patrick.net

anon_13e7f says

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

<
If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

I think that is a valid criticism of the skeptic side. Here is what you are missing:
1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.
2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true. Sorry, in no way did the alarmist models come true. If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model and it is unfair to then criticize someone for "not believing" in climate change. This is science, you believe in things that haven't been proven. If they have been proven, it is not a belief, and I knew an arrogant Oceanography professor at SDSU who in the 90s actually had the gall to claim that man-made global warming was law, not theory.
3. Don't believe me, this is what we had to grow up with.......

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0kL81bgKZnw

Malcolm says

1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says

2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of mankind.

Malcolm says

in no way did the alarmist models come true

I have not heard of any alarming scenario that came before 2100. The range I've heard is 1 foot to 2 meters by 2100. But it doesn't stop there - unless we stop.

Malcolm says

If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model

Except there is no "a model" there are "models" that are not static. They are refined constantly with new knowledge, and what they are saying is ever more certain.

Heraclitusstudent says

   

The Russians, the Chinese even, all invest massively in the arctic because they can see - everyone can see - where this is going.

How many freight ships transit the arctic?

The climate is always changing. Humans are poisoning the environment. I have never argued different.

I have argued against CAGW. I think man is able to adapt. Now if only we can stop fighting each other.

Onvacation says

How many freight ships transit the arctic?

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/cargo-ship-crosses-the-arctic-without-aid-of-ice-breaker-for-first-time-ever/

anon_13e7f says

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

You missed the point. The climate is always changing.
The alarmist predicted multiple degrees and multiple feet of sea rise. The alarmist also thought that they could predict and control the climate by limiting co2.
As we are still a quite cool planet and the sea has rose much less than a tide the alarmists have pushed the doomsday out to next century.

I call bs on CAGW.

Heraclitusstudent says

Malcolm says

1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says

2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of ma...

1. It is one thing to say as a blanket statement that my points have all been refuted, what points and by who? I don't read denier blogs, I actually look at both sides to satisfy my curiosity.
2. Point 2, all you are doing is speculating. Not science.
3. You claim no alarmist scenarios before 2100? Try by the 1990s, I even provided the tape. Watch it, learn it, live it.
4. You say there is no model, but earlier you say "the theory" all the models went into a theory, they are all overstated. I can provide videos of that as well. I have compiled a pretty vast group of source videos dealing with every element.

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

Heraclitusstudent says

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

1 I get that it is a religion to you. Journalists were reporting on the science. All of the predictions failed to materialize. ie, no climate refugees, plenty of polar bears. It is your side that has been debunked and I have many videos made by former colleagues who are disgusted by how the science has been hijacked because it is a "gravy train".
2 Like I have said to many others, predictive theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.
3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

Forgot one of your points. You don't want to go there, there are tons of articles listing the early predictions.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Malcolm says

3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

I can see that you think you are not confused.

Malcolm says

theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread? I guess not.
If you don't see a trend, you are either very dishonest or you need new glasses.

You are not certainly not doing predictive science yourself. The "no warming" crowd failed, and is failing ever more as years go by.

Malcolm says

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

This is not an industry and science is generally not making predictions, it models reality. And models get refined.
United Nations... Pentagon.... seriously? Again show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.

Malcolm says

I have heard multiple speakers claim adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases crop yields.

Oh goody! Warm weather and produce!

You're all over the place and not making a whole lot of sense. As for me, I'm guessing that taking enormous amounts of CO2 that was sequestered over tens of millions of years and dumping it into the atmosphere essentially all at once is going to do quite a bit more than provide nice weather and cheap tomatoes.

Here's a question for you: Do you believe that taking enormous amounts of CO2 that was sequestered over tens of millions of years and dumping it into the atmosphere essentially all at once will have no effect and is nothing at all to be concerned about?

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known

You do know that chaotic systems like weather are almost impossible to model ?
Don't you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread?

