Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 2421 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 9:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Most Americans say climate change affects their local community, including two-thirds living near coast
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 9:38 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Wow, most Americans recognize that climate changes.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 9:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Great post covering a lot of ground on the AGW hypocrisy and dishonesty
The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda

Don't bother with the logical fallacies if you disagree, show what is actually empirically false about any argument you disagree with.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 10:05 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Great post covering a lot of ground on the AGW hypocrisy and dishonesty
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/the-l-a-times-ignores-climate-science-to-push-californias-hellish-summer-alarmist-]The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda

Don't bother with the logical fallacies if you disagree, show what is actually empirically false about any argument you disagree with.

dizzy.gif  dizzy.gif  dizzy.gif  dizzy.gif That's from the televangelist? Watt. Watt has nothing to do with scientific method; just propaganda!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 10:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That's nice. *Show* us the empirically falsified arguments within the article.

Complaining about who is making an argument isn't science. Showing a claim to be empirically falsified regardless of who made the claim, is.

As I've repeatedly noted, you're coming up short on the latter, while specializing in the former.

One would think you'd notice this continued weakness in your methods, it's a microcosm of why AGW enthusiasts cannot close the deal and need such methods.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 1:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What may be the nail in the coffin...yes, it could be that simple. Attack the sources all you like..


The error of climate physics... applying control theory in the wrong way.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1211 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 2:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
First of all, that paper on droughts didn't way that the recent drought was "worse" than the 1930s, it said it was more widespread. It also acknowledged that they used a different statistical technique to find that. I will leave it to Thunderhead to read the minds of the researchers to know what their motivation was for trying this new technique, as mind reading just isn't in my skill set. In cases like these it takes a few years for other professionals to dig into this new technique and decide what merit it has, and I will just await that appraisal.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 5:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Complaining about who is making an argument isn't science. Showing a claim to be empirically falsified regardless of who made the claim, is.

Look, if I choose to read a scientific study - not an opinion piece by someone who started out as a televangelist? - I'll make sure it is reputably published and has a good number of corroborators. Ordinarily I would find any number of different papers on the same subject and one paper would build on the work of another. It's called references.

Otherwise, I might just as well read an opinion by your Sister. Makes no difference. It has nothing to do with science.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1211 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 8:24 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MG - Imagine that my barber told me that evolution is not true and that I just had to read this book he wrote that really proves it. Now technically, you are correct, I should read the book and see what kind of case it makes and not base my judgement on the fact that my barber is a nice guy and not a scientist. But the issue is not new and maybe I have done something similar in the past, followed some bogus claim down a rabbit hole to prove it false. Maybe more than once. Maybe I don't want to do that again. Maybe it actually has a lot less to do with my barber or whoever it is who does wattsup, and has more to do with having been there and done that. More than twice.

In this case it also has to do with the fact that it is the LA Times being challenged, not the basic science. Popular media often gets some stuff wrong regarding global warming. It just might be that in this case wattsup actually found a problem with the LA Times and that has no bearing on the science.

But mostly I'm just too busy to follow what is far more likely to be another rabbit hole. But I have done so a number of times before. The classic case was when somebody told me I had to read a peer reviewed paper that proved that variations in the sun causes global warming. So I read it. It said - in the abstract - that the sun couldn't possibly cause global warming. But the guy kept posting that it did say that, and we had to believe it because it was peer reviewed. But there have been many other cases not that extreme.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 603 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 9:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I notice gb ran away from the snow discussion once the data were posted.

Cyclopath, the opinion of the average idiot is a very poor way to go about science.  The average idiot thinks there is an invisible man in the sky and just about half of them voted for donald trump.

Mtn goat, the radiative forcing created by our excess co2 is pretty well understood at this point.  Some global warming hypists get all scared and overhype the issue of course, but we are almost certainly warming our planet a little.

Drm, "worst" and "more extreme over a larger area" are basically the same, and either way, applying either descriptor to modern weather issues vs the dust bowl is clearly and obviously trash.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1396 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Doppelganger
Armchairing
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 9:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
I notice gb ran away from the snow discussion once the "data" were posted. 

