Who will pay for Climate Change?

[BlueWolf47]

Hmm. Where was man during those past climate changes? Certainly they weren't pumping out CO2 from Escalades at such an alarming rate. So how can this be? How could the climate have change back then.

30 years ofclimate science? ROFL. Millions of years of climate and 30 years has gotta be scientific proof.

Your conclusions aren't scientific. They may be based on some science but the science isn't telling you what you say it is. You've made a pretty common blunder in thinking that a correlation is proof.

Sorry, i should have stated over 180 years of atmospheric science. The green house effect was first proposed in 1824 by Joseph Fourier. While obviously correlation does not mean causation. However, there are many scientific theories that dont have definitive proof, but they are acepted because they have real world applications and it allows scientists to proceed further and ask more questions. Since we cannot time travel, we rely on correlations and past geological and ice core records to scrutinize the hypothesis. When we continually fail to find the original hypothesis false, we accept the original under certain conditions.

You simply can't attack the hypothesis without providing data that discounts it or the models the hypothesis relies on. Not once have you provided a model for your theories or provided data to support your claims. For some reason, your conjectures carry more weight then thousands of scientific studies.

 

[Paul98]

Sorry, i should have stated over 180 years of atmospheric science. The green house effect was first proposed in 1824 by Joseph Fourier. While obviously correlation does not mean causation. However, there are many scientific theories that dont have definitive proof, but they are acepted because they have real world applications and it allows scientists to proceed further and ask more questions. Since we cannot time travel, we rely on correlations and past geological and ice core records to scrutinize the hypothesis. When we continually fail to find the original hypothesis false, we accept the original under certain conditions.

You simply can't attack the hypothesis without providing data that discounts it or the models the hypothesis relies on. Not once have you provided a model for your theories or provided data to support your claims. For some reason, your conjectures carry more weight then thousands of scientific studies.

Don't bother, he has his belief it doesn't matter what is shown nothing will change his mind. This will have to come from within him and the actual search for what is real, but given his thought process and the responses given and total rejection of them. Along with these idiotic things like asking where was man when climate changed in the past, or CO2 only makes up a small part of the atmosphere so it doesn't matter. Or that because other things put co2 in the atmosphere that humans doing it is no different. These simply show a lack of logic or reason, he has his belief doesn't care if it makes sense or not. Then tries to give reasons but these aren't real, but something his mind is trying to use to support that unfounded belief.

It is quite interesting how the mind works, and how easy people can be fooled. This is the reason we need science, what we believe and think is real may be nothing like reality. What we find logical or not logical may very well be the opposite of reality. Science tries to get around this bias, so even if something doesn't make sense to you that doesn't matter.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You simply can't attack the hypothesis without providing data that discounts it or the models the hypothesis relies on. Not once have you provided a model for your theories or provided data to support your claims. For some reason, your conjectures carry more weight then thousands of scientific studies.

And what if the model predictions are consistently proven wrong by actual data? Wouldn't that significantly undermine the hypothesis?

 

[BlueWolf47]

And what if the model predictions are consistently proven wrong by actual data? Wouldn't that significantly undermine the hypothesis?

Sure, but that hasnt happened.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes it has...several times! I previously posted another graph but I can't find it...anyway, this one will do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Scientific_hypothesis_and_prediction

Scientific hypothesis and prediction

Established science makes useful predictions which are extremely reliable and accurate; for example, eclipses are routinely predicted.

New theories make predictions which allow them to be falsified if the predictions are not borne out in reality.

 

[xBiffx]

Sorry, i should have stated over 180 years of atmospheric science. The green house effect was first proposed in 1824 by Joseph Fourier. While obviously correlation does not mean causation. However, there are many scientific theories that dont have definitive proof, but they are acepted because they have real world applications and it allows scientists to proceed further and ask more questions. Since we cannot time travel, we rely on correlations and past geological and ice core records to scrutinize the hypothesis. When we continually fail to find the original hypothesis false, we accept the original under certain conditions.

At least you've admitted this is theory now. Its what I've been saying all along. None of this is proven, none of it is fact. I don't think we should be making policy based on theory. That's been my point the whole time. Thanks for finally conceding that.

 

[BlueWolf47]

At least you've admitted this is theory now. Its what I've been saying all along. None of this is proven, none of it is fact. I don't think we should be making policy based on theory. That's been my point the whole time. Thanks for finally conceding that.

