Climate Change - Bad News

[metis]

I think it is truly pathetic that there are those who will cherry-pick quotes and data and yet ignore what over 90% of the climate scientists have a consensus on. It's as if they "think" that all these scientists are total dolts and/or are on the take. But me experience with dealing with these people for years is that they really don't do the homework but instead rely on politically-partisan sources to parrot.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Indeed, which is why I don't pay much heed to Al Gore himself, or politicians. It's why I am in the camp that says helping the environment is an individual's effort independent of giving money to anyone.

Sorry, but "green-agenda.com" is not a domain name that's even remotely trustworthy. That's the domain name of propaganda.

IOW, it's as reliable on actual information about the environment as Awesome Possum Kicks Doctor Machino's Butt.

Again, a .com website. Show me a .edu.

You also must learn to be more attentive, you diss the quotes because of the website and thus missed the fact that all those quotes are referenced and sourced wrt establishing their validity,...check.The Green Agenda - References If you want to really seek truth, don't take it out on the messenger because you don't like the message,..if the message is true, learn to modify your take on reality to accommodate it, you will at least leave this life wiser than when you came into it.

Re edu websites, you've got to be kidding...I'm quoting stuff from sources whose contributing scientists actually do global climate research, so just as water always finds it own level, please suit yourself as to the source appropriate for you.

 

[Riverwolf]

You also must learn to be more attentive, you diss the quotes because of the website and thus missed the fact that all those quotes are referenced and sourced wrt establishing their validity,...check.The Green Agenda - References If you want to really seek truth, don't take it out on the messenger because you don't like the message,..if the message is true, learn to modify your take on reality to accommodate it, you will at least leave this life wiser than when you came into it.

And how do you know that those quotes weren't taken so far out of context that the original sayers of them very well could have been either talking about something else, or saying them for the sake of reference so they can be discounted?

Better to direct me to the real scientific journals, rather than only the ones this website wants you to know about, so you can keep going there providing them with traffic revenue.

Re edu websites, you've got to be kidding...I'm quoting stuff from sources whose contributing scientists actually do global climate research, so just as water always finds it own level, please suit yourself as to the source appropriate for you.

Yup: a higher standard than for-profit websites.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok then....

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok then....

I don't drink the water, because I can smell the poison.

Now, perhaps if you led me to a river that wasn't poisoned...

For example, if I wanted to know what Romans thought of Germans, I don't read a for-profit website; I read Tacitus's Germania, the writings of Caesar, etc.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think it is truly pathetic that there are those who will cherry-pick quotes and data and yet ignore what over 90% of the climate scientists have a consensus on.

90% of scientists are wrong most of the time. That's just the name of the game. The more at stake, the more wrong they get and the harder it is for them to change. Every few years, I go back to the data on climate change, back to the research, back to the models and the code (that which is available thanks to some hard work by "deniers"), etc. I still can't get to the bottom and as after 15 years of model failures neither can the IPCC, the only reason I believe what I do is that it is hard to imagine thousands upon thousands of scientists from different fields being wrong for so long. But it is not impossible, and the public (as well as the scientific community) would be better served if more climate scientists remembered that.

 

[Riverwolf]

90% of scientists are wrong most of the time. That's just the name of the game. The more at stake, the more wrong they get and the harder it is for them to change. Every few years, I go back to the data on climate change, back to the research, back to the models and the code (that which is available thanks to some hard work by "deniers"), etc. I still can't get to the bottom and as after 15 years of model failures neither can the IPCC, the only reason I believe what I do is that it is hard to imagine thousands upon thousands of scientists from different fields being wrong for so long. But it is not impossible, and the public (as well as the scientific community) would be better served if more climate scientists remembered that.

The best case scenario won't come from their calculations being wrong, I think, but from that horrible troll that is chaos theory. ^_^

 

[Knight of Albion]

And a bit more bad news....

BBC News - Health of oceans 'declining fast'

 

[metis]

90% of scientists are wrong most of the time.

Provide one shred of evidence to support that absurd claim.

When a scientific paper is written, it provides evidence, but evidence in the scientific community is almost never viewed as "proof" since we always keep our eyes open for other pieces of evidence that might alter and even refute previous evidence. However, the lay media often reports certain evidence as "proof" of whatever, which can indeed be misleading.