Not much else needs to be said about that 5 minute Paint project than:

Quote:
You get much of your information from the televangelist, Watt.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1211 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 9:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well, my impression why comparisons with the dust bowl come off so bad is that event was drastically exacerbated by bad farming practices that caused a lot of erosion that we don't see now because we have at least in part learned that lesson. So were we to have a drought whose stats were exactly like the dust bowl, we probably wouldn't see the same level of dust storms that are what made that episode so famous and gave it it's name.

As to CO2 forcing, we understand the direct forcings quite well, we understand the feedback forcings reasonably well (with great assistance from climate history). But what the actual impacts of those changes will be on a regional basis are less well confirmed. And if I were to think of a single class of issues that the popular literature exaggerates certainty on, it would be regional forecasts.

There are of course many models working on this, quite different from the global GCMs in their details. Maybe those models will eventually be confirmed to be quite prescient, and if so, your continual minimization of the impacts will be wrong. Of course that also depends on whether we change our fossil fuel habits, but I've pretty much given up on any serious chance of that happening of the scale and rate required. It wasn't very likely anyway, but Trump's election makes it that much less likely.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 603 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 10:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger ignores data from the ncdc and snotel because...?  Doesnt like that data?  Because snotel and the national climate data center arent good enough for you?  Lol.


Drm, I am optimistic that the natural progression of technology will give us viable alternatives without too much trouble.  We have plenty of time.  Warming is a safe direction and the rate of change is pretty slow.  We are probably doing more good than harm with small amounts of warming.  We dont want to warm the planet forever but if we are in a post fossil fuel age in a reasonable timefeame(50 years?  A century?) I see the climate impacts as mostly minimal.  There are other aspects of our increasing technology that are far scarier...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 10:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Look, if I choose to read a scientific study - not an opinion piece by someone who started out as a televangelist? - I'll make sure it is reputably published and has a good number of corroborators. Ordinarily I would find any number of different papers on the same subject and one paper would build on the work of another. It's called references.

Otherwise, I might just as well read an opinion by your Sister. Makes no difference. It has nothing to do with science.

So in other words, no actual falsification, and more logical fallacies. It's called... evasion.

The argument posted was not formulated by someone you dislike, though it was formulated by someone else you probably dislike..and 10 other contributors from climatology, control theory and statistics.

Not exactly opinions from someone's sister, instead, testable and falsifiable arguments from actual scientists.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 4:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Doppelganger ignores data from the ncdc and snotel because...?  Doesnt like that data?  Because snotel and the national climate data center arent good enough for you?  Lol.


Drm, I am optimistic that the natural progression of technology will give us viable alternatives without too much trouble.  We have plenty of time.  Warming is a safe direction and the rate of change is pretty slow.  We are probably doing more good than harm with small amounts of warming.  We dont want to warm the planet forever but if we are in a post fossil fuel age in a reasonable timefeame(50 years?  A century?) I see the climate impacts as mostly minimal.  There are other aspects of our increasing technology that are far scarier...

At this point I am quite scared - using the term loosely - that things may change and are changing very rapidly - not a small amount of global warming as you say. My sense is that there is an acceleration in effects that go beyond the actual global temperature change. Certainly, where I can observe in the NW, that is true with extremely dry summers most of the last half decade. And certainly the temperature record here shows a substantial increase in heat waves as compared to two three decades ago. We set yet more records in July. Witness May and July and the first half of August (temperatures only moderated by smoke). California's warmest four years are the last four, the droughts in that time frame extreme beyond the pail.

The Dust Bowl was mentioned and many drought and temperature records were set in the 20s and especially the 30's. Both Banff and Death Valley's records were set in 1934. What little I've read about the cause of this radical swing would indicate that this was caused (?) by a significant change in Atlantic Ocean currents and it affected all of North America not just the Atlantic. I just read - rather skimmed - an article that indicated that the current in the North Atlantic has just now slowed to the slowest it has ever been measured. A bit of a change in temperature does not necessarily mean small changes in weather regionally. Certainly the Arctic has been shown to be warming not a little but substantially and arctic sea ice to a large degree controls the buildup of winter/spring very cold air masses which in turn flow out and south to have an effect on the jet stream. That this is happening is not hyperbole I've seen at least 3-6 studies that detail these jet stream changes. That in turn can affect ocean currents.

I think as DRM says if you are wrong you may really be badly wrong. A conservative approach calls on action. It is like insurance.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday mtnrider, PetDrAndrea, Quest for Adrenaline, RockShadow, hikejon!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy