Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[flere-imsaho]

Or:

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

How will future research be different? Well, science is predicated on the idea that people constantly challenge the consensus. And when one person challenges the consensus and can provide repeatable evidence, consensus changes. Here, we have a conclusion that "97%" of approved scientists agree upon. So it's settled. Which is how politics works, not science. Climate models can't even come close on the next five years, as the above study shows. We need reform in this new science of climatology.

I don't think the 97% agree on a single exact climate projection. It's the concept of man contributing to global warming that has become a consensus. I'm not ready to throw away that entire 97% consensus just because some of the projections weren't exactly correct. And good science doesn't require that either. The fact that temperature only rose X degrees instead of Y doesn't mean either that the planet hasn't warmed at all, or that man hasn't contributed at all to that warming.

As for the 2012 election, I will look back at that thread when I get a chance, because I do remember a lot of attacks on Silver's methods on the grounds that he was biased. (Interestingly, those attacks always come from those who really, really hoped he was wrong because of their political leanings.) If I'm misremembering or I'm attributing those attacks to the wrong person, I apologize.

Edit: And I'm not sure exactly what the "reform" you described would look like, but you must be optimistic it will happen if you're "open-minded" to future research. I just have a hard time believing that will happen though. That you or any skeptic is going to look at this somewhere down the road and say, "wow, all the previous concerns I had about this are all gone, these scientists really got their act together!" If you're so skeptical of this entire system now, I just can't comprehend the specific and practical changes that have to happen to change all that. It will be the same scientists, same entities, same universities, the same politics surrounding everything.

[flere-imsaho]

I went back and re-read some of the thread. It's the "2012 Presidential Election" thread, btw. Entertaining stuff.

The tl;dr is that Jim thought that Silver's methods were slightly inferior to his own because (mainly) a) Silver's association (at the time) with the NYT meant he was giving those polls some sort of undue weight and b) general problems with Silver's methodology.

People responded to a) by rejecting the bias claim and then also pointing out that said NYT polls weren't operating as outliers (as Jim was claiming) anyway. People responded to b) by pointing out that the things Jim thought Silver was doing incorrectly with his methodology (not ageing weights, for instance), Silver was actually doing correctly.


The bottom-line is that if you find yourself on the same side of an argument about polls with MBBF, you should probably re-evaluate your position.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the 97% agree on a single exact climate projection. It's the concept of man contributing to global warming that has become a consensus. I'm not ready to throw away that entire 97% consensus just because some of the projections weren't exactly correct. And good science doesn't require that either. The fact that temperature only rose X degrees instead of Y doesn't mean either that the planet hasn't warmed at all, or that man hasn't contributed at all to that warming.

As for the 2012 election, I will look back at that thread when I get a chance, because I do remember a lot of attacks on Silver's methods on the grounds that he was biased. (Interestingly, those attacks always come from those who really, really hoped he was wrong because of their political leanings.) If I'm misremembering or I'm attributing those attacks to the wrong person, I apologize.

I'm not ready to throw away that 97%, either. I'm just pointing out it's not settled and that the best climate models available today are not very accurate.

I made one criticism of Silver's analysis. He gave his highest weight to a poll connected to his new employer. I looked at all the polls by that particular source and found they were outliers in many cases. I made an adjustment to my own weights as I illustrated at the time. In the end, Silver was a little closer than I was, which I recognized. But I completely agreed with him that the Romney camp claim that every poll was off by several percentage points was not based in solid analysis.

Your parenthetical slam seems like a straw man. Though I'd suspect that if we listed the 20 most controversial topics in politics today, you'd have a hard time figuring out where I stand on most issues.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Your parenthetical slam seems like a straw man. Though I'd suspect that if we listed the 20 most controversial topics in politics today, you'd have a hard time figuring out where I stand on most issues.

It warms my heart to find a liberal who doesn't like the result of a Supreme Court opinion but agrees with the legal reasoning, or vice versa with conservatives. Or in this instance, someone who really wanted Obama to win but thought that Silver was just wrong about his predictions. But from my experiences, any of those things is just extraordinarily rare.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not ready to throw away that 97%, either.

