Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,430 << first < prev | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | next > last >>

Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

1) Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.

2) The whole argument about "gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion" in the field started as a way to discredit any defense against his attack on wind power. It has nothing to do with calling his sources into question of course.

3) Your take on his position is at least coherent, but it doesn't seem to match what he's posted. That's why I started harping on how his conspiracy theory take discredited his own arguments.

1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

2) Not "any defense". I've already admitted that there are many near-shore installations that make sense. Essentially none of the off-shore ones do. Most of the inland projects, particularly the remote ones, are a net waste of money. This says nothing of future wind power installation; what with all the lawsuits and other negative press for all the raptor slaughter and Chiroptera slaying, I think some sense is finally starting to get into the wind power project planning process.

3) Thank you for clarifying my position to others who seem to refuse to listen to me. And I think you know, at this point at least, that I don't advocate a conspiracy approach in my skepticism. Proving conspiracies is practically impossible but I think any reasonable person would see the Climategate emails (and Judith's and John's testimony) as proof that important journal editors and reviewers are willing to set aside good scientific practice for age-old group think.

.

Devon Northwood wrote:
If you constantly try to defend yourself by saying "you guys all missunderstand me"
If you constantly try to defend yourself by saying "you guys all missunderstand me" and then never pointing out WHAT we are not understanding, then I have a very good idea who the troll is.

Your position is understandable, but incoherent.

There's no conspiracy, but the results are skewed by group think bias, except when they agree with you.

And exactly as predicted, you're using the (decade old, iirc) paper CB found when challenged to find a critique of wind power (since that wouldn't be allowed by the group think) to discredit his post about the affordability of renewables without ever engaging with the new paper he linked.


Quark Blast wrote:


1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

You're still using the term wrong. Like... you are literally wrong on this.

Silver Crusade

Quark Blast wrote:


1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

I genuinely don't understand this (ie, I'm not just being snarky :-)). If you reject the models then how can you reasonably have ANY clue as to what the climate will be 10 or 30 or whatever years from now?

The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Silver Crusade

Quark Blast wrote:
irontruth wrote:
Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately.
"Sorry"? "Sorry"?! OMG! OMG! The end of the world is nigh!

I know that things have gotten pretty personal between you two but that is pretty uncalled for.

He made a mistake. He then acknowledged that he made a mistake. No waffling or trying to change the subject, he flat out admitted that he made a mistake and apologized for doing so.

Its how adults argue.


thejeff wrote:
Your position is understandable, but incoherent.

Yes, you see my position as incoherent. I agree that's the way you see it. I disagree with that conclusion.

thejeff wrote:
There's no conspiracy, but the results are skewed by group think bias, except when they agree with you.

The Climategate emails, the emails not some Guardian summary of some part of the whole affair, shows a rather sad reflection on several high status climate researchers and their unambiguous petty biases.

More importantly, it's not 'when they agree with me', but when they put forth cogent and substantial work, then, and only then, I'm obliged to agree with them.

thejeff wrote:
And exactly as predicted, you're using the (decade old, iirc) paper CB found when challenged to find a critique of wind power (since that wouldn't be allowed by the group think) to discredit his post about the affordability of renewables without ever engaging with the new paper he linked.

What I'm using from that paper, what you didn't bother to look up (apparently), is the scale of the problem. That paper outlines the scale of the problem rather extensively, though it doesn't show that in the Abstract. So if all you've read is the Abstract, you won't understand my point. And the thing is, the scale of the problem has actually gotten greater since the paper was published. Sometime in the early 2030s that will no longer be the case and a dedicated move to 100% renewable power will be a useful global project to undertake.

Look at a graph for the price of cobalt over the past two decades. Those spikes you see are spikes of unwarranted optimism about the pace of EV production. Going to 100% renewable power right now is a fancy of unwarranted optimism too. You can try it but you'll get several crashes until it's actually the right time. Thinking a boom is a steady trend is how Venezuela is where it's at today. The downside of those spikes bring a metric ####-ton of suck. If you don't mind the globe looking like that country for a good chunk of the next 40 years. Go ahead "make the world" go 100% renewable power now. But I warn you, it's a bad risk.


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
irontruth wrote:
Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately.
"Sorry"? "Sorry"?! OMG! OMG! The end of the world is nigh!

I know that things have gotten pretty personal between you two but that is pretty uncalled for.

He made a mistake. He then acknowledged that he made a mistake. No waffling or trying to change the subject, he flat out admitted that he made a mistake and apologized for doing so.

Its how adults argue.

You saw that as an apology?

Hmmm... either your sense of humor is far more subtle than I suspected or...


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

I genuinely don't understand this (ie, I'm not just being snarky :-)). If you reject the models then how can you reasonably have ANY clue as to what the climate will be 10 or 30 or whatever years from now?

