
26-30 Miles 5 %
31-35 Miles 3 %
35 + Miles 8 %

 

then sure 50% only need to go 20 miles round trip.  (Leaf's 24kWhr specified range is about 84 miles without battery degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#2016_model_year

If you put them in a carpool/bus they would need even less... 

Social engineering, is a lot different from practical engineering. 

I agree with this.  I ride my bike 16 miles round trip to work just about every day (except when the weather is crappy).

There are benefits way beyond pollution associated with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem and why everyone is chasing their tails. At the root of this is that there is no hypothesis that can be tested. It not feasible to manipulate, short term, CO2 levels either up or down and see if climate change is altered in the hypothesized manner. There is a very strong correlation between CO2   levels and the increased temperature, among other things. If you cannot manipulate a variable you cannot test the hypothesis. This does not mean that I am a climate change denier  I think it is real and  it probably man made because the correlation is so strong. Like when cigarettes were linked to lung cancer there was a very strong correlation but no direct evidence, initially, it came later. The tobacco industry used the exact same argument strong correlation but no cause and effect data. 

However the risk that we completely fuck the planet up because we keep going round and round on correlation versus hypothesis testing seems kinda of academic because if we are wrong by doing nothing and the weather goes completely haywire then we will look very stupid and trivial indeed.    

Share this post


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

Here is the problem and why everyone is chasing their tails. At the root of this is that there is no hypothesis that can be tested. It not feasible to manipulate, short term, CO2 levels either up or down and see if climate change is altered in the hypothesized manner. There is a very strong correlation between CO2   levels and the increased temperature, among other things. If you cannot manipulate a variable you cannot test the hypothesis. This does not mean that I am a climate change denier  I think it is real and  it probably man made because the correlation is so strong. Like when cigarettes were linked to lung cancer there was a very strong correlation but no direct evidence, initially, it came later. The tobacco industry used the exact same argument strong correlation but no cause and effect data. 

However the risk that we completely fuck the planet up because we keep going round and round on correlation versus hypothesis testing seems kinda of academic because if we are wrong by doing nothing and the weather goes completely haywire then we will look very stupid and trivial indeed.    

I recall a professor telling us that the cigarette-cancer correlation was so strong that either smoking caused lung cancer or cancer caused smoking.  I have read that temperature rise will cause increases in CO2 because of permafrost melting.  I think that is more of the tipping point though so maybe not relevant yet. Besides, we know where the CO2 is coming from.  I don't think anybody debates that.

I am an expert on a few things, but not on most things.  For those things, I accept what other experts say.  They tell me to stay indoors today because California is on fire and there is smoke in the air.  That means I will not go to my boat today as planned. I am not going to experiment with my health.

I put up this challenge.  I think everyone accepts that we are releasing CO2.  I think everyone accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  That means we should all accept that releasing CO2 causes the earth's temperature to increase.  How much?  If you can't calculate how much, shut up and listen to those who can.  If you find different people disagree, see what most experts say. Kind of like buying things on Amazon.  If you find 3% negative reviews, it is probably a pretty good item. This should not be political.  It is Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, allene222 said:

  It is Science.

Dogma...Pure, unadulterated Dogma.

You didn't read the links Monsoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, allene222 said:

 

  I think everyone accepts that we are releasing CO2.  I think everyone accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  That means we should all accept that releasing CO2 causes the earth's temperature to increase.  How much?  If you can't calculate how much, shut up and listen to those who can. 

Thats just it. As it stands today, nobody can say "How much"

 

Share this post


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

I am very familiar with Judy's criticisms of Mike Mann.  If she really thinks the 'Hockey stick' is bunk then she should gather her evidence, write a paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.  That she has not is all you need to know about the validity of her claims.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

The fact is that an enormous group of the world's best climatologists and paleoclimatologists all got together and reviewed decades of scientific results contained in thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed publications and they wrote a treatise containing their conclusions.  Here it is: http://www.ipcc.ch/

If you choose to ignore it at least have the self-awareness to realize that you're doing it because of your own political prejudices, not based on any reasoned consideration of the data.

IPCC is a self licking ice cream cone...

Wegman Report:

https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

Findings In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

 

Recommendations Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us writing this report have been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been that they do not in general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what must be disclosed. Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. Some consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.)

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of science, I was amazed by a couple of newsie articles on the local radio.

first, tragedy in NorCal, loss of life and property and economy as fires spontaneously pop up after a hot, dry summer.

second, and no transition, kudos to the trump administration on relying carbon emission rules.

 

can we say that overall warming caused THESE fires? No, that’s stupid. Does GW contribute to the conditions that make these fires devastating? Absolutely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

 

 Does GW contribute to the conditions that make these fires devastating? Absolutely.

 

Bullshit.

Cite one study that quantifies "Absolutely" Have fun searching, as all you will find are "qualitative" projections based on model data, which then get presented fruadulently as "fact".

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html

 

Gov. Brown's link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say

 

Brown had political reasons for his declaration.

He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December.

But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year's wildfires and global warming, or support Brown's assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.

University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in "noble-cause corruption."

 

Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.

"That is the nature of politics," Pielke said, "but sometimes the science really has to matter."

Other experts say there is, in fact, a more immediate threat: a landscape altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting and development.

Public attention should be focused on understanding fire risk, controlling development and making existing homes safer with fire-rated roofs and ember-resistant vents, said Richard Halsey, who founded the Chaparral Institute in San Diego.