That's just the name of the game.

It's maybe a "game" to you, but certainly not to those who actually know what's possibly at stake.

Every few years, I go back to the data on climate change, back to the research, back to the models and the code (that which is available thanks to some hard work by "deniers"), etc. I still can't get to the bottom and as after 15 years of model failures neither can the IPCC, the only reason I believe what I do is that it is hard to imagine thousands upon thousands of scientists from different fields being wrong for so long. But it is not impossible, and the public (as well as the scientific community) would be better served if more climate scientists remembered that.

You're conflating two things: research (models) and projection models. Projection models deal with possible future occurrences, and that indeed is always going to based on some educated guesses of sorts. However, research, using models that incorporate what the research is saying, is not the same, and we well know climate warning is indeed occurring because it's based on actual measurements, and we also know what's the major factor-- human activity in various forms.

Even if one had some doubts, doesn't it make sense to side with caution? Why would one be so careless to take a chance, especially since energy conservation is a win/win solution anyway?

 

[Aquitaine]

Even if Climate Change was a hoax, it still makes sense to try and developed cleaner, more sustainable methods of energy, as well as energy independence for communities etc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Even if Climate Change was a hoax, it still makes sense to try and developed cleaner, more sustainable methods of energy, as well as energy independence for communities etc.

Yes, and even if Satan and Hell is a hoax, it still makes sense to use it to scare the people to try and develop a more ethical method of living, as well as social benefits free from adverse karma!

^ sarc/ No no no, the means to an end is not separate from the end, you reap what you sow, a good and proper enduring reality can't be created through a lie, the seeds of its destruction are inherent to the underlying theme.

ps..btw, you do know that your quote follows the theme of this environmentalist...“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world. – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes, and even if Satan and Hell is a hoax, it still makes sense to use it to scare the people to try and develop a more ethical method of living, as well as social benefits free from adverse karma!

^ sarc/ No no no, the means to an end is not separate from the end, you reap what you sow, a good and proper enduring reality can't be created through a lie, the seeds of its destruction are inherent to the underlying theme.

ps..btw, you do know that your quote follows the theme of this environmentalist...“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world. – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

Meh, fine - see it that way if you must.

Hypothetically, if you had a choice between clean, renewable and locally-produced energy, or dirty, finite energy sourced from all over the world (and becoming interlocked with international issues such as warfare) which would you choose?

Clean air, or smog - you decide.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Meh, fine - see it that way if you must.

Hypothetically, if you had a choice between clean, renewable and locally-produced energy, or dirty, finite energy sourced from all over the world (and becoming interlocked with international issues such as warfare) which would you choose?

Clean air, or smog - you decide.

Matter and energy is /are eternal, I don't worry about it, which ever is the cheapest!

 

[Aquitaine]

Matter and energy is /are eternal, I don't worry about it, which ever is the cheapest!

But money isn't eternal, why base it off that? Cleaner Air may be more "expensive" but when you live in filthy air and have to go to the hospital because of it, isn't that essentially going to be more expensive, since it's also costing you your health?

YAY! So much "cheaper"! :sarcastic

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But money isn't eternal, why base it off that?

Because this body in which I'm incarnate isn't eternal either, and money is needed for the ongoing support for its temporary existence.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because this body in which I'm incarnate isn't eternal either, and money is needed for the ongoing support for its temporary existence.

You have asthma?

 

[Aquitaine]

Because this body in which I'm incarnate isn't eternal either, and money is needed for the ongoing support for its temporary existence.

... And a clean hospitable environment is what?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

... And a clean hospitable environment is what?

Is what I have.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Provide one shred of evidence to support that absurd claim.

Modern physics. First, we had centuries of classical physics. That turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Now we have quantum and relativistic physics, both of which we know are inadequate and contradictory and neither of which we can do without.

When a scientific paper is written, it provides evidence, but evidence in the scientific community is almost never viewed as "proof" since we always keep our eyes open for other pieces of evidence that might alter and even refute previous evidence

When a scientific paper is written, is it written inline with some theoretical framework. These have become more and more complicated, contradictory, and self-supporting in the past 100 years as sciences have become more diverse and specialized.

