So about that climate "Pause"......

[Paul98]

I will be waiting to hear about how much cooler the year after el nino is, and how it proves global warming is false.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I will be waiting to hear about how much cooler the year after el nino is, and how it proves global warming is false.

Who in here is arguing that global warming is false? Nobody, afaik.

The real argument is between those who believe that man is completely responsible for the current climate change, and those who believe that a percentage of that change may be due to natural factors, along with a contribution from man.

Tell me. Of those two, which argument seems more reasonable?

 

[Joepublic2]

I think it's real and bad fwiw but I also think it would take a huge global political effort to actually do anything about total output and that's not going to happen because coal/oil is too cheap compared to other energy sources. For every ton of coal we don't burn china/india will burn 3 and you can't really blame them because cheap energy is the fastest way to raise their people's standard of living. :/

 

[Jaskalas]

Who in here is arguing that global warming is false? Nobody, afaik.

The real argument is between those who believe that man is completely responsible for the current climate change, and those who believe that a percentage of that change may be due to natural factors, along with a contribution from man.

Tell me. Of those two, which argument seems more reasonable?

Paratus makes a very strong argument, based on energy balance, and observed Watt/m^2. Attribution for each forcing may not be a perfect or complete picture, but there's no counter argument that is coming close to explaining the very obvious trend in GISS.

Now if you had a scientific dismantling of GISS then maybe we could talk - but if that record is allowed to stand uncontested... then what else are we to do?

It is not reasonable to argue that it does not add up.

 

[Paratus]

Your own education and career is in the field of thermodynamics, yes? While that has applications in climatology, it's only a piece of it. So please stop acting as if you hold all of the answers. I have provided you answers from the IPCC and other reputable sources they are not mine. Do you have any training or experience in climatology, or even meteorology? Thermo in college and electrical power systems (solar) and thermal control systems spacecraft operations.

The simple fact is that actual climatologists have not been able to develop a climate model that accurately reflects current reality and which provides accurate predictions. In fact, it's not even close. I'm sure you are well aware of this yet you counter with a link and an arrogant attitude? I've provided you specific predictions from the IPCC that were proven by observations. Why do you discount them?

If these awesome models exist feel free to provide a link. Until then, take your wool and pull it over someone else's eyes.Asked for and already provided

My job required accurate models of the suns output so we could perform energy balance analysis. It also required thermal analysis of low earth orbit including solar output and thermal radiation from the earth. We would then make ops decisions based on these analyses which sometimes had significant unknowns.

To put it succinctly I made crew safety and mission success decisions based on data trends and somewhat uncertain analyses predictions that include much of the same physics as climate science.

So when I started arguing with you yahoos on this subject and looked into climate change I had the background to see if the science was bullshit or the proposed solutions were bullshit. I found they were not

I'm not the only one here who has some background. Subyman actually did climate modeling in college if I'm not mistaken. If you won't listen to me listen to him.

Lastly, did you even look at the charts I provided or read the ACS Climate Toolbox link? If you're simply going to ignore any facts I provide then the arrogance here is yours and the only wool is the piece you choose to keep over your eyes.

 

[Paratus]

Who in here is arguing that global warming is false? Nobody, afaik.

The real argument is between those who believe that man is completely responsible for the current climate change, and those who believe that a percentage of that change may be due to natural factors, along with a contribution from man.

Tell me. Of those two, which argument seems more reasonable?

The one supported by facts obviously.

 

[Paratus]

I will be waiting to hear about how much cooler the year after el nino is, and how it proves global warming is false.

You know it's coming. :\

 

[OverVolt]

Meh, fundamentally I think there are problems with climate science. The atmosphere is really the end product of other processes on earth. You guys take that for granted and treat it like a greenhouse. Or like a container of air in a lab. That is not the case.

Every little shift then has amplified effects. Its a large system to try and model. You have to work in the possibility of volcanoes. The volcano scientists can't really nail down volcanoes.