Otherwise, he said, "the houses will keep burning down and people will keep dying."

"I don't believe the climate change discussion is helpful," Halsey said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, allene222 said:

If you can't calculate how much, shut up and listen to those who can.

So, what is "The consensus formula model?" 

If there was ONE model then you could make an argument that "SCIENCE is SETTLED" 

when there are a plethora of models, that don't agree; (and many don't agree on the sign of the coefficients, much less the values of them) 

when you run ensembles, because you can't trust any one projection, then the SCIENCE! is far from settled. 

the problem is not that you can't calculate how much, the problem is that there are dozens of models, and none of them are correct even in short term hindcasting. 

Science that is credible, has formula that are not competing

F=ma, E=mc^2, P=I^2R are accurate at their appropriate level of application. 

At a quantum level they are not adequate. Yet the macroscopic world can be well described with the classic formulae, and good decisions made from them. 

The hypotheses of the past (Pholgiston, Aether, Helicentrism, flat earth) are proven to be as fallacious as communism, elegant theory that simply never worked. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Bullshit.

Cite one study that quantifies "Absolutely" Have fun searching, as all you will find are "qualitative" projections based on model data, which then get presented fruadulently as "fact".

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html

 

Gov. Brown's link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say

 

Brown had political reasons for his declaration.

He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December.

But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year's wildfires and global warming, or support Brown's assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.

University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in "noble-cause corruption."

 

Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.

"That is the nature of politics," Pielke said, "but sometimes the science really has to matter."

Other experts say there is, in fact, a more immediate threat: a landscape altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting and development.

Public attention should be focused on understanding fire risk, controlling development and making existing homes safer with fire-rated roofs and ember-resistant vents, said Richard Halsey, who founded the Chaparral Institute in San Diego.

Otherwise, he said, "the houses will keep burning down and people will keep dying."

"I don't believe the climate change discussion is helpful," Halsey said.

don't be an idiot. Hotter climate = worse fires. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the politics, here are some facts:

Humans consume 96 million barrels of oil per day. That's 4 Billion gallons of oil, and it produces 30 Billion kilograms of CO2.  Per day.  The US accounts for 1/4 of that.

That's roughly equal to the flow over the smaller side of Niagara falls (or 1/10 of the total flow)

I still find it hard to believe that people don't think that will have an effect on the planet, or be sustainable in the long run. 

Share this post


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

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2017.00004/full

 

Humans as Agents in the Termination of the African Humid Period

Sahara a man made desert?

aren't there a couple man made deserts?


The origination spot of the HAN chinese is now a desert. Why? deforestation.  (They yellow river is yellow due to the run off of the formerly fertile lands)

Tunisia, Israel, partial desert. Why? Rome needed to be built.  Take a drive from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Notice the abrupt end of the forest when you move from Israeli land to Palestinian land. The Israelis are trying to reforest the country.

Cape Verde islands used to be covered in rain forest. Now, basically desert. Why? deforestation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how most chemicals to do everything come largely from oil why would we burn such a valuable asset?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

Seeing as how most chemicals to do everything come largely from oil why would we burn such a valuable asset?? 

And I but most of your boats are made of oil.  Not mine :-)

Share this post


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

Seeing as how most chemicals to do everything come largely from oil why would we burn such a valuable asset?? 

+6.02x10^23.

 

Petroleum is the basis for so much of what we have (from pharmaceuticals to sail boats), why would we *burn* the stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quick question. How much of the annual production of C02 comes from humans versus the ocean, biomass decay and other natural processes?

 

If you don't know the answer, you might find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how much of the CO2 capture comes from plant growth and absorption into the ocean?  If it were not for greenhouse gasses, we would all freeze. Look up snowball earth.  It is a question of balance.  Too little and we freeze, too much and we cook.

This question is about like asking what is the daily range of temperatures and how does that compare to the 2 degrees scientists say is the tipping point.  I mean it there is a like a 20 degree swing in temperature day to night.  How can 2 degrees matter?  Meaningless question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

don't be an idiot. Hotter climate = worse fires. Period.

Right out of the last IPCC...

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/894912388075405313

That is ordained Gospel. So, when you say the fires in California are "Absolutely" being made worse by AGW, you are -in fact (such as they are in Monsoon's Holy Scroll)-  spewing Bullshit.

Also, when it was flooding in California, this study came out...Imagine that.

Essentially the warmer it gets the more rain will fall in California. So, which is it gonna be? 

 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16055

El Niño-like teleconnection increases California precipitation in response to warming

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It got really hot this summer. We had a lot of plants die in our yard.  Hottest day ever recorded and by a lot, like 5 degrees.  It was 20 degrees above normal.  The other reason small changes in climate make the fires worst is that the beatles like it and a lot of trees are dead.  We lost a pine tree.  Cost $17K to remove it and that was by far the lowest bid. High bid was $50K.  It was a big tree.  So lots of rain produce lots of brush and years of drought and hot weather produce lots of dead trees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, allene222 said:

It got really hot this summer. We had a lot of plants die in our yard.  Hottest day ever recorded and by a lot, like 5 degrees.  It was 20 degrees above normal.  The other reason small changes in climate make the fires worst is that the beatles like it and a lot of trees are dead.  We lost a pine tree.  Cost $17K to remove it and that was by far the lowest bid. High bid was $50K.  It was a big tree.  So lots of rain produce lots of brush and years of drought and hot weather produce lots of dead trees. 