Throwing it away and not wanting to do anything about it have the exact same net result. Especially if you believe, as I do, that no skeptic is going to change their mind, regardless of future research. There will always be politics in this discussion, always. Therefore, skeptics will stay skeptics.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

It warms my heart to find a liberal who doesn't like the result of a Supreme Court opinion but agrees with the legal reasoning, or vice versa with conservatives.

Consider your heart warmed.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But you guys don't have to listen to me - anyone who disagrees with any part of climate change gets labeled "fringe", so whatever.

That's exactly why I stopped posting in this thread. Everyone only wants to listen to the items that reflect what they want to hear.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

Throwing it away and not wanting to do anything about it have the exact same net result. Especially if you believe, as I do, that no skeptic is going to change their mind, regardless of future research. There will always be politics in this discussion, always. Therefore, skeptics will stay skeptics.

I will agree that some skeptics are politically motivated, but what is your response to those who are skeptical of the seriousness of the human influence and skeptical that our economic response is not overblown? I dont think the scientific consensus covers that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I will agree that some skeptics are politically motivated, but what is your response to those who are skeptical of the seriousness of the human influence and skeptical that our economic response is not overblown? I dont think the scientific consensus covers that.

To those who are skeptical of the seriousness of human influence I am pretty skeptical as to whether they've really understood the data & science presented.

To those who think our economic response is overblown, I have to ask: what economic response? There's been precious little done so far to abate global warming (unless you want to include some non-binding treaties).

[Kodos]

It seems like the most progress has been made by private companies looking to find profits in more enviro-friendly sources of energy. For example, solar seems like it is taking off--Especially in Canada, judging by my visit a few weeks ago.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

I just want to earth to be as healthy as possible. There's already so many places we've fucked things up. There are many places on earth where you can see the effects of pollution. I'm a part of no academic or political conspiracy. I'm conservative on many things. But I'm an asshole to so many of you because I care about the environment and biodiversity and future generations.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

To those who are skeptical of the seriousness of human influence I am pretty skeptical as to whether they've really understood the data & science presented.

You misunderstood me. By "seriousness", I mean, to what extent. I think you are still stuck at "man has done something to the environment and 'denialists' don't believe it's true". I'm taking a step further, the level of response will need to (at least mostly) match the actual response required. Do we have any understanding of the actual level of response required?

To those who think our economic response is overblown, I have to ask: what economic response? There's been precious little done so far to abate global warming (unless you want to include some non-binding treaties).

Sorry, but you misunderstood me again. Certainly you didn't think I was suggesting that our past response was all that was needed. I'm speaking of future efforts.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It's a very nice thing to say and I'm all for saying the right things, but at some point I think people are asking the world to roll up it's sleeves, I don't believe (I'm skeptical) that we have any idea what sort of undertaking we are truly asking for and what sort of result we will get based on any undertaking.

For example. Let's say that we have determined that the level of criticality is somewhere between a 1 and a 10 on scale. If it's a "1", then our level of effort (economic, man-hours, research & development, manpower, etc.) on a scale of 1 to 10, would need not be more than a "1" in response.

Let's assume for a moment that the scientific consensus is accurate. Namely, that "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are *very likely* due to human activities".

Right now, what the scientists are saying is that level of criticality is somewhere between 1 and 10 (and with the "very likely" noted by the scientists...

Spoiler

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Climate Change: Consensus

...the scientists are leaving the door open for a "0" to be on the scale and politicians and journalists and news anchorman and scientists are just spouting off levels of efforts that compare to what? A "1"? A "10"?

What we have no real grasp of is what will happen if the world spends $100 trillion dollars to solve global warming? That's somewhat bothering to me. Primarily because the worldly politicians are asking the United States and Europe to take the lead. It's got potential to become economically crippling. And what do we get out of it? What if $100 trillion dollars spent on Global Warming proves to have little impact? Or just 25% impact? Or 5% impact?

That's a whole lot of faith at this point and frankly, it's not very good science.

