The Climate thread

[MissingInAction 24765]

I wonder which wing nut blog Texashammer is copying and pasting that horseshit from. 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

42 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I wonder which wing nut blog Texashammer is copying and pasting that horseshit from. 

He did become quite the "scientist" all of a sudden.

[MissingInAction 24765]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He did become quite the "scientist" all of a sudden.

It's got dem big wurds ya hear dem libturds sayin all da time so gotta be science ya ignoant fewl!

[Nivek 16808]

19 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

The only way to prove the AGW hypothesis is with evidence that exogenous CO2 leads to temperature increases, but we have plenty of example where that exact phenomenon doesn't change the temperature at all. The R^2 for CO2 is near zero. Restating something everyone already accepts does not make the R^2 0.93.

Go to the master circuit at your house and flip it to the off position. Then take your car keys and throw them in the garbage. Don't worry, you won't have a job anymore anyway. 

The AGW hypothesis can only be proven one way, and it's not with an onslaught of liberal guilt.

I think the last 2 sections of your comment really speak to your bias and difficulty in the acceptance of facts.  Science doesn't give a fuck about your politics or your feelings.  Science doesn't give a shit about jobs, economies, or religion.   Short term thinking created this problem and the deniers are simply victims of a smear campaign similar in nature to the tobacco/lung cancer discussion at best, or they are part of the smear campaign.   

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I think the last 2 sections of your comment really speak to your bias and difficulty in the acceptance of facts.  Science doesn't give a fuck about your politics or your feelings.  Science doesn't give a shit about jobs, economies, or religion.   Short term thinking created this problem and the deniers are simply victims of a smear campaign similar in nature to the tobacco/lung cancer discussion at best, or they are part of the smear campaign.   

 

I was discussing the policy implications. Not the science. Policy matters. The British passed a law declaring they will be carbon neutral in 2050. Ireland is about to pass a law banning the sale of internal combustion engines. A proper policy response requires a war with China and possibly India, do you not recognize that?

I don't understand, if the science is so strong, why are the "scientists" wrong so often? The polar bears aren't dying. Snow isn't a thing of the past. The polar ice cap didn't melt. There was no increase is storms. Droughts are not more common. The hockey stick is wrong. There was no increase in sea level rise. Ice ages, running out of oil, famine, population explosion, it's an industry. 

Seriously, tell me why they're always wrong. 

At some point you realize they have been lying all along. It's an industry. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[henrygandorf 29174]

10 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

There was no increase is storms.

 

11 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Seriously, tell me why they're always wrong. 

yeah, somebody's definitely wrong.

[Bateshorn 9882]

On 1/7/2020 at 11:25 PM, Thetexashammer said:

Show me where CO2 drives temperature.

What’s up, yo?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

32 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

What’s up, yo?

This guy was much better looking, he looks more like me.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

God damn I love this thread. 

[Bateshorn 9882]

Since we are posting pics.  Mine’s Svante Arrhenius.  But I can also post a drawing of Joseph Fourier or John Tyndall is your like. 
 

my point is that the idea that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere is not only been well established for over a century, it’s the reason this plant is habitable. The GHG effect and radiative forcing are so well established by physical chemistry that it’s basically an entire branch of atmospheric chemistry.  
 

if you don’t believe that,  then you don’t believe t he physical chemistry behind heat seeking missiles. It’s the same basic science. So either the science community is right, or Raytheon is literally using magic to defend our country.

Outside of weirdos like you,  these atmospheric dynamics are used by corporations, governments, and scientists for a multitude of reasons.  From agriculture, satellites, defense, insurance, travel, etc.  

I’m sure you’ll cite some obscure scientist who called this all bullshit.  Maybe you’ll retort with a quote about thinking for yourself from a retired physicist who hasn’t actually worked in this field and doesn’t know shit about atmospheric dynamics.  Or maybe a crudely illustrated chart with a x and y axis that is completely out of relevant context.  Or you could go for a Roy Spencer or Judith Curry lukewarmist angle.  
 

it doesn’t matter.  You are wrong.  And you’ll always be wrong.  And no amount of arguing by you will ever change that. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Bateshorn

[GSU&UT 1798]

11 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

God damn I love this thread. 

In 2020 people with degrees from the The University of Texas say humans don't contribute to global warming and that any research suggesting we do is funded by the government (?????) and Al Gore for their own personal monetary interests.