Show me observations which definitively prove the fires in California can be attributed to "small changes in climate"...

All you're gonna find is conjecture based on flawed model data.

As for the "hottest day ever"...

Show where that breaks out of the realm of natural variability.

Share this post


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

Show me observations which definitively prove the fires in California can be attributed to "small changes in climate"...

All you're gonna find is conjecture based on flawed model data.

As for the "hottest day ever"...

Show where that breaks out of the realm of natural variability.

Serious question:  Why do you give a fuck? 

Why argue your position?  It's not like you are going to change minds or have anything convincing to say.  

I recommend you just continue to vote for Trump and the Koch-bought-and-paid-for congress critter.  And save wear and tear on your keyboard.

Share this post


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

Serious question:  Why do you give a fuck? 

Why argue your position?  It's not like you are going to change minds or have anything convincing to say.  

 [snipped bigoted horseshit]

 

menchen.jpg

Share this post


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

Right out of the last IPCC...

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/894912388075405313

That is ordained Gospel. So, when you say the fires in California are "Absolutely" being made worse by AGW, you are -in fact (such as they are in Monsoon's Holy Scroll)-  spewing Bullshit.

Also, when it was flooding in California, this study came out...Imagine that.

Essentially the warmer it gets the more rain will fall in California. So, which is it gonna be? 

 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16055

El Niño-like teleconnection increases California precipitation in response to warming

 

 

More rain and more fires is totally congruent.  You realize it only rains in the winter here, right?  And that hotter summers, lead to extremely dry conditions for more fuel, due to the higher rainfall totals....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

More rain and more fires is totally congruent.  You realize it only rains in the winter here, right?  And that hotter summers, lead to extremely dry conditions for more fuel, due to the higher rainfall totals....

I do realize that. (Once lived at 1546 High St in Alameda. Where I learned to sail...But I digress)

Read the fucking study. 

You still cannot say that the fires are directly attributable to CO2 induced warming of the climate...

You cannot then make the leap that CO2 "Global Warming" is primarily human caused...

You're "Absolute" isn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sidmon said:

I do realize that. (Once lived at 1546 High St in Alameda. Where I learned to sail...But I digress)

Read the fucking study. 

You still cannot say that the fires are directly attributable to CO2 induced warming of the climate...

You cannot then make the leap that CO2 "Global Warming" is primarily human caused...

You're "Absolute" isn't.

 

I didn't make either of those claims. you might be presuming a bit too much...

Share this post


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

Here is a quick question. How much of the annual production of C02 comes from humans versus the ocean, biomass decay and other natural processes?

 

If you don't know the answer, you might find it interesting.

I would for one would find it interesting, presuming we can keep forest fires out of the man-made category and keep them in the 'natural' process category.  

I presume volcanos are exempt for the time being at least from being claimed as the product of human interaction with the planet?

So what % ya got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sidmon said:

Show me observations which definitively prove the fires in California can be attributed to "small changes in climate"...

All you're gonna find is conjecture based on flawed model data.

As for the "hottest day ever"...

Show where that breaks out of the realm of natural variability.

What I said was that small changes in climate cause a change in the eco system that favor beatles and that the beatles kill the trees and dead trees burn better.  Google it. Here is one.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, allene222 said:

What I said was that small changes in climate cause a change in the eco system that favor beatles and that the beatles kill the trees and dead trees burn better.  Google it. Here is one.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text

 

They’re heads are fully up their asses. That science-y stuff? Phooey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

don't be an idiot. Hotter climate = worse fires. Period.

More rain and more fires is totally congruent.

"Absolute" and "Period"...

The "SCIENCE!" ain't that settled...Not by a longshot.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/06/01/do-wet-winters-mean-bad-summer-fire-seasons-in-california-not-usually-according-to-history/

Over the past 40 years, the number of acres burned in California has varied widely, from a high of 1.3 million acres in 2008 to a low of 33,870 acres in 1991, according to totals from the U.S. Forest Service and Cal Fire.

Although there are anomalies — years when large amounts of the state burned even after a wetter than normal winter, the overall pattern is clear.

Most of the years with the fewest acres burned occurred after winters with higher-than-normal precipitation, like 1983 and 1998, both El Niño years with lots of flooding. Years following multiple below-normal rainfall winters, like 2008, or very dry winters, like 2007 and 1977, end up having more acres burn in the summer.

firewet.PNG.70ded0b3270a4e7fab836d437eb64b04.PNG

 

Quote
1 hour ago, allene222 said:

What I said was that small changes in climate cause a change in the eco system that favor beatles and that the beatles kill the trees and dead trees burn better.  Google it. Here is one.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text

Ok..."Climate Change" is a constant.  Have you looked at long period evolution of the chaparral? Will a warmer/wetter climate reduce the beetle population?

Is bankrupting your state chasing after the CO2 boogeyman they right path? Or would money be better spent on better fire science and mitigation?

1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

They’re heads are fully up their asses. That science-y stuff? Phooey!

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/wildfires-were-much-worse-in-the-past/

Here is a graph showing a decreasing trend in wildfires from 1930 to 1970 and an increasing
trend in global carbon emissions. If we “cherry pick” data from 1926 to 1970 we get a negative
relationship between area burned and carbon dioxide. However, if we “cherry pick” data from
1985 to 2013 we get a positive relationship. Neither relationship proves anything about the
effects of carbon dioxide on wildfires since, during dry seasons, human activity is the
overwhelming factor that determines both the number and size of wildfires.