The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Almost don't have the energy for this reply, but here goes.

Look and see the part of my answer (that you quoted just above) where I've now taken the relevant words and ital-and-boldified so they're easier to spot. Reread that and then let me know if you need further help to understand.

Silver Crusade

Quark Blast wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

I genuinely don't understand this (ie, I'm not just being snarky :-)). If you reject the models then how can you reasonably have ANY clue as to what the climate will be 10 or 30 or whatever years from now?

The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Almost don't have the energy for this reply, but here goes.

Look and see the part of my answer (that you quoted just above) where I've now taken the relevant words and ital-and-boldified so they're easier to spot. Reread that and then let me know if you need further help to understand.

Ok, now YOU are being offensively snarky.

Yes, I need further help to understand. Amazingly. I DID read your entire post. And it is still really unclear.

As in which parts and to what extent the models are right and wrong is a pretty key point that you can't just avoid by saying "particulars". Are you just disagreeing with the error bars, are you disagreeing with the conclusions, what are you disagreeing with?

Or (and now I AM being snarky) are your various opponents in this thread (of which I am actually NOT one) right that you're just making up your position as you're going along


If the world is ending, can we at least get REM back to sing about it?

Dark Archive

Quark Blast wrote:
3) Thank you for clarifying my position to others who seem to refuse to listen to me.

Where have we done that?

Quark Blast wrote:
Devon Northwood wrote:
If you constantly try to defend yourself by saying "you guys all missunderstand me" and then never pointing out WHAT we are not understanding, then I have a very good idea who the troll is.
You can say that but given that thejeff has just proven my position is clearly understandable I call BS on your argument here (and generally elsewhere for that matter).

You call BS on WHAT? Your position being understandable was my entire argument. That does not make you right, or makes me agree with you.

I understand the nazi argument for attacking russia in 1941. I don't agree with it, but I understand what they wanted to say.
Do you understand the difference?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Most of the inland projects, particularly the remote ones, are a net waste of money.

As extensive evidence to the contrary has already been presented, without you making any effort to refute it, this is yet another instance of you sticking to a position you cannot defend.

On shore wind power is currently the least expensive option for most of the planet.

Quark Blast wrote:
Proving conspiracies is practically impossible but I think any reasonable person would see the Climategate emails (and Judith's and John's testimony) as proof that important journal editors and reviewers are willing to set aside good scientific practice for age-old group think.

Again, this just bears no resemblance to reality. Judith Curry and John Christy are the ones who set aside good scientific practice. Curry by renouncing her own findings when the math proved her wrong. Christy by constantly biasing his findings to support his personal beliefs (e.g. "All God created is precious, and humans are the most precious part of creation." and "Now, some extreme environmentalists, they say that a whale is more important than your child. These people, they want us to live in the Stone Age.")

This chart shows a series of revisions to Christy's temperature trend studies based on errors proven by other researchers. Note that in each case the warming trend went up... somehow every error in his methodology managed to bias the results in the same direction.

Despite their bad science, both have been published extensively (e.g. all of the Christy studies listed on the chart)... further debunking your claims of the great science journal conspiracy that is simultaneously blocking PROOF! that global warming is not happening at all AND that it is much worse than advertised!

As if that weren't so ridiculous that it debunks itself.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pauljathome wrote:
The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Yes and no.

Climate models are the only tools we have for predicting many localized impacts, but there are other options for the 'big picture' stuff.

For example, paleoclimate study of all the past incidents of climate change that we have reasonable data for shows a consistent range of climate sensitivity (e.g. how much temperatures go up or down given a corresponding increase/decrease in greenhouse gases)... which matches the range found by the models.

Likewise, simple energy balance calculations... we can measure the amount of energy coming in vs the amount going out. Thus, we know how much is accumulating in the climate system. From there we can add in the impacts of the major known feedback effects (e.g. water vapor & ice albedo) and... again get warming in the same range predicted by the models.

Et cetera.

This is why all the 'models are completely wrong' stuff is something of a joke. They are completely wrong... but just happen to match (within the margins of error) all other available avenues of research AND the actual history? That's an implausible level of coincidence.

Silver Crusade

CBDunkerson wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Yes and no.

Climate models are the only tools we have for predicting many localized impacts, but there are other options for the 'big picture' stuff.

.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not.

It is my understanding that
1) the models are based on zillions ( :-) ) of pieces of science. Data like you describe combined with various understandings of how various physical processes work and interact.
2) it is the models that we are using to project all that data into conclusions about the future. It is the models that let us play "what if" games (what happens if various greenhouse gases hit various levels at various times being one of those hypotheticals).

So BOTH determining the global effects of, for example, reducing current emissions by 50% by 2030 AND determining the localized effects on, say, the Sahara desert are BOTH determined pretty much completely by the models.

Do you agree with that summary?


