Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[suffolkowner]

"Runaway" means a positive feedback (amplification) situation from which there is no recovery. The planet has experienced ice ages and warmer periods, so obviously it has also moved away from them. Enough time has passed that if any such feedback mechanisms existed, one of them would likely have manifested and the planet would be an ice ball or a hot foggy greenhouse. There have always been negative feedbacks - mechanisms set in motion by shifts to cooler or warmer regimes, which mitigate and reverse the cooling or warming.

Yeah we don't need to look to far a field for an example of runaway selection. It is one of the foundations of modern climate science

The planet has been an ice ball and has been a hot foggy greenhouse???

 

[YZT580]

Yeah we don't need to look to far a field for an example of runaway selection. It is one of the foundations of modern climate science

The planet has been an ice ball and has been a hot foggy greenhouse???

AI is the principal foundation of climate science or at least it seems to be. Every projection is based upon a computer model; most of which have demonstrated significant flaws. It is a known limitation with computers that if you run the same programme repeatedly and apply your results back to the initial programme any flaws within the programme will be compounded and you will eventually end up with pure garbage. The list of failed predictions is far longer than the list of realized ones yet we insist upon relying upon these models rather than real scientific argument. There is no such thing as settled science. True science is always trying to disprove itself. Here are a couple of facts: concrete and asphalt retain heat and glass and metal structures reflect and focus heat. Green and beige are cooler colours than black or grey. We are paving over acres of green and grey every chance we get. All this infilling of housing augments heat. Drive outside of any large metropolitan area in the summer and you will notice a distinct drop in temperature. Green house gases don't provide heat they act instead as regulators. Many of the stations used for establishing temperatures are in heat contaminated areas.

 

[suffolkowner]

AI is the principal foundation of climate science or at least it seems to be. Every projection is based upon a computer model; most of which have demonstrated significant flaws. It is a known limitation with computers that if you run the same programme repeatedly and apply your results back to the initial programme any flaws within the programme will be compounded and you will eventually end up with pure garbage. The list of failed predictions is far longer than the list of realized ones yet we insist upon relying upon these models rather than real scientific argument. There is no such thing as settled science. True science is always trying to disprove itself. Here are a couple of facts: concrete and asphalt retain heat and glass and metal structures reflect and focus heat. Green and beige are cooler colours than black or grey. We are paving over acres of green and grey every chance we get. All this infilling of housing augments heat. Drive outside of any large metropolitan area in the summer and you will notice a distinct drop in temperature. Green house gases don't provide heat they act instead as regulators. Many of the stations used for establishing temperatures are in heat contaminated areas.

I don't think there's anything you wrote here that is true

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't think there's anything you wrote here that is true

Probably as true as anything Gore, Suzuki or Thunberg have to say

 

[suffolkowner]

Probably as true as anything Gore, Suzuki or Thunberg have to say

We've beat this horse before. Those individuals have absolutely no impact on the current state of the theory. The best source for that is the ipcc summary report

Why mention them at all?

 

[YZT580]

I don't think there's anything you wrote here that is true

I don't think there is anything that you have written that is true either but then that is my opinion and along with 5 bucks will get you a draft beer during happy hour but I don't look down my nose at your opinion. True science considers everything and when it is done, it looks again to make sure it didn't miss something the first time. The current mindset is to blame everything on CO2. There are going to be, hell there already are deaths occurring because we are blaming climate and missing the real reasons for numerous disasters by doing so and incidentally bankrupting ourselves at the same time

 

[George Wallace]

Probably as true as anything Gore, Suzuki or Thunberg have to say

Now those are fine examples of how to profit from a Doomsday Millenarian claim. Not one of them a Climate scientist.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yeah we don't need to look to far a field for an example of runaway selection. It is one of the foundations of modern climate science

The planet has been an ice ball and has been a hot foggy greenhouse???

Embrace the power of the subjunctive tense and the meaning of "or".

 

[Brad Sallows]

AI is the principal foundation of climate science or at least it seems to be. Every projection is based upon a computer model; most of which have demonstrated significant flaws. It is a known limitation with computers that if you run the same programme repeatedly and apply your results back to the initial programme any flaws within the programme will be compounded and you will eventually end up with pure garbage.

