• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

some climate news everyone can be happy about:

[video]https://www.foxnews.com/us/groundhog-day-punxsutawney-phil-doesnt-see-his-shadow-predicts-an-early-spring[/video]
 
Good grief.

Only a fool would imagine that climate/temperature are only affected by atmospheric CO2 levels.

Of course there are many variables that exert effects.

It’s appropriate to try and understand it the best we can, and to put forth reasonable theories, test them, and argue about what is valid. And to expect our understanding to evolve over time.

Now, if the climate is changing in a way that is problematic (seems to be) and if we are contributing to that change (seems likely we are), even if there are other variables we are not responsible for influencing, it seems prudent to consider adjusting our influences in a way that would be expected to mitigate the undesirable change. Especially if the benefits of proposed changes extend beyond influences on temperature.

Of course there’s always some degree uncertainty.
 
I could do this all day.. here is another (97 per Center) and there are literally thousands and they are growing by the day.

Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Authored more than 130 peer-reviewed papers and nine books:
'I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science...Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change.'
'If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.'
'It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix...We should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.'
'We may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses...The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in medieval times'
 
Don’t argue with me.. take your lightweight climate scientists like Michael Mann and put his small brain up against the leading astrophysicists and mathematicians — the ones who KNOW without a doubt that your computer models are a joke and have been proven to be so.

Thankfully,more people have woken up and are not as taken in by this ideology driven religion parading as science.

Argue with Richard Happer or Willie Soon or Henrik Svensmark or Lubos Motl ad infinitum — then we’ll find out who the real “mouth breathers” are. Climate scientists..what a bunch of shit. I will take the brains who took over from the lineage of Einstein, Fermi and Oppenheimer.

You keep your bush league climate screamers who have way overplayed their Grant-Hand. Their is a everything with these rapscalions and charlatans. All they have to do is say “hey, i’m studying the life span of the Eastern night-snipe” and somebody will chime “add the effects of climate change on said night-snipe and the spigot will flow”
 
ConnorEl said:
Good grief.

Only a fool would imagine that climate/temperature are only affected by atmospheric CO2 levels.

Of course there are many variables that exert effects.

It’s appropriate to try and understand it the best we can, and to put forth reasonable theories, test them, and argue about what is valid. And to expect our understanding to evolve over time.

Now, if the climate is changing in a way that is problematic (seems to be) and if we are contributing to that change (seems likely we are), even if there are other variables we are not responsible for influencing, it seems prudent to consider adjusting our influences in a way that would be expected to mitigate the undesirable change. Especially if the benefits of proposed changes extend beyond influences on temperature.

Of course there’s always some degree uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Precisely one of the points. We don't really know how much of recent climate change is anthropogenic. Nor do we know exactly what to do right now. Nor do we know to what extent anything we might do will effect climate change. And we certainly don't know the costs involved (for either action or non-action), or how cost effective what we do might be. The German example discussed in the article cited above should be cautionary in many ways.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Even if it turns out that solar activity negates our C02 output and the earth cools, what is the worse thing that is going to happen by switching to renewable energy sources? Our earth is less polluted and we foster new technologies and innovations while letting aging industry die? Seems ok to me.
Click to expand...

You been stumping with Bernie and Occasional Cortex.

You know the price tag for your day dream?

You know what a yellow vest is? Well expect to see an assload with the outrageous taxation involved in your ridiculous fantasy. Oh yea, you got yours - so fuck Africa. Gimp
 
The average American is fatigued with this unending stream of fear and bullshit all for the sake of taxation and more non-representative government agencies. You children can carry on with it until you are tired of being the fucking suckers you surely have become.

No warming for 19 years.
 
Lectro said:
The average American is fatigued with this unending stream of fear and bullshit all for the sake of taxation and more non-representative government agencies. You children can carry on with it until you are tired of being the fucking suckers you surely have become.

No warming for 19 years.
Click to expand...

link?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Why bother arguing with climate change deniers? Just a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Because republicans are exploiting their ignorance to extract cash in for another generation or two before the bad effects really crank up.
 
It’s a theory for the blind,deaf and dumb.

Maybe if you told your people not to go completed whacked and maybe this hypotheshit would get off the ground..

But “no more snow,so enjoy it while it lasts” (circa 2004)

“Manhattan will be underwater by 2010” (circa 2000)

“12 more years till it’s all over” - Occasional Cortex (2018)

I mean if you get hold of some of these loons and get them to stfu — but wait,Climate Change/warm/cool/just right is a theory born out of fear of what may happen and loathe for humankind.

My advice to you.. find a true religion
 
As to the insane, brainwashed, ignorant mantra that addressing will kill the economy, last year there were more jobs added in renewable energy companies than exist in coal companies. It's one of the fastest growing segments of our economy.
 
I'm all for trying to understand stuff the best we can. And for doing what we can to take care of the only easily/naturally habitable place we'll ever have to live (our lifetime and for a long time moving forward likely).

Seems an odd issue to object to with such passion and vitriol. I think some folks just despair of any effort involving collective behavior. Or governance generally.

Renewable and clean energy just makes more sense anyway.

Imperfections, uncertainty, etc. don't mean we can't try and do what seems to be useful, helpful, or good.

Some degree of uncertainty isn't same as "no confidence".
 
ConnorEl said:
I'm all for trying to understand stuff the best we can. And for doing what we can to take care of the only easily/naturally habitable place we'll ever have to live (our lifetime and for a long time moving forward likely).

Seems an odd issue to object to with such passion and vitriol. I think some folks just despair of any effort involving collective behavior. Or governance generally.

Renewable and clean energy just makes more sense anyway.

Imperfections, uncertainty, etc. don't mean we can't try and do what seems to be useful, helpful, or good.

Some degree of uncertainty isn't same as "no confidence".
Click to expand...

Of course these models have uncertainty. All models have uncertainty or at least should. The first paper that sailor linked, the commentary, laid out a pretty good explanation that climate models have two primary sources of uncertainty, starting g state and parametric uncertainty, the question regarding model usefulness is, are the important uncertainties treated appropriately. That’s how we assess appropriateness and confidence. So far amongst the links that sailor has provided I’ve seen no thorough criticism therein that adequately questions the appropriateness of the treatment of uncertainty in the climate models.

The big thing that climate discussions could really benefit from is a risk assessment perspective. What the risk of ignoring climate change? Probably huge. What’s the risk of converting our economies to cleaner renewable energies? Short term costs, long term neutral. If you map it out that way, the uncertainties that sailor is harping in are unimportant. In decision science there is a realm of analysis called expected value of information, which basically asks what’s the value of reducing system uncertainties through research investments, and in this case, from a risk analysis decision science perspective it is really hard to see how a “do more research” approach adds value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top