I do, and I agree that we will continue to discover new factors that will dramatically alter the conclusions we draw from those models.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:
I do, and I agree that we will continue to discover new factors that will dramatically alter the conclusions we draw from those models.

On one level, I love it when I find I'm in violent agreement with somebody.

On another level, it leaves little to discuss :-).

Oh well, I'm sure QB will be back soon to tell me what a moron I am for not agreeing with everything he says :-) :-)


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

I genuinely don't understand this (ie, I'm not just being snarky :-)). If you reject the models then how can you reasonably have ANY clue as to what the climate will be 10 or 30 or whatever years from now?

The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Almost don't have the energy for this reply, but here goes.

Look and see the part of my answer (that you quoted just above) where I've now taken the relevant words and ital-and-boldified so they're easier to spot. Reread that and then let me know if you need further help to understand.

Ok, now YOU are being offensively snarky.

Don't mean to be. Though it's also true I hardly care that I am perceived so. At least on this forum against my usual detractors.

pauljathome wrote:

Yes, I need further help to understand. Amazingly. I DID read your entire post. And it is still really unclear.

As in which parts and to what extent the models are right and wrong is a pretty key point that you can't just avoid by saying "particulars". Are you just disagreeing with the error bars, are you disagreeing with the conclusions, what are you disagreeing with?

One can't really disagree with error bars. Assuming the stats were done right, they are what they are.

Sometimes I think they are measuring the wrong thing but mostly it's this:
All Climate Models spit out values for how the Earth's climate will change due to AGW. All of those particular values are wrong and even taking the average of all the (30 or so) good models won't eliminate the kind of error that chaotic systems manifest. What the average global temperature will be in the year 2100 is anybody's guess given certain assumptions.

The Earth's climate for the last 800ka, at least, seems to follow a bifurcating path. Meaning it functions as if it's controlled by a strange attractor. Now, some of the things global humanity is doing might just be pushing the climate system off of the usual bifurcations. If so then our climate models are even more useless than I think at present.

There are also certain limits on how much heat can be trapped by the Earth's atmosphere, whatever it's composition. The limits are the part I find most useful because they can set a minimum (aka floor) temperature that can be reasonably expected. These limits tell me the year 2100 will be at least +2.5°C over the preindustrial average.

The climate models don't tell me anything useful about what the average annual evapotranspiration potential will be in Cape Town circa the year 2100. They don't tell me what a typical summertime high around 2100 will be in Novosibirsk. Nor do they tell me what the sea level will be at Portsmouth that year.

Those and similar particulars.

pauljathome wrote:
Or (and now I AM being snarky) are your various opponents in this thread (of which I am actually NOT one) right that you're just making up your position as you're going along

Mostly, excepting thejeff, they misunderstand and/or purposefully misrepresent what I'm arguing and then go on ad nauseam about how ridiculous I am for arguing those points - which I'm not actually making!

There's at least one who's a total ###hat to just about everyone at one time or another and I mostly ignore that poster because whenever I think of responding it just makes me sad to consider someone, who is an adult (chronologically), acts like that habitually.

One of the things global humanity will need to do to mitigate AGW is cooperate on a massive scale. A scale totally unprecedented in human history. We on this thread (who all agree AGW is a thing and that this thing is worse now in 2019 than it was in 2009, worse in 2009 than it was in 1999, etc), can't even cooperate. That is, BTW, another facet of my sociological argument as to why we won't be effectively limiting AGW circa 2100 any better than if the Kyoto/Paris/Katowice never happened. At this point all progress is based in greed. Fancy summits and pledges don't mean a ###### thing compared to what greed will do for us. Follow the $$$ and the $$$ is in renewables.
:D


So... I feel like my contributions are being ignored here. Do I need to open up a black hole in the center of the Earth to get attention?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pauljathome wrote:

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not.

It is my understanding that
1) the models are based on zillions ( :-) ) of pieces of science. Data like you describe combined with various understandings of how various physical processes work and interact.
2) it is the models that we are using to project all that data into conclusions about the future. It is the models that let us play "what if" games (what happens if various greenhouse gases hit various levels at various times being one of those hypotheticals).

So BOTH determining the global effects of, for example, reducing current emissions by 50% by 2030 AND determining the localized effects on, say, the Sahara desert are BOTH determined pretty much completely by the models.

Do you agree with that summary?

No.

Paleoclimate studies don't have high enough temporal resolution to determine short term changes like your 2030 example, but energy balance equations, historical trend analysis, and other methods do.

You could eliminate climate models entirely and most of what we know about global warming would not change. What the models provide is the ability to crunch vast amounts of data to come up with projections which are highly detailed for both time and geography. They also give us 'big picture' results... but those results match what we get from multiple other methods.

Consider this Climate Sensitivity chart... climate models are only one of the methods listed for estimating climate sensitivity and yet all of the methods get results within overlapping uncertainty ranges.