All science is theory. You have successfully convinced everyone in this thread that your chemical engineering degree was complete bullshit. There is no way you would have made through a freshman chemistry course.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Yes it has...several times! I previously posted another graph but I can't find it...anyway, this one will do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Scientific_hypothesis_and_prediction

Apparently you dont see that observed temperatures fall within the lower limits of the projections. But atleast you have shown us that you have the inability to read or understand a graphical representation of predicted temperature trends nor understand model confidence intervals. Further you found a graph that misconstrued ipcc estimates and temperature change to decieve everyone in this thread. Theres a reason you won't find a graphical represenation like that in any research paper or from a source of scientific integrity. It's meant to attract fools that get excited when they see bright colors.

 

[SparkyJJO]

A carbon tax isn't the only solution it was merelyva suggestion. However, renewables have to be beter able to compete with oil and other carbon rich energy sources. Also, energy efficiency should be a goal in every industry and incentives would help move technology forward.

And when faced with reality it is the most useless and destructive suggestion if it was to be implemented. A carbon tax in this country would do NOTHING to change/reverse any climate change, while having the negative impacts of slowing the already crappy economy further or possibly even completely destroying it.

Zero positives, several and possibly severe negatives. Useless, except for those who would benefit from squeezing even more money from our pockets. And you know the ones who would hurt the most would be the lower and middle classes.

I'm all for taking care of the environment, as long as it is done in a reasonable manner. Throwing money at the government doesn't take care of the environment and is far from reasonable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Apparently you dont see that observed temperatures fall within the lower limits of the projections. But atleast you have shown us that you have the inability to read or understand a graphical representation of predicted temperature trends nor understand model confidence intervals. Further you found a graph that misconstrued ipcc estimates and temperature change to decieve everyone in this thread. Theres a reason you won't find a graphical represenation like that in any research paper or from a source of scientific integrity. It's meant to attract fools that get excited when they see bright colors.

IPCC predictions have been horrible which is more than a hint that their understanding of all the variables affecting global temperatures is less than robust. AR4 (2007) is their most recent prediction which benefits from 17 years of additional research from their initial horrible prediction in 1990 (AR1) which generated hysteria among those so inclined. As with all the previous IPCC temperature projection models, this most recent projection is also overstating temperatures and failing as well.

EDIT - Here's some more recent observed temperature data which shows increasing deviation from the AR4 projection.

 

[BlueWolf47]

And when faced with reality it is the most useless and destructive suggestion if it was to be implemented. A carbon tax in this country would do NOTHING to change/reverse any climate change, while having the negative impacts of slowing the already crappy economy further or possibly even completely destroying it.

Zero positives, several and possibly severe negatives. Useless, except for those who would benefit from squeezing even more money from our pockets. And you know the ones who would hurt the most would be the lower and middle classes.

I'm all for taking care of the environment, as long as it is done in a reasonable manner. Throwing money at the government doesn't take care of the environment and is far from reasonable.

Im sorry, I thought businesses make decisions based on costs and revenue. I guess a company would rather produce more carbon and pay a higher tax rather than make efficiency investments that would save money over the long term. Well i guess we will go with your idea and subsidize clean energy.

 

[monovillage]

As always this subject is dealt with at Dr. Judith Curry's blog. While most alarmists want the richer nations to pay for "global warming/climate change/weird weather, most reasonable people are waiting for concrete suggestions for solutions.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/07/conflicts-between-climate-and-energy-priorities/#more-12501

 

[SparkyJJO]

Im sorry, I thought businesses make decisions based on costs and revenue. I guess a company would rather produce more carbon and pay a higher tax rather than make efficiency investments that would save money over the long term. Well i guess we will go with your idea and subsidize clean energy.

You either didn't read my post at all, or are confused by it. I thought it was pretty clear but let me make it even more simple and to the point:

Carbon taxes in this country will do NOTHING to stop a global environmental issue. The only possible effect they could have is to harm our economy and put more economic strain particularly on the lower and middle class.

Clear enough?

And don't think some company will just pay more and not pass on the cost. That almost never happens.

Also, I never said to subsidize anything. That is NOT my idea. Stop putting words into my mouth

 

[BlueWolf47]

IPCC predictions have been horrible which is more than a hint that their understanding of all the variables affecting global temperatures is less than robust. AR4 (2007) is their most recent prediction which benefits from 17 years of additional research from their initial horrible prediction in 1990 (AR1) which generated hysteria among those so inclined. As with all the previous IPCC temperature projection models, this most recent projection is also overstating temperatures and failing as well.