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic and alarmist models do NOT predict the future.

Heraclitusstudent says

show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.

Michael Mann s hockey stick.

According to his theory the temp should be several degrees hotter and asymptotically heading for hell!
But instead the temp is going down.

Onvacation says

You do know that chaotic systems

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not necessarily. Equating the two is a basic misunderstanding of some of the deniers. When they make such claims, they betray massive ignorance.


Onvacation says

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic

Two degrees and a foot are quantifiable measures that scientists use. Catastrophic is a rhetorical term that you use either because you are too lazy to quantify things or you are purposefully making vague statements so that you can shift around according to the argument at hand.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not necessarily. Equating the two is a basic misunderstanding of some of the deniers. When they make such claims, they betray massive ignorance.

Are You not aware of the butterfly in China theory?
Climate is the history of weather and is as chaotic as weather.
Religious people call anyone that won't accept their dogma "ignorant deniers". Malcolm is right.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Catastrophic is a rhetorical term that you use either because you are too lazy to quantify things or you are purposefully making vague statements so that you can shift around according to the argument at hand.

No. Catastrophe is what the alarmist tell children will happen if they don't worship at the alter of global warming.
I am just injecting some reality into the message of doom.

Onvacation says

Are You not aware of the butterfly in China theory?

I've been aware of it since the early 90s, when I read Gleick's book. I also encountered it in a few graduate level courses. That is in reference to weather, not climate. Chaos theory can be seen from only a few nonlinear equations, so I'm sure that some climate models are chaotic. However, a simple one does not have to be. That is why I wrote that climate models are not necessarily chaotic. The longer the modeling term is, the less relevant the chaotic terms are. Trying to be accurate in the short term requires better modelling chaotic things like how many forest fires are their going to be next year or what year is a specific glacier going to melt.
Year to year variations are not predictable by climate models. That is why the whole argument about 0.04 degrees from one year to the next not being significant was meaningless. Even a decade is harder to predict for various reasons. This is all explained here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

That is why I wrote that climate models are not necessarily chaotic.

Not necessarily?
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Chaos theory can be seen from only a few nonlinear equations, so I'm sure that some climate models are chaotic. However, a simple one does not have to be.

Do you really think a chaotic non linear system like climate can really be predicted with a "simple" model?
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Even a decade is harder to predict for various reasons. This is all explained here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

So why did the temp stop rising even though the models predicted exponential rise?

Onvacation says

Do you really think a chaotic non linear system like climate can really be predicted with a "simple" model?

It depends on what the goals of the model are. Do you still insist that climate and weather are the same? If not, what do you think the difference is?
Onvacation says

So why did the temp stop rising even though the models predicted exponential rise?

It's covered in the article. Sometimes it's easier to predict short term (weather) and sometimes it's easier to predict longer term and trends (climate). I believe that quantifying longer term change is complicated more so by predicting emissions than response, but that's an educated guess and not backed by experience or data.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Do you still insist that climate and weather are the same? If not, what do you think the difference is?

Weather is what we have every day. Climate is the history of weather. Both are constantly changing.
Do you have a better definition?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Onvacation says

So why did the temp stop rising even though the models predicted exponential rise?

It's covered in the article.

Condense it for me.FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

that's an educated guess and not backed by experience or data.

I see.

Onvacation says

Weather is what we have every day. Climate is the history of weather.

Climate is a statistical characterization of weather over time. By analogy, if you flip a coin 1000 times, climate tells you that you will get about 500 heads. Weather tells you what each flip is. Yes, the history of weather can be used to calculate climate, but if you know climate, you can not calculate weather. Same holds for coin flips.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Climate is a statistical characterization of weather over time.

Are you saying that climate is the history of weather?

Onvacation says

Are you saying that climate is the history of weather?

No. A history of weather is a history of weather.

