'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

bystander, you think the models 1) adequately represent the climate and 2) won't show a climate change if you change the input variables to their maximum level?

Maybe I don't understand accounting variance and maximum level variable.

 

Like I've said previously, I'm a climate change agnostic. But this is funny. Link.

 

He and Jesse Duplantis.

 

GOP now has the opportunity to provide scientific data that refutes the purported consensus. but what do we hear? ….crickets.

I haven't seen or heard of any new studies that are refuting the claims by the Global CC crowd. It's the same old tactic. "your numbers are extrapolations. They COULD BE wrong in a hundred ways".

That is a valid argument, but lets see the science from the other side that says it isn't a thing. Let's see all these scientist and their papers that say there isn't a GCC problem. Let them take their turn on the podium and have their work scrutinized.

I'm a willing audience for both claims. ​

Baed on what I've heard so far, I believe there is a CO2 problem, I believe we are the producers of sufficient quantities to tip the scales and bring on problems or provide solutions. I believe the volume of support and evidence is enough to warrant taking substantive steps to reduce our impact.

I realize they are using estimates and forecasting that is heavily reliant on being an honest broker. But I know that EVERY big decision about the future is predicated on estimates and forecasting and just because you don't have 100% fidelity doesn't mean you don't take prudent steps based on the information you have.

Again, where is the science and documentation to support the GOPs position??

 

Satellite data only shows 1 degree increase per century. The maligned land and water dataset shows twice that. Using satellite data suggests global warming is a problem for the next century, not this century. Also, economically it makes sense to fix the problem later when we are much richer than today. Even if nothing is done, the world will be richer than today. Robbing ourselves today is the worst option on the table.

 

There are so many problems with the measurements themselves, the number of measurements, how they are spaced, etc. On top of that researchers choose to use only some of the data. Guess which ones they choose? Then the raw data is modified. Guess how they are modified? There studies out there pointing these things out. But there are not many because you have to explain your thesis before you get funding. Guess which studies get funded?

With all that, I think just about everybody thinks there has been warming. But the question is just how much (due to all the issues I raised above), how much of that is due to human activity (which still isn't well understood and still debate about), and what to do about it. Most of the proposals of what to do would result in a exponential growth in poverty and as a result the death of many from starvation or exposure.

 

Many articles were written in technical journals over the last 20 years. These articles were criticized as being funded by oil and gas or right wing nut-jobs. When that's all it takes to discount a scientific article, it's little wonder that new ones aren't written.
One paper that really influenced me was published in the Oil and Gas Journal in the 90's. The data showed that most of the 1 degree increase in temperature occurred before World War II while most of the increase in CO2 concentration happened during and after World War II. Of course it was invalid because it was published in the Oil and Gas Journal. Data matters less than politics.

Another paper, I can't remember which journal basically showed the pause in global warming from 1996 until about 2012 or so, even though CO2 concentration continued to climb. This pause (actually a minor global cooling) is what prompted the change in terminology from global warming to climate change.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now about 0.04% or 400 ppm. The alarm started because about 300 years ago, the CO2 concentration was only 0.03%. So CO2 has increased by 1/3! Sounds alarming, but an increase of 100 ppm in CO2, an invisible gas which absorbs heat only slightly better than Nitrogen and Oxygen, can't explain a 1 degree increase in atmospheric temperature. It can only explain a small fraction of that.

 

The founder of Greenpeace thinks AGW is a scam.

 

Hmmmmm

 

That's kind of my point. The GOP and Trump now have the ability to give the GCC some new light. They can direct funding and attention to all the evidence that it isn't a thing. But are they? Nope.

Still just the same old tactics.

 

Maybe you have noticed that not all those who work in the Executive branch agree with Trump and his personal appointments? It is low level (okay maybe mid level) bureaucrats that award funding for scientific research. Those guys are the same guys that were there when Obama was in office and probably when Clinton too.

 

Funding research to disprove a theory?
You don't see anything wrong with that?

 

LOL - "Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming"

A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...are-warming/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0824fafdcf81

 

"Can't necessarily make that claim" means "it ain't hapnin'". That seemed like a farce from the first time I heard it.

 

One of the things I like most about this study is claiming a heat increase by indirect measurement - "measuring" gases emitted from the ocean instead of measuring the ocean temperature. They claim they measured the rate of gases emitted from the ocean. I seriously doubt they had the budget to take measurements in enough places to be statistically valid. They took samples at the beach while on a taxpayer funded vacation.

 

4th_floor, that is so sloppy. It is like they are looking for any measurement that proves their assertion.

 

Nature could really help the cause of freedom in the world if the avg global temperature dropped consistently over the next 10 years.

 

That wouldn't make a difference, because it's becoming a religion at least for some people. Not only will they not admit that they're wrong, they won't even admit to a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Remember, it's all "settled science." So if the temperature dropped over the next ten years, they'd simply adjust their rhetoric and talk about the overall warming trend over the last 100 years, 1000 years, etc.

 

Yeah, but at least there would be clear evidence to help dissuade all but the true believers. I still think there are many that are fence sitters.

 

Do fence sitters exist anymore on anything. For the most part, nuance isn't allowed.

 

Hey, you! What the hell do you mean "for the most part"??? I don't like your wishywashy language there, boy. You just watch yourself in the future, you hear me?

 

Stop polluting the sun!

 

Believe me Deez, I feel the pressure to think a certain way just working in technology. Still, engineers and scientists tend to trust data. Over the last several decades the trend has been upward. If there was a decade or two reduction the people I work with would be more likely to understand there is no causal link between CO2 and global avg temperature.

 

All of sudden a bunch of people would be saying "But year-to-year changes don't matter on a global scale, we're talking effects that manifest over centuries" and then a bunch of other people would respond "That's what we've already been saying this whole damn time!"

 

If you had a decade long trend you could show that CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated at least. But I agree true believers will modify their narrative to defend their belief.

 

You're likely right. A certain population of GCC believers will modify their language to explain away any inconvenient data(like most of the GCC deniers do currently) but most of us "fence sitters" would not. While it may not sound like it from the media, I think many are fence sitters. If the world (or even the left) was full of GCC evangelist then much more would have been done by now to enact rules/laws. Instead we are tinkering at the edges. Since there are still many questions to be answered and verified I'm ok with small steps at this point, but the GOP seems to want NO STEPS, and that I'm not ok with.

Again I ask...Where is the new science and data, now that the GOP is in charge and able to direct funding? Seems to me we just got one more report that indicates GCC is a thing.

 

Why do you assume the GOP is charge of funding? This is done by bureaucracies which don't change affiliation based on elections. The same people have been directing the funding for decades. Add that to the fact that Trump doesn't staff many of the jobs that he has control over. He has less control over things than most realize.

Plus there are studies out there that describe alternative hypotheses. You can find them fairly easily if you look.

 

I heard the latest report assumes an 8C increase in temps this century instead of the 1C per century rate seen in the satellite data. It’s not about “new” data, it’s about eliminating bad data (land temp database) and poor modeling.

 

mchammer, are you saying that the 8C increase is wrong? I don't understand.