Gramps wrote:
My question to all the climate change nuts: if the climate doesn't change on its own, what killed off the dinosaurs? The emissions from Fred Flintstones car?
Boom, (drops the mic and walk away).
Ever hear of the asteroid theory? Look it up and stop asking such ignorant questions.
Hey Gramps wrote:
Gramps wrote:My question to all the climate change nuts: if the climate doesn't change on its own, what killed off the dinosaurs? The emissions from Fred Flintstones car?
Boom, (drops the mic and walk away).
Ever hear of the asteroid theory? Look it up and stop asking such ignorant questions.
The key word there is "theory." Scientists have a tendency to present theory as fact...who would have imagined.
Stinking theories wrote:
Hey Gramps wrote:Ever hear of the asteroid theory? Look it up and stop asking such ignorant questions.
The key word there is "theory." Scientists have a tendency to present theory as fact...who would have imagined.
How about Newton's Theory of Gravity? You guys are so dense.
climvar wrote:
How about Newton's Theory of Gravity? You guys are so dense.
If we live in a computer simulation...none of that would be real anyway. Your so mainstream.
Agree. The article should instead be headlined: Research Vessel to document Climate Change creates Climate Change. I find it hilarious that these "climate scientists" expect everyone to curb their carbon emissions by 80% except for the researchers themselves. It's like Al Gore and his four kids living in their giant mansion and flying all over the planet in private jets and helicopters.
Hey deegree wrote:
There is plenty of research "in that direction", which you would know if you listened to anything other than right wing media. And the research overwhelmingly indicates human contributions above and beyond any natural causes.
But keep your head stuck in the sand and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
I don't understand why you are insulting me and making up things I never said. I was completely civil here.
I do not listen to right wing media. I'm not pretending that evidence does not exist. I also did not deny that there is research in that direction. I asked why isn't there MORE research in that direction.
climvar wrote:
Great response. Sometimes I can't tell if people are saying this stuff tongue-in-cheek or not and whether it's worth responding. Dunning-Kruger effect in full blast here. People know next to nothing about the complexities of the climate system and blanket statement that the field isn't studying natural climate variability or quantifying the relative role of humans. On the contrary, there's a huge community working EXACTLY on that, myself included.
You have a reading comprehension problem and you are being unnecessarily insulting. I have been civil and respectful.
Read my post again. I never said a blanket statement that quantifying the relative role of humans is not happening. I asked why there isn't MORE research in that field.
This is the problem with some of you anthropogenic clkmate change supporters. Someone (me) asks a valid question in order to educate themselves more on the subject, and you attack them and call them names. It is crazy. You sound like an extreme intolerant religious cult.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Attribution is an active area of climate research and has been for a long time. The greenhouse gas theory originated almost 200 years ago and there is no reasonable doubt that human activity has significantly changed the atmospheric greenhouse gas composition. Thus any plausible alternative to anthropogenic climate change theory would have to have to explain why a significant increase in greenhouse gas doesn't affecting climate and would have to propose an alternative explanation for recent warming consistent with observations.
"Reasonable doubt" is an opinion. It is not proof. It is not necessarily even an indication of good evidence.
Yes, I agree that any other theory would have to explain things. But not having an alternative theory does not mean that the only current theory is correct. That is arrogant logic.
All I have seen so far are correlations and observations. I have not seen any actual experiements or causation. If there has been research in that direction, can you describe it or post links to it?
climvar wrote:
How about Newton's Theory of Gravity? You guys are so dense.
You mean Newton's theory of gravity that is currently known to be wrong?
I'm no psychologist, but isn't a self-proclaimed climate scientist accusing these posters of being subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect itself an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.If that didn't blow your mind, you, a person who talks about the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, are contributing to anthropogenic climate change by posting on here and that post being saved in perpetuity on a server somewhere.I don't have a skin in the game either way (I acknowledge that the models are so complex and that I don't know enough to make a judgment either way), but arrogant comments rub me the wrong way.
climvar wrote:
Great response. Sometimes I can't tell if people are saying this stuff tongue-in-cheek or not and whether it's worth responding. Dunning-Kruger effect in full blast here. People know next to nothing about the complexities of the climate system and blanket statement that the field isn't studying natural climate variability or quantifying the relative role of humans. On the contrary, there's a huge community working EXACTLY on that, myself included.
"Climate change researchers cancel expedition because of climate change"
You should have said:
"...cancel expedition because there is too much ice and they cant reconcile it with the fact that it is an impossibility with global warming, but knowing too well that they have been faking the numbers over the last 20 years for the benefit of giving a reason to live to an army of useless parasites at the service of the corporate green brand"
People with a bit of common sense left know that
GLOBAL WARMING = WEATHER....
Deegree wrote:
climvar wrote:How about Newton's Theory of Gravity? You guys are so dense.
You mean Newton's theory of gravity that is currently known to be wrong?
It is not wrong, it is incomplete. It can't explain ALL phenomena, just 99.99999% or more.
Not that "incomplete" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive. In fact, you are wrong because your education is incomplete.
No Deegree wrote:
Deegree wrote:You mean Newton's theory of gravity that is currently known to be wrong?
It is not wrong, it is incomplete. It can't explain ALL phenomena, just 99.99999% or more.
Not that "incomplete" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive. In fact, you are wrong because your education is incomplete.
No, Newton's theory of gravity is wrong. It does not explain 99.999% of phenomena. It is equally wrong in those "99.999%" as it is in the ".001". Whether or not one can ignore the error of Newton's theory is dependent on one's error comfort and one's application.
Deegree wrote:
You have a reading comprehension problem and you are being unnecessarily insulting. I have been civil and respectful.
Read my post again. I never said a blanket statement that quantifying the relative role of humans is not happening. I asked why there isn't MORE research in that field.
This is the problem with some of you anthropogenic clkmate change supporters. Someone (me) asks a valid question in order to educate themselves more on the subject, and you attack them and call them names. It is crazy. You sound like an extreme intolerant religious cult.
You're absolutely right -- my apologies for being combative. Firstly, it's frustrating to have one's field of work challenged frequently, all the while other branches of science are rarely critiqued (likely due to the seeding of doubt by paid politicians). Secondly, it's difficult to read text on a web page and not know if it is snarky or not. I'm so used to people asking rhetorically, "why don't you study the relative impacts of humans, huh?" but not in an inquisitive manner.
So to answer your question more honestly, there is a lot of work being done in that direction these days. It takes shaky statistics to take an existing observational time series and decompose it into the relative influence of humans and nature. The least we can do is look at thresholds, i.e. mega-droughts becoming more frequent, setting record breaking temperatures, and so forth. At the very least, we know that CO2 levels are much higher than that of hundreds of thousands of years and it is directly due to human emissions (as well as deforestation). The impacts of heightened CO2 levels are rather nonlinear and random, so that's what we focus on trying to better understand. By observationally understanding the physics of the climate system in the present, we can forecast future impacts.
One way to directly partition the impacts of humans and nature is to use climate models. We construct these models with the fundamental physical equations of nature (coined the 'primitive equations'). They're differential equations, so they describe rates of change based on the present state of the system. These equations, for instance, include conservation of momentum and conservation of mass.
Weather models operate in a similar sense, but are only constructed to make more precise short-term forecasts. Both weather and climate models can simulate fluid flow (atmosphere and oceans) based on the initial conditions (starting data, usually gathered from global observations and interpolation) which helps us to forecast the future.
There are some technical ways to use climate models to isolate the relative impact of natural oscillations that the models simulate from the influence of cranking up CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the model (which simulates human emissions). I work in this area. We zoom in on areas, and use many different models and CO2 pathways to partition natural and human impacts. We can compare the magnitude of this random variability to the change over time (trend) superimposed by humans. This is a way to forecast the year in which we expect human impacts to be 'felt' by the system no matter what the random background noise does. For different regions, processes, etc. this differs totally. The Arctic will be hit much sooner than the mid-latitudes for instance, due to the sensitivity of sea ice. Global temperatures will raise much more quickly than changes to global precipitation patterns due to its noisiness.
Folks are skeptical of models, but they're actually really beautiful tools that can be used for a number of things. Just one 'experiment' we run on them is increasing CO2 emissions, to validate the experiment humans have been doing in the real world. We can force the primitive model with just about anything we wanted. They've even been used in the past to simulate the influence of huge volcanic eruptions or nuclear warfare.
AScis wrote:
I'm no psychologist, but isn't a self-proclaimed climate scientist accusing these posters of being subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect itself an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
If that didn't blow your mind, you, a person who talks about the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, are contributing to anthropogenic climate change by posting on here and that post being saved in perpetuity on a server somewhere.
