Global warming

[rpg.314]

Also I'd blame floods on poor infrastructure rather than climate change.

SO if a lot of water was to rain down in a short period of time, it would be infrastructure's fault?

And if the administration does not "believe" in global warming, does not prepare for it accordingly, and gets slapped in the face by nature, it is still infrastructure's fault?

 

[rpg.314]

Making models fit data from 10 years ago is an entirely different thing than saying this and that will happen 50 years into the future, don't you agree?

If the models fit the data of 10 years ago, why would they not predict the weather, say 10 years from now?

 

[rpg.314]

My metric of comparison is the controversy around the subject.

How would you know about the controversy in other fields? From Fox? From xxx?

This results of this field of science have to be implemented by people who don't understand it in the slightest and are susceptible to political subversion. That's why there's controversy about it and not about, say the navier-stokes equations.

No field of science is as tarnished or as skeptically approached as climate science.

No other field of science has to convince psychopathic idiots like you to get people to accept their results. How many questions have you raised on thermodynamics, for instance? You don't understand that either.

Besides, the tobacco lobby is pretty skeptical about the relation between tobacco and life expectancy. By your standards, you should take their word for it too.

No other field has their "climategate" scandal.

Oh Honey....., all fields do. You are just too much of a ignorant git to realize that. Google cold fusion scandal of 1989.

And, no, there was no climategate. But don't let reality bother you.

No other field is getting grants off of scaremongering, they are like those idiots who say it's going to be rapture in 2010...2011...2012, etc.

This isn't scaremongering, this is reality. But pretending the end of the world in 2012 IS scarmongering, and no real scientist is doing that. But hey, facts are irrelevant when you have beliefs.

I'm ready to confront anyone telling me to lower my emissions, by force if necessary.

How I wish my country had a carbon tax and a matching one on imports. You see, there's no need for me to confront you to get you to lower your emissions.

 

[FUDie]

If the models fit the data of 10 years ago, why would they not predict the weather, say 10 years from now?

Past results are not indicitive of future performance. At least that's why my stock prospectuses say.

-FUDie

 

[rpg.314]

Past results are not indicitive of future performance. At least that's why my stock prospectuses say.

-FUDie

Which why stock prices and scientific models are very different.

For a start, the latter are not subject to rumors and the whims of human herd behavior.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc are good examples of more reputable and more respectable sciences compared to climate "science".

Lol, exactly what do you think climate science is made up of? Here's a revelation for you, there's a hell of a lot of maths, physics, biology and chemistry involved.

You keep banging on about uncertainties in climate science as defined by Nasa but on the very same page where they detail those uncertainties, they also make it quite plain that Global Warming is a fact and it's extremely likely to be being caused by humans.

This is coming from people who are far more knowledgable in those uncertainties than you will ever be and considerably more intelligent.

To deny their expert opinions (and those of the vast majority of the worlds scientific community) simply because "you don't want it to be true" makes you no better than creationists and similarly dellusional religious types. You'd be ammusing if you're views weren't so aggressively selfish.

 

[pjbliverpool]

US is full of people who have guns and we don't want Eurotrash who live in cramped apartments and drive tinny cars, if they drive at all, to tell us what to do. We live here because we want big homes and comfortable cars. I'd do anything in my power to prevent such legislation myself.
....
I'm ready to confront anyone telling me to lower my emissions, by force if necessary.

You are far beyond reason.

Here's something to keep you busy for a while. Sice you deny the existance of global warming, would you mind providing a more solid scientif explanation for all of the following?

http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html

 

[rpg.314]

You are far beyond reason.

Here's something to keep you busy for a while. Sice you deny the existance of global warming, would you mind providing a more solid scientif explanation for all of the following?

http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html

He's not a scientist, so don't ask him to think. He is incapable.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I don't trust climate science, don't trust Al Gore, don't trust the sharks that already tried to pass legislation for carbon credits for their own financial gain, etc. Climate change, regardless of the accuracy of the science behind it, is a political cause. If they win, their supporters will financially benefit, and vice versa.

Do you trust your own government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

In specific, the bush administration which I'm quite certain you were a big supporter of.

The scientists supporting human driven climate change (READ: the vast majority of scientists on the planet) have nothing to gain from its acceptance. Most stand to personally lose out due to the sacrafices everyone will have to make to instigate a change.

The organisations who oppose this field however have very clear and obvious financial and political motivations for doing so. Just as you do.

 

[corduroygt]

SO if a lot of water was to rain down in a short period of time, it would be infrastructure's fault?

And if the administration does not "believe" in global warming, does not prepare for it accordingly, and gets slapped in the face by nature, it is still infrastructure's fault?

You don't have to believe in AGW to believe that extreme weather events can occur. Floods and such happened throughout time and we also knew the earth's climate changed throughout time.

 

[rpg.314]

You don't have to believe in AGW to believe that extreme weather events can occur. Floods and such happened throughout time and we also knew the earth's climate changed throughout time.

Still not accepting reality, huh? :smile:

The point of that paper was that those extreme events were beyond the usual distribution of extreme events and the most likely reason for that aberration is AGW.

