Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[grbeck]

 

Exactly. If you put forth a theory and make predictions based on that theory and model and you don't get the results you expected then the model and/or the theory are wrong.

 

Nonsense. You change the name from "global warming" to "climate change," keep expanding the list of possible side effects of global warming/climate change, and then shout "DENIER!" when anyone has the temerity to point out the holes in the plot that would prevent someone from receiving federal grant money, I mean, prevent someone from saving the world.

[akirby]

As long as it fits the political/social/environmental agenda. Never let a good crisis (real or imagined) go to waste........

[NickF1011]

 

I'm pretty sure akirby knows what it means. It's impossible to prove global warming was caused by man. It can't be done. There is so much natural climate change in the world that saying man caused global warming is a theory that cannot be proven true.

 

A scientific theory is supported by evidence gained through observation and/or experimentation. Gravity is still a scientific theory. Heliocentrism is still a scientific theory.

 

Another thing about scientific theories: they are open to revision. Those climate models? Okay, so they were inaccurate. Study them. Find out why. Alter them. Doesn't mean the entire theory is incorrect -- only that one developed method of testing it was.

Edited January 15, 2014 by NickF1011

[Langston Hughes]

Climate scientists see where the money is.

Jump on the band wagon!

 

 

If that tiny sliver represents the correct view, what does it matter if the lemmings run off the cliff together.

If a man, alone, knows the truth, though no others believe him, his knowledge is still truth.

 

 

The most widely held view, at one time, was that the world was flat.

 

Are you a flat Earther? I mean. It was what EVERYBODY held as the truth.

 

There's evidence that flat earth was not as prevalent as we have been lead to believe. But go ahead and use an historically incorrect understanding of our past as something, i don't know what.

[akirby]

 

A scientific theory is supported by evidence gained through observation and/or experimentation. Gravity is still a scientific theory. Heliocentrism is still a scientific theory.

 

Another thing about scientific theories: they are open to revision. Those climate models? Okay, so they were inaccurate. Study them. Find out why. Alter them. Doesn't mean the entire theory is incorrect -- only that one developed method of testing it was.

 

Gravity is a theory that has been tested extensively and the testing matches the theory. The theory predicts there is no gravity in space and less gravity on the moon - both of which have been proven. If a new test shows up that provides different results then it can be re-evaluated.

 

Global climate is far too big and far too complicated to actually test the effect of increased carbon dioxide. It's simply too complicated to adequately test or even model, so it's impossible to prove or disprove the theory on Carbon Dioxide causing global warming.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Gravity is a theory that has been tested extensively and the testing matches the theory. The theory predicts there is no gravity in space and less gravity on the moon - both of which have been proven. If a new test shows up that provides different results then it can be re-evaluated.

 

Global climate is far too big and far too complicated to actually test the effect of increased carbon dioxide. It's simply too complicated to adequately test or even model, so it's impossible to prove or disprove the theory on Carbon Dioxide causing global warming.

Actually, gravity is everywhere, but we feel weight because the Earth's surface stops us from continuing our fall to the center of the Earth.

Even there, we are subject to the gravitational pull of the sun, where the Earth's orbital velocity causes us to continually fall around the Sun. Even the Sun is tugged by other stars and galaxies.

 

And those stars and galaxies are attracted to each other and form clusters.

 

Oddly, The Earth experiences a faint gravitational attraction to you. Every physical object possessing mass has it's own gravity field. Gravity never ends, it just expands to a point of insignificant effect. You are drawing a distant galaxy toward yourself now, but much larger forces overwhelm your influence.

 

NASA doesn't used "Zero Gravity" anymore, they call it "Microgravity".

 

But, it's still just a theory.

Edited January 15, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[RangerM]

 

Those climate models? Okay, so they were inaccurate. Study them. Find out why. Alter them. Doesn't mean the entire theory is incorrect -- only that one developed method of testing it was.

I remember something about repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results; which is where we've been for the last 15 years.

 

A model of the theory is not a test. Real-world measurements ARE the test (of the models). The theory may have some limited validity, but the desired answer is that it is entirely valid; and that has yet to be observed.

 

Usurping our entire way of life isn't the way to go even if the models were 100% accurate. Doing it in spite of contrary data is ludicrous.

[grbeck]

 

A scientific theory is supported by evidence gained through observation and/or experimentation. Gravity is still a scientific theory. Heliocentrism is still a scientific theory.

 

Another thing about scientific theories: they are open to revision. Those climate models? Okay, so they were inaccurate. Study them. Find out why. Alter them. Doesn't mean the entire theory is incorrect -- only that one developed method of testing it was.

