Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Nov 04, 2019 6:22 pm 
I won't bother going in circles with you. It's obvious you don't care about the science. I'm sure there are still a few deniers that find your talking points fascinating though.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostMon Nov 04, 2019 8:56 pm 
Tom wrote:
Just your opinion of course. From the last paragraph of that article:
Quote:
For example, a recent study by Prof Jonathan Bamber at the University of Bristol and colleagues brought together a group of 22 experts to assess their views of the likelihood of different future SLR scenarios. They found that a global SLR exceeding 2m by 2100 “lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds for a high-emission scenario”. This is more than twice the upper value found in the IPCC AR5.
I think you're missing a factor here in interpreting this to mean a 1 in 20 chance of SLR exceeding 2m by 2100. This particular group (Bamber et al.) places that outcome within the range of uncertainty for a high-emission scenario but another group of energy experts recently gave the high-emission scenario (RCP 8.5) only a 5% chance of occurring by 2100. Their most-likely scenario is a full two degrees cooler than the five degrees of warming posited in the Bamber et al. paper. https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02500-y

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Nov 04, 2019 9:15 pm 
I was replying to thunderhead who claimed it was astronomical. If you assume 90th percentile that would be 1/10. Apply 5% probability and you get 1/200. Add 4 more zeroes to denominator if you want, you're still below thunderhead's 1 in a million.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostMon Nov 04, 2019 9:27 pm 
Tom wrote:
I was replying to thunderhead who claimed it was astronomical. If you assume 90th percentile that would be 1/10. Apply 5% probability and you get 1/200. Add 4 more zeroes to denominator if you want, you're still below thunderhead's 1 in a million.
It's all academic. Common sense should prevail. What's going to happen all of a sudden that turns 2.5mm/yr into 25mm/yr? And in the meantime nobody gives a crap about land subsidence which is already 25mm/yr in some places.

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 9:32 am 
Tom wrote:
They found that a global SLR exceeding 2m by 2100 “lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds for a high-emission scenario”.
Their findings are nonsense. Thats the point. This should be your conclusion as well. Take the recent sea level trend of some 3mm per year. Extrapolate that out. Allow for some acceleration of the trend. Does 2m by 2100 look at all possible?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 9:50 am 
The problem here is you're submitting your "analysis" on a hiking board for peer review. Submit your analysis to a journal and let us know how the peer review process went. For example, I'd be shocked if an excel graph trending gauge data would be sufficient.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:00 am 
Tom wrote:
The problem here is you're submitting your "analysis" on a hiking board for peer review. Submit your analysis to a journal and let us know how the peer review process went. For example, I'd be shocked if an excel graph trending gauge data would be sufficient.
Nonsense gets through peer review on a regular basis. This is a hiking board as you say. Again, what's going to happen in the next decade that causes SLR to increase by a factor of ten or more? That's a perfectly legitimate question for a forum such as this.

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:02 am 
Submit your excel graph. You could be famous when all the scientists realize it's so simple.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:14 am 
Tom wrote:
I won't bother going in circles with you. It's obvious you don't care about the science. I'm sure there are still a few deniers that find your talking points fascinating though.
Sure, it's obvious I don't care about the science when all I do is...actually follow the rules. Using 'social' methods like what you're doing here in place of actual argument doesn't count either. Calling arguments 'talking points' does not show them to be wrong, for example...it's merely an evasion tactic. As is not wanting to go 'in circles' ....which exist solely because you won't consider arguments you cannot show are wrong. It's pretty obvious when folks don't have good arguments, because they suddenly decide they don't want to 'go in circles', or deal with 'talking points', and a million other fake reasons. If they have good arguments that actually show an argument to be wrong, they're deployed instantly. Since what you're backing has no such arguments, you're left with the approach you're using. So go ahead and avoid the points, which is fine, because I'll continue making points wether you respond or not. The fact is, every point I made is fact, and not wanting to admit it doesn't change that.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:18 am 
Tom wrote:
The problem here is you're submitting your "analysis" on a hiking board for peer review. Submit your analysis to a journal and let us know how the peer review process went. For example, I'd be shocked if an excel graph trending gauge data would be sufficient.
That's not a problem, it's a perfectly valid argument regardless of where it's 'submitted'. The never ending dance of ways and reasons to avoid dealing with arguments is pretty funny. The analysis is perfectly valid, and doesn't need 3rd party peer review. There is a period of time until 2050 which is easily calculated by anyone with the peer skills of a 3rd grade math student. There is a claimed sea level rise already posited by the paper. This makes the math very straightforward for general observations.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:24 am 
Better late than never for the fustercluck we never should have been in to begin with. U.S. Formally Begins To Leave The Paris Climate Agreement for the low low underestimated cost of only, what, 100 trillion bucks, we could have supposedly lowered the temp of the planet by less than measurement error. But of course it feels like doing something. And feels seems to be the most important part, if you feel your intentions are outcomes.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:26 am 
Doing the math yourself is far more fun than appealing to authority. And often more correct, if you are capable. Especially in this case, when the claims are so often exaggerated and entwined with hopelessly inaccurate journalism and politics.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:28 am 
then they claim skeptic arguments are political, while you see the efforts at social pressure and evasive games continually used to get away from having to explain why they don't have facts consistent with actual science and lacking logical fallacies with which to simply show arguments are false . Like you do in valid sciences. When someone has the facts on why a square is not a circle, or why G is not 6.2 m/sec squared at sea level on earth...they simply show them and end the argument, not avoid the issue by proclaiming they don't want a 'circular argument' or 'talking points' need not be addressed.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 10:33 am 
Tom wrote:
You could be famous when all the scientists realize it's so simple.
They realized this long ago. No one competent thinks we are reaching 2m by 2100.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Nov 05, 2019 1:29 pm 
Yes and that's why we're debating this on a hiking board. Because the science is nonsense and it's as simple as extrapolating gauge data with an excel graph.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum