|
a lovely poster posted:I agree that the question is "WHY populations may increase beyond a sustainable population" but... I don't think natural selection is what's driving that though, I think it's availability of resources. The bacteria doesn't expand because of "natural selection" but because it can. In the same way, I believe that our economic changes(both growth and decay) in social systems are very much driven by resource availability. Yeah looking back at that paragraph I realize it's incoherent, there is no selection occurring in the petri-dish. I'll try and explain it better tomorrow.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
StarMagician posted:It's basically this. I am fully aware that modern science cannot make predictions about specific weather events more than about 10 days in advance (if even that much). I also understand the difference between climate and weather. Still, climate scientists should be able to make consistent and accurate predictions in broad strokes about the climate before breathlessly declaring that the world is doomed if we don't do something now. If their predictions don't come true, they should admit they were wrong or revise their theory. An article in the Times printed a short list of correct predictions: quote:Ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true) Climate scientists have been making broad yet accurate predictions on many aspects of climate for many years. (There are also consequences that they fail to predict, such as the migrations of certain species, which are an additional burden on ecological systems.) What's an example of a broad-strokes prediction you would like to see? Edit: Here's a rather better piece on various IPCC predictions that under-estimated the actual reality, as is so often the case. 
TACD fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Ohhhh....poo poo. poo poo. Sorry for the contentless post, but as someone who deals professionally in numerical simulations and statistical analytics of physical systems, the difference here between the shapes of model vs. observation is absolutely terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Ohhhh....poo poo. poo poo. Playing devils advocate a bit, but if your model is that far off, even if off in the worse direction, think the model might need some tweaking? Or just flat out be not fit for purpose
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Ohhhh....poo poo. poo poo. What do you mean? The fact that things look more like a parabola than exponential or linear decay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:What do you mean? The fact that things look more like a parabola than exponential or linear decay? Yeah. The modeling seems to be converging toward an asymptotic behavior in the long-term future (for what reasons I do not know, although it seems to be a general conclusion reached by different calculations), but the observational data is falling geometrically. Even if the normalization of the two curves were roughly similar, i.e. they started out at the same sea-ice volume, that fact would still be extremely alarming. Basically it means that not only are we overestimating sea-ice, we have something fundamentally wrong with the way we think sea-ice volume evolves over time during a warming epoch. And as a systems modeler who has an appreciation for how hard these climate scientists work on this stuff, I can tell you that is not a positive sign. Illuminti posted:Playing devils advocate a bit, but if your model is that far off, even if off in the worse direction, think the model might need some tweaking? Or just flat out be not fit for purpose Clearly this is the case, but that's my entire point. We have a ton of really smart scientists making some really sophisticated models that rely on a whole bunch of empirical calibrations, and none of the models even come close to displaying the correct behavior over time. That doesn't tell me that climate scientists are stupid, it tells me that there are feedback effects from chaotic fluid dynamics and other subtleties that we simply do not know how to predict, and that these subtleties drag the whole thing way further toward "oh poo poo" than even scientists are willing to admit (in peer-reviewed work). mdemone fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
mdemone posted:We have a ton of really smart scientists making some really sophisticated models that rely on a whole bunch of empirical calibrations, and none of the models even come close to displaying the correct behavior over time. That doesn't tell me that climate scientists are stupid, it tells me that there are feedback effects from chaotic fluid dynamics and other subtleties that we simply do not know how to predict, and that these subtleties drag the whole thing way further toward "oh poo poo" than even scientists are willing to admit (in peer-reviewed work). What major feedbacks that we know of are not considered in the IPCC report? I know that permafrost melting is the big one (PDF), and from what I understand we still don't know if clouds have a net impact in either direction, but are there any more that haven't been officially considered?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Clearly this is the case, but that's my entire point. We have a ton of really smart scientists making some really sophisticated models that rely on a whole bunch of empirical calibrations, and none of the models even come close to displaying the correct behavior over time. That doesn't tell me that climate scientists are stupid, it tells me that there are feedback effects from chaotic fluid dynamics and other subtleties that we simply do not know how to predict, and that these subtleties drag the whole thing way further toward "oh poo poo" than even scientists are willing to admit (in peer-reviewed work). It's also possible that there are other positive-feedback mechanics at play we haven't identified or aren't able to observe properly yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