A computer model is not AI. A computer model is basically a numerical approximation of a solution for a system of equations, usually using brute force computational techniques. The models aren't necessarily wrong; more likely is just that they're too crude.

 

[George Wallace]

did i watch an over 1 hour long video in a few minutes? No why would I. I dont normally watch videos as their format tends to lack information density

In over 40 yrs i have never seen an alternative hypothesis presented that has withstood even cursory examination. What other scientific theory has the cv?

The IPCC is a literature review for those without the technical expertise on the subject as a whole and for those whose expertise lies in one subfield

Too bad. I watched the whole video and found it informative and enlightening. If you had watched the discussion in the video, you may heard the tidbit on how scientists who may have had opposing views, and data, were silenced by what basically has become "Politicalized Science".

 

[George Wallace]

A computer model is not AI. A computer model is basically a numerical approximation of a solution for a system of equations, usually using brute force computational techniques. The models aren't necessarily wrong; more likely is just that they're too crude.

Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. We have to be careful when applying the results, as there is always room for error through omission somewhere in the programing. The other side is that they can be manipulated to come to a desired conclusion.

 

[suffolkowner]

Embrace the power of the subjunctive tense and the meaning of "or".

I don't follow

 

[OldSolduer]

Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. We have to be careful when applying the results, as there is always room for error through omission somewhere in the programing. The other side is that they can be manipulated to come to a desired conclusion.

Nature has this funny way of making people look…well…funny.

 

[suffolkowner]

....

 

[suffolkowner]

Too bad. I watched the whole video and found it informative and enlightening. If you had watched the discussion in the video, you may heard the tidbit on how scientists who may have had opposing views, and data, were silenced by what basically has become "Politicalized Science".

when did it become politicized? Was it politicized when Exxon's internal work showed AGW?

Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. We have to be careful when applying the results, as there is always room for error through omission somewhere in the programing. The other side is that they can be manipulated to come to a desired conclusion.

The desired conclusion to mimic the actual real world outcomes? That would mean the manipulation was correct?

 

[George Wallace]

when did it become politicized? Was it politicized when Exxon's internal work showed AGW?

Are you serious? I suggest you go back and watch the video that Army Rick posted.

There is a whole other topic on this in Canadian Politics: "Politicized Climate Change as Wealth Redistribution".

The desired conclusion to mimic the actual real world outcomes? That would mean the manipulation was correct?

You are making some rather naive posts, and this is by far as naive as it can get. You really didn't read my comment, instead replying with your own preconceived biases. I guess you have never heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. They can be manipulated to give the desired results, simply by omitting any opposing values.

 

[suffolkowner]

Are you serious? I suggest you go back and watch the video that Army Rick posted.

There is a whole other topic on this in Canadian Politics: "Politicized Climate Change as Wealth Redistribution".

You are making some rather naive posts, and this is by far as naive as it can get. You really didn't read my comment, instead replying with your own preconceived biases. I guess you have never heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. They can be manipulated to give the desired results, simply by omitting any opposing values.

except we have lots of real world data to compare with. We dont need predictive computer modelling at all

the title of that thread doesnt suggest anything about the science. Why is there always this confusion

Are you suggesting that the scientists at Exxon were a bunch of radical Marxists when they confirmed global warming from their work in the 60's to 80's? That doesnt make any sense to me

 

[George Wallace]

except we have lots of real world data to compare with. We dont need predictive computer modelling at all

the title of that thread doesnt suggest anything about the science. Why is there always this confusion

Are you suggesting that the scientists at Exxon were a bunch of radical Marxists when they confirmed global warming from their work in the 60's to 80's? That doesnt make any sense to me

I'm sorry. It doesn't seem that you have an open and inquisitive mind, nor listen to others. I don't need to repeat things more than twice.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't follow

I know. That's why I suggested you take time to understand "would" and "or".

 

[Brad Sallows]

Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. We have to be careful when applying the results, as there is always room for error through omission somewhere in the programing. The other side is that they can be manipulated to come to a desired conclusion.

The data are the initial conditions of the systemd of equations for which the computer models are solving. The omissions are deliberate: climate is too complex to be modeled with current technology, and even if we had enough computing power, I doubt we'd ever have anyone capable of understanding everything well enough to write an accurate model. Manipulation is guaranteed: every value ("magic number") used in lieu of an equation or process no-one understands is a manipulation.