[molson]

Well, what exactly we should do about it, if there's anything we can even do at this point, is a really complicated question for which there's many reasonable viewpoints. There's a lot of room between dismissing that 97+% consensus and the U.S. taking the lead and spending trillions of dollars itself. I think there's so much we can do at just individual levels to make the planet cleaner and healthier. My annoyance is only with the people who just don't give a shit at all, or who believe that their 2-3% of research which denies this correlation is somehow pure of all bias but the 97% is collectively involved in a grand conspiracy. And the people who just have this hostility to the whole concept of man impacting climate generally. There is so much political resistance to any efforts to make the planet cleaner.

And I know people claim that they want a cleaner planet, they just think the whole global warming thing is a hoax, but again, its the same net result. Because it just ends up going down party lines, caring about the environment - and actually enacting policy consistent with that - is a "liberal" thing, and therefore, good conservatives have to be against it in all its forms. I've never met an someone who cared deeply about the health of the planet, including pollution, clean water, biodiversity, etc, who thought that global warming was a hoax. If you're a conservative, you're supposed to oppose all policy based on environmental concerns because it's all a liberal, anti-business thing supported by the grand academic hoax of global warming. Fuck that. I'm a moderate conservative who really likes nature and open spaces and biodiversity and clean air and clean water, and I support policy that supports those things - which means I'd never win a Republican primary

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, what exactly we should do about it, if there's anything we can even do at this point, is a really complicated question for which there's many reasonable viewpoints.

Now you are asking the questions that bug me. I really want to do the right thing, I'm just not ready to do a little bit here and a little bit there...or something on Tuesdays...or only in America and France but not in India...or even some of the extreme solutions like power down all power plants and oil refineries across the globe when we still have no idea what's neccessary.

Because it just ends up going down party lines

I'm with you, I'm a moderate conservative, but I'm frustrated that the politics and their political advocates have taken over this debate. It's extremely unhelpful.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You misunderstood me. By "seriousness", I mean, to what extent. I think you are still stuck at "man has done something to the environment and 'denialists' don't believe it's true". I'm taking a step further, the level of response will need to (at least mostly) match the actual response required. Do we have any understanding of the actual level of response required?

Sorry, but you misunderstood me again. Certainly you didn't think I was suggesting that our past response was all that was needed. I'm speaking of future efforts.

I think we're probably on the same page, tbh (and yes, it appears I misunderstood you). I do believe science has a good idea of what's going to be required (and there's writing out there to indicate so), but I also believe the world is in no way ready to actually commit to such wide-ranging programs / changes as would be needed to arrest climate change. The repeated failure of any sort of accords / treaties / etc... attest to that.

IMO, it'll take some sort of drastic & radical event to create enough momentum to do so. Something like a year of truly beyond severe weather worldwide, coupled with massive (and related) food shortages.

[Dutch]

Very possible, but it could also be scientific theory converted through proof into scientific fact. Then it doesn't matter what the politicians say. Of course, we have no proof yet that any effort would succeed, just faith.

[molson]

I'm a little more optimistic than both of you guys. I think we can improve things, or at least slow down the process some, through a lot of individual efforts. And if those efforts can't change the global trends, they can definitely change local and regional ones, in terms of cleaner air, cleaner water, preserving nature, etc.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course, we have no proof yet that any effort would succeed, just faith.

I think that's a bit disingenuous. Given that global warming is man-made, it stands to reason that if we could stop what we were doing to cause global warming, it would stop warming (or at least arrest the warming).

If I hit you with a hammer, it will cause pain. If I stop hitting you with a hammer, I will no longer be causing you pain, though some pain may linger.

[JPhillips]

I'd be willing to trade lower corporate rates for a carbon tax so that it was largely neutral overall. A carbon tax, though, targets activities we want to mitigate and acknowledges that carbon production has external costs outside of the cost of fuel. If the country weren't so bugged-eyed insane about everything, it should appeal to a lot of folks.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the country weren't so bugged-eyed insane about everything...

That is what makes us special.

[Dutch]

If I hit you with a hammer, it will cause pain. If I stop hitting you with a hammer, I will no longer be causing you pain, though some pain may linger.

Nice example. You are at an advantage though. You get to define the hammer and the head and the damages caused. You can project out what 50 more strikes to the head will do. You have knowledge of how to repair the damage done, you know the criticality of the damage done and can easily determine if it needs an aspirin or a metal plate and how much those aspirin's, metal plates, and surgeries cost.