Quark Blast wrote:
The Earth's climate for the last 800ka, at least, seems to follow a bifurcating path. Meaning it functions as if it's controlled by a strange attractor. Now, some of the things global humanity is doing might just be pushing the climate system off of the usual bifurcations.

I can only conclude that you don't know what several of those words actually mean, because there is nothing bifurcated or 'following a strange attractor' about Earth's climate over the past 800,000 years. Rather, there is a very simple and obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 level and temperature. Nothing chaotic about it at all. It certainly doesn't bifurcate.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Paleoclimate studies don't have high enough temporal resolution to determine short term changes like your 2030 example, but energy balance equations, historical trend analysis, and other methods do.

True.

CBDunkerson wrote:
You could eliminate climate models entirely and most of what we know about global warming would not change. What the models provide is the ability to crunch vast amounts of data to come up with projections which are highly detailed for both time and geography. They also give us 'big picture' results... but those results match what we get from multiple other methods.

"Highly detailed" but also total guesses as the details get eaten by the chaos that is our global climate.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Consider this Climate Sensitivity chart... climate models are only one of the methods listed for estimating climate sensitivity and yet all of the methods get results within overlapping uncertainty ranges.

They also have ad hoc adjustments (a process helpfully called "parameterization" to disguise the inherent ambiguity) which makes the models give coherent answers (often so that they more closely agree with preordained theory).

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
The Earth's climate for the last 800ka, at least, seems to follow a bifurcating path. Meaning it functions as if it's controlled by a strange attractor. Now, some of the things global humanity is doing might just be pushing the climate system off of the usual bifurcations.
I can only conclude that you don't know what several of those words actually mean, because there is nothing bifurcated or 'following a strange attractor' about Earth's climate over the past 800,000 years. Rather, there is a very simple and obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 level and temperature. Nothing chaotic about it at all. It certainly doesn't bifurcate.

Doesn't bifurcate huh?

So the words glacial and interglacial ought to be banned by the scientific community? Is that what you're saying?

:D

So then the more interesting question:
This bifurcation, as indeed seen reflected in the trend of atmospheric CO2 level, is this an indicator of the CO2 following or driving? Or is there more going on than a simple linked covariance.


It's really kind of amusing that while QB agrees with the basic theory of global warming (and a fairly extreme version at that), he seems to regularly echo and use "skeptic" arguments in between citing papers that agree with him. Obviously the whole "climate scientists are biased" thing we went through over the last week or so, including Climategate!, but the focus on climate as a chaotic system is another one that's a big skeptic talking point, but not really in mainstream climate science.


thejeff wrote:
It's really kind of amusing that while QB agrees with the basic theory of global warming (and a fairly extreme version at that), he seems to regularly echo and use "skeptic" arguments in between citing papers that agree with him. Obviously the whole "climate scientists are biased" thing we went through over the last week or so, including Climategate!, but the focus on climate as a chaotic system is another one that's a big skeptic talking point, but not really in mainstream climate science.

Apparently Stephen Wolfram's concepts are hard to write into a grant.

:D

Srsly though, getting grants and getting published and keeping your job all hang together for most major scientists. Rocking the boat just doesn't pay off short, or medium term. Unless getting seen as pariah is the "payout" you're aiming for.


You're just repeating more climate change denier memes.

The Koch brothers have shown a willingness to pay scientists if they'll come up with findings they like. So, your assertion that there isn't a payday for scientists willing to buck the norm is a lie.

I mean, you just linked a professor who got paid by an anti-wind think tank just a few days ago. Academics can get paid going against the norm.


Okay so it's official. I'm completely invisible on this thread. Good to know.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Okay so it's official. I'm completely invisible on this thread. Good to know.

Not to meeeeee *reaching out with whole arm*

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
They also have ad hoc adjustments (a process helpfully called "parameterization" to disguise the inherent ambiguity) which makes the models give coherent answers (often so that they more closely agree with preordained theory).

If you are living in the 1970s then this is a biased and misleading description of climate models. Any time after that it's an outright lie.

Quark Blast wrote:

Doesn't bifurcate huh?

So the words glacial and interglacial ought to be banned by the scientific community? Is that what you're saying?

As I suspected, you don't know the difference between the climate 'cycling', 'oscillating', or 'fluctuating' between glacial and interglacial periods and it somehow "bifurcating" in to glacial and interglacial at the same time.

Quark Blast wrote:
This bifurcation, as indeed seen reflected in the trend of atmospheric CO2 level, is this an indicator of the CO2 following or driving? Or is there more going on than a simple linked covariance.

More word salad. You ask whether CO2 is "following or driving", but don't specify what... temperature? Are you talking about Milankovich cycles? Ocean outgassing? Who can tell.