 

image25.png

In the lower 48 states there have been about ten “extreme megafires,” which I define as burning more than 1 million acres. Eight of these occurred during cooler than average decades. These data suggest that extremely large megafires were 4-times more common before 1940 (back when carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than 310 ppmv). What these graphs suggest is that we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.

image26.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists Found a Gnarly Pesticide in 75 Percent of Global Honey Samples
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/10/scientists-found-a-gnarly-pesticide-in-75-percent-of-global-honey-samples/

Quote

The last taste of honey you enjoyed likely came from bees exposed to neonicotinoids, the world’s most widely used class of insecticides.  That’s the takeaway from a paper, published last week in the journal Science, by a team of Swiss researchers. They found traces of the bug-killing chemicals in 75 percent of honey samples drawn from around the world—and 86 percent of the samples from North America.
[...]
The authors note that honey bees are “distinctive sentinels of environment quality,” because they gather nectar and pollen from as far away as 12.5 kilometers (7.7 miles) from their hives. What shows up in their honey is a “measure of the contamination in the surrounding landscape”—and this neonic news is anything but sweet, given that the chemical are suspected of harming not just honey bees, but also wild bees, birds, and aquatic insects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, allene222 said:

What I said was that small changes in climate cause a change in the eco system that favor beatles and that the beatles kill the trees and dead trees burn better.  Google it. Here is one.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text

 

Local media story from a year go about the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation that covered a large swath of BC Interior Forest.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/climate-change-bc-forest-mountain-pine-beetle-1.3530301 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:45 PM, LionessRacing said:

So, what is "The consensus formula model?" 

If there was ONE model then you could make an argument that "SCIENCE is SETTLED" 

when there are a plethora of models, that don't agree; (and many don't agree on the sign of the coefficients, much less the values of them) 

when you run ensembles, because you can't trust any one projection, then the SCIENCE! is far from settled. 

the problem is not that you can't calculate how much, the problem is that there are dozens of models, and none of them are correct even in short term hindcasting. 

Science that is credible, has formula that are not competing

F=ma, E=mc^2, P=I^2R are accurate at their appropriate level of application. 

At a quantum level they are not adequate. Yet the macroscopic world can be well described with the classic formulae, and good decisions made from them. 

The hypotheses of the past (Pholgiston, Aether, Helicentrism, flat earth) are proven to be as fallacious as communism, elegant theory that simply never worked. 

 

 

I believe that you are completely misunderstanding what science is.

You are effectively saying that if you can't make precise prediction it is not science. AFAIK science is not defined like this, many philosophers have tried to define science and I can't name one that gave this as a definition. I suppose that Karl Popper is the closest, to summarise in a sentence he used to say that a theory is true as long as its predictions are true. The web is full of data on Popper thoughts on science, feel free to go beyond this one sentence summary.

Climate and weathers are 2 things that are incredibly chaotic, it would be very unscientific to predict anything more than patterns (google chaos theory for the maths that help do this) as obviously result would be wrong as soon as a butterfly start flapping her wings in the wrong place. Global warning and climate change theories are just saying that the earth (including atmosphere and oceans) is getting warmer as a result of greenhouse effect. That hasn't been shown wrong, it also says that climate is changing as the atmosphere dynamics are being artificially changed. This hasn't been shown wrong either.

To summarise, we know that we are playing with fire and gas, this is the kind of dangerous stuff that you might get away with sometimes but most people are sensible enough not to do it as they fear rightly the explosion that will eventually happen. Saying that you don't know exactly when the accident will happen is not a good reason to do really dangerous stuff.

Share this post


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

I believe that you are completely misunderstanding what science is.

You are effectively saying that if you can't make precise prediction it is not science. AFAIK science is not defined like this, many philosophers have tried to define science and I can't name one that gave this as a definition. I suppose that Karl Popper is the closest, to summarise in a sentence he used to say that a theory is true as long as its predictions are true. The web is full of data on Popper thoughts on science, feel free to go beyond this one sentence summary.

Climate and weathers are 2 things that are incredibly chaotic, it would be very unscientific to predict anything more than patterns (google chaos theory for the maths that help do this) as obviously result would be wrong as soon as a butterfly start flapping her wings in the wrong place. Global warning and climate change theories are just saying that the earth (including atmosphere and oceans) is getting warmer as a result of greenhouse effect. That hasn't been shown wrong, it also says that climate is changing as the atmosphere dynamics are being artificially changed. This hasn't been shown wrong either.

To summarise, we know that we are playing with fire and gas, this is the kind of dangerous stuff that you might get away with sometimes but most people are sensible enough not to do it as they fear rightly the explosion that will eventually happen. Saying that you don't know exactly when the accident will happen is not a good reason to do really dangerous stuff.

You're position is kind of analogous to saying "there is no proof Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist - ergo they must exist"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

You're position is kind of analogous to saying "there is no proof Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist - ergo they must exist"

Your resistance is kind of analogous to looking Bigfoot in the face and saying, "People can't agree on how tall you are therefore you don't exist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, allene222 said:

Your resistance is kind of analogous to looking Bigfoot in the face and saying, "People can't agree on how tall you are therefore you don't exist".

Cool...makes me sound like a freedom fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 12 metre said:

You're position is kind of analogous to saying "there is no proof Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist - ergo they must exist"

Well you are  taking us  into the "Russel teapot" domain. It is generally admitted that a statement that isn't falsifiable (a dogma) such as invisible teapots in orbits or monsters isn't science. But global warming and climate change would be very easy to falsify if untrue.  I did summarise  Mr Popper thoughts in one sentence but I am pretty sure that he talked about falsifiability.

