(04-30-2013 10:31 PM)jh Wrote:  Why do people keep pretending we can predict something as complicated as the climate with any degree of accuracy?

Folks have a hard time predicting weather for the next three days, let alone predicting climate in the next decade or century. It's all pretty much politically motivated to some degree, on both sides.

(05-01-2013 07:46 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:41 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:35 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:51 AM)Claw Wrote:  You are not using a bunch of different methods over the time span. You are using one method here - one there - one for a few years here - a different one for a few years there... Since most temperature data is take on land in urban areas, what you actually have is a record of urban heating. That's probably true. But it doesn't mean anything in terms of climate. It just means there is more concrete than there used to be.

So we'll just ignore ice cores, weather balloons, ocean buoys, and weather stations? Scientists record temperatures using a bunch of methods concurrently. Temperatures are recorded literally everywhere, because scientists make sure not to rely on the same kind of measurement. They have to think about every possible explanation as to why their hypothesis could be wrong, and other scientists try to replicate their studies. Scientists get mad brownie points for discrediting each other's studies.

None of what you just said is definitive proof of man made global warming.

Actually what you just said is so utterly absurd it barely even deserves this response.

I never said definitive proof. If you know anything about the scientific method, you know that it doesn't work that way. You don't deserve a response, because it doesn't seem like you know anything about science. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

You are obviously one of those Al Gore followers that believe that the warming is man made. What do you suggest "mankind" does to stop and reverse this warming?

Don't just come on here and say "Develop alternate fuels". What fuels, what are the delivery mechanisims, will they be affordable for poor people to use, and on and on and on.............

Are you going to tell the Chinese peasant burning a chunk of coal to heat his house to stop it and "just bundle up"?

Correct. The environazi's ***** and moan about US contribution to global warming and yet today we are not the major culprit. It is true the US accumulated CO2 emmisions over time is the largest due to our industrial revolution. Problem is....today it is about 17% of the worlds emmissions. China..about 28% IMO..Looks like we are not presently the ones causing the problem. There is nothing we can do about the past. We seem to be improving and should do so for no other reason than to have clean air to breathe. Looks like others need to step up now to me.

(05-01-2013 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with climate change is that you have to believe four propositions, not one:

1. The earth is warming
2. It's a permanent change, not a cyclie one
3. It's man's fault
4. Allowing it to continue would be catastrophic

Too often, the global warming alarmists argue, "The earth is warming, therefore 2, 3, and 4."

What I say is, "OK, it appears that the earth is warming. Now prove 2, 3, and 4."

I don't see much proof of 2, 3, or 4. In particular, the models that have been developed have done a pretty poor job of predicting. That's always troublesome for any scientific theory. The test of validity is that it predicts accurately.

I'd be more convinced if proponents would do a better job on 2, 3, and 4.

Of course, I'd also be more convinced if they were spending their time doing things that might actually fix the problem, instead of going over and over point 1. If you really, really believe that something will be catastrophic, do you spend your time trying to fix it, or trying to convince others how catastrophic you expect it to be?

As I said above...The proponents would be better served with pushing for something everyone wants...like clean air.

(04-30-2013 10:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:31 PM)jh Wrote:  Why do people keep pretending we can predict something as complicated as the climate with any degree of accuracy?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...nsitivity/

Even if it was impossible to predict future climate, an abnormal increase in temperature is being recorded. The actual prediction isn't evidence, it's based upon something that has already occurred. Predictions are more of a tool to explain what we could expect in the best and worst case scenarios.

and where is this abnormal increase in temps

(05-01-2013 08:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with climate change is that you have to believe four propositions, not one:
1. The earth is warming
2. It's a permanent change, not a cyclie one
3. It's man's fault
4. Allowing it to continue would be catastrophic
Too often, the global warming alarmists argue, "The earth is warming, therefore 2, 3, and 4."
What I say is, "OK, it appears that the earth is warming. Now prove 2, 3, and 4."
I don't see much proof of 2, 3, or 4. In particular, the models that have been developed have done a pretty poor job of predicting. That's always troublesome for any scientific theory. The test of validity is that it predicts accurately.
I'd be more convinced if proponents would do a better job on 2, 3, and 4.
Of course, I'd also be more convinced if they were spending their time doing things that might actually fix the problem, instead of going over and over point 1. If you really, really believe that something will be catastrophic, do you spend your time trying to fix it, or trying to convince others how catastrophic you expect it to be?