 

If you are asking people to make drastic changes to their lifestyle, or pay very hefty taxes to combat a supposed problem, or demand that Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan make huge transfers of wealth to poor countries to stop something from happening, you'd better be absolutely sure your science supports the reason for the policy or tax in the first place.

[NickF1011]

 

Gravity is a theory that has been tested extensively and the testing matches the theory. The theory predicts there is no gravity in space and less gravity on the moon - both of which have been proven. If a new test shows up that provides different results then it can be re-evaluated.

 

Global climate is far too big and far too complicated to actually test the effect of increased carbon dioxide. It's simply too complicated to adequately test or even model, so it's impossible to prove or disprove the theory on Carbon Dioxide causing global warming.

 

I think the only thing that has prevented it from being entirely confirmed is the lack of consistent, long-term data sampling. That is bound to change in coming decades.

[NickF1011]

I remember something about repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results; which is where we've been for the last 15 years.

 

A model of the theory is not a test. Real-world measurements ARE the test (of the models). The theory may have some limited validity, but the desired answer is that it is entirely valid; and that has yet to be observed.

 

Usurping our entire way of life isn't the way to go even if the models were 100% accurate. Doing it in spite of contrary data is ludicrous.

 

 

 

If you are asking people to make drastic changes to their lifestyle, or pay very hefty taxes to combat a supposed problem, or demand that Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan make huge transfers of wealth to poor countries to stop something from happening, you'd better be absolutely sure your science supports the reason for the policy or tax in the first place.

 

Please refer to my post a page or two ago. I said pretty plainly that I wasn't for knee-jerk lesislation that may or may not even make any meaningful impact. But that also doesn't mean ignore it and hope for the best. It needs to be studied.

[akirby]

 

I think the only thing that has prevented it from being entirely confirmed is the lack of consistent, long-term data sampling. That is bound to change in coming decades.

 

You don't get it Nick. There is no long term data sampling that can confirm the theory. You're only looking at one of thousands of variables which alone or in combination could be the cause of any observed change.

 

What about heat islands? We're reflecting far more heat from steel and concrete than we used to thanks to city expansion. What about water vapor which is orders of magnitude better at trapping solar heat than CO2? What about cloud cover? Fluctuations in solar radiation?

 

If you can't adequately simulate it (and we never will) and you can't rule out all of the other factors then it's naive to try and say that it's caused by increased CO2 caused by man and to imply that we can stop or reverse it.

[NickF1011]

 

You don't get it Nick. There is no long term data sampling that can confirm the theory. You're only looking at one of thousands of variables which alone or in combination could be the cause of any observed change.

 

What about heat islands? We're reflecting far more heat from steel and concrete than we used to thanks to city expansion. What about water vapor which is orders of magnitude better at trapping solar heat than CO2? What about cloud cover? Fluctuations in solar radiation?

 

If you can't adequately simulate it (and we never will) and you can't rule out all of the other factors then it's naive to try and say that it's caused by increased CO2 caused by man and to imply that we can stop or reverse it.

 

I'll leave it up to the scientists who know far more about such things than you or I to figure it out. It's incredibly narrow-minded and pessimistic to say we'll never understand it so we shouldn't bother trying though.

[phil1336]

That's what totalitarian government does for you.

All you Apple product lovers have to live with that. That and Walmart.

and (you) of course have never stepped a foot into a Walmart Store nor have ever purchased an Apple Product, correct? Care to take a sip of water anywhere in West Virginia? The Tanks holding the "safe" Coal washing chemical that leaked into the River "upstream" from the Municipal Water Filtration Plant providing drinking water to 11 Counties wasn`t inspected since the early 90`s. Another example why we don`t need Government intervention to oversee Safety Inspections. The "Job Creators" will always do a better job self-policing themselves. Just ask BP!

[RangerM]

 

I'll leave it up to the scientists who know far more about such things than you or I to figure it out. It's incredibly narrow-minded and pessimistic to say we'll never understand it so we shouldn't bother trying though.

Thing is, the scientists are just as interested in a buck as the next guy. If your benefactor has an agenda, you're a lot more open to his "suggestions".

[NickF1011]

Thing is, the scientists are just as interested in a buck as the next guy. If your benefactor has an agenda, you're a lot more open to his "suggestions".

 

True to an extent. But even then, when the majority of scientists (even those without any horse in the race) reach similar conclusions, there's likely something to it that demands more attention. People sticking their heads in the sand over it aren't going to contribute anything worthwhile.

[Langston Hughes]

Thing is, the scientists are just as interested in a buck as the next guy. If your benefactor has an agenda, you're a lot more open to his "suggestions".