Climate is a statistical characterization of weather. This isn't hard. I gave you a coin flip analogy. Here is a stock analogy. You can predict roughly that stocks values increase roughly exponentially with a long term annual return of 6-8%. Over a very long period, you can predict what the average of a bunch of stocks will return. This allows for things like planning for retirement. Being able to plan for retirement does not mean that you can predict the daily returns on stocks over a 30 yr period. Similarly, any given year might return something far outside of that range. Do you understand that?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Over a very long period, you can predict what the average of a bunch of stocks will return. This allows for things like planning for retirement. Being able to plan for retirement does not mean that you can predict the daily returns on stocks over a 30 yr period. Similarly, any given year might return something far outside of that range. Do you understand that?

According to climate "scientist", the hundreds of billions they wanted for the Paris Accords would not have done anything anyway. According to them by 2100 we get less than 2/10 of ONE degree "cooling" at the cost of TRILLIONS over a century, if we kept up with the accords.

Seems like if climate scientist are correct, we really can't change much with our current technology.

Deniers are typically conspiracy theorists. They believe that climate change due to CO2 is a government conspiracy.

Most deniers also believe in other conspiracies, such as 9-11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was faked, etc. It's a waste of time trying to change the mind of someone who doesn't think rationally.

anon_13e7f says

Deniers are typically conspiracy theorists. They believe that climate change due to CO2 is a government conspiracy.

Most people aren't deniers, but there are a large category of skeptics who ask very good questions that for some reason get ignored by the Climate Change cult.

Onvacation says

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic and alarmist models do NOT predict the future.

Why are you talking of 2 degrees?
We will get 3, 4, 5...10 degrees... etc... it doesn't stop until WE stop.

Onvacation says

Michael Mann s hockey stick.

Did he mention this in a scientific paper? Or while trying to convey the point that this is serious shit that ought to be taken seriously?
And btw it looks more and more hockey-sticky.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I gave you a coin flip analogy.

a coin flip is simple to model. The climate is virtually impossible to model. Too many variables, chaotic, and too many unquantified feedback mechanisms.

Onvacation says

You do know that chaotic systems like weather are almost impossible to model ?
Don't you?

Now you show how far out of your depth you really are.
Do you know that a 3 bodies system in the gravity theory is already a chaotic system?
By your argument, we can't predict the path of this planet or a satellite in the solar system.
The reality is of course that this is described down to the picosecond by the equations of gravity.

Now if you take the climate, which is supposed to stay constant (quite a chaotic system) at human time scale, and you add large quantities of heat year after year after year, what is the result? You can't tell because "it's chaotic"? What kind of moronic argument is that?

This is the typical type of specious argument that we get from the new obscurantists. "You can't possibly know anything" they tell us. "It's too complex!"
The reality of course is that they don't WANT to know. They want to keep their heads deep in the sand and they want everyone to do the same.
Because - My God - following that train of thoughts is way to painful to contemplate.

Heraclitusstudent says

Because - My God - following that train of thoughts is way to painful to contemplate.

thanks for making the point that even believers of God like you can still be caught up in the global warming alarmist cult.

Back to the original questions:Onvacation says

What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

I think a little warmer (1 or 2 degrees like during the Roman warming period)and a little more co2 would be good for life on earth. Unfortunately it looks like the current warming is peaking out and the world is heading into a cooling trend.

Time will show whether we are getting warmer or colder.

I have faith in humanity and think we will adapt to whatever the ever changing climate throws at us.

What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?

Onvacation says

What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?

Already answered. Repeating the same questions over and over does nothing to reassure us about your mental health.
Since we have proven the greenhouse effect takes place, where do you think the energy is going and what will make it miraculously go away?

Onvacation says

a coin flip is simple to model.

Really? Why don't you predict the outcome of 20 coin flips. Tell us the sequence of heads and tails that will result. Then do the experiment and let us know how you do.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Why don't you predict the outcome of 20 coin flips.

That's easy. They will not all be heads. And not all be tails. Except one time out of 1,048,576, on average.