[Nivek 16808]

17 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

I was discussing the policy implications. Not the science. Policy matters. The British passed a law declaring they will be carbon neutral in 2050. Ireland is about to pass a law banning the sale of internal combustion engines. A proper policy response requires a war with China and possibly India, do you not recognize that?

I don't understand, if the science is so strong, why are the "scientists" wrong so often? The polar bears aren't dying. Snow isn't a thing of the past. The polar ice cap didn't melt. There was no increase is storms. Droughts are not more common. The hockey stick is wrong. There was no increase in sea level rise. Ice ages, running out of oil, famine, population explosion, it's an industry. 

Seriously, tell me why they're always wrong. 

At some point you realize they have been lying all along. It's an industry. 

Again you appear confused.  Science is not policy.  You making leaps about warfare as an approach to policy is quite a dramatic leap.  

Science is strong because it is flexible and allows for new information.  Your examples include media outlets, hyperbole, outright misinformation, and now you expect to see instantaneous results as if the sea change will be a tsunami?    Since the topics are too numerous you mentioned above to cover completely I will only address 2, Polar Bears and Oil. 

The Polar Bear video/National Geographic was a real image/video of a bear foraging.  The bear could have been old, sick, whatever.  To claim that an individual bear is suffering from climate change is a bit irresponsible, to remark that there are population changes associated with climate change is not if the evidence points in that direction.    The people who challenged National Geographic were not the Dan's (Crenshaw, Rather, Fielding) but rather the people whose profession is the science.  This is not a science issue, but a presentation and media issue.  NG is a lovely publication, they fucked up and were called on it by scientists.

Oil depletion is a misnomer because simply the public didn't understand or care to understand the nuance of the statement.  When this statement was made the first time, the statement was something like this "Given the current reserve and consumption we will run out of oil in 40 years."  Unfortunately, and not unpredictably people looked at that statement like this ""Given the current reserve and consumption we will run out of oil in 40 years."  Horizontal drilling,  new fields, steam/flood injections, shale plays, higher computing power, increased skill, etc. have changed the economics of fields or added previously uneconomic reserves plus additional reserves, and there are fields which exist but not viable at current market prices.   This isn't a difficult concept, but it requires a little knowledge on the subject matter and the statement.  It is also why no one in the industry really pays attention to it.  

Listen, I would never lecture you on the law (assuming that is you).  I can have opinions on how it should be, but I know I would be out of my realm in court.   The complexity of environmental sciences is real as there are positive and negative feedback systems, operating on different timelines,  changes in life, changes in plate positions, etc. to deconstruct.  This is not easy for a layperson to inject themselves into because they took a physics course in HS/College and claim it is all a government conspiracy (throw back to Harry Truman atop of Mt. St. Helens).  Just as the law does not really lend it self to a poly sci major waltzing in and having success.   I have a little knowledge on the subjects as a geoscientist who had taken coursework on paleontology, paleoclimatology, and stable isotope geochemistry, but this is by far only a rudimentary background at best.  

 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

11 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Again you appear confused.  Science is not policy.  You making leaps about warfare as an approach to policy is quite a dramatic leap.  

Science is strong because it is flexible and allows for new information.  Your examples include media outlets, hyperbole, outright misinformation, and now you expect to see instantaneous results as if the sea change will be a tsunami?    Since the topics are too numerous you mentioned above to cover completely I will only address 2, Polar Bears and Oil. 

The Polar Bear video/National Geographic was a real image/video of a bear foraging.  The bear could have been old, sick, whatever.  To claim that an individual bear is suffering from climate change is a bit irresponsible, to remark that there are population changes associated with climate change is not if the evidence points in that direction.    The people who challenged National Geographic were not the Dan's (Crenshaw, Rather, Fielding) but rather the people whose profession is the science.  This is not a science issue, but a presentation and media issue.  NG is a lovely publication, they fucked up and were called on it by scientists.

Oil depletion is a misnomer because simply the public didn't understand or care to understand the nuance of the statement.  When this statement was made the first time, the statement was something like this "Given the current reserve and consumption we will run out of oil in 40 years."  Unfortunately, and not unpredictably people looked at that statement like this ""Given the current reserve and consumption we will run out of oil in 40 years."  Horizontal drilling,  new fields, steam/flood injections, shale plays, higher computing power, increased skill, etc. have changed the economics of fields or added previously uneconomic reserves plus additional reserves, and there are fields which exist but not viable at current market prices.   This isn't a difficult concept, but it requires a little knowledge on the subject matter and the statement.  It is also why no one in the industry really pays attention to it.  

