Anthropogenic Global Warming

Topic: Anthropogenic Global Warming (Read 199536 times)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #225 – 2015-07-26, 23:30:36

Regarding my earlier note on the Arctic it seems that freezing increased in 2013 by 43%. Must be annoying for all the heat fanatic minds.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #226 – 2015-07-27, 00:17:15

This is one time I have to side with RJHowie (will wonders never cease).

These last few years, if the computer models had held true, there should have been no ice cover-- or very little-- on the Great Lakes.

Well--- about that: The 2013/2014 Winter season saw nearly 95 percent ice coverage on the lakes as a whole. Superior froze over completely, Michigan and Huron (which function for all practical purposes as one lake) saw coverage in the 97 percent range, and no Great Lake was without significant coverage. Lake levels rose because there wasn't much evaporation that winter.

Then, in the 2014/2015 Winter season--- let's try for a repeat. Almost complete ice coverage. Lake levels rise because of slowed evaporation during the winter.

Those computer models need to be tweaked. They didn't match what really happened.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #227 – 2015-07-27, 17:35:53

Such global processes don't necessarily happen with the click of one's fingers.
From 2012.....

Quote

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Earlier...

Quote

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

It's very hot on my patio this afternoon, 95º F. Global cooling is not responsible. Tennessee's icebergs are almost gone.
================================
You might find these interesting.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #228 – 2015-07-27, 21:27:03

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-27, 09:35:53

the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe

The odds?

The odds of this happening (since nothing ever happens by simple chance…) is -if indeed it did happen- 1. That is, 100%.
Innumeracy doesn't prove AGW.

Oreskes is a historian/activist… Read her analysis of the role prediction-mode for GCMs to get a better idea of her credentials, please. (If you're pressed for time, section 3.2.1 will suffice…) Or you can "enjoy" her TED performances!

————————————————————————————————
From the paragraph ending on pg. 30:

Quote

Although this was a model of a physical system, human activity was decisive in undermining its predictive capacity.

Unless I mis-read her description of the study, it was a trends only type of "economics" — which is just plain silly.
How does one justify trends-only models as "physical"?

Voodoo, maybe!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #229 – 2015-07-27, 22:00:02

Try this.
https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #230 – 2015-07-27, 23:23:00

And my Illinois associate doesn't even drink Irn Bru to have something in common! Anyway more seriously we can of course all remember that years ago the "experts" were giving desperate warnings that the planet was going downhill into a drastic cold time and towards a new for of ice age. Must have been a quick one as I don't remember it happening.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #231 – 2015-07-28, 01:02:30

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-27, 14:00:02

Try this.

I listened to it again… It was as silly as I remembered: She should stick to history, and leave philosophy of science alone. And dispense with her pretensions to credentialed activism.
But some people really go for that postmodern schtick!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #232 – 2015-07-28, 05:52:41

If all the great names of the past that build all of mankind's common knowledge were born today the human race would be dumber than monkeys.
We live the times of obscurantism, everything being itself and it's contrary when no right voices can emerge from oceans of cacophony and apathy.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #233 – 2015-07-28, 06:50:13

As I said:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-27, 13:27:03

Or you can "enjoy" her TED performances!

I'm quite familiar with her work — published and podcast… She is a major instigator of bad science. Presumably, she doesn't know any better.

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-07-27, 14:00:02

Try this.
The usual drivel…

This sort of thing may impress some people. (If you're new to it -and you last much longer- you'll tire of it soon enough; if philosophy of science was an interest of yours from your early teens you'd not have been impressed… Oreskes is not all that unusual in her field, where logic is much too restricting a discipline.)

Consider: She calls the hypothetical/deductive method the Standard (Model of the) Scientific Method.
The problems she finds with this are

Affirming the consequent — confirmation of predictions

Auxiliary hypotheses — unknown factors

Inductive reasoning is also used…

About the first, note that confirmation is necessary but not sufficient… So, her little problem with the Standard Theory of the Scientific Method is childish, given her age and education. If she doesn't know better, she should be spanked; if she does, she should be slapped.
If she knew a little bit of elementary logic, she'd have not been so silly. How could she not have read Popper? (Not to mention Reichenbach and Nagel?)