Meanwhile, back with Global Warming, the scientists are saying that the bruise on your head is very likely caused by a hammer...the hammer is lying about but for all I know you walked into a door. And we're going to get rid of the hammer and lose that glorious invention forever not because of fact or proof but because of a consensus?

But what if all we really needed was a sign that said, "Don't bash your head with the hammer"? Then we get the best of both worlds. We get to remain productive and the bruise on your head goes away.

I'm not being disingenuous. I want facts to explain the criticality of the problem and I want facts to explain what cost and effort is required to fix whatever it is that's broken.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Dutch

...the scientists are leaving the door open for a "0" to be on the scale and politicians and journalists and news anchorman and scientists are just spouting off levels of efforts that compare to what? A "1"? A "10"?

What we have no real grasp of is what will happen if the world spends $100 trillion dollars to solve global warming? That's somewhat bothering to me. Primarily because the worldly politicians are asking the United States and Europe to take the lead. It's got potential to become economically crippling. And what do we get out of it? What if $100 trillion dollars spent on Global Warming proves to have little impact? Or just 25% impact? Or 5% impact?

That's a whole lot of faith at this point and frankly, it's not very good science.

This is because at the low end of the projections, global warming's consequences will be a 0 or 1 for someone in the middle of America and a 5-6 for a subsistence farmer living near the equator. So from an American perspective, there's certainly enough ambiguity for someone to say "meh, we could probably get by if we don't spend any money." If you lived in Subsaharan Africa and read the reports, you wouldn't need faith to see that there will be real, detrimental effects even in the more conservative scenarios.

[BillJasper]

71 degrees when I went outside at 4 pm today in Northern Kentucky.

[Blackadar]

World marks hottest June since 1880: US scientists - Yahoo News

Keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

World marks hottest June since 1880: US scientists - Yahoo News

Keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

Soon we'll be able to grow oranges in Alaska! - Dale Gribble.

[CraigSca]

Why global warming is taking a break -- ScienceDaily

Read the first line. Wait, what?!

Not going to be a naysayer here (yes, I do believe there's global warming), but this is exactly why people don't hop on board the global warming express. All we've been hearing about is the "3rd hottest whatever-month in history" and then here it says that global warming has basically taken a break the last 16 years.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Why global warming is taking a break -- ScienceDaily

Read the first line. Wait, what?!

Not going to be a naysayer here (yes, I do believe there's global warming), but this is exactly why people don't hop on board the global warming express. All we've been hearing about is the "3rd hottest whatever-month in history" and then here it says that global warming has basically taken a break the last 16 years.

It's a good article that explains quite a bit, but the naysayers (not you) will just read the headline and think "I was right, we're not warming". That is the kind of absolute stupidity that drives me nuts.

In short (if since your read the article you know this) 1998 was a peak, El-Nino year. In short, it was a significant spike over every previous year. In the years since, the average/median has caught up to that spike which supports the fact that we continue to get warmer. Just because we haven't surpassed that peak doesn't mean we're not getting warmer.

Mathematically, if you have a set of numbers that go 2,4,3,6,3,1,2,7,4,3,10 and then that sequence continues with 9, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 7, 8, 10, you wouldn't say that the second sequence isn't greater than the first. But that's what the Flat-Earthers say when they try to use the "we haven't warmed since 1998" excuse.


The trendline isn't flat:




13 of the 14 hottest global years on record happened after the year 2000. The one exception is 1998. In fact, we're on somewhat of a streak - the hottest 17 years on record have happened consecutively since 1997. Just think of that - the data set shows that for the last 137 years, the top 17 have all happened in the last 17 years. Climate change isn't happening? HAHAHAHA!

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

[Qwikshot]

Halloween in July! Wahoo? | OnEarth Magazine

Cali is experiencing a really bad drought. Climate change is really going to intensify, to some, that may not matter, but the reality is that we're pushing things to the limit. I would think at this point we're more for adaptability than mitigation, it's easier to say "we'll deal with it" but as the years progress, it becomes that harder to remedy.