I don't really care what you guys model, honestly. The background noise you get, mixed in with trends nobody understands, you guys can study them all you want, I don't care. What bugs me is when you take a half proven model and try and start convincing the whole world they need to change their way of life. You had better be pretty certain. I'm just not seeing it.

I'd have bet on the LHC finding the higgs boson at the proposed energies because all the other models predictions were true. I wouldn't even bet a penny at 10,000 to one on climate science, because the models aren't accurately predicting anything other than generalized warming, which nobody fully understands except in a general sense. Everything is just attributed generically to the idea of global warming.

In reality its CO2 ppm, GISS back to 1880 (And weather stations are contaminated by development/asphault IMO), and the Satellites since the 70's. Then some Buoy data that also doesn't go that far back. In the grand scheme... its really not that much as far as the foundation of the theory. But go ahead and run models, I don't care. Maybe in 50 years when we've been studying it for longer the trends will be more obvious. The alarmism has no foundation. Even if the alarmism is true (which I don't think it is), there isn't even a reliable metric that clearly demonstrates that we need to burn XYZ less fossil fuel, or if burning less fuel is even the solution if we start really caring about geoengineering the climate.

But the science is settled right. Guess you guys can go home, nothing else left to study.

 

[DrPizza]

...

Every little shift then has amplified effects. Its a large system to try and model. You have to work in the possibility of volcanoes. The volcano scientists can't really nail down volcanoes.

I don't really care what you guys model, honestly. The background noise you get, mixed in with trends nobody understands, you guys can study them all you want, I don't care. What bugs me is when you take a half proven model and try and start convincing the whole world they need to change their way of life. You had better be pretty certain. I'm just not seeing it.

I wonder at what point the world should be persuaded to change their way of life. What is "pretty certain?" I mean, if someone told you that they're 20% certain that a particular habit of yours may give you cancer, are you going to be unconvinced until it's 90%? 95%? 99.9999% The "background noise" is why those graphs aren't nice smooth curves. It doesn't mean that long term trends cannot be determined.

 

[piasabird]

I use lp gas or propane or whatever to cook and heat my house. A lot depends on your region. We have gas lines to the house where I live. I figure when prices go up people will consider changes.

 

[dphantom]

I wonder at what point the world should be persuaded to change their way of life.

That's a good question. Energy density = wealth. Wealth allows us to make more efficient use of resources. Wealth allows us to substitute inefficient production with more efficient. Does "change their way of life" embrace that or does it mean to give up the use of energy to some yet to be determined lower level?

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder at what point the world should be persuaded to change their way of life. What is "pretty certain?" I mean, if someone told you that they're 20% certain that a particular habit of yours may give you cancer, are you going to be unconvinced until it's 90%? 95%? 99.9999% The "background noise" is why those graphs aren't nice smooth curves. It doesn't mean that long term trends cannot be determined.

I think Upton Sinclair said it well:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

There's a strong bias for people to not accept science when the implications of that science might impose costs on them.

 

[QuantumPion]

The Economic Argument
​

​

Add to list: Global Warming | Real Estate/Agriculture Land | (no check)

 

[Paratus]

That's a good question. Energy density = wealth. Wealth allows us to make more efficient use of resources. Wealth allows us to substitute inefficient production with more efficient. Does "change their way of life" embrace that or does it mean to give up the use of energy to some yet to be determined lower level?

Moving on from coal and other fossil fuels is only doable if the replacements can still maintain or improve our standards of living. Ideally they would allows us to improve third world countries as well.

Asking the first world to live like the third world is a non-starter for political, humanitarian and a wide range of reasons.

 

[dphantom]

I think Upton Sinclair said it well:



There's a strong bias for people to not accept science when the implications of that science might impose costs on them.