The second point is one of the reasons Science succeeds! Determining the scope of a model -after its failure- in terms of unexamined factors is how we make models better. Of course, models can still be deficient yet not fail. (Call it a problem of under-determination…) Such is why causal models are so prized: when the mechanism that supports a prediction is seen, agreement between prediction and observation are required to be very close!

The third "failure" she sees in the Standard Model is usually discussed in introductory philosophy courses, those meant for students who will likely never open a book of philosophy again even if they become academics… It's usually used in propositional logic texts: The Context of Discovery vs. the Context of Justification.

Oreskes seems continually confused about these simple things… Is that what Harvard has come to? Probably.

Her arguments for Consensus are — all one's she herself has shot down before…

She mentions some examples…? Cars. Well, I'll mention one: CFD.
Modern aircraft design does make use of Computational Fluid Dynamics. I've heard the argument that General (Air/Ocean) Circulation Models of the Earth's climate are much the same…
We trust CFD results, so why shouldn't we trust GCM results? I've flown on jets likely designed by CFD many times, and felt not a twinge of "philosophical" unease!

Am I, then, irrational?

No, I don't think so! No jet I flew on went into production — before wind-tunnel testing and prototyping… And what is quaintly called "flight testing".

Test pilots are crazy! But they're not irrational.
Oreskes is irrational — but she may not be crazy: She's got a good gig that pays well, and finds appreciative audiences — much like Barnum showed people the awesome Egress!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #234 – 2015-07-28, 18:05:42

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-27, 21:27:03

Innumeracy doesn't prove AGW.

Are you saying it proves the opposite? Ah, I get it. You are saying AGW cannot be proven, no matter what. Also, a TED talkswoman's logic is not to your taste, therefore AGW is false.

You are quick to denounce and deny things, but I don't remember you ever defending a thesis by presenting a complete argument.

In Oakdale's world, everybody sucks and Oakdale himself is indefensible.

I will put photons at rest. You are unforgivable, but they are innocent.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #235 – 2015-07-29, 05:15:04

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-28, 10:05:42

Are you saying it proves the opposite? Ah, I get it. You are saying AGW cannot be proven, no matter what.

Play with your syllogisms some more; you apparently have yet to master them!
You don't get what I'm saying, because it contradicts what you believe — and your arguments for what you believe are insufficient…
(Of course, in your favor is the likelyhood that you've never committed yourself to an actual opinion on the topic —AGW, remember?

— and so can contradict yourself at will, for your odd purposes…)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-28, 10:05:42

You are quick to denounce and deny things […]

"Things" (as you call them) that I'm familiar with through careful study, that I've found to be wrong or false. To you, such matters seem beside the point.
Stick to marketing and opinion polls, ersi. You've no head for science.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-28, 10:05:42

a TED talkswoman's logic is not to your taste, therefore AGW is false

Her logic (re philosophy of science) is deficient. And she purports to overcome its deficiencies for her "cause" — fighting AGW. But her efforts defeat themselves.
(BTW: She's also a professor of the history of science at Harvard… So, yes, it pains me to see and hear her inanely justified advocacy.)
Go ahead and symbolize her argument for believing consensus science in syllogisms and see what you get! Is it too complicated for your medieval logic?

(Or don't, and continue your ad hominem tack — it does seem to suit you!)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #236 – 2015-07-29, 06:33:19

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 05:15:04

"Things" (as you call them) that I'm familiar with through careful study, that I've found to be wrong or false. To you, such matters seem beside the point.

I am all for careful study and for findings in the process. The issue with you is that you are absolutely unable to share what your careful study consisted in. You have not demonstrated how you found AGW to be wrong or false. You simply assert it, without evidence. The only evidence you have is one (1) opinionated statistician. The one (1) scientist you cited did not disprove AGW, only doubted the appropriateness of predictions. You thought I wouldn't spot the difference? But really your gripe with AGW concerns the politics (a la "IPCC is a loony environmentalist cult, they are killing our progress"), not the science.