So no, I didn't say this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allene222 said:

Your resistance is kind of analogous to looking Bigfoot in the face and saying, "People can't agree on how tall you are therefore you don't exist".

Exactly!

Share this post


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

Well you are  taking us  into the "Russel teapot" domain. It is generally admitted that a statement that isn't falsifiable (a dogma) such as invisible teapots in orbits or monsters isn't science. But global warming and climate change would be very easy to falsify if untrue.  I did summarise  Mr Popper thoughts in one sentence but I am pretty sure that he talked about falsifiability.

So no, I didn't say this.

If you didn't say this, then what exactly was the purpose of your saying  "That hasn't been shown wrong" and "This hasn't been shown wrong either"

I don't refute that global warming exists, but I am ambivalent to the cause.  Statements like "is getting warmer because of greenhouse effect" is unfalsifiable IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

If you didn't say this, then what exactly was the purpose of your saying  "That hasn't been shown wrong" and "This hasn't been shown wrong either"

I don't refute that global warming exists, but I am ambivalent to the cause.  Statements like "is getting warmer because of greenhouse effect" is unfalsifiable IMO

Because invisible monsters like the loch ness are unfalsifiable.

Quote

is getting warmer because of greenhouse effect

is very easy to falsify if wrong. You could make a laboratory experiment showing that CO2 levels have no effect on heat transfer of solar radiation through the specimen or that the first law of thermodynamic is wrong through some experiments measuring heat input in a system.

You won't manage it, not because the theory is unfalsifiable but because it is right. The oil lobby has spent considerable amount of money to try to refute global warming, if it was wrong by now, we would know it as they would have managed to disprove it. They are now seeding doubts in people minds because they've lost the scientific argument and the next best thing that they can do is FUD. The tobacco industry reacted the same way when they realised that they had lost the argument scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you catch the news that the 'scientists' have said oops, the Paris Climate Accord made a mistake, its not co2 its other greenhouse gases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talking about Peter Ward?

14 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

did you catch the news that the 'scientists' have said oops, the Paris Climate Accord made a mistake, its not co2 its other greenhouse gases?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was somebodys news feed, I just read and deleted

found this

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

I learnt if you want to know about climate change talk to a  meteorologist that works for a commodities trading house.

These guys seek out real facts and make large future bets on them.

for any place with higher average temps, they will show you somewhere with lower average temps

same with rainfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you anti-american Trump haters should leave America ASAP. This man is YOUR president whether you LIKE IT OR NOT. So get behind him and support him! This is the problem with this country, you whine and whine about him, when he's out there representing our Country. God bless America and Trump. He is a SHINING example of what someone with severe Alzheimer's can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sailabout said:

it was somebodys news feed, I just read and deleted

found this

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

I learnt if you want to know about climate change talk to a  meteorologist that works for a commodities trading house.

These guys seek out real facts and make large future bets on them.

for any place with higher average temps, they will show you somewhere with lower average temps

same with rainfall

The link is about countries not reporting properly their GHG emissions, not about

the 'scientists' have said oops, the Paris Climate Accord made a mistake, its not co2 its other greenhouse gases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Kind of like buying things on Amazon.  If you find 3% negative reviews, it is probably a pretty good item. This should not be political.  It is Science.

Since our daily experience tells us that people (in general) deal with 3% negative reviews pretty much the way Allene suggested in the quote above, the question becomes what are the external motivators that make people (some) react so differently in the case of climate change.

It can't all be the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, green03 said:

Since our daily experience tells us that people (in general) deal with 3% negative reviews pretty much the way Allene suggested in the quote above, the question becomes what are the external motivators that make people (some) react so differently in the case of climate change.

It can't all be the Dunning-Kruger effect.

money and fear of change?

Share this post


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

I blame the weather, climate clowns are looking for a reason and a salary, gov looking for tax revenue.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/french-weatherman-fired-for-promoting-book-sceptical-of-climate-change

A weatherman main skill is to repeat on TV what forecasters have forecasted. Don't worry for him, he's published his book and he's selling expensive seminars to companies for motivating their tea teaching them bee keeping!

5 hours ago, Sailabout said:

Well yes, we have entered the post truth era and facts are slowly becoming irrelevant., Thus an organisation like the IPCC whose job is to establish facts is struggling to have an impact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, green03 said:

Now is that a hypothesis or a theory?

 

hypothesis in the scientific sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the IPCC is not interested in facts just everyone agreeing on 'model data' ( to suit gov agendas) and if you dont agree you are burnt at the stake. What kind of science is that?

Look what the gov in Australia did when there were some inconvenient facts

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 11:30 PM, Panoramix said:

 I suppose that Karl Popper is the closest, to summarise in a sentence he used to say that a theory is true as long as its predictions are true.

But the theory and models are not always true. They are continually being changed to fit what is happening or the data sets are changed to make them fit. I have no problem with this as the climate is not something we can re-run to check the effect of different variables as with most other experiments. There is also no end point to the climate, unlike most experiments. What other feedback loops the earth has up her sleeve is just wild conjecture at this point. So yes we understand some of what is happening but I find it hard to believe that it could be called settled as our understanding of how it all works is still limited. It is this absolute refusal to countenance the possibility that there could be any problem with the science that leads many to question the validity. 