The "following or driving" thing also brings to mind an old (and extremely stupid) climate denier claim that temperature always drives atmospheric CO2 level, but if that is what you are referring to... then you are contradicting dozens of your own past posts.

Silver Crusade

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Okay so it's official. I'm completely invisible on this thread. Good to know.

Um, I just looked back at all your posts in the current page (from Monday at 2pm). In that time, you haven't posted anything that seemed to want a reply.

Not being snarky here, I'm really not. If you posted something of significance then I genuinely did NOT see it.


CBDunkerson wrote:

<snip> Insipid tangential stuff </snip>

Quark Blast wrote:

Doesn't bifurcate huh?

So the words glacial and interglacial ought to be banned by the scientific community? Is that what you're saying?

As I suspected, you don't know the difference between the climate 'cycling', 'oscillating', or 'fluctuating' between glacial and interglacial periods and it somehow "bifurcating" in to glacial and interglacial at the same time.

Talk about asking to be labeled with "word salad"!

:D

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
This bifurcation, as indeed seen reflected in the trend of atmospheric CO2 level, is this an indicator of the CO2 following or driving? Or is there more going on than a simple linked covariance.
More word salad. You ask whether CO2 is "following or driving", but don't specify what... temperature? Are you talking about Milankovich cycles? Ocean outgassing? Who can tell.

Who can tell? You only highlight your bias/disability with criticism like that. Obviously thejeff and several other (now inactive (lurking?)) posters have no problem comprehending my arguments.

CBDunkerson wrote:
The "following or driving" thing also brings to mind an old (and extremely stupid) climate denier claim that temperature always drives atmospheric CO2 level, but if that is what you are referring to... then you are contradicting dozens of your own past posts.

If this were the first page of exchanges for us on this topic thread I could almost imagine someone having the difficulty you do and responding with poorly veiled snark like that. As it is, I don't get why you aren't more straightforward with your attempts at character insult. No one is fooled. Are you going roundabout to avoid the forum rules on good manners?

However, for those who've become confused by your ill-mannered reposte, the real interesting question is:
Does CO2 "follow or drive" the change of global climate state between glacial or interglacial.


paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.

Pats Thomas gently and reassuringly on the head


Quark Blast wrote:
Who can tell? You only highlight your bias/disability with criticism like that. Obviously thejeff and several other (now inactive (lurking?)) posters have no problem comprehending my arguments.

Someone isn't comprehending. I find your arguments contradictory and incoherent and have said as much many times recently, if not in quite so many words.

Good to know you agree with my understanding of them though.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Who can tell? You only highlight your bias/disability with criticism like that. Obviously thejeff and several other (now inactive (lurking?)) posters have no problem comprehending my arguments.
Someone isn't comprehending.

At times, sure. We definitely disagree on several particulars over the course of this thread. But when we do it isn't because you mis-characterize my arguments as certain others here have done.

thejeff wrote:
I find your arguments contradictory and incoherent and have said as much many times recently, if not in quite so many words.

I found I echoed not a few statements from the book Climate Casino, having just recently ran across a copy. Not sure how I missed it except that there is a deluge of publishing in this topic, and no doubt that contributes to the lack of progress in meeting Kyoto/Paris/Katowice pledges.

Back to the topic of my apparent incoherence:
I've also noticed others being swayed by the incompetent/slanderous rewording of my arguments and so you can attribute some of your confusion to posts of uncertain utility.

thejeff wrote:
Good to know you agree with my understanding of them though.

See my interlinear comments above.

When you restate my opinion from your own reading, yes I do believe you understand me, minor corrections allowed.


Quark Blast wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.

Pats Thomas gently and reassuringly on the head

Can I just get chocolate?


The Arctic's sea ice cover: trends, variability, predictability, and comparisons to the Antarctic.

Mark Serreze wrote:
...the skill of seasonal forecasts from predictors such as those described above continues to be limited by the unpredictability of weather patterns beyond 7–10 days.

That is a more pedestrian example of why I don't put much stock in particular predictions from climate models.

Scientific Question:
When will the Northwest Passage open up in the Arctic?

Scientific Answer:
Who the #### knows! We don't know this year from the next, nor this decade from the next. We can characterize the system and, assuming it's been parameterized about right, show that clear passage will be more or less frequent, for longer or shorter periods. But an actual forecast that one can pin business decisions to? No, not happening (unless your business is setting odds for weird things people can wager on).

Models might help us put upper limits on certain things - barring tipping element/points being engaged - but they are more useful in setting lower limits and for exploring systems that can show nonlinear behavior at unexpected places.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.

Pats Thomas gently and reassuringly on the head
Can I just get chocolate?

Chocolate Here:
One Healthy Chocolate Bar: 1 = 1
Silver Crusade

Thomas Seitz wrote:

paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.

Sorry, I barely even know who Thanos and Galactus are :-). So I didn't respond.