So there. Still nothing. You will never get to proving your case. I have long since stopped waiting. I'm happy enough to have clarified that you have nothing on offer.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #237 – 2015-07-29, 10:18:09

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-28, 22:33:19

But really your gripe with AGW concerns the politics […], not the science.

Perhaps your appreciation of the science is too rudimentary for you to "notice" any references… Sobeit!

As I've frequently mentioned, my primary focus is the philosophy of science. Try this!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #238 – 2015-07-29, 21:41:30

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 10:18:09

Try this!

What a piece of crap, American pseudo philosophical/scientific/whatever writing for American readers. It deserves no more commentaries.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #239 – 2015-07-29, 22:18:54

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 10:18:09

As I've frequently mentioned, my primary focus is the philosophy of science. Try this!

The first sentence behind the link says politics. Your primary focus was always politics, not the science, and also not the philosophy of science. You have nothing new, nothing relevant.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #240 – 2015-07-30, 05:55:36

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-29, 14:18:54

You have nothing new, nothing relevant.

I'm just accommodating your prejudice, ersi!

@Belfrager: You don't think Lindzen worth listening to?

Who would you suggest? Pope Francis?

For both of you two: Try this… Is it more to your liking?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #241 – 2015-07-30, 21:43:14

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-30, 05:55:36

Who would you suggest? Pope Francis?

For 99,9% of world population Pope Francis and his last Encyclical are more than enough.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-30, 05:55:36

Try this… Is it more to your liking?

It's difficult to disagree with, can you do it properly substantiated?
Uncertainty and how we deal with it it's a fascinating subject by the way. That's much closer to the philosophy of science that you say to love so much than the previous bs you linked to.

Anyway, I think that human driven climatic alterations are already perfectly demonstrated and are not "a Chinese/European/Rest of the World invention to finish with American economic capacity" as you do. At this discussion your position has been totally obscurantist and at the border of schizophrenia.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #242 – 2015-07-31, 05:35:07

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-07-30, 13:43:14

For 99,9% of world population Pope Francis and his last Encyclical are more than enough.

Of course, you pulled that statistic out of your ass!

Specially considering that less than a third of the world's population is Christian, let alone Catholic. (Or do you mean to say that stupidity is so prevalent…

)

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-07-30, 13:43:14

Anyway, I think that human driven climatic alterations are already perfectly demonstrated […]

To what extent? (Or is that question too complicated for you? If "human driven climatic alterations" is within 2% of any measurable metric, why should we care? Perhaps a 2% change makes a huge difference — shouldn't that relative difference be reasonably quantified by actual predictions and compared with actual measurements? Now, realize that the usual "climatologists" meme has to be contrasted with a 0.02% change… And, even so, the models upon which they rely fail; at least for almost the last 20 years.
I appreciate that GCMs generally start at 30-year runs. (Their funding doesn't…

) What I don't understand is how model runs can be considered evidence; specially when our best efforts at observation disagree with the model-derived data. Talk about schizophrenia!

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-07-30, 13:43:14

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 22:55:36 Try this… Is it more to your liking?
It's difficult to disagree with […]

Sure it is! (Unless you're a sheep…) Baa!
For humans, that means a little more than you do… Consider this!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #243 – 2015-07-31, 05:52:02

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-31, 05:35:07

What I don't understand is how model runs can be considered evidence; specially when our best efforts at observation disagree with the model-derived data.

Best efforts of observation you say? you must have been observing with your eyes closed Oakdale.
Basically you say nothing but since models aren't clear predicting what it's observable, reality is wrong.

You jump from materialism to solipsism with the regularity of a clock's pendulum.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #244 – 2015-07-31, 06:20:07

No, sir! You are being silly!
The average temperature of the earth has been going up — for two hundred years or more. The measurements of atmospheric CO₂ have also been increasing. The GCMs that attempt to take that correlation for a causal connection have failed… (That is, they've made predictions that haven't been verified.) Which is your bugaboo?
Correlation? Or causality?

