Climate change not as threatening to planet - Scientists got their modelling wrong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

So are you agreeing with this study which confirms human impact on global warming?

There is probably more room for discussion than you imagine once the brighter self-thinkers on your model-worshipping side finally understand and admit to themselves that not only are carbon credits not the answer, it is most decidedly a globalist scam about political-corporate power and wealth.

Do humans impact ecology? Of course. Might we wipe ourselves out through a combination of ecological/biological stupidity? Monsanto anyone? Are we responsible for global warming on a cataclysmic scale? So far the "science" that insists so appears to be a combination of guesser-ology and fudged data. Wild-eyed cultists that keep shifting the goal posts.

a reply to: The GUT

I always thought the way the government handled pollution and climate issues was a wag the dog.

Many of the solutions for pollution or manufacturing efficiency can be solved, but cRony capitalism allows companies like GE to destroy the competition and the cronyism is the energy sector has devoured more than a few useful inventions.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

So are you agreeing with this study which confirms human impact on global warming?

There is probably more room for discussion than you imagine once the brighter self-thinkers on your model-worshipping side finally understand and admit to themselves that not only are carbon credits not the answer, it is most decidedly a globalist scam about political-corporate power and wealth.

Do humans impact ecology? Of course. Might we wipe ourselves out through a combination of ecological/biological stupidity? Monsanto anyone? Are we responsible for global warming on a cataclysmic scale? So far the "science" that insists so appears to be a combination of guesser-ology and fudged data. Wild-eyed cultists that keep shifting the goal posts.

Who said anything about carbon credits? The issue of the reality global warming is completely separate from the possible solutions.

The science of climatology is a lot more than guesses. One side has the science, the data and the models. The other has option pieces. Who are the real wide-eyed cultists here?

originally posted by: luthier
Wait are climate change deniers now using a climate change model to say it's happening?

Why must we be "deniers" if we're continuing our skepticism? If you'll note, many of us actually engaging in critical thinking and not just dropping one- or two-liners are citing that the new models will probably end up being exactly as accurate as the old.

Many people labeled as "deniers" by people on ATS are not deniers, but skeptics. There's a massive, massive difference.

The thing about models particularly complex weather models is they are predictions. People get stuck on the dates, times, shapes, but they are workstill in progress.

A thinking person understands that they SHOULD be works in progress, but the thing about these predictions is that the alarmist sect of the AGW theory use them, claiming a 97% consensus amongst scientists, to push a very expensive agenda on first-world nations. Many overtly controlling, anti-liberty laws are passed under the guise of the AGW theory, either openly or thinly veiled. Many taxes and demands on private industries are in the name of 'saving the planet and humanity' from human-caused disaster.

Maybe if the bulk of AGW theorists could simply admit that these coveted models have results that are (and should be) prone to massive amounts of skepticism (many of us have been showing the discrepancy between the models and actual observations, have showed manipulation of empirical data to fall in line with predictions, etc.), then more constructive discourse would happen.

Instead, though, the two sides are that the 'science' behind the AGW theory is undeniable (based, generally, on an appeal to authority in the wrong way [a logical fallacy]) or that it's massively unproven and data exists that refutes the claims. The former is generally placed on a scientific pedestal and applauded as an intelligent approach, while the other is ridiculed, discarded, and labeled "deniers."

This is the antithesis to actual science and logic.

The real solution is to fix lobbying to limit donations and out of proportion influence so that new innovation can make it to the market place without dieing from monopoly tactics companies like GE use.

Let the best most efficient machines replace the old one. If you get rid of the cheater system in the energy sector and all the crony capitalism you will see the innovation reach the marketplace much faster.

Ten birds with two stones.

for the most part, I agree--but you forgot to mention the removal of federal mandates and arbitrary laws that are in the spirit of the AGW theory that hinder said innovation and start-ups.

We're definitely getting closer to affordable, widespread renewable energy, but as we have seen in the past, when the government tries to force innovation and pick winners/losers, it's generally the taxpayer who gets their collective nuts stepped on with a stiletto heel.

Not that there's something wrong with that, if that's anyone's thing.

Damn, I said that I was going to slowly back away...

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

So are you agreeing with this study which confirms human impact on global warming?

If I say yes, what do you win?

LOL, I am a computer nerd. So my opinion on AGW is worth as much as Phages opinion on my toenail fungus.

