User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5376
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 8:55 am

golfcart wrote:
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.

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.
You don't have to understand it all. What you need to know is whether or not the effect is significant enough to warrant much effort or not. I have just demonstrated that it does not have an important effect. If you are familiar with physics, you can easily understand my arguments and you can verify the statements from my links.
golfcart wrote: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.
Those areas have all reached a KNOWN level of skill which makes your level of trust reasonable. Climate science is still in the dark ages by comparison.
golfcart wrote: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.
Consensus has no place in science. The simple fact is that there are extremely strong arguments against the popular beliefs of the climate community coming from climate experts. This documentary does a very good job of clearly showing those experts' objections:

RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 3K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

WetEV
Posts: 1682
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?

Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:23 am

RegGuheert wrote:I have just demonstrated that it does not have an important effect.


Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
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

lorenfb
Posts: 1086
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?

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:13 am

golfcart wrote:
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.


That's a poor analogy, i.e. engineers and physicists when it comes to most all problem solving have closed-form solutions.
That's not the case when it comes to modeling climate change where research is very similar to social science research,
i.e. developing a hypothesis, designing a model, and then using some form of numerical methods, e.g. linear regression
to evaluate correlations based on probabilities and then attempting to find causality. The result is a non-deterministic
mathematical model. It's always easy to selectively find data to fit one's hypothesis!

golfcart
Posts: 110
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 12:35 pm

lorenfb wrote:
golfcart wrote:
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.


That's a poor analogy, i.e. engineers and physicists when it comes to most all problem solving have closed-form solutions.
That's not the case when it comes to modeling climate change where research is very similar to social science research,
i.e. developing a hypothesis, designing a model, and then using some form of numerical methods, e.g. linear regression
to evaluate correlations based on probabilities and then attempting to find causality. The result is a non-deterministic
mathematical model. It's always easy to selectively find data to fit one's hypothesis!


I'm insulted that you would compare building a physical model of the earth and it's atmosphere to social sciences... :D The physical sciences hardly have the replication problem that you see in things like sociology or psychology. And the last time I checked, climate scientists weren't putting out nonsense like this Glaciers, Gender, and Science or falling for stuff like Sokai's hoax.

Fair enough about your criticism that most engineering problems are a lot more cut and dry, but the atmosphere still follows the laws of physics. it is not like IR photons are declining to be absorbed by CO2 molecules because their daddy didn't love them or they don't like a particular group of people. It is not like photons lie at the exit polls because they don't want to look bad. And it is not like we can influence photons behavior by bombarding them with propaganda about how they should act. LOL. Social sciences are screwed up because people are screwed up and don't behave rationally all the time. Photons behave rationally, there are just a sh*t load of them to worry about and a lot of things for them to interact with.

And not just that, physicists and engineers use non-deterministic approaches in solving some problems too... one could argue the entirety of quantum mechanics is "non-deterministic" but we use it to create all kinds of cool stuff which we rely on.

If your argument is that the problem is too complex to trust the experts I don't have a good rebuttal to that as i stated before. If you think that the research is ideologically driven or that the biases of the researchers cause them to accept answers they are looking for while being skeptical of answers they are not looking for I can't really argue with that either. That is your belief and it is the job of climate scientists to make a strong enough case to convince you otherwise by being as transparent and rigorous as possible in their work.

At the end of the day though, I stand by my overall assessment, this comes down to a question of trust and faith in expertise. It comes down to a question of who people want to believe because most folks on both sides don't understand 2% of it. Do you think you could grab some random climate activist out of the protest line and get them to solve a radiative transfer problem? Or even a simple stephan-boltzman blackbody model of the earth? Do you think Clinton or Trump could solve those? I highly doubt it... but it doesn't stop them all from speaking about the issue like they understand it thoroughly. It is just like religion, or abortion, or any other hot button issue where people have already basically formed the opinion they want to have and then go seek evidence to support that opinion.

That is why hollywood liberals being condescending assholes about this stuff is going against their own self-interest. It makes them and their target audience feel better about themselves but it has absolutely zero positive impact on getting people who don't currently agree with them to agree with them. If anything, I would argue, it makes people who don't already agree with them far less likely to be open to changing their minds.
2015 S with Charge Package

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5376
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 2:58 pm

golfcart wrote:Fair enough about your criticism that most engineering problems are a lot more cut and dry, but the atmosphere still follows the laws of physics.
Of course it does. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, imply that it can be simulated.
golfcart wrote:And not just that, physicists and engineers use non-deterministic approaches in solving some problems too...
Agreed. There is no problem simulating non-deterministic effects. That is not an issue.
golfcart wrote:If your argument is that the problem is too complex to trust the experts I don't have a good rebuttal to that as i stated before.
That's the argument. I described the four main issues involved with trying to simulate the climate. Here are a couple of assessments from fellow physicists:

- A recent one from Lubos Motl

- And an excellent description of some of the issues with chaotic systems:


golfcart wrote:If you think that the research is ideologically driven or that the biases of the researchers cause them to accept answers they are looking for while being skeptical of answers they are not looking for I can't really argue with that either.
Like all government research funds, you do the work for which you are funded. It is extremely well-documented what happens to climate researchers who get the "wrong" conclusion.
golfcart wrote:At the end of the day though, I stand by my overall assessment, this comes down to a question of trust and faith in expertise.
Trust and faith are earned. Climate scientists have a ridiculously bad track record at making ANY predictions about ANYTHING. Any trust and faith put in them is horribly misguided, IMO. Unfortunately, they are giving all of science a very bad name.