However, the lay media often reports certain evidence as "proof" of whatever, which can indeed be misleading.

Preaching to the choir. I never read media reports of research unless I am asked to by someone who is usually asking me to tell them if there is anything to it or not. I read the research. It's the only way to have any real idea about what's going on in some field.

It's maybe a "game" to you, but certainly not to those who actually know what's possibly at stake.

I've spent years and years reading hundreds of thousands of pages from volumes, papers, reports, and more. It's not a game. It's a quagmire.

You're conflating two things: research (models) and projection models.

"All climate models need observed values for part of their input, especially in order to specify the boundary conditions, and all require observational data with which to compare their results. Some variables, such as surface pressure, are available worldwide and pose only the problem of evaluating the accuracy of the observed dataset. Others, however, are sparse in either time or space. Knowledge of sea ice extent is largely dependent on satellite observations, so that there is only a short observational record and, although satellites offer information on extent and concentration of sea ice, there is little they can say about ice thickness. Thus it is difficult to compare such observations with any long-term average values obtained from models. As modellers include ever more sophisticated components of the climate system in their experiments, there is a growing need for information on other parameters for validation of models. One particular example is ‘soil moisture’. The term could mean all the water in a soil column (which might, technically, include large reserves of groundwater not accessed by the biosphere) or might be limited to the amount of water accessible to the biosphere (possibly termed ‘available soil water’). There is no consistent definition between different modelling groups and no validation set comparable to traditional observations of pressure and temperature. There is still much to be done in the field of model validation."
McGuffie, K., & Henderson-Sellers, A. (3rd Ed.) (2005). A climate modelling primer. Wiley.

There is no clear distinction between climate ("research") models and projection models. Projection models are just the central type of climate models run forward. Climate change theory is built around the idea of running observational models back in time. That's how we get the only thing about GHG increases that makes us worry: feedbacks. Without a large positive feedback parameter, climate change isn't anything to worry about. Our models tell us that, having accounted for everything we know to be true of climate, there must be this large, (net) positive feedback thanks largely to increases in co2. The issue is that if there is something else which can explain the observed warming without this feedback, then there is no climate change problem. So far, only a few have been proposed (such as the link between GCRs, solar magnetic flux, and cloud seeding). One the other hand, the same models that tell us that there must be this feedback tell us that the feedback should have resulted in an increasing rate of global temperature increases. The models are climate change theory. They tell us how the climate works now and running them forward tells us what the climate will be. As long as they're so fundamentally wrong that 15 years of a total of about ~30 or so of warming can't be explained, then we have an extremely serious problem. This has been pointed out in the research repeatedly, but unfortunately the sciences are replete with problems due to things like reputations and academic politics, and throwing actual politics into the mix amounts to a nightmare. No field is so thoroughly clamped down upon anything and everything regarding data and methods and sharing. The naysayers are to blame here too, as no field has so many amateurs who spend their free time trying to get access to data behind research just to tear it apart not to add to the field with newer and better theories. But the end result is still a quagmire.

it's based on actual measurements

That disagree in multiple ways with other measurements and with models. For example:
Douglass, D. H., Christy, J. R., Pearson, B. D., & Singer, S. F. (2008). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 28(13), 1693-1701.
and we also know what's the major factor-- human activity in various forms.

Even if one had some doubts, doesn't it make sense to side with caution?

All actions have consequences including not acting. The question isn't "should we do something" but "what should we do and why". The problem is that thanks to politics the number 1 committee which could have helped here has thoroughly messed up any chance it had to do so by continuously putting politics first and science last.

Why would one be so careless to take a chance, especially since energy conservation is a win/win solution anyway?

The answer is the kind of fall-out that can occur from "simple" solutions, and many solutions, like Kyoto, were or are lose/lose, as
1) They won't do anything for the climate
2) They will be extremely expensive
Banning DDT was easy. Dealing with millions upon millions of dead thanks to the resurgence of malaria all because Carson wrote Silent Spring is not so easy. Actions have consequences no matter what. I'd prefer not to be blinded by the politics of either side.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is what I have.

Speak for yourself.