We're in an interglacial epoch. An epoch that may not last much longer…

If Pope Francis knows anything, he's been keeping it close to his alb! Or chasuble.

Does he know the difference?

The one-page paper you found so convincing is easily refuted…
Unless God's been talking to you. (In which case, He needs to start talking to everyone!) It's hard to argue with the voices in your head!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #245 – 2015-08-01, 00:13:11

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-31, 06:20:07

The one-page paper you found so convincing is easily refuted…

By your one-page piece of shit? no. You can stop link to such bs.
I defend what more than 90% of published materials, at the most credible science magazines, based at peer review, all over the world, says.
I have no more patience for feeding your ego. Stay well.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #246 – 2015-08-01, 03:05:45

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-07-31, 16:13:11

I defend what more than 90% of published materials, at the most credible science magazines, based at peer review, all over the world, says.

But you seem not to have the expertise to understand what is being said… And you don't defend it, you say plainly that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong — because they disagree!
Very little in science can be considered dogma. You seem to reject that little, in order to be one of the "cool kids"… You like pseudo-scientists like Cook and Lewandowsky, because they support your view. And you dislike Lindzen (and perhaps others…whose work you know nothing of) because he doesn't entirely agree with your prejudices!
Why do you bother to post in a thread like this? Its topic doesn't interest you. (At your age, you should know so very much more about it — if it did.) Are you trying to out-Howie Howie?

You've recently succeeded, without the drivel you've written here!

But you're entitled to do without gasoline, cooking and heating gas, air conditioning and all the goods your village doesn't produce for itself… (That would include the Internet!) Bye bye, birdie.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #247 – 2015-08-01, 12:32:02

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-01, 03:05:45

But you seem not to have the expertise to understand what is being said… And you don't defend it, you say plainly that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong — because they disagree!

Strange commentary you're doing when you seem to master the art of making a hell of a confusion in your head from everything you read.

You mention a steady rising of average temperature for the last 200 years as the evidence of a natural phenomena when even a child knows that it's exactly the last 200 years that differences from all the previous millennium by explosive industrial production and nothing else.

From such starting point, that just by itself wold ridicule anyone until the end of times, you accelerate into more and more and more nonsense, always with the help of laughable quoting, aimed to impress... who? your fellow citizens? not even them seems to me too much impressed.

Your attempt to get an intellectual refuge into the Methods of Proof, in order to deny climate alterations, only shows the weakness of your logic, scientific and philosophical foundations. Every word you say, the worst for your position.

You're very lucky I don't ask you for photons, Oakdale...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-01, 03:05:45

Are you trying to out-Howie Howie?

No one can out-Howie Howie, he's like Chuck Norris.

I forgot to say that I agree with the necessity of turning actions to fight anthropogenic global disturbance (not just warming and it's consequences but also the infamous daily extermination of life species due to other causes as deflorestation) into a mankind's common cause. That's the important thing, that's what Pope Francis is telling you.
He also speaks about economics, specifically wild capitalism, as a main part and origin of that disturbance, so think about it.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #248 – 2015-08-02, 15:55:13

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-08-01, 04:32:02

[…]when even a child knows that it's exactly the last 200 years that differences from all the previous millennium by explosive industrial production and nothing else.

So, you're ready to ignore the Medieval Warm Period (and the Roman Warm Period) and the research done on them?
Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much upon "what even a child knows"… Or upon scientists that act like children.

(About the rest of what you just said: Don't be too hard on the childish Pope; he had a rough upbringing in a Third World country…

)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #249 – 2015-08-02, 19:06:50

I reckon we will always have cycles and I am also well aware to emphasise the pint that when younger the would-be brilliant minds were telling us to expect one heck of a freezing cold future and so on. Now this mindset is pontificating on the alternative. Why they especially think on the heat alternative more than the damn freezing one is something else. We also got a load of mince on the vanishing polar bear population which in practice is cobblers.