Explain to me why the projection is so horrible? A failure to predict short term trends of two years are not a failure of the whole model. Effects such as el nina and el nino can have dramatic effects on short term temperature trends. Overall however the warming continues. Of course models have been somewhat overestimated but as we understamd more they will become more accurate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Explain to me why the projection is so horrible? A failure to predict short term trends of two years are not a failure of the whole model. Effects such as el nina and el nino can have dramatic effects on short term temperature trends. Overall however the warming continues. Of course models have been somewhat overestimated but as we understamd more they will become more accurate.

Why aren't you using the IPCC's most recent projection instead to make your point? If I had used the 1990 projection to make my point, you would have no doubt accused me of cherry-picking dated information. I question your intellectual honesty.

 

[xBiffx]

All science is theory. You have successfully convinced everyone in this thread that your chemical engineering degree was complete bullshit. There is no way you would have made through a freshman chemistry course.

You sir, are a jackass. Plenty of science is far from theory.

 

[BlueWolf47]

You sir, are a jackass. Plenty of science is far from theory.

I guess i was wrong, i clearly overestimated your parochial schooling. If you ever feel bored maybe try giving Scientific theory and scientific law a search. I would tell you to ask your parents but obviously the genetic dice weren't in their favor.

 

[Paul98]

At least you've admitted this is theory now. Its what I've been saying all along. None of this is proven, none of it is fact. I don't think we should be making policy based on theory. That's been my point the whole time. Thanks for finally conceding that.

Scientific theory, I am sorry you don't know what that word means. You might as well say science knows nothing. Nothing is ever "proven" in science, leave that for mathematics.

 

[monovillage]

Why aren't you using the IPCC's most recent projection instead to make your point? If I had used the 1990 projection to make my point, you would have no doubt accused me of cherry-picking dated information. I question your intellectual honesty.

In the posted graphs Cook and SkS used backcasting techniques to improve the accuracy of the predictions. It's a deliberate attempt to misinform and lie, which is something that SkS is renowned for.

 

[Atreus21]

 

[BlueWolf47]

Why aren't you using the IPCC's most recent projection instead to make your point? If I had used the 1990 projection to make my point, you would have no doubt accused me of cherry-picking dated information. I question your intellectual honesty.

You had already posted the ar4, why would i post it again?

 

[xBiffx]

Scientific theory, I am sorry you don't know what that word means. You might as well say science knows nothing. Nothing is ever "proven" in science, leave that for mathematics.

Guess when I throw that ball up in the air its not coming down unless math says so.

Join the other jackass.

 

[xBiffx]

Don't bother, he has his belief it doesn't matter what is shown nothing will change his mind. This will have to come from within him and the actual search for what is real, but given his thought process and the responses given and total rejection of them. Along with these idiotic things like asking where was man when climate changed in the past, or CO2 only makes up a small part of the atmosphere so it doesn't matter. Or that because other things put co2 in the atmosphere that humans doing it is no different. These simply show a lack of logic or reason, he has his belief doesn't care if it makes sense or not. Then tries to give reasons but these aren't real, but something his mind is trying to use to support that unfounded belief.

It is quite interesting how the mind works, and how easy people can be fooled. This is the reason we need science, what we believe and think is real may be nothing like reality. What we find logical or not logical may very well be the opposite of reality. Science tries to get around this bias, so even if something doesn't make sense to you that doesn't matter.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Guess when I throw that ball up in the air its not coming down unless math says so.

Join the other jackass.

Im not sure why you used chemical engineering as a fake occupation. I think you should have know that your inability to articulate a coherent argument was going to be a dead give away.

Beyond all the insults, please don't drop out of school and maybe you should consider seeing a psychologist to determine if you have a learning disorder. Their treatments may rely on scientific theory but they are often very successful.

 

[xBiffx]

Im not sure why you used chemical engineering as a fake occupation. I think you should have know that your inability to articulate a coherent argument was going to be a dead give away.

Beyond all the insults, please don't drop out of school and maybe you should consider seeing a psychologist to determine if you have a learning disorder. Their treatments may rely on scientific theory but they are often very successful.

Fake? And you claim I'm the one with all the insults.

Good to see you've got nothing left to argue.