The IPCC models have overestimated atmospheric warming to a statistically significant degree, that's one of the updates in the 2013 report, but underestimated ocean warming. Regardless of the refinement of a complex model, the overall conclusions are only projected with greater confidence with each revision. There is a big ethical fight within the climatology community over if the impacts of climate change should be exaggerated for policy impact. Some do believe that its better to use a bit of hyperbole to scare people into action while others believe that trust will be lost and policy influence along with it if scientists become associated with hyperbole. So you see this metered out in the difference between refereed conclusions and private conclusions and in other ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
That's a fair concern. It's hard to say how people are going to react, but I think it's getting to the point where they need to start bypassing the "does climate change exist??" conversation and start thinking about what's to be done. Yes, cutting emissions is priority #1. Governments can't really get ahead of climate change anymore, but they can at least get ahead of individual countries, corporations, or individuals starting up idiotic geo-engineering projects that make the problem worse or even start wars. At the same time you probably need to get the public ready to accept taking charge of our planet with imperfect knowledge of how the environment works. Cutting emissions while running an international geo-engineering effort to keep temperatures down so as to not activate further positive feedback systems is going to cause some deep rifts in any environmental movement since you'll have lots of Mother Earth/Gaia people who think we should keep our hands out of it, but it's way too late for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There is a big ethical fight within the climatology community over if the impacts of climate change should be exaggerated for policy impact. At this stage, I'd say the biggest problem simply is a lack of effective political pressure. Think about it from the old Communist perspective: You've had people in society for a hundred-some years fervently talking about the evils of capitalism, how we absolutely need to do something to stop this suffering, and so on, with very little effect. There's obviously a lot of widespread concern and outright fear over climate change already, but it hasn't formed into a concrete politics as of yet. Perhaps this is the space for a new Left to emerge?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
As an fyi, Team AGWSA, I acknowledge the futility of the response I'm about to compose here, but it's my own goddamn fault for opening the box in the first place.Arkane posted:Your list missed paleo, which I think is in many ways the worst facet of climate science. I mean the guy who deleted the post-1960 data from the "hide the decline" graph is one of the lead authors of the AR5 section. The idea that this field is still just a cloistered group re-using the same two data sets over and over again is mindblowing. The stuff they get away with -- from hiding data to flipping data upside down like Mann did to the PAGES 2k where they used data that was denied publication -- is mindblowing. I feel like the McShane and Wyner paper should've been like the start of the death knell of that group, but instead it's been largely forgotten. The hockey sticks are artifacts of terrible, godawful statistics. The McShane and Wyner paper showed loud and clear that there is not a single, verifiable reason that a hockey stick is the statistical "result" of a multi-proxy reconstruction of Mann's data. It would be amazing to me if 60 Minutes or Nate Silver (who already came to find out the climate models were awful when writing his book) did an in-depth study on this group and their methods. I actually wrote an email to Michael Lewis a couple years back that it would be a great book. And it would be, especially since the emails went public. All right, there's a ton of stuff in your post, but let's start here; I need to get on top of AR5 and McShane/Wyner paleo piece you posted, and this stuff is juicier anyway. I need some clarity: in a nutshell, you allege massive global scientific fraud? You've trotted out this "I believe in AGW, just not that much of it, see" which given the thousands (and thousands) of studies, research papers, and reports to the contrary, seems to be an passive accusation of academic dishonesty on the part of the global scientific community. I don't think that's where you're going, though. Is it safe to assume you do not truly believe in a hive-mind of oceanographers engaging in a vast international conspiracy? Basically like a big nerdy Silk Road, only with sea ice volume and mid-tropospheric temperature measurements? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your actual hypothesis (not directly stated here, only hinted at via snarky statements of astonished incredulity) is that all this data, culled from researchers around the world from so many different countries and every accredited scientific organization on the face of the Earth, finds its way to the desks of a couple dozen(?) dishonest bureaucrats who, with neither the knowledge or consent of the actual researchers who collected the data and wrote the paper in the first place, opt to misrepresent conclusions, obscure the truth, intentionally cook up deceptive graphs, and jeopardize the scientific integrity of every one who contributes to our knowledge of the earth's climate and many related systems, for their own financial gain. That's your theory here, right? I think it's kinda important to get that out in the open, because I see all these allegations, but I don't see a motive. At all. I assume the payoffs must be huge. Presumably in Krugerrands, or non-negotiable bearer bonds? Remarkable, by the way, that despite multiple large-scale thefts