What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Yes, unfortunately the climate is a very non-linear system, so there's always something to nag about.
I'm just satisfied with a rough, 1st order estimate: just add CO2 and some water vapor and see what happens. And that picture isn't pretty.
The rest... well that's for fantasy land. Vegetation feedback, ocean currents, etcetera... all very nice but hard to predict and model. There could also be tipping points for large changes in the future.
A freaky set of giant volcanic eruptions? New ice age, maybe even a snowball earth.
Activation of a cataclismic methane feedback? Might happen or not. It wouldn't be nice, but do we have to include such a thing into a model? It's already a pretty bleak picture.
Cloud formation... clouds formation is influenced by lots of things. Temperature, humidity, aerosols, jet stream...
Do we really have to wait 50 years for more accurate models? Or shall we just take action based on the 1st order estimate (call it gut feeling) that we have now and just stop nagging about the details...
I just found out that apparently the media is calling this a polar vortex and is something the liberal left just invented to try and explain why it's cold right now. But as the last guy points out in his manual printed in 1959 we knew about this for a long time.
But if you go to Wiki and search for polar vortex to find out what we know about them You will discover this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853.[5] The phenomenon sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the wintertime in the northern hemisphere and was discovered 1952 with radiosonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 km.[6]
For those bad at math: 2014 - 1853 = 161. So 161 years ago some guys that was studying the the weather came up with the idea that for the climate models to work their needed to be a polar vortex. At the time he couldn't prove it since he did not have the means to do so but his model explained what he was observing more accurately then other models did. In 1952, that's 62 years ago, we finally got the means to directly observe the polar vortex and confirm it's existence.
So we have been planing climate model with a polar vortex factor for 161 years and directly observing it and it's behaviour for 62 years and you will claim that we just made it up?
If you take the time to keep reading, you'll find out that some of the main factor that drive this thing to freeze your ass off is directly linked tot he fact that the planet is getting hotter.
Reading info on the polar vortex kinda ring like a bell to me, something I have seen before....
Now of course that is just a movie, and most climate scientist do not think the planet will freeze it'S self over like this due to global warming, at least not in the way depicted, but the author didn't just pull this scenario out of his ass either!
I trust models just fine. When they're accurate and able to predict the things they claim to predict. A lot of these aren't, which calls into question their assumptions. I'm not comfortable making huge sweeping policy changes based on assumptions that are wrong more often than not and that somehow get swept aside in the we-must-have-consensus-you're-all-deniers thing that we call "Scientific consensus".
And as for:
Take your pathetic internet superiority and stick it up your ass.
Did you come here just to preen and strut and try to feel better about yourself by pretending you're bringing fire to the neanderthals? Because that's all you're doing in half of your posts. "I'm smart and you disagree with me therefore you're dumb, unenlightened, and don't believe in evolution. Change your opinions to match mine and join my fun enlightened club." I'm promise you, you're not the smartest nor the most well credentialed person here. Not even close. Neither am I, but at least I don't pretend I am in my posts.
At least Geo has tried to discuss back and forth with real points and has largely avoided this kind of shit. Even Ekko has, though not as well as Geo. But you! You show up and have been spouting insults from the moment you got to the thread. Your childish sense of superiority is somehow laughable and annoying at the same time.
Yet again I'll ask the question no one seems to want to answer. Let's assume you're all right. AGW is the end of the world. It's all fire and brimstone and penguins with no ice to call home from here on out (but scientists with plenty of ice to call home, or at least to surround their boat). What do you propose we do about it? How can we fix it? What's the solution that actually saves the day and doesn't just give tons of money and tons of authority to a few cleptocrats at the UN (and their friends) while not actually solving anything.
Because let's remember kids China is on its way to producing more CO2 than the next 3 or 4 or 5 countries on the list, combined. It produces roughly as much, or maybe more by now, CO2 as the United States and the EU combined. Russia was #4 on the list in 2012 and has probably moved up to #3 (unless you count the EU as one country, then it's 5 and 4). And neither of those countries is going to get on board with giving up their massive investments in coal power in the coming years that they need to keep their countries growing so the Dogooder Brigade can save the polar bears.
Let's NOT be attacking other site members.
Disagreeing with an opinion is fine. Comments such as this are not.
Don't jump on me, but give him a pass because he slipped calling everyone in the thread who disagrees with him an idiot in by directing at someone he agrees with.
Person 1: "Har har... will you look at all these idiots"
Person 2: "Yup, look at them all"
That's still "attacking other site members." He still called me and Daiwa and Siv and Brad and the others who have been vocal about disagreeing with AGW idiots, he just did it by proxy. No one could possibly read his comment and not realize who it was directed at.