Listen, I would never lecture you on the law (assuming that is you).  I can have opinions on how it should be, but I know I would be out of my realm in court.   The complexity of environmental sciences is real as there are positive and negative feedback systems, operating on different timelines,  changes in life, changes in plate positions, etc. to deconstruct.  This is not easy for a layperson to inject themselves into because they took a physics course in HS/College and claim it is all a government conspiracy (throw back to Harry Truman atop of Mt. St. Helens).  Just as the law does not really lend it self to a poly sci major waltzing in and having success.   I have a little knowledge on the subjects as a geoscientist who had taken coursework on paleontology, paleoclimatology, and stable isotope geochemistry, but this is by far only a rudimentary background at best.  

 

You just wrote a lot of words for no reason, but good luck.

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

Bernie don’t care. Bought $5000!! In carbon tax credits

 

Sanders’ 2018 campaign committee issued an Oct. 10 payment of $297,685 to New York-based Apollo Jets, a charter jet company used by retired sports stars Derek Jeter and Shaquille O’Neal, according to federal campaign reports obtained by VTDigger.org, a watchdog news site in Vermont.

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” said Arianna Jones, senior communications adviser for Friends of Bernie Sanders…

The Sanders campaign purchased nearly $5,000 in carbon offsets to balance out the emissions produced from the travel. A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions to compensate for emissions elsewhere.
 

Greatest threat of our lives. Except for the Bern 

Air travel is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, with some estimations saying that the aviation industry accounts for about 11 percent of transportation-related emissions in the country. The environmental impact is greatly magnified in cases of private flights, which carry far fewer people per trip than commercial jets.

Sanders claims on his website that “climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet” and puts the blame chiefly on the growing rate of emissions being produced by the transportation sector.

“Global climate change is real, it is caused mainly by emissions released from burning fossil fuels and it poses a catastrophic threat to the long-term longevity of our planet,” he writes. “The transportation sector accounts for about 26 percent of carbon pollution emissions.”

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

How do you do a carbon offset?  Somehow there’s some pollution just waiting to happen until some money shows up to stop it?

and since when is even being carbon neutral acceptable?  I thought we need to lower emissions. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

So I did a little googling, mostly to try and understand the reality of the arson angle here. Seems like it’s not a big deal but is being made to be more than it is by certain elements. But, it seems that Bush fires in Australia are very common events. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/30682338

that it got so bad this year seems to be more bad luck than anything else, with the drought. I guess some people are happy to assign the drought to climate change, and climate change to coal fired power plants. 
it’s tough when every natural disaster gets assigned to climate change instead of sometimes bad things happen. 
Australia has lots of dry lightning storms that cause thousands of wild land fires. This year, a combination of drought conditions (which is fairly common in arid Australia) and location/frequency/density of the fires has caused more damage than average. 
is this different than New Yorkers claiming hurricanes aren’t supposed to hit them during and after Sandy, while the historical record says otherwise?

Edited January 11, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[bolverk 29360]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So I did a little googling, mostly to try and understand the reality of the arson angle here. Seems like it’s not a big deal but is being made to be more than it is by certain elements. But, it seems that Bush fires in Australia are very common events. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/30682338

that it got so bad this year seems to be more bad luck than anything else, with the drought. I guess some people are happy to assign the drought to climate change, and climate change to coal fired power plants. 
it’s tough when every natural disaster gets assigned to climate change instead of sometimes bad things happen. 
Australia has lots of dry lightning storms that cause thousands of wild land fires. This year, a combination of drought conditions (which is fairly common in arid Australia) and location/frequency/density of the fires has caused more damage than average. 
is this different than New Yorkers claiming hurricanes aren’t supposed to hit them during and after Sandy, while the historical record says otherwise?

No one is "happy" about assigning blame but these fires are unprecedented, and the country risks losing - or has already lost - a billion (with a b) animals.

[Disco Strangler 1865]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

No one is "happy" about assigning blame but these fires are unprecedented, and the country risks losing - or has already lost - a billion (with a b) animals.

Counterpoint: since it’s Australia, 500M of those animals were venomous man-killing freaks of evolution. Still, fuck all the climate change deniers and ass clowns who will remain skeptical - may their grandkids piss on their graves.  