There would possibly be a wider acceptance to the idea that pollution in general is a bad thing that will bite us in the arse one day. This used to be the thrust of many programs but has been sidelined in the rush to prove climate change is the new devil to be dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 3:59 PM, Panoramix said:

hypothesis in the scientific sense of the word.

Agree, but at that you have lost 90% of the rest of the world who somehow think that situation is described by the word "theory"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gissie said:

But the theory and models are not always true. They are continually being changed to fit what is happening or the data sets are changed to make them fit. I have no problem with this as the climate is not something we can re-run to check the effect of different variables as with most other experiments. There is also no end point to the climate, unlike most experiments. What other feedback loops the earth has up her sleeve is just wild conjecture at this point. So yes we understand some of what is happening but I find it hard to believe that it could be called settled as our understanding of how it all works is still limited. It is this absolute refusal to countenance the possibility that there could be any problem with the science that leads many to question the validity. 

There would possibly be a wider acceptance to the idea that pollution in general is a bad thing that will bite us in the arse one day. This used to be the thrust of many programs but has been sidelined in the rush to prove climate change is the new devil to be dealt with.

If a theory is changed because it would better fit the data, then, in principle, that makes it a different, better theory.

If the data are changed to fit the model, that's somehow not science any more and I'd like to see some evidence that this is occurring on a meaningful scale before I build that into my expectation of how this process works.

The operative question for those pushing a certain agenda is "can we make the problem go away if we convince non-scientists that the science isn't valid?". This approach is guaranteed successful because you can't convince a non-scientist that there's not room for doubt anywhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, green03 said:

If a theory is changed because it would better fit the data, then, in principle, that makes it a different, better theory.

If the data are changed to fit the model, that's somehow not science any more and I'd like to see some evidence that this is occurring on a meaningful scale before I build that into my expectation of how this process works.

The operative question for those pushing a certain agenda is "can we make the problem go away if we convince non-scientists that the science isn't valid?". This approach is guaranteed successful because you can't convince a non-scientist that there's not room for doubt anywhere.

 

I agree that changing to make a better theory is a good idea. I just find that settled science and changing theories to fit what is happening is not the same thing.

Modification of data like what was done to sea water temps to me seems dodgy. However the time line appears to be denial there was a problem, followed several years later by deciding that the temps were all wrong and needed to be adjusted to fit. Just seems to be the sort of thing you would not expect when the science has been settled for so long.

Your final sentence could also read:

The operative question for those pushing a certain agenda is "can we make the problem go away if we ridicule, abuse and threaten with the law those that have the temerity to question". This approach is guaranteed successful because most people are easily silenced by wholesale threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All true

I just want to know is if they stop all CO2 will all the trees die?

You notice nobody wants to talk about CO2 from aircraft, too hard to tax so we leave that one.

They also dont want to talk about the CO2 released when making lng, lpg, etc, shock horror can be worse than clean coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gissie said:

I agree that changing to make a better theory is a good idea. I just find that settled science and changing theories to fit what is happening is not the same thing.

Modification of data like what was done to sea water temps to me seems dodgy. However the time line appears to be denial there was a problem, followed several years later by deciding that the temps were all wrong and needed to be adjusted to fit. Just seems to be the sort of thing you would not expect when the science has been settled for so long.

Your final sentence could also read:

The operative question for those pushing a certain agenda is "can we make the problem go away if we ridicule, abuse and threaten with the law those that have the temerity to question". This approach is guaranteed successful because most people are easily silenced by wholesale threats.

 

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

ref

Basically it is the big picture that is settled.  The model itself is being refined.  F = M * A is very well accepted but Einstein said there was more to it and people have shown he was right.  But F = M * A is still a very good approximation.  And I think you would get 100% agreement that applying a force to a mass will cause it to accelerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm not a climate scientist (I'm a semi-retired, sorta engineer, sorta history guy, sorta consultant).  My what may likely be a stupid question is, if we can't model the weather accurately yet for longer than about 4 days, if I can't model the path of a hurricane accurately, or predict the impacts of a hurricane accurately (storm surge for example), if I can't predict the formation and path of a tornado accurately, if I can't predict whether California will have another wet winter that equals last winter or will have a relatively dry one despite the el Nino that was predicted 2 winters ago, etc, etc, how can we say we can "accurately" model what's going to happen to the climate on a global scale?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Crash said:

So I'm not a climate scientist (I'm a semi-retired, sorta engineer, sorta history guy, sorta consultant).  My what may likely be a stupid question is, if we can't model the weather accurately yet for longer than about 4 days, if I can't model the path of a hurricane accurately, or predict the impacts of a hurricane accurately (storm surge for example), if I can't predict the formation and path of a tornado accurately, if I can't predict whether California will have another wet winter that equals last winter or will have a relatively dry one despite the el Nino that was predicted 2 winters ago, etc, etc, how can we say we can "accurately" model what's going to happen to the climate on a global scale?

 

 

Think of it like the current on SF bay.  The prediction may be an ebb current but you are in a whirlpool and the water near you is coming in.  Even though you can't tell exactly where the tide line will be, you know that when the sun and moon are where they are, that the tide will be going out.  Same with the temperature.  Climate change is predicting a very small change in the average temperature compared to the variations across a season or across a day.  But the average over a year is much easier to predict.  Many things are like that.  Use a GPS to read your speed. It will have noise of a knot but average over 15 seconds and you can get it down to .02 knots.  The bigger the sample (global) and the longer the time (decades) the less noise in the result and the easier to predict with precision.