Call it both ways please.
I will refrain in the future.
"yup that is the idiocy we are facing here" is actually inclusive....including himself....it's THAT non-specific.
In fact it's a pretty safe bet everyone here is a rank amateur armchair expert...on either side of the debate.
There are a lot of things that models cannot predict, but are they really relevant for the bigger picture?
The main theme here is the CO2 insulation with feedback from water vapor. This simple aspect of the models gives us a rise of about 1.5 to 3.0 degrees celcius for every doubling of CO2, starting at 300 ppm or so. At a quadrupling (1200 ppm) that would give a temperature rise of 6.0 to 12 degrees celcius. The range comes from the uncertainties regarding the feedback.
Which aspects of the models do you consider relevant? And how much difference will it make for the result of (for example) a quadrupling of CO2 if that aspect of the model is properly included ?
In earlier posts, for example the effect of cloud formation was mentioned. But nobody knows whether there will be more clouds, or fewer clouds if warming continues. So in such a case, you actually know little to nothing. What do you decide in that case ... wait 50 years until someone figures out how it really works ? It could well turn out that it makes no difference and that humanity has wasted 50 years doing nothing, waiting for a pleasant surprise that never came.
Please consider that, too.
Daaawwww look at you...so cute.
Unless he's standing in front of a mirror, it's impossible to be facing something and be inclusive of it. Read the rest of his comment, because he clarifies exactly who he means and it's not inclusive in the slightest. The comment he was responding to and his comment are both full of they this and they that.
It's clearly not inclusive.
Regardless, you win. You're the mod. I'll refrain from calling people on their snide insults in the future.
Thank you.
It's my role to be 'calling people on their snide insults'.
I already stipulated that you're right. What do we do about it?
Cause here's the thing, even if you're wrong as long as the solutions doesn't kill the patient, who cares. Let's do it just because AGW might be real. But if the treatment might kill the patient (in this case, the world economy) then maybe we should get more information. We should be more certain.
I'm not an expert on climate science (and all the different disciplines that make it up). But I'm learned and have a technical background and make a living working with others figuring out the best ways to solve big complex problems in rapidly changing environments (not climate related, obviously). And I've seen enough doubt, Brad's example of CO2 lagging temperature, for example, or consistent failure of the models' predictions of doom to come true as another, to know that we don't have enough information yet to justify potentially killing the patient in order to try to save the patient, because the there is a good chance the disease isn't as bad as some think it is.
Certainly. I've always acknowledged that and (I think/hope?) been respectful of it.
I just think you missed one and it was directed at me (partially).
Now back to your regularly scheduled armchair experting...
As I said, only Jafo is determinative.
Good to be King.
I'm not sure if it'll kill the world economy.
If we can't pay 2x or even 4x the current price for energy, then we're going to be in shitload of trouble anyway.
Do you realize how completely artificial our society is, anyway?
Money isn't the real problem ... it's the distribution of labor.
A 150 years ago there was a huge shift of labor from the country, where people just spent their time cleaning up weeds, to the cities, where people spent time making cool stuff.
For about 50 years that went fine, everyone had a job.
Then came the machines. Steam machines at first, later on electric machines and even computers with brains small and simple enough to do much of the mindless work that people did in the factories.
Nowadays many people don't have a job, we have a SURPLUS of manpower.
There is nothing wrong with creating extra jobs by using "clean" power.
Sure it'll make those who have jobs at this moment a little poorer, but it'll make those who don't have jobs at this moment a little richer.
And it'll help making our environment a lot better too.
Quieter electric cars... can you imagine living in a city where cars just hum along quietly instead of all that noise? It must be heaven.
And less to no air pollution? Fewer people with astma? Less stress... gosh it has to be wonderful.
Even that's enough reason for me to start with it right away, and not wait until we've burnt every fossil fuel available after which we're actually forced to change our economy that way. And by that time our world is so polluted that it's a hellhole to live in anyway.
Because sure... just dump all that waste into the oceans and into the atmosphere. The oceans turn acidic. The atmosphere will probably follow suit.
It's not just the temperature... although I consider the temperature the biggest problem, by a large margin.
