Yes or No: Do you believe in man made “climate change “?

College Running

Page 20 of 30

1 19 20 21 30

4 years ago 12/16/2019 8:36pm EST

re: Bullet_Proof

Bullet_Proof wrote:
Medussah wrote:
*You* don’t run the world, your psychotic leaders run it. The rest of you are fat, dumb, brainwashed and puppets to those “leaders”. Lol
Ok. I cannot take this anymore.
Anyone who is sending alarming messages about climate change is a HYPOCRITE.
Any of you leftist snobs who says we need to take drastic measures? HYPOCRITES.
Why? Because what are YOU going to do about it? Are YOU going to stop driving? Get rid of YOUR car? Are you going to stop using your stupid ipone? Which, by the way, caused TONS of CO2 emissions in its production. Are you, leftist snobs, going to not have kids? Are you not going to use disposable diapers? Are you going to stop booking flights to San Francisco so you can see your friends for the weekend?
Its ironic. I take public transit every day. I walk. I run. I DO NOT use Amazon Prime. Most of you reading this are amazon prime users and just think about how wasteful it is and how much co2 it takes to have a truck or car drive to individuals houses everyday to deliver your sex toys.
Im being serious about amazon prime. Regardless of where you fall on climate change belief, amazon's delivery practices are a huge culprit.
Do I believe the oceans will rise an inch or two? Yes. Are scientists smart? Yes. But I disagree vehemently with all of you alarmists on what we should do about it.
Its funny. The people who are so concerned about climate change and telling others what to do...just take a look at their social media profiles. They are partying and having a good time. I want to say "hey shouldnt we be in panic mode right now? You said what a dire situation it is, so why are you wasting time partying?" And yes, they drove to that party. They didnt walk.
HYPOCRITES.
When my leftist boss was talking about climate change and I mentioned that i take public transit and encouraged him to do the same, that we can all make a small difference, he said no. Its about big corporations. Meanwhile he books airline tickets almost every weekend for social purposes.
HYPOCRITES.
Bernie Sanders is not willing to refrain from air travel.
We all need to admit that we are in a trapped predicament. Even if we believe climate change is a problem, our lifestyle is too luxurious to change. We all like the convenience of amazon (except me!), of cars, of plastic bottles, of airline travel, electronics. Please admit this about yourself before telling people like me that I am bad.

Why do you think Amazon or online shopping delivery is such a bad thing?

If I go to Wal-Mart to by staples I drive my truck 10 miles there and ten miles back for the staples. If I buy it from Amazon a truck drives it from a fulfillment center and makes numerous other stops along the way on a shortest possible common path generated by incredibly sophisticated logistics programs.

The net energy costs for online shopping are almost certainly lower than brick and mortar purchases. I haven't done exhaustive research but if a common good is cheaper on one platform than the other its at least partially because the total energy costs are lower.

4 years ago 12/16/2019 11:07pm EST

re: Survey says

First, I am an economist, so I am out of league here. But I say yes, I believe.

But,

I am more skeptical of the models than any political agenda. The climate is just plain hard to model since everything depends on everything else-ie. more CO2, more water vapor and thus more greenhouse effects but more water vapor mean more cloud cover-a negative feedback effect. Heat transfer in clouds is both vertical and horizontal. There is much we don't know.

Another issue is that the system of differential equations that we ask the computer to follow to search for solutions in our climate models is sensitive to new measurements and new scales, ie. cloud cover and temp over 10 square miles versus 100 square miles. Working with these models is an art form, frustrations that I first experienced years ago in my mathematics training.

And some of the data is very hard to collect over long time periods.

My fear about climate is that although we do not know for certain about the exact nature of feedback effects, we do know 1) there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than 1200 years ago (380 ppm up from 280ppm and growing) and 2) temperatures from ice cores have shown quick changes in temp of 3-10 F degrees in mere decades in the past. I have no idea of the certainty of some of the ramps in temp in the models, but it certainly seems likely the risk of a big rise is present. But the forecast certainty of these predictions for the next two decades might be very slight.

Note that because the models are difficult to implement doesn't mean that models are useless. It is really the only way to answer a problem with a system where everything depends upon everything else.

As an economist, I also often wonder how we should discount future expected costs. Standard economic theory suggests you pick a discount rate and start plugging in numbers. Newer work I have seen resembles dynamic asset allocation models in finance where the discount rate can get very high if things go bad, in other words, risk premiums and discount rates are endogenously dependent of the state of the world (both good and bad). The dynamic models tend to make the present value of temperature costs higher which in turn begs a higher carbon tax, the only thing that economists know what to do to slow down CO2 (engineers may have much better solutions than taxes).

Last, an economist might do what Nobel winner Chris Sims suggested - simply run a reduced form model of climate to forecast the climate. After all, simple vector autoregressions worked a lot better than complicated formal models of the economy. But I doubt physical scientists would buy off on such a lack of rigor.

4 years ago 12/17/2019 4:30am EST

re: Global warming is a myth

Global warming is a myth wrote:
exrunner wrote:
Do you ‘believe’ that humans damaged the ozone layer of the atmosphere?
I’m confused about the total lack of understanding that actions have an effect.
If you cut down a tree in your garden, that tree is no longer absorbing CO2 for photosynthesis.
If you cut down all the trees on Earth, all the trees on Earth are no longer absorbing CO2 for photosynthesis; you cannot tell me that you didn’t have an effect on the Earth.
Similarly if you kill all the animals then all the animals will be extinct.
I’m sure the Earth has heated and warmed over it’s existence, but do you not think you might upset the natural balance of the Earth by cutting down all the trees
There are more trees now than there were 35 years ago. Even liberal treehugger sites acknowledge this:
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth-has-more-trees-now-than-35-years-ago/amp/

35 years. Is that a joke? We are talking about planetary lifetimes here. Does Earth have more trees than 100,000 years ago? A million years ago? Before humans started changing everything?

The natural carbon stores (coal) we are burning for electricity was formed 300 million years ago!

We are completely changing the atmospheric makeup of the Earth without a doubt.

If you understand chemistry you’d see that the Earth is a closed system. The carbon is trapped in organic matter; into living plants and animals. When those organisms die the carbon one way or another is released again. This is a natural cycle like the water cycle and it balanced. If we brought billions of tonnes of water from another planet and dumped it here the seas would rise obviously.

If you dig up carbon which was trapped under the earth 300 million years ago and start burning it to release all that CO2, where do you think that gas goes?

4 years ago 12/17/2019 7:55am EST

re: tlm1959

tlm1959 wrote:
First, I am an economist, so I am out of league here. But I say yes, I believe.
But,
I am more skeptical of the models than any political agenda. The climate is just plain hard to model since everything depends on everything else-ie. more CO2, more water vapor and thus more greenhouse effects but more water vapor mean more cloud cover-a negative feedback effect. Heat transfer in clouds is both vertical and horizontal. There is much we don't know.
Another issue is that the system of differential equations that we ask the computer to follow to search for solutions in our climate models is sensitive to new measurements and new scales, ie. cloud cover and temp over 10 square miles versus 100 square miles. Working with these models is an art form, frustrations that I first experienced years ago in my mathematics training.
And some of the data is very hard to collect over long time periods.

This is a very reasoned response. I don't think the layperson realizes that it's not rising CO2 but positive forcing that is assumed to be caused by rising CO2 that allows the theory of manmade climate change to exist.

With positive forcing CO2 becomes the world's thermostat. That's what IPCC models assume. Without positive forcing, CO2 barely produces a measurable change, even over decades. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Scientists who are skeptical of the CO2 thermostat theory predict a rise of about 0.1 C by 2100 due to rising CO2.

So rising CO2 probably does cause manmade climate change but on a negligible scale. The rest is natural variation.

Clouds and ocean currents are perhaps the biggest variables. The type of cloud, the height of clouds, whether they occur at daytime (cooling) or nighttime (heating blanket effect), and the latitudes of cloud cover all affect whether clouds are a net positive or negative forcing factor. The IPCC, in its own report, admits that it cannot precisely measure cloud cover. (I can find the reference if it would make anyone change their minds. Let me know.)

4 years ago 12/17/2019 8:19am EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
tlm1959 wrote:
First, I am an economist, so I am out of league here. But I say yes, I believe.
But,
I am more skeptical of the models than any political agenda. The climate is just plain hard to model since everything depends on everything else-ie. more CO2, more water vapor and thus more greenhouse effects but more water vapor mean more cloud cover-a negative feedback effect. Heat transfer in clouds is both vertical and horizontal. There is much we don't know.
Another issue is that the system of differential equations that we ask the computer to follow to search for solutions in our climate models is sensitive to new measurements and new scales, ie. cloud cover and temp over 10 square miles versus 100 square miles. Working with these models is an art form, frustrations that I first experienced years ago in my mathematics training.
And some of the data is very hard to collect over long time periods.
This is a very reasoned response. I don't think the layperson realizes that it's not rising CO2 but positive forcing that is assumed to be caused by rising CO2 that allows the theory of manmade climate change to exist.
With positive forcing CO2 becomes the world's thermostat. That's what IPCC models assume. Without positive forcing, CO2 barely produces a measurable change, even over decades. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Scientists who are skeptical of the CO2 thermostat theory predict a rise of about 0.1 C by 2100 due to rising CO2.
So rising CO2 probably does cause manmade climate change but on a negligible scale. The rest is natural variation.
Clouds and ocean currents are perhaps the biggest variables. The type of cloud, the height of clouds, whether they occur at daytime (cooling) or nighttime (heating blanket effect), and the latitudes of cloud cover all affect whether clouds are a net positive or negative forcing factor. The IPCC, in its own report, admits that it cannot precisely measure cloud cover. (I can find the reference if it would make anyone change their minds. Let me know.)