Earth's climate hasn't changed due to human activities in the past and hence due to the timescales of human activity, it is disastrous for EVERY living being.

 

[corduroygt]

You keep banging on about uncertainties in climate science as defined by Nasa but on the very same page where they detail those uncertainties, they also make it quite plain that Global Warming is a fact and it's extremely likely to be being caused by humans.

I never disputed that, looking at past data. What I dispute is the accuracy of their claims about the future and the chance of new feedback systems to be introduced as the CO2 concentration gets even higher than today. I suspect this due to their models being inaccurate and not taking into account many other variables, as NASA says on their website.

 

[corduroygt]

Still not accepting reality, huh? :smile:

The point of that paper was that those extreme events were beyond the usual distribution of extreme events and the most likely reason for that aberration is AGW.

Earth's climate hasn't changed due to human activities in the past and hence due to the timescales of human activity, it is disastrous for EVERY living being.

Since that study's in the past, of course I see that they were more extreme due to AGW. Still, since they lived in areas with flood risks, didn't they think there could be worse floods than what they had in the past and improve their infrastructure?

I really don't care about every living being on Earth, only the people of my country, and the US is going to be fine.

 

[corduroygt]

How I wish my country had a carbon tax and a matching one on imports.

That's all you're ever going to be able to do, wish. We're not going to get one.

 

[Squilliam]

Im convinced that you won't convince him and he won't convince you. Am I convincing?

Are you convinced?!

 

[Frank]

So you don't believe the models, or you don't believe the empirical data regarding glacial ice loss, temperature rising, sea levels rising, etc ?

Oh, I believe the empirical data, as long as they don't change it every time it doesn't fit their models. And weather isn't static: a change over a decade is still peanuts when we're talking climate. As of now, temperature still gradually increases very slowly from the last minor Ice Age.

There's also all the cycles to take into account, which don't run synchronous for everything either. And there's lag: each cycle will influence all the others over time. Feedback and all that.

Or, in other words: anything but a linear value for everything.

If your preconceptions don't fit the data, your preconceptions are wrong, - simple as that.

I agree. We'll see some decent averages in a century or so.

Bias.

No, it's only bias when you turn out to be wrong.

Cheers

Have fun!

 

[Frank]

Because cloud cover is a fast feedback, and so if it were a major problem, it would have made our models inaccurate before now.

Cloud cover is a fast feedback, yes, but the driving forces behind it aren't. There's lag and slow-running feedback loops as well as fast ones.

That whole thing was a manufactured controversy. There was no manufacturing of data.

Hm, Harry is lying as well, right? Did you even read his readme? You're a programmer, it would be easy to see it's no fake.

And that's disregarding all the other ones, amply posted in this thread.

Give it up, that tampering does happen, and pretty regularly as well. And while some of the data is made public, that's the "preprocessed" stuff.

Say what? The models replicate past warming very well, and the current level of warming also is a good match to models done previously.

It's always a lot easier to get the historical data right (especially if you "fix" that whenever needed), by tweaking the model and parameters until it does. But that says nothing about the predictional value of that model. Because you don't know if that model is right. I can make a function that describes a graph, but that doesn't say that the processes that resulted in that graph use the same one.

That's incorrect. The models batted about in the 80's have been revised down, because at the time, the carbon forcing was thought to be higher. When those models are corrected for the forcing level, they very accurately match our current behavior. The models in the 2000's, however, have underestimated the effects of warming since then.

Or, in other words: the models are incorrect.

So, you don't trust them because they learn new things? Classy. The overall conclusions of climate science have not changed in over 20 years. So why the fuck don't you trust the overall conclusions, as they have remained solid despite learning much more about the details?

So, first you say that we should trust them because they change and adapt, and then you say that we should trust them because they don't? Eh? It's all in the details? But even you agree that the current models don't get those details right in the first place!

 

[Frank]

Indeed it was. I saw an interview with one of the key journalists who "broke" the story and who has been a major driving force behind the "scandal" since.

The idiot had almost no understanding whatsoever of the science behind the supposed misleading presentation or of how or why the data was structured the way it was. He simply saw an eamail from one of the scientists that he interpreted (with no scientific grounding) to mean they falsified the data. He then presented that to the media - who have similarly no understanding and it snowballed from there.

The truth is that the change applied to the presenation was made at the request of those it was being created for and although the scientists email referred to it as a "trick" or somthing similar, its was actually a perfectally scientifically consistent change to make and multiple independant reviews have since found that to be true.

It just goes to show what ignorance combined with bias can do in the wrong hands.

Read Harry's readme. It clearly shows, that he was tasked with recreating the preprocessing of the data needed to show a clear hockey stick, and that he had major problems doing so.

Simply graphing the data as good as possible was never on the agenda or in the project description.

 

[Frank]

You said climate science has very high uncertainty and doubt compared to other sciences. Which sciences are you comparing it against? What is your metric of comparison?

Most sciences that have "science" as part of their name aren't very exact.

 

[Frank]

From Ars: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/screensaver-blames-floods-on-climate-change.ars

Interesting?

Very. Especially because they used many different models over a timespan of a single year. That disregards just about all the lag in the system.