of emails and records, we have not one shred of anything remotely resembling evidence to support such a theory of widespread corruption for financial gain. Why is it that we find all kinds of evidence linking skeptics to the fossil fuel industry and nothing similar on the other side of the fence? Does the conspiracy run that deep? Perhaps scientists are just inherently better at hiding such chicanery. We better hope that little black book doesn't get left on the counter at Starbucks, it'll be a doozy! I have to wonder if there's a basement wall somewhere dedicated to clippings of atmospheric physicists who have experienced deaths under unusual circumstances, i.e. boating accidents, tragedies in the Alps, that sort of thing? Because I feel like that's what it would take to actually pull off the kind of collusion you may be alleging here. A preliminary review of AR5 shows over eight hundred contributors from at least thirty-seven different countries, and this is only Working Group 1. Are you alleging a) fraud on the part of these researchers, or just b) ignorance at the way their findings are being outrageously distorted, compromising their professional reputations as scientists? I assume it's b) with a a dash of a), because there's no way all these researchers wouldn't notice the outrageous distortion of their research. Perhaps they're being oppressed into silence somehow; an underground bunker full of family members under guard, for example. So which is it? Are climate scientists who have deep concerns re AGW in the 21st century evil and corrupt and all in it for the dough? Or are they willfully ignorant of the way their work is being distorted? Or are they all just generally lovely at science (other than the parts you agree with)? If it's something dishonest, where is the motive? quote:I actually wrote an email to Michael Lewis a couple years back that it would be a great book. And it would be, especially since the emails went public. EDIT: Having gotten about as much out of Mcshane and Wyner as I can hope to without being a statistician, and having read extensive comments and rebuttals on both sides of the debate, do you have an opinion on why this paper remains unpublished three years later? rivetz fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Vermain posted:At this stage, I'd say the biggest problem simply is a lack of effective political pressure. Think about it from the old Communist perspective: You've had people in society for a hundred-some years fervently talking about the evils of capitalism, how we absolutely need to do something to stop this suffering, and so on, with very little effect. There's obviously a lot of widespread concern and outright fear over climate change already, but it hasn't formed into a concrete politics as of yet. Perhaps this is the space for a new Left to emerge? This. Working between government and scientists, I can tell you how loud you have to shout about an upcoming problem before a politician even pretends to be listening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
I think it's interesting that the some of the consequences of global warming are observed to be significantly worse than expected, while actual global warming is observed to be significantly less than expected. I think that supports the idea that we really have no idea what is going on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
If your criterion for a model is "is never inaccurate", you're going to have a very difficult time modelling anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:If your criterion for a model is "is never inaccurate", you're going to have a very difficult time modelling anything. What is the criterion then? What specifically will have to happen for the models to be declared wrong? In science, isn't that supposed to be decided prospectively?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:What is the criterion then? What specifically will have to happen for the models to be declared wrong? In science, isn't that supposed to be decided prospectively? Depends on what kind of modeling you're doing. A lot of people in the field will throw research with huge variability, low tolerances + awful P values, into the trash. There's also measurements for systemic error if you're using regression, like half high half low residuals, and/or throwing out a crapton of outliers and/or sample size depending on the experiment. There are as many caveats to an analysis in a book on statistics as there are actual analyses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:This. Working between government and scientists, I can tell you how loud you have to shout about an upcoming problem before a politician even pretends to be listening. It makes me think slightly of the Millennium Bug thing. The way I read it in Nick Davies' book about the media, the people who originally brought the problems to the public's attention were aware that it was a fairly minor problem that would only affect a few systems, but found that no attention was being paid to it, so they started to make a lot of noise about catastrophic systems failures and collapse. Then that got picked up in the media and it kind of snowballed from there until suddenly governments were spending billions on Y2K preparedness of questionable value Of course, in this case the threat is very real. I think it's interesting to compare the two, actually. The Y2K problem was a specific 'threat' and had a clearly defined due date. The uncertainty of climate change would seem to be a factor here. Even if you accept it, are we looking at bad but survivable change or catastrophe? A decade or a century from now? So even though scientists say "Bad things will happen", the fact that it's harder to conceptualise a particular scenario makes it harder to make a clear case for precipitous action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
