North Pole Sees Coldest July Ever, Al Gore & Co. Unavailable For Comment (activist, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right, CO2 was more concentrated at other times in past epochs. The thing is, I have no agenda. I don't make a profit if CO2 falls or if it rises. I don't own stock in Exxon or in any green energy company. I look at a chart and see that CO2 was flat for centuries, then it started rising around the time of the industrial revolution, and it's increased on a predictable curve since then. We started belching out CO2 as a waste product right around the time the curve began moving upwards. Why this is such a hostile concept is beyond me.
The assertion that the IR is linked with "increases" in CO2 levels is fallacious; it is a c u m hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Such assertions will remain fallacious. In addition to the previous reference to Lagrange polynomial extrapolation, an explicit relationship via Granger causality testing must be established. It hasn't, and can't be and couldn't be for millenia. As previously stated per the stock exchange analogy, there simply isn't enough data / data points for the size of the set.
Question is, do you understand that there are scientists who also have an agenda? If not, well... your attempt to show you do not worship at the feet of authority has failed.
A big part of the problem with this issue is that scientists who are promoting CAGW aren't using "science" to achieve it. It is kind of why climategate was such a huge thing. You remember that right? When they were going on in the emails about how they couldn't establish their "cause" via science and so had to involve politics to get results?
BTW, I am all for considering what "climate scientists" have to say, but when I say consider, it is only in passing, I am far more interested in what they can establish through proper scientific evaluation. If they can't, well... they are just guys who know a lot about the field making guesses and the fact remains that a guess is just an assumption without verification. Sorry, but title is not even remotely sufficient to establish a position as it concerns science. To attempt to submit to such defies the entire purpose of science.
Oh and here is an interesting fact. There was a recent study (peer reviewed and all) that showed "empirically" that the models used changed in their results based on running them on different systems. Here is the kicker... the amount to which they often deviated, well... it was within the range of discrepancy to which the results showed a given result. That is, their results of increase in temps could be entirely attributed to the error in hardware they are running on.
Kind of makes you think twice about models eh? Just incase you don't understand what that means... well... it means the models are absolutely worthless. Roll some bones, throw darts at a graph, or have monkeys do your prediction schemes, it is basically the same. Not really "scientific" you think?
Models are used to predict the climate in the future. Just because one model doesn't work doesn't mean that all models are terrible and we should fire all the statisticians. There are hundreds of extremely intelligent people modeling everything in our universe. Without models, anyone interested in weather, economics, astronomy, and, well, anything related to science will be seriously disappointed.
It's cool you don't like scientists, not everyone does. But again, you must not actually be that interested in the process of science if you call hypotheses "guesses." Yes, any scientist can make hypotheses, that's how science works. If you're looking for hard facts in regards to ANY natural phenomenon, whether it be the cold virus or the expansion of the universe, I suggest looking at an elementary science textbook, where they teach kids "facts" instead of "the scientific method". The rest of us have to deal with uncertainty and make informed decisions based on our best interpretation of the data at that moment. It's how humans have always operated and always will operate.
Models are used to predict the climate in the future. Just because one model doesn't work doesn't mean that all models are terrible and we should fire all the statisticians. There are hundreds of extremely intelligent people modeling everything in our universe.
Except that none of them have been shown to be accurate. And yes, there are lots of smart people working on these models, but that doesn't make them accurate.
Quote:
It's cool you don't like scientists, not everyone does. But again, you must not actually be that interested in the process of science if you call hypotheses "guesses." Yes, any scientist can make hypotheses, that's how science works. If you're looking for hard facts in regards to ANY natural phenomenon, whether it be the cold virus or the expansion of the universe, I suggest looking at an elementary science textbook, where they teach kids "facts" instead of "the scientific method". The rest of us have to deal with uncertainty and make informed decisions based on our best interpretation of the data at that moment. It's how humans have always operated and always will operate.
I've never met anyone who doesn't like scientists. But paying somebody to guess what the climate will be 25 years from now is a waste of money. And oh by the way, those "scientists" know who butters their bread. They know the agenda is government regulation and wealth transfer.
I look at a chart and see that CO2 was flat for centuries, then it started rising around the time of the industrial revolution, and it's increased on a predictable curve since then. :
Yes, but how do you explain that temps have stopped rising for almost two decades?
“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.
Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.
The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.
It's not a hostile concept. It's just correlation. And as I'm sure you know, correlation does not prove causation.
This is quite true. What you're ignoring is the real life economic impact of a course of action/inaction based upon the probability that it is or is not true.
Assume for a moment that we can only be 80% certain that elevations of CO2 have resulted in temp increases. That level of confidence wouldn't pass statistical/scientific muster as definitive proof. Also assume also that we can only be 60% certain that our production of CO2 is what is driving the increases in atmospheric CO2. That's not much better than a coin toss. In aggregate, that means there is only a 48% chance that we are causing climate change at the levels observed since the dawn of the industrial era.
In and of itself, that would not be sufficient to act, however, when one combines that with the cost to act (huge no doubt) vs. the cost of inaction (many times greater), this becomes an exercise in risk mitigation. The correct policy decision would be to assume human CO2 emissions are driving the CO2 increase and that the CO2 increase is driving climate change so we need to act. It might not even be probable that human CO2 is the root cause (as in my example), but it may still be prudent to assume this is the case.
An analogous issue might be a rash of copper thefts in abandoned homes without burglar bars on their basement windows. Maybe some thefts are occurring on homes with burglar bars. Maybe some homes without them have been spared. There could be a suspicious correlation between no bars and theft, but not a causation. It would still be prudent for owners to put burglar bars on basement windows of abandoned homes nonetheless, because the cost of copper theft far outweighs the cost of implementing the protective measure.
This is why the science and policy decisions are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, but how do you explain that temps have stopped rising for almost two decades?
“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
From Wikipedia:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.
I'm not going to discuss quotes from politically-driven, agenda-laden non-scientists.
This is quite true. What you're ignoring is the real life economic impact of a course of action/inaction based upon the probability that it is or is not true.
Indeed. The consequential crux of the matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