But I have been of the belief that we don't know a whole lot about AGW, Climate Change, or whatever you wish to call it. I think "scientists" have been trying to prove a hypothesis with the idea that coming to the conclusion advertised is paramount. Which isn't really science, as much as it is...advertisement. (IMHO)

I believe it's entirely possible that we don't contribute much at all to warming, but we do a smashing job of polluting the seas, the land, the air, and space.

When those who make claims like we are "past the point of no return" are still consuming 10-50 times the resources the average human does, it kind of makes the whole thing look like a joke, and sadly, those who champion the cause, are blind to the Hippocracy.

So in conclusion, we may in deed be contributing to a warming earth, but then again, we may not. What this article states, is that some of the doom was a bit over hyped. If you have a new article that states something different, I'd read it.

Are you sure Phage isn't an expert on fungul nail infections?

Most the alarmist predictions come from the media not the actual research. The 'we are all doomed crowd' don't have much more legitimacy than the total deniers.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Who said anything about carbon credits? The issue of the reality global warming is completely separate from the possible solutions.

The science of climatology is a lot more than guesses. One side has the science, the data and the models. The other has option pieces. Who are the real wide-eyed cultists here?

Yes, and when some of the "Models" are shown to be wrong, it makes those of us who aren't ready to jump in with both feet glad we waited for a bit more information. Don't worry, you still might be right, and we still might all die, but it seems we will have to work a bit harder at it than previously thought.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: myselfaswell
My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

So the part about the models being wrong, is ....wrong?

So are you agreeing with this study which confirms human impact on global warming?

If I say yes, what do you win?

LOL, I am a computer nerd. So my opinion on AGW is worth as much as Phages opinion on my toenail fungus.

But I have been of the belief that we don't know a whole lot about AGW, Climate Change, or whatever you wish to call it. I think "scientists" have been trying to prove a hypothesis with the idea that coming to the conclusion advertised is paramount. Which isn't really science, as much as it is...advertisement. (IMHO)

I believe it's entirely possible that we don't contribute much at all to warming, but we do a smashing job of polluting the seas, the land, the air, and space.

When those who make claims like we are "past the point of no return" are still consuming 10-50 times the resources the average human does, it kind of makes the whole thing look like a joke, and sadly, those who champion the cause, are blind to the Hippocracy.

So in conclusion, we may in deed be contributing to a warming earth, but then again, we may not. What this article states, is that some of the doom was a bit over hyped. If you have a new article that states something different, I'd read it.

Are you sure Phage isn't an expert on fungul nail infections?

Most the alarmist predictions come from the media not the actual research. The 'we are all doomed crowd' don't have much more legitimacy than the total deniers.

Hell, he's an expert in most things, but he hasn't seen my toes, so he is at a disadvantage there. (or not, depending on how much you like toes)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

who loves ya baby.

a reply to: network dude

You're beautiful.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Many of you engage in critical thinking but don't have the toolbox to read the papers.

Your assessment of the government picking winners is pretty ludicrous.

Every major energy sector has been chosen by the government.

The oil industry received about 8 times as much funding during its development than renewable energy. Nuclear received 12x as much.

I would say the energy sector was exclusively chosen by a crony and oligarchy system.

Renewable energy has always been affordable. It's the competitors that were chosen.

My solution is to abandon all of the funding and let them compete without the billions.

Since that has never happened well renewable appear that they are not as affordable.

It's the choice and investment in mass production from the government that made oil affordable. It's still very much funded.

It was the government that made microchips affordable. Automobiles, shipping etc.

Obama and carter "picking winners" is a micro fraction to what the GE's, Haliburton, Exxon, etc have received.

The truth is unless you stop all subsidies or fund all research in the energy sector evenly it's always going be cronyism.

more jobs in renewable than fossil fuels.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Many of you engage in critical thinking but don't have the toolbox to read the papers.

But many of us do. (ETA: Many pro-AGW people don't have the toolbox to read the papers, either)

Your assessment of the government picking winners is pretty ludicrous.

Every major energy sector has been chosen by the government.

These statements, back-to-back, are called cognitive dissonance.

Since that has never happened well renewable appear that they are not as affordable.

It's not an appearance problem, it's a math problem. The math is trending more in favor of the private consumer, though, which is a good thing.

Ten and twenty years ago, though, renewable energy sources were not affordable for the average person or were not efficient enough energy sources to justify the cost if it were affordable.

Obama and carter "picking winners" is a micro fraction to what the GE's, Haliburton, Exxon, etc have received.

The truth is unless you stop all subsidies or fund all research in the energy sector evenly it's always going be cronyism.