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

On 1/11/2020 at 2:57 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

So I did a little googling, mostly to try and understand the reality of the arson angle here. Seems like it’s not a big deal but is being made to be more than it is by certain elements. But, it seems that Bush fires in Australia are very common events. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/30682338

that it got so bad this year seems to be more bad luck than anything else, with the drought. I guess some people are happy to assign the drought to climate change, and climate change to coal fired power plants. 
it’s tough when every natural disaster gets assigned to climate change instead of sometimes bad things happen. 
Australia has lots of dry lightning storms that cause thousands of wild land fires. This year, a combination of drought conditions (which is fairly common in arid Australia) and location/frequency/density of the fires has caused more damage than average. 
is this different than New Yorkers claiming hurricanes aren’t supposed to hit them during and after Sandy, while the historical record says otherwise?

 

I'm sure its just a coincidence that climate scientists predicted earlier, longer, and worse wild fire seasons.

[Cacti 191]

Australian wildfires perpetrators identified. The kikes kites did this!

Quote

In the first recorded instance of fire being used by animals other than humans, three Australian birds of prey species have been seen carrying burning twigs to set new blazes…Black kites (Milvus migrans), whistling kites (Haliastur sphenurus) and brown falcons (Falco berigora) all regularly congregate near the edges of bushfires, taking advantage of an exodus of small lizards, mammals, birds and insects – but it appears that some may have learnt not only to use fire to their advantage, but also to control it.

 

[elfenix 34168]

and i, for one, welcome our new bird overlords

[Parliament 14112]

8 hours ago, Cacti said:

Australian wildfires perpetrators identified. The kikes kites did this!

 

Clever girl...

[Thetexashammer 1062]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:42 AM, GSU&UT said:

In 2020 people with degrees from the The University of Texas say humans don't contribute to global warming and that any research suggesting we do is funded by the government (?????) and Al Gore for their own personal monetary interests.

Who are those people?

 

On 1/10/2020 at 5:32 AM, Bateshorn said:

Since we are posting pics.  Mine’s Svante Arrhenius.  But I can also post a drawing of Joseph Fourier or John Tyndall is your like. 
 

my point is that the idea that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere is not only been well established for over a century, it’s the reason this plant is habitable. The GHG effect and radiative forcing are so well established by physical chemistry that it’s basically an entire branch of atmospheric chemistry.  
 

if you don’t believe that,  then you don’t believe t he physical chemistry behind heat seeking missiles. It’s the same basic science. So either the science community is right, or Raytheon is literally using magic to defend our country.

Outside of weirdos like you,  these atmospheric dynamics are used by corporations, governments, and scientists for a multitude of reasons.  From agriculture, satellites, defense, insurance, travel, etc.  

I’m sure you’ll cite some obscure scientist who called this all bullshit.  Maybe you’ll retort with a quote about thinking for yourself from a retired physicist who hasn’t actually worked in this field and doesn’t know shit about atmospheric dynamics.  Or maybe a crudely illustrated chart with a x and y axis that is completely out of relevant context.  Or you could go for a Roy Spencer or Judith Curry lukewarmist angle.  
 

it doesn’t matter.  You are wrong.  And you’ll always be wrong.  And no amount of arguing by you will ever change that. 

You keep saying it's basic science. Basic science that is obvious and everyone agrees with. I am reposting a link to Wikipedia, which provides a different explanation for how the climate works. It is a complex system. 

If I had eons of data showing no correlation between CO2 and temperature, you're gonna need more that just "basic science". A tiny hint: it might involve an R^2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Basic science doesn't require computer models with terabytes of data.

Basic science is right every time. Your friends in the movement, as I've posted above, are wrong more ofthen than they are right. Because.........................wait for it................................they aren't doing science. I'll patiently await your explanation for all those unforced errors.

In the meantime, here's a piece from the far right BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Quote

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.

"I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it's me, maybe I didn't run my study well, maybe I'm not cut out to be a scientist."

The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo's science, but with the way the scientific literature had been "tidied up" to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

"What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened," he says.

"The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

"What I think of as high-risk, high-return results."

The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."

God forbid we understand that human nature plays a role in human decisions.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[Bookman 4610]

So your theory is climate models have no value unless they're 100% accurate?