rivetz posted:As an fyi, Team AGWSA, I acknowledge the futility of the response I'm about to compose here, but it's my own goddamn fault for opening the box in the first place. Not to put words in Arkanes mouth, but I don't think he's implying a shadowy cabal is running a great conspiracy. More that what we consider to be the scientific process isn't as reliable as we would like to believe and climate has become politicised. It's not to much of a stretch to see how scientists who have staked their reputations and spent decades developing their theories might be a little resistant to admitting they over stated things or didn't take things into account. Especially as what I'm sure for them started as a research project ballooned into a worldwide movement, caught up in politics and the end of civilisation. I have heard of peer review, and while it is a great system, it is not infallible. And yes if some scientist disproved AGW then they'd get a Nobel and all that and as no one has we can say it's true. But that's not the case, it's to complicated to disprove in a paper, and besides no sceptical scientist is saying it's not happening, just arguing about degrees and feedback loops
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:What is the criterion then? What specifically will have to happen for the models to be declared wrong? In science, isn't that supposed to be decided prospectively? Illuminti posted:Not to put words in Arkanes mouth, but I don't think he's implying a shadowy cabal is running a great conspiracy. More that what we consider to be the scientific process isn't as reliable as we would like to believe and climate has become politicised. It's not to much of a stretch to see how scientists who have staked their reputations and spent decades developing their theories might be a little resistant to admitting they over stated things or didn't take things into account. Especially as what I'm sure for them started as a research project ballooned into a worldwide movement, caught up in politics and the end of civilisation. If a theory is new or truly controversial, you will get an airplane-on-a-treadmill or 0.999=1 type scenario, with groups of scientists writing politely scathing papers about the other group's opinion and laughing in private about their simian intelligence, then testing and retesting the theory until ultimately the actual facts win out. Scientists are a group of nerds determined to be more right than the other guy, but able to prove it with models and tests and statistics instead of "well here's what I think" bullshit. With that in mind, consider that there are still controversies in fields as apparently cut-and-dried as mathematics (e.g. Bayes' theorem, the axiom of choice), and recall that consensus on something as 'squishy' and apparently difficult to investigate as anthropogenic climate change is at 97%! The evidence in favour of claims being made in this field is really compelling. Also, if the politicisation and importance of climate change has caused inaccuracies in the science, why doesn't that happen in other fields? Why aren't we seeing a mass, overstated consensus in things like cancer or obesity research? Finally, when such a strong consensus exists how can you tell if it's because the facts support it or because it's a politicised topic? Evolution also has a strong consensus and is highly politicised but I don't think many people here would argue the consensus is due to anything other than facts. Why is climate research different? TACD fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
TACD posted:Ars actually wrote an interesting piece a month ago detailing what goes on behind the scenes of climate modelling. Well I'm glad you know all scientists. You could just as easily say they will all barricade the doors and refuse to accept Star Wars I-III as canon because they don't like what it said about "their" universe. I would imagine there is internal politics, laziness, funding concerns and all the other bullshit everyone else deals with in the world of science as much as anywhere else. The 97% consensus is really dodgy, and in my opinion was a bit of PR politicing that went wrong. And the reason it doesn't happen in other fields is 1. because nothing is as politicised as climate science and 2. You can do evolution in a lab, it's observable, re creatable and predictable. and not reliant on models that all seem to come out with the same results regardless of what gets put in. edit: This just popped up in my rss feed which is sort of relevant to the infallibilty of scientific method http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4798840/fake-research-paper-exposes-poor-standards-open-access-journals
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Well I'm glad you know all scientists. You could just as easily say they will all barricade the doors and refuse to accept Star Wars I-III as canon because they don't like what it said about "their" universe. I would imagine there is internal politics, laziness, funding concerns and all the other bullshit everyone else deals with in the world of science as much as anywhere else. Illuminti posted:The 97% consensus is really dodgy, and in my opinion was a bit of PR politicing that went wrong. Illuminti posted:And the reason it doesn't happen in other fields is 1. because nothing is as politicised as climate science and 2. You can do evolution in a lab, it's observable, re creatable and predictable. and not reliant on models that all seem to come out with the same results regardless of what gets put in. If I've misunderstood you and you meant that models all come out with broadly (rather than precisely) the same results then yes, I share your anger and upset at the fact that given the evidence the unavoidable conclusion is that catastrophic climate change is happening. Illuminti posted:edit:
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