Ah, it was easier to find than I remembered. Here are quotes from IPCC AR5, Chapter 7, page 573. I'm not going to bother to format it... just cut and paste.

- Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget.
-Climate-relevant aerosol processes are better understood, and
climate-relevant aerosol properties better observed, than at the
time of AR4. However, the representation of relevant processes varies
greatly in global aerosol and climate models and it remains unclear
what level of sophistication is required to model their effect on climate.!!!!!! Just wow! This pretty much says it all.
-The quantification of cloud and convective effects in models,
and of aerosol–cloud interactions, continues to be a challenge.
Climate models are incorporating more of the relevant processes than at the time of AR4, but confidence in the representation
of these processes remains weak. Cloud and aerosol properties vary
at scales significantly smaller than those resolved in climate models,
and cloud-scale processes respond to aerosol in nuanced ways at these
scales. Until sub-grid scale parameterizations of clouds and aerosol–
cloud interactions are able to address these issues, model estimates of
aerosol–cloud interactions and their radiative effects will carry large
uncertainties.

4 years ago 12/17/2019 8:25am EST

re: fisky

Only uneducated democrats fear a constantly changing (natural cycles) climate.

4 years ago 12/17/2019 8:40am EST

re: The final answer

4 years ago 12/17/2019 9:29am EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
Another cut and paste job without any understanding.

Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough on this thread? Why do you keep doing this? If you don't know anything about a subject, why not read some books about the topic rather than googling for out of context snippets that supposedly support your preconceived wrong opinion?

4 years ago 12/17/2019 10:33am EST

re: exrunner

exrunner wrote:
Global warming is a myth wrote:
There are more trees now than there were 35 years ago. Even liberal treehugger sites acknowledge this:
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth-has-more-trees-now-than-35-years-ago/amp/
35 years. Is that a joke? We are talking about planetary lifetimes here. Does Earth have more trees than 100,000 years ago? A million years ago? Before humans started changing everything?
The natural carbon stores (coal) we are burning for electricity was formed 300 million years ago!
We are completely changing the atmospheric makeup of the Earth without a doubt.
If you understand chemistry you’d see that the Earth is a closed system. The carbon is trapped in organic matter; into living plants and animals. When those organisms die the carbon one way or another is released again. This is a natural cycle like the water cycle and it balanced. If we brought billions of tonnes of water from another planet and dumped it here the seas would rise obviously.
If you dig up carbon which was trapped under the earth 300 million years ago and start burning it to release all that CO2, where do you think that gas goes?

As a libertarian, I don't care about the facts. What matters to me are feelings, and I don't feel like climate change is real, and if it is real, I don't feel like it is man made.

4 years ago 12/17/2019 3:45pm EST

re: Again? Why?

Again? Why? wrote:
fisky wrote:
Another cut and paste job without any understanding.
Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough on this thread? Why do you keep doing this? If you don't know anything about a subject, why not read some books about the topic rather than googling for out of context snippets that supposedly support your preconceived wrong opinion?

“An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.”

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb

You (apparently) believe that scientists can accurately predict the temperature 80 years from now... based on only 40 years of satellite data and an additional 100 years of questionable surface station data. I don't think this is possible.

I believe that the climate is a highly complex system that is not completely understood. When you add that computer models based on CO2 as the primary driver have failed to predict the magnitude of climate change to date, fail to explain the decline from 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 and the pause from 1998 to 2016-ish, I'm skeptical that these failed computer models can make reliable predictions about the temperature 80 years from now.

That said, I think that by 2100 we'll see about 1.0 C degrees INCREASE from current global temperature. This is based on the natural variability that we've seen for the past 150 years or so. That would put the post-industrial increase around 2.0 C degrees.