California’s Drought Just Got a Little Worse | Climate Central

[Warhammer]

If you look at the graph, it also looks just like a sine wave. The discussion also depends upon where you put the arbitrary zero.

How different would the conversation be if the zero was 1966?

Regarding the drought, I read a study the other day that basically said things out west would get worse. Historically we have had a wet century out west, and that things would likely get worse. I'll see if I can find it.

[Warhammer]

An excerpt from IPCC 2007

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Multiple proxies, including tree rings, sediments, historical documents and lake sediment records make it clear that the past 2 kyr included periods with more frequent, longer and/or geographically more extensive droughts in North America than during the 20th century (Stahle and Cleaveland, 1992; Stahle et al., 1998; Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998; Forman et al., 2001; Cook et al., 2004b; Hodell et al., 2005; MacDonald and Case, 2005). Past droughts, including decadal-length ‘megadroughts’ (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998), are most likely due to extended periods of anomalous SST (Hoerling and Kumar, 2003; Schubert et al., 2004; MacDonald and Case, 2005; Seager et al., 2005), but remain difficult to simulate with coupled ocean-atmosphere models. Thus, the palaeoclimatic record suggests that multi-year, decadal and even centennial-scale drier periods are likely to remain a feature of future North American climate, particularly in the area west of the Mississippi River.

EDIT: Coincidentally, this is part of the reason why the Colorado River does not reach the Gulf of California. The Colorado River Compact was signed based upon rainfall from one of the historically wettest decades. During normal flows, the states along the river can draw more water from the river than the river's average yearly flow. This is why the levels in Lake Mead and other Colorado River reservoirs are dropping.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Figured this was as good of a place as anywhere to post this article.

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!!! IT'S OVER!!!!!

99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study | SBS News

[flere-imsaho]

You've become a parody of yourself now, you realize this, right?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You've become a parody of yourself now, you realize this, right?

You do realize I'm quite a bit smarter than you give me credit, right?

[sterlingice]

It's crazy when these news sources over-exaggerate about everything!

Report: Global Warming May Be Irreversible By 2006

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You do realize I'm quite a bit smarter than you give me credit, right?

Oh, you're plenty smart. But like pretty much everyone (I include myself here), you've got a few gaping blind spots.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh, you're plenty smart. But like pretty much everyone (I include myself here), you've got a few gaping blind spots.

That's what she said????

[flere-imsaho]

Look, man, I don't need to know where you gape, OK?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Look, man, I don't need to know where you gape, OK?

[miked]

Though this was funny...

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

[Blackadar]

NASA: Earth just experienced the warmest six-month stretch ever.

Warmest April
Warmest May
Warmest June
4th warmest July
Warmest August
Warmest September

[DaddyTorgo]

The latest report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, represents the very latest summary of the available science, and it leaves very little room for dispute. The oceans are warming; ice is melting; the oceans are rising; extreme weather is increasing, plant and animal species are dying off at a rapid pace, and large swaths of the earth, particularly those occupied by the poor, will face increasing risks of flooding, food shortages, and other climate-driven disasters. This is all almost certainly caused by man-made carbon emissions, and it will continue to get worse as we emit more carbon.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...YR_AR5_SPM.pdf

[Sun Tzu]

Just watched that Jon Stewart clip.

The number of government officials in this country that qualify as Human refuse is staggering. The U.S.A. is fucked.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Just watched that Jon Stewart clip.

The numbers of government officials in this country that qualify as Human refuse is staggering. The U.S.A. is fucked.

Can't say I disagree with you.

Unfortunately I fear that means that humanity as a whole is further down the road to being fucked. Not irredeemable yet, but closer.

[NobodyHere]

I can has global warming please?

[Sun Tzu]

James Inhofe, the man who you people just elected to head up the USA's environment and climate policy, is a real winner...

Inhofe: (Quoting Genesis 8:22) ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

[Sun Tzu]

Dola

Not surprisingly, two of Inhofe's biggest three campaign contributors are Oil & Gas companies.

[BillJasper]

If there is a God (I truly don't know if there is or not) and he created everything, he created science. Probably as a tool that allows us to understand the universe, make our lives better and warn us when things are about to go wrong.

Never truly got the hate science is given by the religious community.