As I said above...The proponents would be better served with pushing for something everyone wants...like clean air.

Absolutely.

And everything we need to do can be defended totally on that ground. So why the big deal? And why is the big deal about the catastrophe stories instead of about the fixes?

(05-01-2013 08:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 08:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with climate change is that you have to believe four propositions, not one:
1. The earth is warming
2. It's a permanent change, not a cyclie one
3. It's man's fault
4. Allowing it to continue would be catastrophic
Too often, the global warming alarmists argue, "The earth is warming, therefore 2, 3, and 4."
What I say is, "OK, it appears that the earth is warming. Now prove 2, 3, and 4."
I don't see much proof of 2, 3, or 4. In particular, the models that have been developed have done a pretty poor job of predicting. That's always troublesome for any scientific theory. The test of validity is that it predicts accurately.
I'd be more convinced if proponents would do a better job on 2, 3, and 4.
Of course, I'd also be more convinced if they were spending their time doing things that might actually fix the problem, instead of going over and over point 1. If you really, really believe that something will be catastrophic, do you spend your time trying to fix it, or trying to convince others how catastrophic you expect it to be?

As I said above...The proponents would be better served with pushing for something everyone wants...like clean air.

Absolutely.

And everything we need to do can be defended totally on that ground. So why the big deal? And why is the big deal about the catastrophe stories instead of about the fixes?

It is political. The left wants to have a scapegoat. Of course that is big business....the horrible polluter. I guess they have neglected to point out the big business is the one cleaning up the environment. The government is the biggest polluter.

Climate change:

I believe the overall global temp has risen 1C degree over the past several decades, with the Arctic experiencing the greatest warmth. I don't know how much is caused by man, is by natural cycles, or a combination of both. Whichever the case and even if climate 'change' stopped tomorrow, it's still a good idea to seek greener market-driven solutions and limit pollution.

The whole topic has been too highly politicized and hijacked for ulterior, ideologically-driven motives. And forecasting what will happen is a crap shoot.

Evolution

I believe that species can morph and change over time, giving birth to slightly-different subspecies (if that's the right word) and offshoots.

That said, an animal's body contains millions of mindblowing intricate functions, each having a "duty" and collaborating with countless other functions. Just a human eye is rife with amazement. And how does a newborn's heart just 'click on'? That's just the tangible stuff. You also have the intangible nonmatter - emoting, thinking, dreaming, etc. - that scientists still don't fully understand. ...for example, where did something as fantastic as thoughts come from, and how could they have emerged accidentally.

I definitely believe in a mix of natural evolution combined with some sort of overall intelligent 'helping hand.' If we were provided the Ultimate Answers, they may certainly differ from what is written in religious books. But while much of Darwinism is valid, everything is waaaaay too complex, too intricate and set to precision for it to be entirely "by chance" following a few atoms bumping together.

I think we can look at a pragmatic approach to it. If it becomes too much of a problem there will come a time when the political class can't stop ignoring it. Energy supply and demand is a nationwide matter. Public policy and the private sector will come to an agreement because the effects of no action will not be sustainable in my opinion. You can't stop the sun from rising as you can't stop Co2 from trapping heat. It's self evident. It is a truth. CO2 traps heat. We are putting more and more and more of it into our atmosphere. It will just take time dmac. This truth is self evident.

(05-01-2013 08:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think we can look at a pragmatic approach to it. If it becomes too much of a problem there will come a time when the political class can't stop ignoring it. Energy supply and demand is a nationwide matter. Public policy and the private sector will come to an agreement because the effects of no action will not be sustainable in my opinion. You can't stop the sun from rising as you can't stop Co2 from trapping heat. It's self evident. It is a truth. CO2 traps heat. We are putting more and more and more of it into our atmosphere. It will just take time dmac. This truth is self evident.

What do people want from the US? We already are the leader in reducing carbon emissions and account for 17% worldwide. Are we going to ban automobiles and cut off the damn electric power? We are already shifting to clean burning coal and natural gas to power plants. Our auto emissions are improving. We are doing the right things NOW. What reasonable options exist? The proponents of GW oppose nuclear power. That ship has sailed. Just what else are we supposed to do?...kill all the livestock and ban farting?