4 years ago 12/17/2019 3:46pm EST

re: exrunner

exrunner wrote:
Global warming is a myth wrote:
There are more trees now than there were 35 years ago. Even liberal treehugger sites acknowledge this:
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth-has-more-trees-now-than-35-years-ago/amp/
35 years. Is that a joke? We are talking about planetary lifetimes here. Does Earth have more trees than 100,000 years ago? A million years ago? Before humans started changing everything?
The natural carbon stores (coal) we are burning for electricity was formed 300 million years ago!
We are completely changing the atmospheric makeup of the Earth without a doubt.
If you understand chemistry you’d see that the Earth is a closed system. The carbon is trapped in organic matter; into living plants and animals. When those organisms die the carbon one way or another is released again. This is a natural cycle like the water cycle and it balanced. If we brought billions of tonnes of water from another planet and dumped it here the seas would rise obviously.
If you dig up carbon which was trapped under the earth 300 million years ago and start burning it to release all that CO2, where do you think that gas goes?

Why are sea levels rising?

4 years ago 12/17/2019 3:48pm EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
“An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.”
— Nassim Nicholas Taleb
You (apparently) believe that scientists can accurately predict the temperature 80 years from now... based on only 40 years of satellite data and an additional 100 years of questionable surface station data. I don't think this is possible.
I believe that the climate is a highly complex system that is not completely understood. When you add that computer models based on CO2 as the primary driver have failed to predict the magnitude of climate change to date, fail to explain the decline from 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 and the pause from 1998 to 2016-ish, I'm skeptical that these failed computer models can make reliable predictions about the temperature 80 years from now.
That said, I think that by 2100 we'll see about 1.0 C degrees INCREASE from current global temperature. This is based on the natural variability that we've seen for the past 150 years or so. That would put the post-industrial increase around 2.0 C degrees.

I haven't read any of this thread but anyone who quotes NNT basically has to be 100% wrong. Haven't even read your post but whatever side you take, it's wrong.

4 years ago 12/17/2019 3:56pm EST

re: fisky

4 years ago 12/17/2019 4:00pm EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
You (apparently) believe that scientists can accurately predict the temperature 80 years from now... based on only 40 years of satellite data and an additional 100 years of questionable surface station data. I don't think this is possible.
......
I'm skeptical that these failed computer models can make reliable predictions about the temperature 80 years from now

Well, they did a pretty bang up job of predicting it already......accurately predicting this rise that we are observing now back when people like you were saying it wasn't going to happen.

Is there some reason you expect their accuracy to decrease? Any reason to believe yours has increased?

so far it's:

climate scientists: 1

deniers: 0

4 years ago 12/17/2019 4:00pm EST

re: Well, ok then

Well, ok then wrote:
fisky wrote:
. . . the pause from 1998 to 2016-ish
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/none

Reminds me of the stock market pause from 1999 to 2010 lmao

4 years ago 12/18/2019 5:14pm EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
You (apparently) believe that scientists can accurately predict the temperature 80 years from now... based on only 40 years of satellite data and an additional 100 years of questionable surface station data. I don't think this is possible.

They can actually measure paleo temperatures and CO2 with reasonable accuracy, and good relativity.

Re the 'questionable surface station data', from what has been shown about that, the temperatures would have been inflated due to it, so one can assume the temps to have been even lower.

4 years ago 12/18/2019 5:31pm EST

re: I am Sam

...and on an inarguable note, on Tuesday the average maximums across the whole of the Australian continent was the highest ever recorded, at 40.9 deg C (previous Jan 2013)

That is likely to be broken today to Saturday, with max temps in greater Sydney hitting 43 and 46

Not helping the 150 fires burning

pick ur peaks and you're a genius wrote:
Well, ok then wrote:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/none
Reminds me of the stock market pause from 1999 to 2010 lmao

Sigh... here you go... a clear pause in the satellite data.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2019_v6-900x519.jpg

4 years ago 12/18/2019 7:32pm EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
Sigh... here you go... a clear pause in the satellite data.

lol.....wut? what are you even looking at buddy?

4 years ago 12/18/2019 7:40pm EST

re: fisky

fisky wrote:
Sigh... here you go... a clear pause in the satellite data.

Double sigh. Don't you science denialists have a measles outbreak to cause or something?

Page 20 of 30

1 19 20 21 30

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Yes or No: Do you believe in man made “climate change “?

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Yes or No: Do you believe in man made “climate change “?

Jump To A Page

Follow tlm1959

Block tlm1959

Follow exrunner

Block exrunner

Follow fisky

Block fisky

Follow fisky

Block fisky

Follow fisky

Block fisky

Follow Harambe

Block Harambe

Follow I am Sam

Block I am Sam

Follow I am Sam

Block I am Sam

Follow fisky

Block fisky

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.