TACD posted:Ars actually wrote an interesting piece a month ago detailing what goes on behind the scenes of climate modelling. This didn't address my question. What would need to happen with global mean temperature or any other data in order for climate scientists to decide they are wrong? Or do they get to continue assuming they are right independent of what actually happens with the climate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:This didn't address my question. What would need to happen with global mean temperature or any other data in order for climate scientists to decide they are wrong? Or do they get to continue assuming they are right independent of what actually happens with the climate? What would have to happen is the ice sheet would have to start expanding, the ocean would have to start alkalinization, the ocean would have to become colder, and surface temperature would have to stay the same or decrease. An explanation about why we haven't seen as much surface heating as predicted: http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620 The El Ninos are coming and when they do it'll be bad. Tanreall fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
TACD posted:And climate models simply don't all come out with the same results at all - the chart I posted earlier shows a variety of results from different models. I mentioned it before, but I still don't really get how that happens, the inclusion of models that we already know have been wrong for decades. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
TACD posted:Your opinion is absolutely worthless. I'm not being insulting, I'm being technically accurate. My opinion is worthless too; we're fortunate to have developed the scientific method to rigorously analyse claims and find out the facts irrespective of personal opinions. Well it's my opinion that regarding the 97% consensus, the scientific method wasn't correctly used and was twisted to make a result it couldn't back up. Would you rather I said "It's my contention..." The whole point i was making is that the scientific method is probably only "infallible" over the long term. If you follow the scientific method so much you must realise that especially with something as complex as climate our current understanding of it is likely to be very incomplete. TACD posted:Your first point is inviting a follow-up question as to what level of politicisation is necessary before systemic exaggeration (or fraud, if that's what you're claiming) spontaneously emerges. Your second point I just don't think is valid; evolution and climate science can both be done in the lab (e.g. fruit flies vs climate models) but are both observed occurring macroscopically on the planet around us. And climate models simply don't all come out with the same results at all - the chart I posted earlier shows a variety of results from different models. There's not a linear graph for politicisation, I'm sure it depends on a number of factors and you can probably only start to recognise it after it is well underway. Again the issue isn't about climate change. Yes you can observe the climate changing, the question is whether it will be catastrophic and how much human activity drives it. I don't think you can really compare actually watching evolution happen in a lab and then seeing evolution working macroscopically in the real world with making computer models in a lab and then seeing them all fail to accurately predict a 17 year pause in warming. To me that says they are missing some major information. If deep seas warming is the missing data then it just goes to show that all the models we've had in the past haven't been fit for purpose. And maybe I'm reading it wrong but does that sea extent graph basically show that the IPCC models have never matched observations from the very beginning? I don't really get how this can be the case but it's hardly confidence inspiring Edit: I found this which tallys very nicely with my views. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-lukewarming-need-not-be-catastrophic.aspx Of course I shall expect the usual cries of "Denier" "we've been through all this" "If you can't be bothered to read through scientific papers and produce a peer reviewed response your know nothing and can contribute nothing" etc etc But some key points from that piece with regards to AR5 1.They now admit there has been at least a 15-year standstill in temperatures, which they did not predict and cannot explain, something sceptics were denounced for claiming only two years ago. They concede, through gritted teeth, that over three decades, warming has been much slower than predicted. 2.They concede that sea level is rising at about one foot a century and showing no sign of acceleration. 3.They admit there has been no measurable change in the frequency or severity of droughts, floods and storms. 4.They are no longer predicting millions of climate refugees in the near future. They have had to give up on malaria getting worse, Antarctic ice caps collapsing, or a big methane burp from the Arctic. Talk of tipping points is gone. Illuminti fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
There's a link at the bottom of the image, here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/arctic-sea-ice-volume-piomas-prediction-and-the-perils-of-extrapolation/?wpmp_tp=3 quote:Global climate model projections (in CMIP3 at least) appear to underestimate sea ice extent losses with respect to observations, though this is not universally true for all models and some of them actually have ensemble spreads that are compatible with PIOMAS ice volume estimates and satellite observations of sea ice extent. With error bars provided, we can use the PIOMAS ice volume time series as a proxy record for reality and compare it against sea-ice simulations in global climate models. This provides another tool in addition to more directly observed properties for the improvement and evaluation of these models and is in our view the best use of PIOMAS in the context of predicting the long-term trajectory of sea ice. PIOMAS (the orange line) is another model that doesn't have an atmospheric component, it's run in a different way and relies on assimilating observational data. Observations are scattered and don't always measure ice thickness (which is what PIOMAS is modelling), which is why the orange line is separated even though they state some full climate models match well with the actual observations. They're doing two different things in different ways, and as they say in the article PIOMAS is probably best used to help refine those full models. It's not a long-term replacement for them, because it doesn't model atmospheric forcings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:But some key points from that piece with regards to AR5