[Bateshorn 9882]

I'd love to know why this is the wingnut conspiracy you've chosen to pursue.  Why not the Kennedy assassination? Fiat currency? Illuminati? Or Pizzagate, Qanon, etc?  Why this particular windmill?  

It's just weird.  You think you are making good points, but you aren't. It's basically a primer on logical fallacies.  Nobody on this site is buying what your selling.  I present you with 150 year old Nobel Laureate who literally wrote formula for calculating CO2 radiative forcing, you.........post an article about a psycologist having a crisis of confidence.

Basic science does require terabytes of data. The idea that oil is underground doesn't require a fucking genius to figure out, but that doesn't mean vast computer systems don't model drilling, production, etc.  Fuck, we lost the last website because Blacklab used some spare space on his O&G servers to host the Shag. 

We literally built a multi billion dollar collider in on the Swiss border to grasp the final elements of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, even if we've been using that model to understand the observable universe and atomic interactions for decades.

Weirdos gonna weird,  I guess.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Weirdos gonna weird,  I guess.

It is somewhat amusing watching him flail around like the T-1000 in the molten metal though.

[VRHorn 718]

21 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I'd love to know why this is the wingnut conspiracy you've chosen to pursue.  Why not the Kennedy assassination? Fiat currency? Illuminati? Or Pizzagate, Qanon, etc?  Why this particular windmill?  

There's a pretty big assumption buried in there...

[bolverk 29360]

In other Climate news:

BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, says that it will now make climate change central to its investment considerations. And not just for environmental reasons — but because it believes that climate change is reshaping the world's financial system.

That was the message in BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink's annual letter to CEOs published on Tuesday.

"The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance," he wrote, explaining that climate change is the top concern that investors raise with BlackRock. "In the near future — and sooner than most anticipate — there will be a significant reallocation of capital."

BlackRock manages approximately $7 trillion on behalf of investors. Its shift could signify a watershed moment for corporate action on climate, particularly among U.S. firms. BlackRock says it will require additional reporting from the companies it invests in, including disclosure of climate-related risks and plans for operating under the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Fink raised a number of financial risks presented by climate change:

"Will cities, for example, be able to afford their infrastructure needs as climate risk reshapes the market for municipal bonds? What will happen to the 30-year mortgage — a key building block of finance — if lenders can't estimate the impact of climate risk over such a long timeline, and if there is no viable market for flood or fire insurance in impacted areas? What happens to inflation, and in turn interest rates, if the cost of food climbs from drought and flooding? How can we model economic growth if emerging markets see their productivity decline due to extreme heat and other climate impacts?"

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796252481/worlds-largest-asset-manager-puts-climate-at-the-center-of-its-investment-strate

[JBJ 3647]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

So your theory is climate models have no value unless they're 100% accurate?

I think the question is how accurate should they be to have much value?  Focusing on the global temperature, do you think a variation of 0.02*C would be a good result for a decadal projection?  Needs to be better than that or is that too tight a window?

[Bookman 4610]

Value for what purpose? Newton’s model of gravity wasn’t perfect but it was good enough to get us to the moon.

[JBJ 3647]

For evaluation of the model itself.  What's the point at which we should say that a climate model is good?

Like if I'm evaulating a football model and it's projected final score for a game is within 7 points for each team I'd say that's pretty useful to look at for the next game. Even if it predicted the incorrect winner in this particular game.

[Bateshorn 9882]

The climate models are good.

If you need to know what the exact temp growth of your local community was down to the .10 of a centigrade in 10 years, then yes,  the climate community isn’t there.  But the predictions, by scientific standards are quite accurate.  We go about our lives taking medicine, investing money, accepting risks with far less accuracy and more standard deviation than what the climate community is generally held to.

 

ive just summoned Huckleberry, haven’t I?

Edited January 16, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

So surface temps have gone up 0.9 C over the past 50 years. 
they reference the Hansen model, and say it overestimated by 0.3 C. That’s a 33% error( much less if you say 21.3 predicted vs 21.0 actual or whatever the actual mean numbers are). 

then they go on to explain that the model wasn’t flawed, but one of the assumptive values was higher than realized due to some changes that occurred after the model was initiated, such as the elimination of Freon in 1989. 

which does explain the delta, but also shows the flaws in the model(s) that some of the variables are guesses, which everyone knew or should have known from the beginning. 
 

saying the models are proven accurate after the assumptions are replaced by real data isn’t the greatest help. 
 

so, let’s keep working to be better, without doing stupid draconian things, and everything should be ok. Yes?