(05-01-2013 08:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think we can look at a pragmatic approach to it. If it becomes too much of a problem there will come a time when the political class can't stop ignoring it. Energy supply and demand is a nationwide matter. Public policy and the private sector will come to an agreement because the effects of no action will not be sustainable in my opinion. You can't stop the sun from rising as you can't stop Co2 from trapping heat. It's self evident. It is a truth. CO2 traps heat. We are putting more and more and more of it into our atmosphere. It will just take time dmac. This truth is self evident.

But here's the problem. Nobody is working on a solution. Wind and solar aren't the solution because the vast majority of the oil we use is to power cars and trucks, and solar and wind don't do that.

We're doing these little things that chip away at the margin, but nobody is dealing with the elephant in the room. Oil is an amazing substance, a tremendous amount of energy packed into a very small space that is easily transported and refined. It is leaps and bounds ahead of any other fuel source. It's going to be very difficult to replace. And so far we're not coming up with anything that will replace a significant amount of it. We need to be figuring out a solution that will save 3-5 million barrels a day, not a solution that will save 100,000 barrels a day.

Same applies, to a lesser extent, for coal. We're yelling and screaming about the catastrophe that awaits, and doing things that make us feel like we are helping, but they don't really help. It truly is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

That's the problem with comments like yours. There's this insinuation that the solution is right out there, and all we have to do is reach for it. It's not. There's no solution there. Until we put one there, there won't be one. So quit screaming the sky is falling and get busy finding a solution. And not one of the make-believe solutions that the green crowd likes to push. We need real progress toward a real solution.

And here's the rub. If it comes to that time you postulate when the political class can no longer ignore it, but there still is no solution, what then?

I'm disappointed so many well respected posters here on the Spin have fallen for this troll. It's like moths to a flame, and I'm a bit baffled by it.......

(05-01-2013 09:09 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm disappointed so many well respected posters here on the Spin have fallen for this troll. It's like moths to a flame, and I'm a bit baffled by it.......

Maybe we are just bored.

I use to agree with your pessimistic viewpoint Owl, but today we do have it. If we can put the infrastructure together for CNG that is a game changer. Biodigestors. In 8 years Germany has done some very impressive moves to where they are not dependent upon a turn of a nozzle in Ukraine. We haven't had to spend a winter without heat to get our political class to subsidize bidigestors til they are ramped up. The very first step is to understand we are effecting climate. I don't think we are there and if anything the climate deniers have been very successful in turning that tide. We were closer to a public policy in the 90's than we are today.

(04-30-2013 10:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Many people reject man made global warming and evolution to varying degrees. Some say global warming is in no way effected by humans, and some claim that micro-evolution is real and macro-evolution doesn't occur. Some people claim that scientists are flat out wrong. Both concepts are well supported, so why is it still an issue?

All bases are covered with Global Warming. Too hot, too cold, too rainy, bad drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, even prostitution and crime have all been attributed to Global Warming. Hard to argue against something that is the cause of everything.

I think that if you haven't done the science yourself, you cannot take the high road against the doubters.

(04-30-2013 10:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:31 PM)jh Wrote:  Why do people keep pretending we can predict something as complicated as the climate with any degree of accuracy?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...nsitivity/

Even if it was impossible to predict future climate, an abnormal increase in temperature is being recorded. The actual prediction isn't evidence, it's based upon something that has already occurred. Predictions are more of a tool to explain what we could expect in the best and worst case scenarios.

There is no abnormal increase. In fact, it is nothing that hasn't been seen before SUVs and evil multinational corporations.

It's self evident. CO2 traps heat. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

(05-01-2013 09:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's self evident. CO2 traps heat. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

and........... you think that we in the US can implement a bunch of bullcrap stuff and voila, problem solved. Really?

I think we in the US can be a leader in developing technologies that can solve the problem, YES but 1st we just have to come to a consensus that we have a problem. We're not there yet. Hence no leadership.

(05-01-2013 09:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Many people reject man made global warming and evolution to varying degrees. Some say global warming is in no way effected by humans, and some claim that micro-evolution is real and macro-evolution doesn't occur. Some people claim that scientists are flat out wrong. Both concepts are well supported, so why is it still an issue?

All bases are covered with Global Warming. Too hot, too cold, too rainy, bad drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, even prostitution and crime have all been attributed to Global Warming. Hard to argue against something that is the cause of everything.

FTW!!!