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Let me ask you a question, which you and other "lukewarmists" should be able to answer. Where do you think the temperature will be in 2100? Considering the main message of this thread is that the environment is dependent on human activity, you might reflect that 87 years ago we didn't have transistors, integrated ciruits, jets, spaceflight, nuclear power or genetic engineering. So what value can any prediction of the climate nine decades into the future have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Considering the main message of this thread is that the environment is dependent on human activity, you might reflect that 87 years ago we didn't have transistors, integrated ciruits, jets, spaceflight, nuclear power or genetic engineering. So what value can any prediction of the climate nine decades into the future have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Considering the main message of this thread is that the environment is dependent on human activity, you might reflect that 87 years ago we didn't have transistors, integrated ciruits, jets, spaceflight, nuclear power or genetic engineering. So what value can any prediction of the climate nine decades into the future have? edit: vv ohohoho! Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Let me ask you a question, which you and other "lukewarmists" should be able to answer. Where do you think the temperature will be in 2100? Lukewarm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:This didn't address my question. What would need to happen with global mean temperature or any other data in order for climate scientists to decide they are wrong? Or do they get to continue assuming they are right independent of what actually happens with the climate? Unless you're asking what it would take for climate scientists to decide the entire broad outline of all climate predictions are wrong. Which is like asking 'what would need to happen for evolutionary biologists to decide they are wrong?' What would need to happen for you to decide they are correct?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Considering the main message of this thread is that the environment is dependent on human activity, you might reflect that 87 years ago we didn't have transistors, integrated ciruits, jets, spaceflight, nuclear power or genetic engineering. So what value can any prediction of the climate nine decades into the future have? Right, because projecting cultural advances on a human-lifespan timescale is exactly the same thing as predicting the thermodynamic behavior of a planetary fluid-chaotic system on significantly longer timescales. I think you proved something with that post, but it wasn't what you were trying to prove.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/global-lukewarming-need-not-be-catastrophic.aspx A zoologist posted:Of course, the IPCC’s conversion to lukewarming is not the way it will be spun, lest it derail the gravy train that keeps so many activists in well-paid jobs, scientists in amply funded labs and renewable investors in subsidised profits.  I wonder how long it will take for lukewarmism to become the new climate scepticism. We'll get to have all the same arguments, except this time we'll be arguing against "That poo poo won't matter" instead of "That poo poo doesn't exist"!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Asking "what do you think the temperature will be in 2100?" is a trick I learned from a comments section somewhere. It requires a pretty quick answer. The follow up is equally revealing: "how do you come to that conclusion?" There are only a few answers to the question, and if any of them don't rely on science, then the guy is being a conspiracy theorist. That's how it always ends. I'm not saying that legit scientists don't have their doubts about things - an equal amount express fears outside print that it's WORSE - but if the "lukewarmist" or "skeptic" don't immediately come back with "here's a model that shows all of the current climate forces that says we'll be within tolerances in 2100", why the hell are we listening?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:if the "lukewarmist" or "skeptic" don't immediately come back with "here's a model that shows all of the current climate forces that says we'll be within tolerances in 2100", why the hell are we listening? That's not a reasonable position to take on any dataset. A peer reviewer need not present an alternative model to shoot down a paper presenting one with problems, it's setting the bar way too high to ask a layperson to do so in order merely to have their views considered. I'd agree that they should actually address specific evidence in their criticisms of existing models, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
I'm going to post this again, since I think it's relevant: Source Here, we can see IPCC models compared to denier models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I'm going to post this again, since I think it's relevant:
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I'm going to post this again, since I think it's relevant: The "myth" presented at that page is the reality according to this recent paper from Nature Climate Change. quote:Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 07:28
|
|