TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 21

On December 14 2011 15:05 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
@OP: Did the climate models being used around the year 2000 predict the temperatures for the next 12 years (up until the present?) How accurately? Which models? Which didn't (any)?

What is the role for economists in this issue? Global warming is bad because it hurts human beings right? But if helping human beings is the goal of policy then don't we have to weight how much it costs to cut carbon vs what we could do with that money to help those affected by whatever impacts global warming might have?

Thanks! Cool thread 8)

On December 15 2011 06:47 slytown wrote:
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change. by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

Christy argues the IPCC is more a political body seeking to push an agenda than actually understanding the science behind climate change. Why these countries and "specialists" think they can control the climate is beyond me.

On December 15 2011 08:59 slytown wrote:


I'm not in climate science, so I can't pick-apart these two articles but I can say how good academic journalism is done. For one, you can't debunk something without providing a correction and an argument. The first article merely pushes around the numbers of a model, rather than focusing on the science. Second, the other article from SJSU is on regional temperature variance at night. How does that have anything to do with global warming? I believe Mr. Christy has stated, among other authors, that regional variance can be human induced, but global variation is too complex and vast for humans to have a climate effect.

On December 14 2011 07:44 dabbeljuh wrote:



Hi Liberal,

I will take your post as one representative of all the "it just doesnt matter" posts

It is not true. Climate Change is a global challenge, and we have to try to prevent the powers that be of manipulating us. IF you guys, as educated young people in rich countries dont believe that climate change is happening, there is no change in hell that the governments of 2020 or 2030 will be more rational than now.

It is a fair point to say, you do not see the politicl system to react in time, I partially agree.

I still believe it is our responsibilty to talk about this. We are changing EArth in many ways, Climate Change is one of them. Most are not sustainable. Most of them are bad for us and those that follow us. If humanity wants to claim to be sentient in a global sense, at one point we HAVE to change strategy. This can be government guided, could be consumer based, could be a big ethical swingback, who knows. I just think, everybody should get their facts straight.

I repeat something from my OP: the reaction of society is not the responsibility of science, it is your responsibility, our responsibility as citizens.

In my opinion as citizen: do we like the way Earth is operated right now, in our western, liberal, rich countries?

Cheers,

W

On December 15 2011 09:05 Carson wrote:


Thank-you!

For a rebuttal to be valid, it has to be on the same level as the original claim.

Both of these articles are just trashy attempts to justify inaction.

On December 13 2011 07:47 ~SiC~ wrote:
Also, since Global Warming is still a theory, you as a scientist should be working to disprove it. Scientific method is not defending something, but try to tear it down until there is only fact remaining. It is terrible that climate science has become such a pop culture thing, that proper scientific protocol isn't followed. Instead it has become a witch hunt for the unbelievers. All research on the topic is done with the intent to prove it. I can prove anything if I apply that scientific method. Scientists proved horribly fallacious things under that premise. You even doing this post shows you have no respect for science and the pursuit of knowledge.


A little harsh, but do you see the point?

On December 15 2011 10:04 Capook wrote:
The current models contain hundreds of fudge factors that must be fit to past data. They all do it in different ways, and their predictions diverge rapidly. Also, the predictions of a single model often changes wildly (well outside the statistical error bars of the previous model) when new physics is added.

On December 15 2011 11:26 Gofarman wrote:

I'm likely to play to the opinion of many people who claim to know the whole picture by reading articles about climate change, but as a fairly educated fellow in a fairly conservative part of the world (when it comes to this issue, Alberta ftw) the quote is pretty much what I think of the entire charade known as climate change 'science'.

However, this thread was quite intriguing and I learned some stuff that I haven't cared to research myself. It didn't change my opinion that Earth goes thru warming and cooling cycles (apart from volcanic and meteoric impacts) and as the equilibrium changes and ecosystems are adjusted at some point ecological buffers will stabilize or revert changes. The Human race is a powerful force but I do believe it is egotistical to think that we have the abilities we are attributed. Maybe in 30 years there is a huge die off because of coastal change, regardless humanity and our industrial technology will survive in one form or another.

On December 15 2011 10:04 Capook wrote:
How about this one, from a genuine "skeptic" (yours truly). I'm only "skeptical" about some aspects of the science--my main gripe is with the policies advocated by most climate change people.

It's clear that the earth is warming, and from basic physics it seems likely that co2 is the cause. But that's not too interesting for policy. What matters is how much the warming will continue (say, global mean temperature in 2050), and what the environmental consequences will be. To answer these questions requires simulating the entire earth, which is basically impossible. The current models contain hundreds of fudge factors that must be fit to past data. They all do it in different ways, and their predictions diverge rapidly. Also, the predictions of a single model often changes wildly (well outside the statistical error bars of the previous model) when new physics is added. This is because--as everybody knows--the overwhelming source of error is systematic, in that the included physics is not correctly modeled and much physics known to be relevant is not included. In no other field of science (certainly not mine) would the quantitative results of such simulations be taken seriously, and yet in climate science policy documents you see statistical error bars slapped on results of whatever the latest simulations are (with some averaging over different models), and pedaled as scientific predictions to world leaders.

Here's what I would want to see before quantitative simulation results can be considered reliable. For each model, train on only 1/2 the available data, and then verify that the remaining half is reproduced before making predictions. Verify that all secondary aspects are reproduced as well (such as measured ice melt rates, etc.). For each code, verify that each time new physics is introduced, the results remain consistent with previous results. And across all codes, make sure that agreement remains within statistical error bars for each code. I have seen two climate simulation presentations made for physicists, and none of them showed any of this. I have also directly asked some experts and none could produce such tests. I therefore assume that these criteria are (roundly) not satisfied. In that case the simulations can be regarded as providing further evidence for the hypothesis that co2 caused and will continue to cause warning, but can not be used to infer anything quantitative about the future.

The bottom line is we know next to nothing about what the scope and impact of global warming will be. This should be straightforwardly communicated to policymakers so they can make the best decisions. In my own personal opinion, it makes no sense to spend tons of money on combating co2 emissions based on the idea that (e.g.) droughts and floods *might* cause food shortages for people in 50 years, when these same people *are* facing food shortages and many other problems right now. If we spent a tenth of what is proposed to be spent to combat global warming on current problems in the third world, it would be truly a testament to the charity and generosity of western liberalism and environmentalism. On a final personal note, I count myself both a liberal and an environmentalist, but not a gambler. Since the impact of co2 emissions is so incredibly uncertain and there are so many certain problems now, let's spend our limited money, time, and energy fixing the certain ones.

On December 15 2011 22:16 optical630 wrote:
whats the worse case scenario if the north pole melted forever