As a result of their folly, the chickens are coming home to roost. There are an awful lot of "climate change" rent seekers who will soon need to find gainful employment. Deservedly so.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 3K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Stoaty
Gold Member
Posts: 4438
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

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

Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:49 pm

RegGuheert wrote: Climate scientists have a ridiculously bad track record at making ANY predictions about ANYTHING. Any trust and faith put in them is horribly misguided, IMO.

Well, there is that little thing they predicted 20 years ago about global temperatures getting warmer... which has come to pass.
Lifetime 5.5 m/kWh (Dash) over 57,200 miles / 67 months
Capacity Loss Predicted - 27.4% Actual - 30.1%
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5376
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?

Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:45 am

Stoaty wrote:
RegGuheert wrote: Climate scientists have a ridiculously bad track record at making ANY predictions about ANYTHING. Any trust and faith put in them is horribly misguided, IMO.

Well, there is that little thing they predicted 20 years ago about global temperatures getting warmer... which has come to pass.
Yep. And they got that wrong, as well. The peak of this El Niño was the same as the peak of the El Niño in 1998. Both satellite measurement systems (which match the balloon measurements) have them within 0.02K. Measurement error is plus or minus 0.1K.

And please don't try to tell me that you don't care about satellite measurements because we don't live in the atmosphere. The simple fact is that even if we ignore all the fiddling with the surface temperature datasets and accept those results as they are, what that would mean is that the surface of the Earth warmed MORE RAPIDLY than the atmosphere. That, in itself, is proof positive that the warming did NOT come from the greenhouse effect. And that matches exactly with the measurements that show that the greenhouse effect has not increased in 25 years.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 3K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Zythryn
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:49 am

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

Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:39 am

RegGuheert wrote:
Stoaty wrote:
RegGuheert wrote: Climate scientists have a ridiculously bad track record at making ANY predictions about ANYTHING. Any trust and faith put in them is horribly misguided, IMO.

Well, there is that little thing they predicted 20 years ago about global temperatures getting warmer... which has come to pass.
Yep. And they got that wrong, as well. The peak of this El Niño was the same as the peak of the El Niño in 1998. Both satellite measurement systems (which match the balloon measurements) have them within 0.02K. Measurement error is plus or minus 0.1K.

And please don't try to tell me that you don't care about satellite measurements because we don't live in the atmosphere. The simple fact is that even if we ignore all the fiddling with the surface temperature datasets and accept those results as they are, what that would mean is that the surface of the Earth warmed MORE RAPIDLY than the atmosphere. That, in itself, is proof positive that the warming did NOT come from the greenhouse effect. And that matches exactly with the measurements that show that the greenhouse effect has not increased in 25 years.


Just asking for a clarification...
What part of the atmosphere? Lower, mid, upper...
Previous owner of Prius, Volt & Leaf
Current owner of Model S
http://www.netzeromn.com

WetEV
Posts: 1682
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?

Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:28 am

RegGuheert wrote:
Stoaty wrote:
RegGuheert wrote: Climate scientists have a ridiculously bad track record at making ANY predictions about ANYTHING. Any trust and faith put in them is horribly misguided, IMO.

Well, there is that little thing they predicted 20 years ago about global temperatures getting warmer... which has come to pass.
Yep. And they got that wrong, as well. The peak of this El Niño was the same as the peak of the El Niño in 1998. Both satellite measurement systems (which match the balloon measurements) have them within 0.02K. Measurement error is plus or minus 0.1K.


Amusing to quote measurement error of 0.1K for the MSU derived temperatures, when these have been revised multiple times by more than that. Also, why pick two months out of the whole record at the peak of two El Ninos, when El Ninos are variable and we have exactly two strong ones to compare? Why two months out of an ~18 year record?

Also predicted:

Stratosphere would cool. It has.

Surface would warm. It has.

Most mountain glaciers would retreat. They have. Ice doesn't care.

Ocean would warm (more than 90% of heat goes into oceans). They have.

Some time between 2050 and 2100 the Arctic Ocean would melt to basically ice free in summer, some ice will remain near Canadian Arctic Archipelago for longer. This prediction looks broken. The Arctic seems more sensitive to warming than predicted. The Death Spiral.

Image

Of course, RegGuheert knows that a blue water North Pole isn't possible.

RegGuheert wrote:The fact that you even parroted the idea that the North Pole might be blue in the near future shows the folly of your belief system.


Ice doesn't care.
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: 1682
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?

Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:47 am

Also it was predicted that coral reefs would die.

Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater. More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef’s most visited areas of color and life.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/scie ... ieoff.html

Image
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

Return to “Environmental Issues”