Share this post


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

But the theory and models are not always true. They are continually being changed to fit what is happening or the data sets are changed to make them fit. I have no problem with this as the climate is not something we can re-run to check the effect of different variables as with most other experiments. There is also no end point to the climate, unlike most experiments. What other feedback loops the earth has up her sleeve is just wild conjecture at this point. So yes we understand some of what is happening but I find it hard to believe that it could be called settled as our understanding of how it all works is still limited. It is this absolute refusal to countenance the possibility that there could be any problem with the science that leads many to question the validity. 

There would possibly be a wider acceptance to the idea that pollution in general is a bad thing that will bite us in the arse one day. This used to be the thrust of many programs but has been sidelined in the rush to prove climate change is the new devil to be dealt with.

A climate model is something that model unbelievably complicated phenomenons so intertwined that a small modelling error can lead to big differences in output. Just see it as dead-reckoning before GPS, we knew that the model was very sensitive to many variables hard to control but we were doing it as it was giving us an idea of where we were. Underestimating drift and a helsman tendency to bear away and 6 hours later you were 2 nautical miles off (big deal if like me you were sailing in a foggy place). Being wrong didn't mean that you didn't know "navigation theory" just that you misjudged something.

Likewise the scientific community knows that releasing huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a very bad idea as it will have dire consequences, they are just not yet quite good enough at this climate dead reckoning lark to tell you what life will be exactly like in California in 50 years time. We don't know where we are headed to exactly, we just know that the consequences will be real and possibly threatening for our civilisation. This would be catastrophic and seem unlikely at the moment but the system is so complex that we even  can't rule out that we are about to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and  transform the earth atmosphere into something like Venus. To bring it back to sailing we are not even 100% sure that we are sailing a monohull, we might be sailing an overpowered multi that is about to flip. Saying that we shouldn't change our ways simply because we don't know exactly where we are headed to is just plain irresponsible.

Share this post


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

 Just see it as dead-reckoning before GPS ...To bring it back to sailing ...

This made me think of another sailing analogy. I worked with a guy who sold his house and bought a boat to sail the South Pacific.  He had GPS and the best charts.  He was headed toward a reef but he knew the charts were not accurate so he stayed 5 miles off.  What he didn't know was that the charts were not even that accurate and he hit the reef.  Hard aground on the reef.  They could walk off the boat and were knee deep in water standing on the reef.  He took an anchor and all the line he had on the boat and hung it off the stern and it didn't hit ground.  So here we are with inaccurate charts (models) but 97% consensus that we are headed to a reef.  What I hear is one side saying that going 20 miles out of our way to avoid the reef would take too much time so let's just continue on our present course.  The other side says, we better change course so we don't hit the reef and die.  My co-worker used a HAM radio to call for help and was rescued but left his boat and life's savings on the reef.  I am too old to see how accurate the climate models are so I don't really care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the part where the gov need everyone to say its man causing global warming so we are done

they just forgot the part where they had to show with science how

Share this post


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

i love the part where the gov need everyone to say its man causing global warming so we are done

they just forgot the part where they had to show with science how

The science is there, it's just the dogmatic politicians who can't understand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

The science is there, it's just the dogmatic politicians who can't understand it. 

what science?

ok people ice skated on the Thames in London a few years ago and now they cant.

The world warmed up a few years back, oceans rose, became acidic and all the rest so now same cycle repeating, oh and the CO2 levels were much higher last time that happened.

thats why there is controversy

 

Share this post


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

So what is inconsistent with global warming in what you say? 

Co2 levels climbing since industrial revolution, pretty sure, no argument there. ( fact part only been measured since the 50's)

Is man dumping more CO2 into the environment over that period, sure thats easy to understand

Is man made CO2 causing global warming, theory only when we know CO2 levels have been far higher in the past when no humans involved.

Look at crop changes in the world, weather is changing in isolated parts so crops just being moved to other parts

As I said one of the oldest constant temp measurements any where in the world is in VIC in OZ, says no average change in 80 years.

June 2017, coldest June day on record and record snow depths later that season.

Science is about formulating a theory then prove or disprove, thats easy with facts so without facts it remains a theory.

Fact is if you say man caused it then its taxable

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1^^^

and while the claims of 97% scientific consensus may or may not be correct there are still quite a few 31,487 to be correct that are still asking questions. (see below) I go back to my original statement that climate change is occuring, as it always does. That the sole cause is Arthopogenic C02, an inert, trace, and minor greenhouse gas is not scientifically certain. In fact evidence in the historical and geologic records seems to indicate otherwise.

The IPCC, is now a highly political organization, is being used as a bully pulpit to push forward political as opposed to scientific agendas. The various mainsteam media outlets are firmly on the bandwagon because  they know that doom and disaster sells products which is their primary raison d’être.

 

Oregon Petition (Global Warming Petition Project, 1998) was signed by 31,487 American scientists and experts, including 9,029 with a PhD. Among them are individuals from the following disciplines:

Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805
Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
Medicine: 3,046
Engineering and General Science: 10,102

The Petition states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. 