And I'm absolutely for that, but to state that my point about governments picking winners/losers is "pretty ludicrous," and then complete your comment supporting my point, seems rather odd to me. I mean, think about it--the government picked Big Oil as the winner, per our comment, and now we spend trillions of taxpayer dollars funding wars over the stuff. Furthermore, it is a commodity traded on the global markets where its value rises and climbs at the drop of a hat, leaving the individual consumers on the hook paying whatever price it costs because it's become such a necessity in our daily lives, from gas, to energy, to plastics, and so on.

How is that not the taxpayer getting our nuts stilettoed?

originally posted by: misterhistory
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Actually I think I've come across an article that states that the bleaching has more to do with cheap and knockoff brand suntan lotions using something TiO2 in excessive levels.

I have read about this too, and indeed very plausible.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
CHECK your six ..SWEEPERS, CANADIANS!
THEY ARE THROWING BEER CANS!


Note how the "CARBON TAX " thing is what kills the accords,ALONE,but it how it's glossed over.

a reply to: Phage

And your point is?

My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

Well, I'm glad I asked because I now know your point is irrelevant.

I'll dumb it down for you with a simple analogy;

Imagine you're running a car ferry service across a river.

You decide that's slow and you can get more cars over the river if you build a bridge. So you contract all the engineers in your little world to design and build the bridge.

During the design phase you find out that the engineers have manipulated the design to convince you that the bridge will work. This happens quite a few times, you get a little upset but continue on regardless.

Then you get to the construction phase.

As you're just knocking in the first piles, you find out that the design of the bridge only takes it 2/3 of the way across the river.

Personally I'd stop all construction and start asking some serious questions.

Seems to me on face value that you'd press on building the bridge regardless.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

You're saying that all of those assessments are FAKE news?

Yeah. Pretty much so.
Arctic sea ice has been on the decline for a while now. Greenland glaciers the same.
Antarctic ice mass, well, that's a bit tougher to determine but the trend would seem to be downward.

Meanwhile:

But, just out of curiosity, are you saying that the planet is not warming? Or are you saying "don't worry, it's natural?" Just to be clear.

You're showing a graph that's less than 2º's in variance, which is so infinitesimally small it's well inside of any studies error margin +/- and they all have one. The error margin for temperature is ~ +/- 15º's. So they could post a 2 degree difference, and still be off by ~15 in either direction. In case you didn't realize what margin of error means in the scientific method.

How is that definitive proof of the planet warming to any degree that's going to have any significant effect in the next 2 million years? Scientists are now projecting 2 inches of sea level rise in the next 100,000 years. TWO INCHES. This is nothing, the water on the beach will just go 2 inches further up the sand, a super far cry from "Florida will be gone, California will be half way under water, Caribbean islands vanished..."

It's also an average global temperature, which can be negatively effected if key areas are hotter by the nature of averages.

Pseudo-science. This report is bracing you for the fact that global temperatures aren't really changing, the Paris accords are "going to work" and all it will actually do is make someone a boat load of money.

Antarctic ice sheets aren't showing losses btw, they are showing gains.

www.nasa.gov...

An article from Nasa posted in Feb 2015, but last updated August 4th 2017. You knew this, because you're phage -- so why were you intentionally being intellectually dishonest?

phys.org...

If you prefer an article from 2017, 17 kilometers of growth in 6 days.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Phage

And your point is?

My point is that the study which your OP touts, says that, if adhered to, the Paris agreement goals for limiting CO2 emissions in the near term may actually be able to restrict global warming to the goal of 1.5º through the 21st century. If not, there is no chance of that occurring.

Was it really that hard to understand? Did you read what the study says? No? You just went with what someone told you the study says? You shouldn't do that.

Well, I'm glad I asked because I now know your point is irrelevant.

I'll dumb it down for you with a simple analogy;

Imagine you're running a car ferry service across a river.

You decide that's slow and you can get more cars over the river if you build a bridge. So you contract all the engineers in your little world to design and build the bridge.

During the design phase you find out that the engineers have manipulated the design to convince you that the bridge will work. This happens quite a few times, you get a little upset but continue on regardless.

Then you get to the construction phase.

As you're just knocking in the first piles, you find out that the design of the bridge only takes it 2/3 of the way across the river.

Personally I'd stop all construction and start asking some serious questions.

Seems to me on face value that you'd press on building the bridge regardless.

To be fair, the logic is a 2 out of 3 chance for success vs a bridge that is a 100% failure because it's only big enough to cover 2/3rds the distance. That's a faulty comparison, a 2 of 3 chance is pretty high, it's so high in fact -- that it's the more likely outcome. Whether or not the Paris Accords helps or doesn't help, they will say that it helped.