 

Are you suggesting that a large number of believers in climate change are motivated by money? Because what do you do about deniers who do studies and reports at the behest of those who are on the other side, such as Oil companies and others who stand to lose some market?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[akirby]

 

True to an extent. But even then, when the majority of scientists (even those without any horse in the race) reach similar conclusions, there's likely something to it that demands more attention. People sticking their heads in the sand over it aren't going to contribute anything worthwhile.

 

Neither are the ones who run around claiming that sea level will rise 100 ft and coastal cities are going to disappear.

[akirby]

 

Are you suggesting that a large number of believers in climate change are motivated by money? Because what do you do about deniers who do studies and reports at the behest of those who are on the other side, such as Oil companies and others who stand to lose some market?

 

They are absolutely motivated by money - either directory or indirectly through research funding. When you have people saying that we need to spend billions and billions and make drastic changes because of MMGW then why wouldn't the folks who would be most impacted push back and at least question the conclusions to see if they're sound or not? If someone came to your house and said your house is going to fall down unless you give them $100K to replace your foundation - would you take their word for it or would you get another opinion?

[NickF1011]

 

Neither are the ones who run around claiming that sea level will rise 100 ft and coastal cities are going to disappear.

 

I agree. However, the majority don't see it that way, but do perceive it to be a threat on some level. Is it not worth trying to determine what that threat might be and to then determine any actions we should take to minimize those impacts?

[NickF1011]

 

would you take their word for it or would you get another opinion?

 

That depends on who is paying for the other opinion, as LH alluded to.

[FiredMotorCompany]

and (you) of course have never stepped a foot into a Walmart Store nor have ever purchased an Apple Product, correct? Care to take a sip of water anywhere in West Virginia? The Tanks holding the "safe" Coal washing chemical that leaked into the River "upstream" from the Municipal Water Filtration Plant providing drinking water to 11 Counties wasn`t inspected since the early 90`s. Another example why we don`t need Government intervention to oversee Safety Inspections. The "Job Creators" will always do a better job self-policing themselves. Just ask BP!

Sure, go after the coal washing chemical spill company. I'm not defending them. But, what of your beloved Federal E.P.A. that hadn't inspected the plant since 1998?

 

 

 

And I cannot claim I've never gone to Walmart. But it is the last option. Not just their Union/Non-Union position, but their dependence on foreign sourced products, and the stores, customers, and hassle to get in and get out that you have to deal with is often not worth saving a few dollars.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Thing is, the scientists are just as interested in a buck as the next guy. If your benefactor has an agenda, you're a lot more open to his "suggestions".

Huzzah!

 

 

How many climate change scientists would we have if the opinion was there was no threat and we can carry on as usual. No worries, Mate!

 

It's self-fulfilling. Consultants create their own paycheck by telling someone there's a problem that they alone can resolve.

They DO NOT tell you "You're doing it right. Keep it up and see me in 50 years for a review."

Edited January 16, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[akirby]

 

I agree. However, the majority don't see it that way, but do perceive it to be a threat on some level. Is it not worth trying to determine what that threat might be and to then determine any actions we should take to minimize those impacts?

 

Is it worth continuing the research? Sure. Is it worth trying to reduce CO2 and other emissions? Sure, but if you're going to do that then you should be starting with the worst offenders and that's not American automobiles. And we shouldn't be making drastic policy changes and spending billions on it until we identify that it's really a threat (none of the predictions on sea level rise have come true) and we have a sound plan that we're confident will remedy it. Right now we have neither - just a bunch of doomsayers.

[akirby]

 

That depends on who is paying for the other opinion, as LH alluded to.

 

Not if the opinion is based on facts. E.g. if the predictions were an increase in global temps and a 1 foot rise in sea level and there is data that suggests global temps have not risen in the last 10 years and sea level has also not risen by more than an inch or two, then anybody with a brain should understand that the initial premise must be questioned.

[RangerM]

 

True to an extent. But even then, when the majority of scientists (even those without any horse in the race) reach similar conclusions, there's likely something to it that demands more attention. People sticking their heads in the sand over it aren't going to contribute anything worthwhile.

Many of those conclusions have come from models that have proven unreliable. If this were 20 years ago, that unreliability had yet to be established.

 

Prudence demands caution (some might call that, "sticking their heads in the sand") when determining the best course of action or inaction.

 

 

Are you suggesting that a large number of believers in climate change are motivated by money? Because what do you do about deniers who do studies and reports at the behest of those who are on the other side, such as Oil companies and others who stand to lose some market?

Regardless of my personal views, my statement didn't exclude any scientist(s) on either side.

 

Anyone with a financial stake in MMGW-MMCC is going to present evidence supporting a particular point of view; and will financially support research directed toward that end.