I think it's fine for people to be critical of models and how accurate they are as long as they are motivated to then actually learn more about them and are not falling for the fallacy of "Scientists don't know everything, therefore they know nothing and I can safely ignore them" or "Climate models are not 100% accurate therefore they're useless". I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty, motivated reasoning and misunderstandings of the science in the way the evidence gets interpreted though (in the media generally). In Daiwa's Christopher Essex example - maybe he has some good points to make. Or maybe he has an axe to grind after falling out with former colleagues. The fact that he is embraced by groups like the Heartland Foundation and people like Harper though is a warning sign as neither are known for their scientific credibility in general. On the flip side, accusations of stifling any dissent and not publishing contrary evidence needs to be taken seriously too. I'd rather see people like Mr. Essex publish more and engage with other climate scientists more and generate debate at that level rather than see him do some echo chamber speaker's tour of Holiday Inns financed by certain think tanks.
I think I'd be pretty careful with that. I'm fairly certain that there are some people in this thread with some decent scientific expertise in areas related to climatologists (even if there are no actual climatologists).
It's a good thing scientists were right on the money with cholesterol...
http://www.pittsburghquarterly.com/index.php/Innovation/the-cholesterol-conundrum.html
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/
Yes, it was a good thing that scientists did a good job with cholesterol! If they hadn't, millions of people would have unnecessarily died. An excellent analogy!
The first article says that we largely understand cholesterol and lists a number of ways in which we have historically understand how cholesterol works. In fact, in concludes with:
"Despite the many unanswered questions, researchers have come far in their understanding of cholesterol and the lipoproteins that carry it. Mackey says, "The LDL story [cholesterol vs. particles] has been largely worked out and much of that research was done here at Pitt.""
Basically, it says that we know a lot about it, but there are some DETAILS which we might not fully understand, so more research is needed (especially relating to HDL). Luckily, we did not wait until every single detail of cholesterol was understood before doctors started saving lives.
This is a good comparison to climate change - there is certainly some work that can be done in understanding the details of climate change, but we have an excellent understanding of the big picture. Based on that big picture understanding, we should start to make reasonable changes (just like doctors did with their admittedly incomplete understanding of cholesterol in the human body).
In the same way, saying this is probably not smart: "Doctors can't model every single detail of cholesterol in the human body. Therefore, I'm going to ignore it and feel free to jack up my LDL levels as high as I want". But this is essentially what people are doing with climate change.
In the second link you seem to be trying to undo a large chunk of medical science by linking to some random woman's blog. This is clearly nuts, so I'm going to assume that you were joking there.
Yes, instead let's believe "I sell diet books but have no credentials, medical or otherwise" Zoe Harcombe. The same Zoe Harcombe who says about fruits and vegetables "Of course, they are tasty, colourful additions to any meal. But in terms of health and nutrition, fruit and veg have little to offer".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-1349960/5-day-fruit-vegetables-myth-claims-nutrition-expert.html
Sounds legit to me!
Anyway - I'm not sure what your point is. Scientists (or doctors in this case now) are clearly not always right about everything. But there is currently no better way to understanding reality and the whole point is that science evolves and improves its practices over time and is self-critical enough within its own disciplines to do so. Things do get discarded as new evidence comes to light. We are still learning things. As far as cholesterol goes, I know the "Cholesterol Myth" is making the rounds and, as usual, it's more complicated than good/bad, right/wrong. For another topic though...
I love you and I love your very nice analogy.
On the thing of me calling people Idiots. Jafo thanks for the defence but I did mean it. However they are conditions that need to apply to it first before it is warranted. Reason why the comment was so vague. Krazikarl here just provided us with a very good example of what conditions need to applied much better then my own example which was.
"We all know form what I can read that we all agree a warmer earth would be deadly to the human race. In essence we know that if things keep going the way they are were are literally going to drive off the side of a cliff and crash & burn. That their is no debate. What we debate about is when it's going to happen. The problem is their is an other even that will happen before that that will ensure we go over the cliff even if we change our minds and that is the tipping point. The point at which we haves screwed up the environment so bad that if we were to cut all green house emission over night we would still go over the cliff. The problem with that tipping point is we won't know it when we cross it. So the scenario is this, your in your car driving fast in the dark with no headlights, you get informed that you are heading for a cliff but that sometime before you you get to the cliff. Your speed and steering control will burn-up and the car will continue to accelerate on it's own and you will lose steering. What do you do keep on going or stop?"
Honestly you shouldn't have to ask your self that question wouldn't you? Only an idiot would ask the question, and only a bigger idiot would answer to continue.