Thanos

Galactus

Now you know.

QB,

I prefer unhealthy but thanks....

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Does CO2 "follow or drive" the change of global climate state between glacial or interglacial.

Either statement (i.e. 'follow' or 'drive') could be accurate under specific circumstances, but as numerous relevant details are not supplied neither statement can be considered correct as written.

The 'recent' (i.e. past few million years) cycle between glacial and interglacial periods has been 'driven' by minor variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (i.e. to eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession) which result in more sunlight being absorbed every ~100,000 years. The increased warmth from that solar forcing reduces the amount of carbon dioxide which can be sequestered in the oceans and an atmospheric CO2 increase feedback 'follows'. That increased atmospheric CO2 in turn greatly amplifies the warming and eventually 'drives' an interglacial period... until the planet's orbit shifts again and the whole process operates in reverse.

In contrast, CO2 is currently acting as a forcing... carbon is being dug up and burned, thus increasing the atmospheric CO2 level and warming the planet despite the solar forcing being on a slow decline. Unless somehow reversed or countered, this change will 'drive' a break in the ~100,000 glacial cycle entirely. That is, we will not return to a true glacial period for at least 100,000 years.

Quark Blast wrote:
Mark Serreze wrote:
...the skill of seasonal forecasts from predictors such as those described above continues to be limited by the unpredictability of weather patterns beyond 7–10 days.
That is a more pedestrian example of why I don't put much stock in particular predictions from climate models.

...because you don't understand the vast difference between predicting the weather and predicting climate?

Quark Blast wrote:

Scientific Question:

When will the Northwest Passage open up in the Arctic?

Scientific Answer:
Who the #### knows! We don't know this year from the next, nor this decade from the next. We can characterize the system and, assuming it's been parameterized about right, show that clear passage will be more or less frequent, for longer or shorter periods. But an actual forecast that one can pin business decisions to? No, not happening (unless your business is setting odds for weird things people can wager on).

So... you're looking for the date each year that the Northwest Passage will be 'ice free' for shipping purposes. Again, that would be dependent on weather.

Saying that climate models can 'only' give us rough boundaries / averages for a given time and place is 'true', but absurd... because that is exactly what climate models are meant to achieve. Yes, they can only do exactly what they are designed to do. They cannot do things they aren't designed for. You might as well complain that climate models don't make hamburgers.

If you want to know whether it will rain this weekend you'd look at a weather model. If you want to know the average rainfall for the area in 20 years you'd look at a climate model. The opening date of the Northwest Passage can be (and has been) predicted by weather models... because that is what they do. Climate models don't do that. Go to McDonald's if you want a hamburger.


CB wrote:
So... you're looking for the date each year that the Northwest Passage will be 'ice free' for shipping purposes.

You say that, not me. This is another case of you rewording (or making up whole-cloth) things "I've said". Nope. Wrong again CB.

CB wrote:
If you want to know whether it will rain this weekend you'd look at a weather model. If you want to know the average rainfall for the area in 20 years you'd look at a climate model. The opening date of the Northwest Passage can be (and has been) predicted by weather models... because that is what they do. Climate models don't do that.

So... you didn't actually read the article I linked... again.

<sarcasm> That is so surprising! </sarcasm>

Srsly, your actions are more predictable than either the weather or the climate.
:D

Ann NY Acad Sci wrote:

Strategic planning, such as planning for when the Northwest Passage will become reliably open in summer, requires predictability on decadal and longer time horizons.

...using output from the next generation of models participating in the IPCC 5th Assessment, showed better agreement between observed and simulated trends. However, based on all simulations from all models, including individual ensemble members from models for which they were available, no screening, and adopting the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP4.5) emissions scenario, an essentially ice-free September could be realized as early as the year 2020 or well beyond the year 2100 (Fig. 8).

Yes, weather forecasts are always telling us what the conditions will be over the next few decades. </sarcasm>

And an 80+ year margin of error in climate conditions sounds to me like a weather forecast, eh CB?

To reiterate:
The linked article from August 16th is a more pedestrian example of why I don't put much stock in particular predictions from climate models.

Scientific Question:
When will the Northwest Passage open up in the Arctic?

Scientific Answer:
Who the #### knows! We don't know this year from the next, nor this decade from the next, nor (maybe) this century from next. We can characterize the system and, assuming it's been parameterized about right, show that clear passage will be more or less frequent, for longer or shorter periods. But an actual forecast that one can pin business decisions to? No, not happening (unless your business is setting odds for weird things people can wager on).

Models might help us put upper limits on certain things - barring tipping element/points being engaged - but they are more useful in setting lower limits and for exploring systems that can show nonlinear behavior at unexpected places.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

QB,

I prefer unhealthy but thanks....

Dude! All chocolate is healthy.


