Warming whoops

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,477
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +192
    Actually, I'm a AGW sceptic, based on my own experience with large scale simulation models of a chaotic system. I do believe that we should reduce our output of CO2 whether the models turn out to be correct or not. I do believe in clean air, clean water, leave this earth better than what you found it. Leave only footprints and all that....
  2. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Are you confident enough in the understanding of climate science to conclude that none of the warming, or very little of it, was from natural causes?

    Listen, I don't like some of the dialogue from some of the guys here any more than you do.

    That said, the understanding of climate science is still very much in its infancy.
  3. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,477
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +192
    That, I think, is the problem! The climate scientists think they have all the answers already. Might as well pack up and go home. Nothing else to discover. It's a dead career, since all the answers are already known.
  4. exiledgator
    Online

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,249
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +3,910
    I'm not sure the scientists feel this way at all. Wouldn't that counter the their-in-it-for-the-money argument anyway?

    I do think they are often portrayed this way in certain media circles.
  5. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,165
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +2,078
    It depends on who's paying for them to do their "research." If our government came to me and said "We will give you a grant for $5million to show that there is man made global warming." Do you think I won't take the money and pull something out of my arse to prove that "global warming" is man made? I think we all would.
  6. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,208
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +8,501
    Why would government have a vested interest in proving AGW?

    Using that reasoning, would it not also make sense that industry paid "research" would be done to prove there is no AGW?

    Wouldn't the profit motive from involved industries be significantly greater than any motive government would have to rig research?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Me personally? Hell no. I don't intend to proclaim that I know anything. In addition, I am virtually certain that even our best scientists are missing quite a bit of variation as well (and maybe always will).

    With the specific example of the sun, I am trusting our ability to measure recent solar inputs and gauge them against measured temps. So, if someone tells me that it is all the sun, I am going to say that I think that is wrong. It is my imperfect understanding that this is the right conclusion. However, if someone like yourself instead says, how do we know that there isn't unknown variation?, I take this criticism much more seriously. I am not sure how we can know this for sure, but I do think that is possible to reason that some factors are unlikely to play a large role in such short time frames due to historical trends. It is certainly not an iron clad case, but if we are forced to play the percentages, I think these are among the best assumptions we can make.
  8. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Governments are usually about gaining more control. I think a credible case can be made that some of the government support has that in mind. Particularly from the EPA.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,165
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +2,078
    Al Gore ring a bell? Uh NO on the industry part.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,346
    The climate laughs at man and goes on its merry way.
  11. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    I agree with exiled that many scientists understand these uncertainties just as we simple message board folk do. I think that there are many reasons that we don't see these uncertain vibes come across, from brief media headlines, to elimination of error bars for "clarity" of graphs, to maybe simply a stated overconfidence for fear of losing respect (a la phil's recent thread on "I don't know").

    I'm guessing that you might be familiar with the old mantra of modeling: all models are wrong, but some are helpful. I certainly think some modelers begin to see too much truth in their models, but I think many still keep the mantra in their brains. I think the issue with the models is that it isn't whether they are "right" or "wrong", but how much better are they than other predictive methods? If I need to bet my life on knowing the temperature 20 years from now, even with our best models, I am going to get going on my bucket list. But the models still beat the alternative.
  12. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    I think our best bet is to use a self-interest model for human behavior. If we do so, I can see "governments", whatever these entities are, wanting more control. It is a bit tougher to imagine with individuals, however. The self interests of Al Gore, Rand Paul, and Obama are to be re-elected, so then I wonder does publicly accepting climate change help their case? It certainly didn't seem that way with Romney and Huntsman on the right. On the left, you are probably hurt by denying climate change, so maybe Obama is just playing to his base (now, for some reason other than being re-elected). I'm still very skeptical about the claim with regards to scientists, however.

    One political claim that I really can't see is the idea that the US is trying to cede control to the UN. This goes very much against my self interest model, and it seems to go against your control model as well. This just seems like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.
  13. exiledgator
    Online

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,249
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +3,910
    One could easily make that case. Just as one could easily make the case that industry-supported studies are about keeping regulation at bay.

    But this should not effect the science. Does it? Perhaps in some ways I'm sure, but I'm skeptical that scientists make conclusions based solely upon the signature on their paycheck. Furthermore, if one believes that they do, then what's the point of page after page debating the science? It's all invented for the paycheck, after all, so none of it should be believed.
  14. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,477
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +192
    There might be some climate scientists that are true scientists and are humble and realize we are just now scratching the surface with respect to climate, that we need to incorporate more factors into the model. But then there are the true believers, the alarmists, the evangelists. Those are the public faces of the profession, unfortunately. The press on both sides does not help either, picking and choosing things out of context to support their predetermined biases.
  15. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    I agree. Unfortunately, it is difficult to know what the biased position is vs. the unbiased interpretation of data. Personally, I like to go with the largest numbers (toward consensus) when in doubt. Of course, the IPCC works this way, and most of the opposition views them solely as a political agency. It seems this is the case with most analyses, ______ is an arm of the government, ________ is an energy company, ________ is a scientist who needs grants, etc.

    Robin Hanson actually argues to use "idea futures" or prediction markets to solve issues like this, as money should guide us somewhat past these biases. As far as I can tell, this doesn't exist for climate change, but many people have asked for it. I too would welcome it, as another way to assess the theories.
  16. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
  17. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,165
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +2,078
    Yep.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,208
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +8,501
    Perhaps they were record high temps for their time... but well behind recent highs, it would appear.

    [​IMG]
  19. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,346
    NASA ranks 1934 and 1998 ,one of the hottest years on record, as apprx. the same in temp.


    Hasn't the rise in global temp been credited to a rise in nightime temps? That stands to reason as buildings, roads and and paving for huge parking lots and massive growth of the population retains heat.
  20. exiledgator
    Online

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,249
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +3,910
    I thought climate laughs at man?
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page