Well said. Now if we can just get the rest of the believers to look at science in a dispassionate way we might get somewhere. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Well said. Now if we can just get the rest of the believers to look at science in a dispassionate way we might get somewhere. :thumbsup:

I agree, looking at the science dispassionately and objectively is the most important thing.

Looking at the science that way leads to the inescapable conclusion that humans are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the increase in global temperatures over the last 70 years or so. Logic demands we accept this and act.

Even though Paratus has dropped science bomb after science bomb on you guys, taking his word for it is entirely unnecessary. All he's really doing is providing the evidence that is already there in abundance from thousands of experts all over the globe.

 

[dainthomas]

I think Upton Sinclair said it well:



There's a strong bias for people to not accept science when the implications of that science might impose costs on them.

I think it depends on the costs. Would I pay a dollar a year to stop global warming? Sure. A hundred? I guess. A thousand? Ten thousand? Ummm....

Rapidly escalating costs would be easier to stomach if they can show any kind of results.

 

[thraashman]

The real argument is between those who believe that man is completely responsible for the current climate change, and those who believe that a percentage of that change may be due to natural factors, along with a contribution from man.

I've never seen this as the argument anywhere. The argument is usually between the left who says that climate change is occurring and to a degree caused or contributed to by man. The amount of which man contributes varies widely by opinion. And then the right which usually has one of 3 positions. First, that global warming is occurring but man is not a factor. Second, that global warming is occurring and man may be a factor but let's not do anything because it'll cost too much. And third, that global warming is not occurring. Best example of the third one is James Inhofe who felt that bringing a snow ball to the floor of the Senate from outside in D.C. in March proved global warming was false.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm often called a denier and don't fit any of those categories you have for the Right.

 

[Cozarkian]

I've never seen this as the argument anywhere. The argument is usually between the left who says that climate change is occurring and to a degree caused or contributed to by man. The amount of which man contributes varies widely by opinion. And then the right which usually has one of 3 positions. First, that global warming is occurring but man is not a factor. Second, that global warming is occurring and man may be a factor but let's not do anything because it'll cost too much. And third, that global warming is not occurring. Best example of the third one is James Inhofe who felt that bringing a snow ball to the floor of the Senate from outside in D.C. in March proved global warming was false.

Then you haven't ever taken a serious look at the other side. For an example, follow the link in the OP and read the GW 101 article.

 

[dphantom]

I've never seen this as the argument anywhere. The argument is usually between the left who says that climate change is occurring and to a degree caused or contributed to by man. The amount of which man contributes varies widely by opinion. And then the right which usually has one of 3 positions. First, that global warming is occurring but man is not a factor. Second, that global warming is occurring and man may be a factor but let's not do anything because it'll cost too much. And third, that global warming is not occurring. Best example of the third one is James Inhofe who felt that bringing a snow ball to the floor of the Senate from outside in D.C. in March proved global warming was false.

based on your description, I fall into the "Left" category. Glad to have you on board.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

based on your description, I fall into the "Left" category. Glad to have you on board.

Same here. There must be some kind of mistake! lol

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The one supported by facts obviously.

And which one is that?

It's certainly not the CO2 is the sole cause argument because, again, the models fail. And please don't play coy with your "what models" BS. You have posted the CMIP models in here many times yourself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

So when I started arguing with you yahoos on this subject ...

Douche.

 

[Paratus]

And which one is that?

It's certainly not the CO2 is the sole cause argument because, again, the models fail. And please don't play coy with your "what models" BS. You have posted the CMIP models in here many times yourself.

It certainly isn't the sole cause of the greenhouse effect. The graphic I posted of the forcings showed that it isn't.

In addition to CO2 there's methane, water vapor, ozone and others. In fact without them the Earth's average temperature would be below freezing. But the warming since the 1950's or so has been primarily due to the addition of our greenhouse gases.

Even you have to admit that simply comparing the data and links I've provided against the ones you have undeniably shows the last 70 years of warming is ours and the predictions have been scientifically accurate.