Well maybe if it's DARK chocolate...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
This is another case of you rewording (or making up whole-cloth) things "I've said".

Your inability to clearly articulate your points necessitates guessing at what they might be.

Quark Blast wrote:
So... you didn't actually read the article I linked

The only link in that post was to a paper on sea ice variability... which I did read, and which in no way contradicts what I said.

Ann NY Acad Sci wrote:
Strategic planning, such as planning for when the Northwest Passage will become reliably open in summer, requires predictability on decadal and longer time horizons.

So... you aren't talking about "When will the Northwest Passage open" ... "this year from the next", but rather "when the Northwest Passage will become reliably open in summer"?

These are two completely different things. I responded to what you wrote... not what you think (or now say) you meant.

Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about the sea ice in the Canadian archipelago. Your suggestion that the complexity of that particular detail can be extrapolated to the results of climate models in general is nonsense... and contradicts the 'certainty' you have expressed in many of your own past estimates of future climate.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
This is another case of you rewording (or making up whole-cloth) things "I've said".
Your inability to clearly articulate your points necessitates guessing at what they might be.

The remote possibility that your excuse might ring true evaporates when you consider that thejeff has no such problem with my posts.

Nope. You, CB are the common denominator in your own confused postings viz-a-viz my links and commentary thereon.
.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
So... you didn't actually read the article I linked
The only link in that post was to a paper on sea ice variability... which I did read, and which in no way contradicts what I said.

Oh, but it did! My previous post quotes at some length from that same citation and as you can helpfully see there you flubbed your response.

.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Ann NY Acad Sci wrote:
Strategic planning, such as planning for when the Northwest Passage will become reliably open in summer, requires predictability on decadal and longer time horizons.
So... you aren't talking about "When will the Northwest Passage open" ... "this year from the next", but rather "when the Northwest Passage will become reliably open in summer"?

As anyone can see in my previous post, they aren't even sure which century!! the NW Passage will be reliably open.

No, no, no... We aren't talking weather. We are most certainly talking climate.
.

CBDunkerson wrote:
These are two completely different things. I responded to what you wrote... not what you think (or now say) you meant.

But "what I wrote" also includes a link to the full text of the article cited. And of course, as you often do, you "helpfully" ignored the the relevant portions of the article so that you could make your pedantic and irrelevant critique of my post.

.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about the sea ice in the Canadian archipelago. Your suggestion that the complexity of that particular detail can be extrapolated to the results of climate models in general is nonsense... and contradicts the 'certainty' you have expressed in many of your own past estimates of future climate.

"My suggestion"? Oh no! It was the author's suggestion in the paper cited. I've cited other quality published work many, many times up-thread to similar effect.

Really I'm not sure why you like being wrong so much. And publicly at that.


Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
This is another case of you rewording (or making up whole-cloth) things "I've said".
Your inability to clearly articulate your points necessitates guessing at what they might be.

The remote possibility that your excuse might ring true evaporates when you consider that thejeff has no such problem with my posts.

Nope. You, CB are the common denominator in your own confused postings viz-a-viz my links and commentary thereon.

Please don't assume what you write makes sense to me unless I comment on it. I've got no clue what you were talking about here.


Quark Blast wrote:


CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about the sea ice in the Canadian archipelago. Your suggestion that the complexity of that particular detail can be extrapolated to the results of climate models in general is nonsense... and contradicts the 'certainty' you have expressed in many of your own past estimates of future climate.

"My suggestion"? Oh no! It was the author's suggestion in the paper cited. I've cited other quality published work many, many times up-thread to similar effect.

Really I'm not sure why you like being wrong so much. And publicly at that.

I'm reading that paper, and it still looks like you're conflating weather and climate when it suits you. The paper makes it clear when it switches from one to the other in regards to modeling.

Also, you should copy and paste relevant information from papers (though I wouldn't recommend the whole paper, for copyright issues). You and I have university library access, but other people aren't going to pay for articles just to debate you. If you want people to read something from a journal paper, you have to post it here.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
This is another case of you rewording (or making up whole-cloth) things "I've said".
Your inability to clearly articulate your points necessitates guessing at what they might be.

The remote possibility that your excuse might ring true evaporates when you consider that thejeff has no such problem with my posts.

Nope. You, CB are the common denominator in your own confused postings viz-a-viz my links and commentary thereon.

Please don't assume what you write makes sense to me unless I comment on it. I've got no clue what you were talking about here.

I get your point for this particular post and that's fine.

My point wasn't this particular instance so much as the fact that CB regularly "misunderstands" my posts. Or makes a partial quote to enable him to misunderstand. Or chops up a quote in order to, well, make hash of the point I was making. Or... etc. Since he doesn't even make a good faith effort to understand my position his "refutations" are injudicious more often than not and banal when they're not injudicious.