Then some of you asked what can do if everything will kill off our economy and ect. I would reply back that you have been deliberate mislead. Our so called "economy" would best be described as a "wastetonomy", but that is a whole different subject. The truth is that we already have the solution to our green house problem that will allow us to keep our standard of living. To discuss the solution I would invite you to head over to this thread:https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/451227/page/1/#repliesor you can also check out this website to get a general idea:http://energyfromthorium.com/
As for the accusation that unlike GeomanNL and Ekko_Tek I don't provide any super information I would go back a few pages when I did such things and provided information that some of the information they were using to support their arguments had been debunked and proven to be false long ago. But it was totally ignored. So if you provide information that totally proves you wrong and you refuse to even acknowledge it then you are deceitful in your willingness to talk this over, which makes it pointless to talk to you because if it's information you do not like you dismiss it. The 2nd reason I do not provide more in formation iss because the aforementioned people provide much better and more up to date information then I can. I have stop collecting and reading large amounts of data on climate change for a few years now, I've been focusing my energy in finding the solutions.
P.S. I haven't replied in the thread linked for a bit because I had to look up some information and prep some counter points to some of the other critics that popped up. Some of which are holding thoughts I myself held for a long time until I got more information about what they are talking about. I hope to have a reply posted sometime tonight.
If you had bothered to read the thread, you would see Thorium reactors were discussed for several pages and most people, myself included, sung their praises. I'm on board. You could put a thorium reactor next to my house and I'd be fine with it. It could give me the power that my solar panels won't cover. In fact Thorium reactors are point number one in my argument (more in a moment).
Unfortunately, you're not going to get the Chinese or the Russians to invest in converting their massive coal based power systems to Thorium. At least not anytime soon and not at any huge rate of speed. The EU and the US have already flattened on their carbon growth.
As I've said many times throughout this thread, let's just not do anything crazy that could ruin the quality of life of people around the world (through recession, collapse or war) and could ruin the development of the very technologies that might allow us to stop any AGW that does exists. Let technology solve this problem itself over the next century. We're going to be on thorium and solar completely soon enough (or something better, if it comes along), so unless we can prove that the intervening few decades are what make or break us coming back from the supposed AGW cliff, why do anything drastic?
It's going to happen anyway.
And really:
Enough with this, huh? Apparently you're fine, mod wise, if you just keep implying those who disagree with you are idiots, but it really makes talking to you tiresome.
I once meant one of those people who believe the rapture is imminent...just to troll them, I told them that Nostradamus had already determined the rapture to be in sometime in the 25th century, so they obviously must be wrong....well, the punk took me seriously and finished with the killing argument:
"Just wait another few years, and we'll see who's laughing when you disbelievers are still cowering on earth while we are in the kingdom of God."
If you think this thread is entertaining, just wait for the telepathic virtual world thread 50 years from now...I don't know nor care who will be right, I just know that thread is going to be one big hilarious "I told you so".....
@Sel - so instead of the Rapture, we have AGW predictions, Thorium powered society predictions, and telepathic virtual world predictions! 50 years from now we'll have a bionically enhanced, cryogenically preserved, sanity deficient Jafo still tending this weed garden! The "I told you sos" might come sooner than that though...
Even I got pursuaded that the use of thorium reactors might be a less bad thing than global warming. I don't like them at all, but I would reluctantly accept them as a necessity, because governments and people are too lazy and greedy to look for "safer" solutions.
As far as the unavoidable cliff... actually I don't really believe humanity will let it come that far. In the end we'll just build lots of nuclear power plants and extract the CO2 from the atmosphere and put it back in the ground where it belongs. I think that will save the world, but unfortunately it will be so costly and it will take so long and at the same time so many changes will have to be made to the economy, under hothouse conditions that are tough already: it will bankrupt us all and make everyone incredibly poor. In this respect our cheap energy is a HUGE uncovered bill that we push very far into the future.
And why will it be costly:
- it takes incredible amounts of energy.
- it takes lots of people and (scarce) resources to make it work.
- the ground has to be prepared for the gas. It has to be fracked so that it can absorb the gas. This is a huge undertaking, because we're talking several trillion tons of CO2 that have to be put back into the earth...
No, this 'mod' is not 'fine'.
The generalized assertion that any side of a debate 'must be idiots' is ALSO not acceptable.
To demonstrate....the next person to suggest such shall be excluded from participation here.
Bottom line. I don't care whose side of the fence you're hanging out on. So far this thread has seen several people 'silenced' [time out] - something that tends to be more common in Political threads [hence their banning from this Forum category].
BTW....'sanity deficient JAFO'. Are we tired of living or had you cottoned on to the idea I don't care about myself being 'insulted'? Anyone else the target and tha door slaps you on the way out...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