[Bateshorn 9882]

9 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So surface temps have gone up 0.9 C over the past 50 years. 
they reference the Hansen model, and say it overestimated by 0.3 C. That’s a 33% error( much less if you say 21.3 predicted vs 21.0 actual or whatever the actual mean numbers are). 

then they go on to explain that the model wasn’t flawed, but one of the assumptive values was higher than realized due to some changes that occurred after the model was initiated, such as the elimination of Freon in 1989. 

which does explain the delta, but also shows the flaws in the model(s) that some of the variables are guesses, which everyone knew or should have known from the beginning. 
 

saying the models are proven accurate after the assumptions are replaced by real data isn’t the greatest help. 
 

so, let’s keep working to be better, without doing stupid draconian things, and everything should be ok. Yes?

This is literally the dumbest non Texashammer argument I’ve seen on this thread.  The link I left isn’t corrected models.  It’s the models from 40 years ago which have more or less been dead on in trend lines when compared to actual temperature data.  This isn’t about a minuscule difference in a model from 30 years ago due to an unknown data point or erroneous but understandable constant at the time.

its about the trendline.  And the trendline is hurtling towards a place where most of the plant and animal life in this planet has never been before. And human society has developed in ways that it is completely unprepared to adapt in.  Moreover, fools like you keep saying “well, you didn’t have it exactly, precisely right, so who can say what will happen?” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bookman 4610]

34 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Moreover, fools like you keep saying “well, you didn’t have it exactly, precisely right, so who can say what will happen?” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OMG this. It's insane.

[Bookman 4610]

16 hours ago, JBJ said:

For evaluation of the model itself.  What's the point at which we should say that a climate model is good?

Again, for what purpose? And to what are you comparing the climate model?

[Bateshorn 9882]

There are people on this thread who half way into the second quarter against OU after they’ve scored 5 straight times using the same draw play, see the kicker miss an extra point and then say “I think we’ve figured out the defense.” 

[JBJ 3647]

What's the breakpoint where y'all would say a climate model is unreliable?  Use whatever terms you want. 

If you know how stochiastic models work tell me what confidence interval we want to dwell near and what confidence interval we should never breach.

@Bateshorn says the climate models are "good." 

@Bookman says they don't need to be perfect.

Well, define what "good" means, because breaching your 95% CI within 4 data points and currently dwelling outside any CI on trend (where 2/3 of your data is hindcast) doesn't seem very good to me.

Edited January 16, 2020 by JBJ

[Bookman 4610]

Good means useful for its purpose.

[Bateshorn 9882]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

What's the breakpoint where y'all would say a climate model is unreliable?  Use whatever terms you want. 

If you know how stochiastic models work tell me what confidence interval we want to dwell near and what confidence interval we should never breach.

@Bateshorn says the climate models are "good." 

@Bookman says they don't need to be perfect.

Well, define what "good" means, because breaching your 95% CI within 4 data points and currently dwelling outside any CI on trend (where 2/3 of your data is hindcast) doesn't seem very good to me.

So, I'll be the first to admit that I was told there would be no math.  I can't answer your stats questions because I'm not a math dork (that's where the Huckleberry reference came in).  Please follow the Science article I linked and you can deep dive the methodologies of the authors. Morever, the IPCC goes into excruciating mathematical detail about it's confidence intervals, as does the National Climate Assessment.

What I can tell you is the kind of granularity you are trying to divine (and I'm assuming your motives are pure here) is the reason denialist argument's continue to gain traction despite being bunk. 

Let's start with a couple of assumptions that are backed up by basic gas law and thermodynamics: 

1)Greenhouse gases keep the temperature of our planet much warmer than you would expect from the amount of solar radiation we receive and whatever ambient heat the planet radiates from it's formation. This is a good thing.  Otherwise this planet would not be habitable. This was first conjectured in the 1820s (Josephy Fourier) and definitively proven in the 1890s.  One of the father's of physical chemistry (Arrenhenius) came up with a formula to calculate global warming based on CO2 content in the atmosphere that still basically works.  Trying to fine tune how the ocean's, clouds, industrial pollutants, deforestation, etc. interact with that formula is basically what modern modellers do. 

2)We are adding to the total atmospheric amount of those gases. If you continue to add CO2 and Methane to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will trap more heat. Period.