Irontruth wrote:
Also, you should copy and paste relevant information from papers (though I wouldn't recommend the whole paper, for copyright issues). You and I have university library access, but other people aren't going to pay for articles just to debate you. If you want people to read something from a journal paper, you have to post it here.

Agreed and I usually do. Though in this particular case the article is actually legit-free.


The Amazon is burning: What you need to know

alJ wrote:

non-governmental organisations have attributed the record number of fires to farmers setting the forest alight to clear land for pasture and to loggers razing the forest for its wood, with INPE itself ruling out natural phenomena being responsible for the surge....

But in the last half-century alone, nearly 20 percent of the forest has disappeared.

Scientists have warned that if tree loss in the Amazon were to pass a certain "tipping point" threshold, somewhere between 25 and 40 percent, deforestation could start to feed on itself and lead to the demise of the forest within a matter of decades.
...

"But we can't allow ourselves to fall into despair, there's no other way, we have to act - we have a responsibility to ourselves, to future generations and to other beings on this planet, are of which are suffering today as a result of this chaos."

Don't worry, solar and wind power will fix the Amazon. 'Cause you know we won't take our "responsibility" seriously enough to go vegan or at least vegetarian.

.

Plastic particles falling out of sky with snow in Arctic

BBC wrote:

The presence of so many varnish particles in the Arctic was a puzzle.

The researchers assume that some of the contamination may have come from ships grinding against the ice. But they also speculate that some may have come off wind turbines.

...

She said: "We know that most of what we are analysing up there and measuring are long-range transported pollution coming from [Europe], from Asia, coming from all over the world.

"Some of these chemicals have properties that are a threat for the ecosystem, for living animals."

Well... so much for wind power saving the environment.

:D

I kid, I kid. Still ya gotta give me the rhetorical punch from that one.

BBC wrote:

The results follow on the heels of our exclusive report last year that the highest concentrations of plastic particles in the ocean were to be found in Arctic sea-ice.

Plastic waste is also drifting for hundreds or even thousands of kilometres to land on remote Arctic beaches.

It is depressing news for people who have regarded the far north as one of the last pristine environments on Earth.

The scale of this problem (namely overpopulation/over-consumption by humans) has no logical stopping point this side of global catastrophe. It is depressing.

Let's go watch Sesame Street. Save us Elmo!

:D


I prefer we have the Avengers save us. I think the X-men are still stuck in rights limbo...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
"My suggestion"? Oh no! It was the author's suggestion in the paper cited.

You cited the article and stated, "That is a more pedestrian example of why I don't put much stock in particular predictions from climate models."

So yes, YOU, not anyone else, suggested that the complexities in estimating the future of sea ice within the Arctic archipelago was a valid reason for dismissing other predictions from climate models.

That is the equivalent of saying that our inability to predict where lightning will strike tomorrow also means that we should discount the weather model prediction of rain. Some details are more complex than others... inability to predict one has no bearing on our ability to predict others.

In other news, Wind power now costs less than natural gas everywhere in the US. Solar is still only cheaper than natural gas for most of the country... but between these facts it seems clear that natural gas can no longer compete.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
"My suggestion"? Oh no! It was the author's suggestion in the paper cited.

You cited the article and stated, "That is a more pedestrian example of why I don't put much stock in particular predictions from climate models."

So yes, YOU, not anyone else, suggested that the complexities in estimating the future of sea ice within the Arctic archipelago was a valid reason for dismissing other predictions from climate models.

That is the equivalent of saying that our inability to predict where lightning will strike tomorrow also means that we should discount the weather model prediction of rain. Some details are more complex than others... inability to predict one has no bearing on our ability to predict others.

In other news, Wind power now costs less than natural gas everywhere in the US. Solar is still only cheaper than natural gas for most of the country... but between these facts it seems clear that natural gas can no longer compete.

I hate to repeat myself but, for thejeff, just now we saw another perfect example of CB misreading my post.

As I said recently,
"As anyone can see in my previous post, they aren't even sure which century!! the NW Passage will be reliably open.

No, no, no... We aren't talking weather. We are most certainly talking climate."

As for wind and solar:

No on the first for most large scale installations. Soon maybe but not yet.

As for solar, well yeah but...

"But what?", you say.

Ah, but as one could read from a slightly less recent post of mine, there is simply no way, no way, we can scale wind and solar to meet even 80% of our power needs in the next 30 years.

It doesn't matter how cheap it is. It's a matter of scale. Not even China is building infrastructure that fast.

Let's live in Fantasy Land for a hypotheoretical moment and imagine we are going to build out wind/solar infrastructure that fast.

What would happen?

Well, one thing that would happen is a hellacious spike in commodity prices associated with building continental scale wind and solar projects in short order.

So?

Well, prices spike and suddenly it's not so cheap to build and the pace slows back to something actually imaginable.

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,430 << first < prev | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.