downeykp
Forum Supporter
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:11 am
Delivery Date: 31 May 2011
Leaf Number: 1931
Location: Keaau, HI

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:00 pm

finman100 wrote:Sarcasm on

I sure am glad the deniers gots all those fancy charts disproving climate change. For awhile there I was afraid of fake news. but now I'm embracing it.

Sarcasm off

Please do us all a favor and get the f out of the way of real scientists trying to mitigate a disaster that will affect everyone. Why are we such a stupid species...


+1. Well said.
2011 Black Leaf SL+QC Vin. 1931
Res. 6-14-10 Order 1-25-11
EVSE: Mod'd Ver. 2 Nissan L1
Delivered 5-31-11

67 Months 25600mi. 10 bars

39 Suniva panels 10.3kw with Enphase micro inverters my electricity cost $21.87 a month.

lorenfb
Posts: 1307
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:08 am

finman100 wrote:Sarcasm on

I sure am glad the deniers gots all those fancy charts disproving climate change. For awhile there I was afraid of fake news. but now I'm embracing it.

Sarcasm off

Please do us all a favor and get the f out of the way of real scientists trying to mitigate a disaster that will affect everyone. Why are we such a stupid species...


Are we to assume that a typical ad hominem response results from of an inability to refute presented data
rationally?

WetEV
Posts: 1737
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:05 am

lorenfb wrote:Are we to assume that a typical ad hominem response results from of an inability to refute presented data
rationally?


Avoiding the truth?

https://youtu.be/vDNXuX6D60U
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

WetEV
Posts: 1737
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:00 am

RegGuheert wrote:
WetEV wrote:So what happened with Antarctic sea ice this year? Why a record low minimum extent? Global temperature record high, and Antarctic sea ice record low extent? Oh, do explain.
Sure, I'll explain it to you since you seem to think it melted. It didn't melt. When the wind blows strongly against the ice front, it compresses the ice into a smaller extent.


Not convinced, winds blow every year. Again, why was this year less than all other recorded years?
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

NeilBlanchard
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:02 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Oct 2014
Leaf Number: 306278

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:53 am

We have known that we humans are causing climate change for several decades - Exxon knew it in the late 1970's. And it has been further confirmed since then.

THREE RECORD HOT YEARS IN A ROW - is statistically undeniable. They are not just breaking the record by a smidge - they are smashing the old record, and then smashing that - and then smashing that!

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5543
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:37 pm

Sigh. Another fact-free post from a climate alarmist.
NeilBlanchard wrote:We have known that we humans are causing climate change for several decades - Exxon knew it in the late 1970's. And it has been further confirmed since then.
The reality: The GLOBAL MEASURED greenhouse effect on this planet has NOT changed in 25 years. So, tell me Neil: If the greenhouse effect has not changed UP OR DOWN in 25 years, how have humans caused climate change? Please just explain the mechanism.
NeilBlanchard wrote:THREE RECORD HOT YEARS IN A ROW - is statistically undeniable. They are not just breaking the record by a smidge - they are smashing the old record, and then smashing that - and then smashing that!
Nonsense: Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

lorenfb
Posts: 1307
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:11 pm

WetEV wrote:
lorenfb wrote:Are we to assume that a typical ad hominem response results from of an inability to refute presented data
rationally?


Avoiding the truth?

https://youtu.be/vDNXuX6D60U


Surely given the "robustness of the model", notwithstanding the data veracity, the model can obviously account
for his posted data, i.e. something as simple as a stochastic process was included in the basic hypothesis of
climate change and thus included in the model, right?

golfcart
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:26 am

This is exactly why I think scientists should avoid being overly political. This problem for 99.5% of the population ultimately comes down to whether or not you have faith in the climate science community that they are doing their jobs honestly and without bias or whether you feel like they have an agenda.

Nobody on this forum fully understands the global climate system, nor do journalists, activists, politicians, or even most scientists... there are so many variables and uncertainties that even someone like myself with a background in physics and atmospheric science reaches a point where I have to put my hands up and say "I don't know".

It is the worst kind of problem to get people to agree on because you can't just point to a hot summer or a big snow storm or some melting ice and say "see, climate change is correct". Hot summers, big storms, and melting ice would occur with or without humans putting fossil fuels into the atmosphere, the tricky part is determining if the hot summer is hotter because of emissions and if so, how much hotter... or would that storm have only dropped 12" of snow on Boston without human emissions instead of the 14" that it did drop. By the same token, you can't just cherrypick the 1998 monster el nino as a starting point and say that there is no warming in the last 20 years... that trend line looks completely different if you pick 1975 as a starting point, or 1996.

And the media, in order to generate clicks and "signal" whatever side of the debate they are on, generate sensational headlines and jump on every opportunity to demonstrate that any anomalous weather event to supports their position. Just this week there were a bevy of articles about that big nor'easter either arguing that a huge snow storm in March proved or disproved climate change.

It takes decades of data to establish a statistically significant trend given the uncertainties in measurement, ocean storage, unknowns in the cloud feedback, and natural variation that underpins whatever impacts our changes to the atmosphere are causing. Models aren't perfect but you hope they can get the big picture correct and that we can make informed decisions about how those trends might impact us in the near-term and long-term.

At the end of the day I know climate scientists (and scientists in general) to be a skeptical bunch of people. I just can't see a scenario where a problem this big with so much available data and exposure could be a huge conspiracy. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong...