/31,000+ signatures/

The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the “global warming” debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

Read more on the Global Warming Petition site.  The Petition was initiated by Artur Robinson, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and supported by Professor Frederick Seitz.  Professor Frederick Seitz (1911 – 2008) was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities from around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 8:52 AM, Sailabout said:

Co2 levels climbing since industrial revolution, pretty sure, no argument there. ( fact part only been measured since the 50's)

Is man dumping more CO2 into the environment over that period, sure thats easy to understand

 

At least we agree on something

On 10/18/2017 at 8:52 AM, Sailabout said:

Is man made CO2 causing global warming, theory only when we know CO2 levels have been far higher in the past when no humans involved.

 

 

Please explain why humans have to be the only one able to increase CO2 levels for GW to be man made. It doesn't make sense to me that's like saying to a judge "I am not culprit of arson as somebody else could have done it".

On 10/18/2017 at 8:52 AM, Sailabout said:

Look at crop changes in the world, weather is changing in isolated parts so crops just being moved to other parts

 

That's why it is called climate change.

On 10/18/2017 at 8:52 AM, Sailabout said:

As I said one of the oldest constant temp measurements any where in the world is in VIC in OZ, says no average change in 80 years.

June 2017, coldest June day on record and record snow depths later that season.

You can't mesure global warming by just looking at isolated places.

On 10/18/2017 at 8:52 AM, Sailabout said:

Science is about formulating a theory then prove or disprove, thats easy with facts so without facts it remains a theory.

Fact is if you say man caused it then its taxable

 

You don't even understand the meaning of a theory in the scientific sense of the word and you are lecturing people who have dedicated their life to science. Don't you think that's a bit rich? A theory in Science is something that is accepted as true as it has been thoroughly tested. Facts are for lawyers.

As for the taxable bit, why?

On 10/18/2017 at 11:58 AM, vibroman said:

+1^^^

and while the claims of 97% scientific consensus may or may not be correct there are still quite a few 31,487 to be correct that are still asking questions. (see below) I go back to my original statement that climate change is occuring, as it always does. That the sole cause is Arthopogenic C02, an inert, trace, and minor greenhouse gas is not scientifically certain. In fact evidence in the historical and geologic records seems to indicate otherwise.

The IPCC, is now a highly political organization, is being used as a bully pulpit to push forward political as opposed to scientific agendas. The various mainsteam media outlets are firmly on the bandwagon because  they know that doom and disaster sells products which is their primary raison d’être.

 

Oregon Petition (Global Warming Petition Project, 1998) was signed by 31,487 American scientists and experts, including 9,029 with a PhD. Among them are individuals from the following disciplines:

Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805
Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
Medicine: 3,046
Engineering and General Science: 10,102

The Petition states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. 

/31,000+ signatures/

The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the “global warming” debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

Read more on the Global Warming Petition site.  The Petition was initiated by Artur Robinson, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and supported by Professor Frederick Seitz.  Professor Frederick Seitz (1911 – 2008) was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities from around the world.

I didn't know about this petition, if you look at it, a whopping 0.5% (153 out of 30 000) of signatories had a background in Climatology or atmospheric sciences, all the others were from different fields! And you can't know how many of those had a PhD, see for yourself there : http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

It's a bit like if I was asking my hairdresser to mend my car.

This thread was supposed to be about science. Pretty sure that this was politically motivated,  with half of the population of the USA voting for a party that has been anti-science for a long time now, it mustn't be that hard to find 30 000 people to sign such a petition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

 

 

30 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Pretty sure that this was politically motivated,  with half of the population of the USA voting for a party that has been anti-science for a long time now, it mustn't be that hard to find 30 000 people to sign such a petition.

Because surely this statement is not in any way politically motivated...

If only the science and the scientists were completely apolitical.  Unfortunately, scientists are human beings.  Human beings have prejudices, and biases.  That doesn't make them bad.  Science is not freed from that completely.  The Scientific process trys to overcome and mitigate such bias and prejudice, but can't completely eliminate it.  Both political partys have involved themselves in this, both pay and commission studies to try to prove their points of view.  Both have a bad habit of picking "winners" and "losers" or labeling some technologies or corporations as good and others as bad.

But to say republicans are "anti-science" is disingenuous.   You can't build stealthy jets, or electro-magnetic catapults and rail-guns, of spy satellites without "science."  You can't discover new oil and natural gas reserves on ocean floor without "science."  You can't make the internal combustion engine more powerful and more economical all while reducing tailpipe emissions without "science."   I won't argue that their priorities differ from a how/where to apply the science.  I'm not saying their priorities are correct.  But let us keep this discussion reasonable, somewhere below the pure hyperbole that both political parties, in their quests for power would have us use on and towards each other.  That helps nobody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he should have said was that one political party is trying to appeal to those who are anti science, not that all Republicans are anti science.  But perhaps most anti science people are Republicans.  Evolution, climate change, age of earth, trickle down economics, etc.

As far as "fact" vs "theory" my son has a way to explain it.  He points out that gravity is a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, allene222 said:

What he should have said was that one political party is trying to appeal to those who are anti science, not that all Republicans are anti science.  But perhaps most anti science people are Republicans.  Evolution, climate change, age of earth, trickle down economics, etc.

 

Probably yes, as seen from the other side of the Atlantic, USA politics are a bit weird and it is easy to be under the impression that Republican politicians are all barking mad but yes I probably got carried away.

1 hour ago, Crash said:

 

Because surely this statement is not in any way politically motivated...

 

No it is not.

Here no party would dare to go against established science, that would be suicidal. So no it isn't politically motivated as no party I could like or vote for would benefit from it, the science manipulation at political or commercial ends that goes on in the USA is just shocking to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites