CO2 AND YOU keeping things in perspective.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

Perhaps a term better than "overeducated" (which implies that one can learn too much) would be "unwise."

I would posit that it is unwise to rail against the obvious. Reality has a way of biting.

Their degree makes them feel their knowledge is better than the workers or the person who they replaced who did the job for forty years without a diploma. That is more than unwise, they feel prestigious and superior to others because of their education. This does not always happen, but when they get a management job, they tend to shortly try to change things and screw things up. I have seen this many times knowing lots of people over the years. When a boss out of college tries to tell seasoned masons how to do their job, everything gets messed up. I know the owners of businesses who were stuck, hoping these bosses they hired would settle down, but all that happened is they lost some of their best employees before finally getting rid of the foreman or manager.

It is more than unwise. I had quite a few workers over the years of owning my business and I was a foreman for at least six years before starting my own business. Experience is much better than college education when it comes to lots of jobs. There are some jobs where a college degree is good, but lots where it is not good.

a reply to: rickymouse

You seem to draw some very broad generalizations.

That is not usually a fruitful exercise.

Be very careful when using the term "they."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

You seem to draw some very broad generalizations.

That is not usually a fruitful exercise.

Be very careful when using the term "they."

When you see new management coming in and destroying a business or disrupting a government agency many times in your life, you tend to say they.

The majority of kids choosing colleges these days, and even back fifteen years ago, look for colleges with good social events and do not choose a school because it has great professors. Majority means fiftyone percent or higher. A fun school is what the majority of college kids are looking for.

Maybe it is different on the Islands you live on, and not all students turn out bad, but I am not talking about people who go to technical colleges or colleges like Michigan Tech, the people graduating from those colleges do not wind up as Supervisors for a road commision or run small communities, those people work for big companies. The economy is not great around here, we cannot pay high wages or salaries to get the best people, ones with common sense go where the money is better. We cannot pay a city manager a great salary, so we do not get the best ones for a hundred ten grand a year. A town of six thousand cannot pay to get the best.

You have nice weather around you, you probably have a decent economy and can pay for the best who can think better around your neck of the woods. Around here, most people make less than thirty grand a year at their jobs.

a reply to: rickymouse

I've seen plenty of "them" and I'm well old enough to be cynical. But not cynical enough to think that education is a bad thing or that there is a limit to it.

Ice core data says it has been hotter a few times over the last 10,000 years before man ever drove the first car..

youtu.be...


An actual forecast made in 2014 that turns out to be correct for 2018 and 2019.. I remember Phage posting a NOAA forecast saying the 2018/2019 winter would be above normal temperature .. they were certainly wrong with that forecast as noted by the still record cold and snows of 2019 in many parts of the world.
youtu.be...


I would have more faith in the numbers if the number pushers were not caught time after time changing the data to fit their global warming agenda. They are still using climate models that have in the past predicted at least three times more warmth or ocean rise than observed over their forecast.

Truth and none junk science would go along way to settle the climate change question one way or the other.
youtu.be...


410 ppm CO2 is not that big a deal according to a Princeton physicist: He has come right out and said, there is a ‘cult’ building around climate alarmist...
youtu.be...


Plenty of videos and articles on both sides of the argument.. I am old enough to remember many of the climate change models and all their forecast which seem to never come true. No problem they just tack another 10 years on the pumpkin date and start their alarmist chant all over again.

a reply to: 727Sky

Ice core data says it has been hotter a few times over the last 10,000 years before man ever drove the first car..

Ice core data from a single location in Greenland. Ice core data when ends in 1859.

Do you actually think that the planet is not warming?

a reply to: Phage

I don't know how one can be overeducated, but from my experience it's greed mostly, with a good dose of ignorance which is the prime mover of negative effects.

But let's not forget fear. And when combined with ignorance, watch out.

Education is knowledge, not wisdom. "Overeducation" occurs when one is imbibed with more knowledge than they have wisdom to handle. The IPCC is a good example.

But you are correct: fear combined with ignorance is usually a bad thing. That's why I keep trying to expose the fear and ignorance surrounding Global Warming.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Education is knowledge, not wisdom.

I agree.

"Overeducation" occurs when one is imbibed with more knowledge than they have wisdom to handle.

There is no such thing as too much knowledge.

That's why I keep trying to expose the fear and ignorance surrounding Global Warming.

You have not managed to show that the planet is not warming.

a reply to: Phage

There is no such thing as too much knowledge.

But there is such a thing as too little wisdom.

You have not managed to show that the planet is not warming.

And you have not shown that the planet will continue to warm.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But there is such a thing as too little wisdom.

Yes. And confirmation bias plays a big part in that.

And you have not shown that the planet will continue to warm.

True. But then, I did not create the models, which seem to be doing pretty well.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. And confirmation bias plays a big part in that.

Yes, it does. As in, when evidence indicates the possibility of cyclic warming as opposed to runaway warming, and it is ignored as 'insufficient.' Or when the original theory (aka "Global Warming") is not fully supported by research, so the theory name is changed to "Climate Change."

But then, I did not create the models, which seem to be doing pretty well.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pretty well," but I tend to expect more of a model than failed predictions. Maybe that's just me, though.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are cycles, no doubt. Glacial and inter-glacial, which seem to be associated with orbital and axial cycles, for example. Thing is, those parameters don't coincide with observations. That would seem to indicate that something is messing up those cycles. Perhaps increased forcing has something to do with it, in lieu of other evidence.

'm not sure what you mean by "pretty well," but I tend to expect more of a model than failed predictions.

Global temperatures are following model forecasts. Model forecasts based on increasing CO2 concentrations. And yet, you think your speculation trumps the models.

a reply to: Phage

There are cycles, no doubt.

Yes, there are, and many of these cycles are quite lengthy... far longer than we have had measurements to verify. We can use proxy data, of course, but proxy data is inferior to direct observation.

Perhaps increased forcing has something to do with it, in lieu of other evidence.

Perhaps... perhaps not. We simply do not know. My professional opinion is that the magnitude of something as otherwise innocuous as carbon dioxide is quite insufficient to produce any similarly powerful forcing effect. That's what the video in the OP was about.

We also do not know all of the effects that a small temperature rise will have. Yet, we have all these forecasts of doom and gloom, which fly in the face of the population records correlated with global temperatures. Humans tend to do better in warmer temperatures. When someone makes a bad prediction in one area, it tends to make me leery of predictions in another area.

Global temperatures are following model forecasts. Model forecasts based on increasing CO2 concentrations. And yet, you think your speculation trumps the models.

Actually untrue. The models are becoming better, and are getting closer to actually giving accurate predictions, but thus far none have passed the acid tests. That's not a condemnation of the science; it is acceptance of how science works. The atmosphere is far too chaotic a system to be described in any kind of manual mathematical formula, so we use computers to perform simulations, aka "models." These models are no better and no worse than the assumptions we program into them. In essence, they are SWAGs (Sophisticated Wild-Ass Guesses), and each attempt makes our guesses more accurate.

I use models all the time to verify circuit operation before I go to the trouble and expense of prototyping. Often, however, these models do not provide the verification I need to justify the time and expense of prototyping. In those cases, I have to assemble test circuits on breadboards to check for proper operation. As a matter of fact, I have parts on order right now for one such condition. It's just how things work. We don't know everything yet (which is why I immediately distrust any "scientist" who seems to think we do).

The models have been fairly accurate thus far at predicting carbon dioxide levels, just not the associated warming trends... hence the need for the name change. CO2 levels are pretty straightforward, since the amount of additional CO2 generated by industry is linked tightly to economic activity and any changes to planetary CO2 absorption are notoriously slow to change.

It is also untrue that I think "my speculation" trumps these models. In reality, the models have not yet trumped my understanding of the science. Burden of proof and all that, you know.

TheRedneck

Climate models used by the IPCC over estimated CO2's warming effect by at least 50%.. Says the IPCC climate scientist. Of course MSN has nothing to say.
youtu.be...


Of course they the scientist got flak for saying overestimation by 50%.. The good news is future models will include the albedo effect, volcanoes, and surprise surprise the solar sun cycles..

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, there are, and many of these cycles are quite lengthy... far longer than we have had measurements to verify.

But cycles are predictable, are they not? Isn't that what your local analysis proclaims (even low it has a low matching factor)?
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

So, apart from insolation models and changes in greenhouse gas forcing, what's going on? Just...something...anything other than CO2?

a reply to: 727Sky

Climate models used by the IPCC over estimated CO2's warming effect by at least 50%..

Incorrect.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Climate models used by the IPCC over estimated CO2's warming effect by at least 50%..

Incorrect.

The graph you are pushing starts in 1980 after a cold period in the 70s.. If the graph started in 1900 it would show a much different picture unless the numbers are fiddled like they have been before.

a reply to: 727Sky

There was no cold period in the 70s. There was a slight cooling. Sort of like there was in the mid nineties. But guess what the trend is.

unless the numbers are fiddled like they have been before.

Yeah, I know. "The numbers must be fudged because I don't like what they say."

a reply to: Phage

But cycles are predictable, are they not?

Once identified, and assuming the driving forces behind the cycles is known and understood, yes. An unknown cycle can easily be mistaken for either a warming or cooling trend, depending on which side of the cycle one is in. In a stable complex control environment, the logical step is to assume that cycles are commonly happening and contributing to (or at least are within the acceptable range of) natural forces. Only a fool looks at minor fluctuations in such a system and immediately announces disaster... OK, fools and "climatologists."

So, apart from insolation models and changes in greenhouse gas forcing, what's going on? Just...something...anything other than CO2?

Phage, you are projecting your confirmation bias onto me. If you will show me evidence that shows carbon dioxide levels at 400ppmv... heck, at 500ppmv... will lead to a warming trend that would destabilize the climate, I'll be happy to say that we must lower our carbon dioxide emissions. No one has done so to this date. I hear theories, mostly wild unsubstantiated theories that disagree with established principles, combined with climactic predictions that, thus far, have consistently been proven wrong.

I will not subscribe to any such theory.

I understand you do. You tend to attribute any anomaly to Global Warming and carbon dioxide... it's become quite apparent that you do so. We live in a country where that is your right. You can believe that Tinkerbell paints the flowers every morning before dawn if you like. But do not expect me to agree with that belief. I require reasonable explanation for any theory that bucks presently accepted theory, and thus far none of that has been forthcoming to support Global Warming. I do not include in the term "reasonable explanation" wild claims to emotion, asinine taxation plans, or highly speculative predictions that do not have a solid track record of success.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Climate models used by the IPCC over estimated CO2's warming effect by at least 50%..

Incorrect.

As usual one can reply to you and give the names of actual scientist and quote their papers and you are to busy putting forth or formulating your own bias reply to even try and understand who is saying what.

Nothing personal but having a scientific discussion on a topic is reviewing the latest data which you can not seem to be bother to even look at ... You want to believe the IPCC (even though their own scientist are saying the models were wrong) then go ahead. Just do not be surprised everything turns out just like your last forecast of a warmer than usual winter for 2018/2019..

Your IPCC models have been wrong in the past just as NOAA has been wrong in the past with their out dated inaccurate models. In the last 100 years according to the IPCC and actual observations the earth has warmed 1.33 F or .74 C ....go check your models and see what they said back in 2000 or even 2008. Or just ask AOC as she knows the world will end in 12 years if we do not agree to her new green deal.