What a denialist will do is argue this tiny inconsistence in a model run means the whole thing is bunk or highly suspect, which people, unfamiliar with the basic physics of how our atmosphere works, will take is "debate" and the "science isn't settled."  But that's usually a gross misrepresentation of the science, and totally misses the point:

There is literally an atmospheric blanket around this planet that keeps us warm and habitable.  But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  This is backed up by over a 100 years of atmospheric physics, chemistry and geology that understands how changing GHG levels can have dramatic impact on our planet. The science community is telling you we are headed for an accident and they know it for certain. Both the physical evidence of the past and the computer modelling of the future are screaming red lights and klaxon alarms. 

Denialists are trying to obscure that point by arguing about whether we are going 99 miles an hour or 99.5 miles an hour.

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Lurch 5919]

Won’t someone PLEASE think of Pato’s 401k?!

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

17 minutes ago, Lurch said:

Won’t someone PLEASE think of Pato’s 401k?!

???

if someone, say me, is arguing that we might be going 99 and not 99.5 that’s hardly a denialist argument. 
 

the earth is getting warmer and we are party to it, if not the primary driver. 
 

my interests lie in what measures we take. In that, I happen to think there’s people that see profit that they drive the alarmist were all going to die in 20 years unless you do the things that make me rich.  Media and politicians. 
 

so, as we course correct as we have been trying the past few decades, the trend lines from the models should decrease in slope. 
I just want the things we do to make sense, and things like carbon credits don’t make sense to me. Whatever carbon emissions are being reduced by carbon credits shoul probably be reduced anyway without being used to justify other carbon usage, and the money paid for carbon credits used to fund research for future tech in the area of pollution control. Or something. 

[Lurch 5919]

I happen to see there are people whose profits depend on going as slowly as possible, while pretending to care about fixing the problem as it becomes more apparent every day that they’re complicit in causing it.

You want a cheap and easy way out. The time for that was 20 years of denial ago.

[Bateshorn 9882]

1 minute ago, Lurch said:

I happen to see there are people whose profits depend on going as slowly as possible, while pretending to care about fixing the problem as it becomes more apparent every day that they’re complicit in causing it.

You want a cheap and easy way out. The time for that was 20 years of denial ago.

Yeah, I hate to shock everyone with an icy shower, but if we had done some mild carbon taxes in the early 90s when James Hansen really started talking about this.  Or even in the early aughts, the fix wouldn't have been that hard. 

There are HUGE multinational corporations that have a fiduciary duty to their share holders to prevent politicians from changing the way we emit GHG or even pricing their externalities.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Bateshorn

[elfenix 34168]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

as we have been trying the past few decades

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

Bateshorn’s link above very much says that the surface temp increase was less than predicted by Hansen because of some changes made that reduced some of the system inputs. 

[Bateshorn 9882]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Bateshorn’s link above very much says that the surface temp increase was less than predicted by Hansen because of some changes made that reduced some of the system inputs. 

A lot of that has to do with the economic crash.  Basically it's taken all of our collective economies a decade to recover to the previous level of GHG output. That's an unmodel-able externality.  Also, improving regulatory efficiency and the collapse of coal, which is a much larger emitter than natural gas. The changes aren't really systemic efforts to curb GHG emissions.  They are more happy accidents.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Bateshorn

[elfenix 34168]

35 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Bateshorn’s link above very much says that the surface temp increase was less than predicted by Hansen because of some changes made that reduced some of the system inputs. 

the big one that we changed being eliminating freon, which wasn't sold as getting rid of a global warming driver, but getting rid of an ozone depleter.  as to methane, i'm not sure why there was a stabilization in methane emissions in the early-mid 00s (which has now gone back to growth), but i don't recall there being any conscious effort by us humans to reduce methane emissions in order to control GHG, do you?  there were rogue methane regulations from the environmental side during the obama era, but that predated the plateau.  maybe the euros put in some regulations?  i dunno.

Edited January 16, 2020 by elfenix

[Bateshorn 9882]

11 minutes ago, elfenix said:

the big one that we changed being eliminating freon, which wasn't sold as getting rid of a global warming driver, but getting rid of an ozone depleter.  as to methane, i'm not sure why there was a stabilization in methane emissions in the early-mid 00s (which has now gone back to growth), but i don't recall there being any conscious effort by us humans to reduce methane emissions, do you?

There was a huge run up in natural gas prices in the early mid aughts. It was right before the fracking revolution really took off.