There is no science that we can see that proves this true. It's because it's not true, but that's why the Paris Accords will be a 100% success.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Getting your nuts stilettoed?

It may be I don't know. I do know investing in microchips made us a tech giant and control the innovation market where as if another nation did it we wold be following.

Seems complex.

My point is that the affordability of renewable energy is not a real level field to try and Guage. The r and d early period is very important for the growth of an industry and if it was choked off by competition subsidies and out right cronyism of coarse it's going to seem as though it's unaffordable.

Solar panels reached 30 percent efficiency in 1994 without massive subsidies. Now we are heading into nano tech not reliant on sun "light".

I don't think anything needs to be done except clean up cronyism in the energy market.

My reaction of saying ridiculous comes from it seemed you were implying because renewable energy is now getting a lot of subsidies, 70 years past it's commercial invention and 60 years since it's been powering space equipment, is not an accurate representation of the larger picture.

It's like Musk needing to play the lobby game to compete with other monopolies in aerospace or power in the auto industry. Without playing the game he would be unable to hit the ball at all.

It's a sad reality. I guess I am unclear if you think somehow renewable energy was somehow unfairly being propped up. My point is its just an unfortunate reality of the energy sector.

We meet where, I think we both agree letting the market actually decide which artifact is useful and clean without subversive manipulation.

a reply to: SRPrime

To be fair, the logic is a 2 out of 3 chance for success vs a bridge that is a 100% failure because it's only big enough to cover 2/3rds the distance. That's a faulty comparison,

If you wish to read that much into it, go for your life.

The simple point is that when F'ups of this magnitude occur, it's tools down and let the inquisition begin.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

You're saying that all of those assessments are FAKE news?

Yeah. Pretty much so.
Arctic sea ice has been on the decline for a while now. Greenland glaciers the same.
Antarctic ice mass, well, that's a bit tougher to determine but the trend would seem to be downward.

Meanwhile:

But, just out of curiosity, are you saying that the planet is not warming? Or are you saying "don't worry, it's natural?" Just to be clear.

What the hell was going on between 1940 and 1980 to cause such up down results compared to the solid trends one way of the other on either ends of that chart? Sticks out like a sore thumb.

originally posted by: luthier

It's a sad reality. I guess I am unclear if you think somehow renewable energy was somehow unfairly being propped up. My point is its just an unfortunate reality of the energy sector.

We meet where, I think we both agree letting the market actually decide which artifact is useful and clean without subversive manipulation.

I think that we agree on the foundation of what should be, but maybe just differ in opinion on tangential aspects of the discussion.

The bottom line is that ANY propping up of private industry by taxpayer dollars (and I'm not talking about tax breaks, I'm talking about real expenditure of dollars actually brought in through federal taxes already paid) should not take place--period. I MIGHT--MIGHT--support federal loans for R&D for start-up technologies, but only because they would be loans that should have no strings attached except to pay them back. But that's not the system that we have at all, and we both know that and dislike it; things like grants and special tax breaks should not occur on a company-by-company basis, and that's the winners/losers thing that I'm talking about.

Yes, I'm a massive advocate of letting the market decide the real winners and losers, and it should especially apply to necessities of everyday life in America, like fuel, electricity, water sources, etc. But we don't currently have that, we basically have monopolies depending on which part of the country that you live.

Duke energy is who I get for electricity--that's it; where's the competition? My neighborhood just recently received a second cable company (non-satellite), and the subdivision has existed for more than 10 years. We have one municipal water source; where's the competition? Anyhoo, I'm sure that you get my point, and probably already understand it yourself.

Most, if not all, of these monopoly-esque practices have evolved because of government intervention or, in some cases, government complacency against monopoly practices. It doesn't matter if government aided one sector of energy a century ago...it still doesn't make them doing it to other sectors today any better. That's really my point: We just need to quit interfering with businesses, especially at the federal level, and just let the people sort it out.

The reason that I cited Obama's "investments" in renewable energy is because they are perfect examples bail-outs gone bad, where many companies went bankrupt before even producing anything worth the free taxpayer dollars. That practice has got to stop, and the best way is just to quit gambling with my money.

a reply to: pavil

Keep in mind that the scale of those charts covers only a total of 1.7 degrees, and one must ask the main questions: From where did they derive the baseline temperature, and what instruments and technology were used to measure the temperatures in, say, 1892 versus 1992?