There is, in fact, still a lot of debate in the scientific community about the details of climate change. But there is little to no debate about the simple fact that, all other things equal, increasing the level of greenhouse gasses will tilt the planets energy balance towards the more of the incoming solar radiation remaining in the earth system. And that more energy in the system, over time, will lead to a warmer planet. It would be foolish of us not to use that knowledge in our decision making processes as best we can no matter if you are in the reduce emissions camp, the mitigation camp, or even the do nothing camp.
2015 S with Charge Package

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5543
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:21 am

golfcart wrote:Models aren't perfect but you hope they can get the big picture correct and that we can make informed decisions about how those trends might impact us in the near-term and long-term.
The current climate models literally have NO CHANCE of being predictive of long-term climate. There are four main reasons for this: 1) Many of the underlying physical processes are unknown or partially unknown. For instance, scientists are still learning about what causes clouds to form. And even the detailed physics-based models are incapable of predicting whether a given particle will grow into a water droplet. Since clouds are the most significant driver there is for climate, this lack of knowledge means the models do not have the necessary skill to be able to predict the climate. 2) There is insufficient computer capability to be able to accurately predict the climate in the future faster than the climate itself evolves. Making simplifications and assumptions can speed the process, but reduces the effort to an elaborate curve-fitting exercise. 3) Extreme temporal and spatio-temporal chaos in the climate system mean that it is quite impossible to make accurate predictions about the climate very far into the future. A good example of this is that ENSO is fairly well understood. Yet it would be quite impossible to predict when the future El Ninos will occur. Currently, we are lucky if the ENSO predictions are accurate only six months out.
golfcart wrote:There is, in fact, still a lot of debate in the scientific community about the details of climate change. But there is little to no debate about the simple fact that, all other things equal, increasing the level of greenhouse gasses will tilt the planets energy balance towards the more of the incoming solar radiation remaining in the earth system.
Sure. But all things are not equal and the impact of CO2 is so small as to be completely inconsequential.

There should also be little debate about the following facts:

1) The temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is almost completely dominated by the temperature of the surface of the global oceans.
2) The greenhouse effect does NOT heat the oceans.
3) The greenhouse effect can reduce the rate of cooling of the oceans. Clouds have been measured to reduce the temperature of drop of the surface of the oceans by as much as 0.1K relative to clear skies. This is with 100 W/m^2 difference when compared with clear skies. (Note that it is currently impossible to measure the effect of CO2 on the surface temperature of the ocean.)
4) However, a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1/100th this amount of forcing as the maximum range seen with clouds. We are currently below a doubling of CO2. So CO2's maximum effect on the world's global oceans is a reduction of of the temperature drop of the top micron of water by approximately 0.0005K versus what it was about 100 years ago. Simply put, there is virtually no impact of CO2 on the temperature of the global oceans.
5) The GLOBAL MEASURED greenhouse effect on Earth has not changed in the past 25 years. Over that time, humans have dumped about a third of all the CO2 into the atmosphere that they have been able to release. The simple conclusion of these two observations is that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT driving the global greenhouse effect. It is completely dominated by clouds and water vapor, in that order.
6) The temperature changes we have seen on Earth can be almost completely explained by changes in global cloud cover. Unlike CO2, the relationship between global cloud cover and temperature is very strong.
7) The additional CO2 in the atmosphere has caused an amount of greening of the biosphere equal to twice the area of the United States.

The bottom line is quite clear. CO2 is a don't-care molecule when it comes to the temperature of the Earth. As such, spending ANY money trying to reduce our emissions of CO2 is shear nonsense and completely against the clear message of the science.

Instead, we need to focus our efforts on cleaning up pollution, much of which comes from the extraction and burning fossil fuels.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

golfcart
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:31 am

RegGuheert wrote:
The bottom line is quite clear. CO2 is a don't-care molecule when it comes to the temperature of the Earth. As such, spending ANY money trying to reduce our emissions of CO2 is shear nonsense and completely against the clear message of the science.

Instead, we need to focus our efforts on cleaning up pollution, much of which comes from the extraction and burning fossil fuels.


The whole point of my post was not to rehash this argument with you, it was that debating this on a car forum is pointless. And the end of the day this is about whether or not people are going to trust climate scientists because the idea that more than .005% of the population simultaneously have the expertise and aptitude to fully understand this issue is laughable. We can just sit here posting links that argue against each others positions but neither of us created those models and understand all of the intricacies of them. I can post some links to refute your claim that CO2 has no impact on ocean temperature but where will that get us? Y'all have been debating this for years on the forum with multiple threads. How many people have changed their minds?

When I get in an airplane I trust that the aerospace engineers know what they are doing and are definitely better than me building a plane in my garage. When I go to the hospital I trust that the doctors and staff know what they are doing and are definitely better than me doing surgery in my living room. When I turn on the weather report I trust that they will be reasonably accurate with the forecast and are definitely better than me sticking my finger in the air and trying to make a forecast. I have faith in that expertise.

People have to make a decision whether they want to trust the climate science community which has come to a general consensus about some of the likely outcomes related to this issue. Trust is what matters with this because human knowledge has progressed far past the point that everyone can be an expert on everything. Once that is accepted (or not accepted), it is up to policymakers to weigh the costs/benefits of all of the relevant issues and craft policy.
2015 S with Charge Package

Return to “Environmental Issues”