I don't have a skin in the game either way (I acknowledge that the models are so complex and that I don't know enough to make a judgment either way), but arrogant comments rub me the wrong way.
Similar to my above post, sorry for the rash reaction. It's my job to educate, but it's hard to discern honest questions from pointed insults (which I in turn ended up throwing back).
I honestly don't know how my accusing of the Dunning-Kruger effect is evidence of the effect itself. The idea is that folks who have read a few 'doubt' articles here and there think that they know a lot about the climate system (similar to when you begin reading into running training and think you're so enlightened until you dig deeper).
Similarly, I don't know how my posting contributing to climate change is relevant here. I don't expect humanity to sit still and not fart, burp, or consume anything. There's ways to mitigate our influence and live in relative harmony with the system, but we need not stop posting on the internet to do so.
It's frustrating to have a field that has been built off of the Greenhouse Effect conjecture made in the late 1800's, along with countless observations, experiments, and studies with observational Earth Science, to the development of complex fluid dynamics models boiled down into "fake science." Folks think we missed out on the natural 11 year cycles of the sun, or the 40,000 year + Milankovitch cycles, and that our whole field comes crashing down with these simple ideas. (Not accusing you of any of these thoughts as you pointed out the complexities off models... just explaining where I'm coming from)
To be frank, I get annoyed when having to deal with the human impact in my simulations. I tend to filter out the human-induced trends to try to nail down an understanding of how the natural climate system operates!
comedyrelief wrote:
I find it hilarious that these "climate scientists" expect everyone to curb their carbon emissions by 80% except for the researchers themselves. It's like Al Gore and his four kids living in their giant mansion and flying all over the planet in private jets and helicopters.
Do you have a source for this whatsoever or are you just making baseless accusations?
The major responsibility is on large corporations and sovereign states to make changes to their water usage, fossil fuel emissions, and deforestation practices. However, individuals can be conscientious as well to contribute to change.
I'm a climate scientist and have decided to contribute by primarily walking/biking/bussing to locations. I eat an entirely vegetarian diet (but don't think others need to go full force to this end; less red meat goes a long way). I bring reusable bags to grocery stores and avoid over-consumption and extensive packaging.
I still eat soy, even though it contributes to deforestation and high water usage. I still fly in airplanes, even though they contribute emissions. I still drive from time to time, and don't think too hard about which companies I buy products from. Nobody is expected to everything, but small lifestyle changes go a long way.
Researcher 1: Hey we just got a grant to show everybody how bad climate change is.
Researcher 2: Cool, we better show something for it or they won't renew our grant.
Researcher 1: Oh my god, the ice is sooooo bad, we can't even get started on our study, oh noooooo. It's a travesty..... who'd have thought we'd run into ice going to the North Pole??? Oh my god somebody give us more money so we can launch an emergency 30-year study into climate change cause that's how long till I retire....
climvar wrote:
Stinking theories wrote:The key word there is "theory." Scientists have a tendency to present theory as fact...who would have imagined.
How about Newton's Theory of Gravity? You guys are so dense.
Not as good of a comeback as you think. Try to figure out why.
climvar wrote:
...Firstly, it's frustrating to have one's field of work challenged frequently, all the while other branches of science are rarely critiqued (likely due to the seeding of doubt by paid politicians)...
So to answer your question more honestly, there is a lot of work being done in that direction these days. It takes shaky statistics to take an existing observational time series and decompose it into the relative influence of humans and nature....
...One way to directly partition the impacts of humans and nature is to use climate models....These equations, for instance, include conservation of momentum and conservation of mass.
...Weather models operate in a similar sense, but are only constructed to make more precise short-term forecasts....
...Folks are skeptical of models, but they're actually really beautiful tools that can be used for a number of things. Just one 'experiment' we run on them is increasing CO2 emissions, to validate the experiment humans have been doing in the real world.
Thank you. I'm a researcher in a physical science field. I've quoted a few of your statements.
1) My skepticism has nothing to do with politicians. I am a scientist. You are still being combative (not with me this time though) by accusing those who are doubtful or skeptical of being influenced by politicians. You lack the humility to accept that what you are doing MAY be wrong. Scientists should be open to being wrong.
2) Other fields of science are "rarely critiqued" because climate change research is fundamentally different. It is not really science. It is statistics (from what I have seen). Statistics is can show correlations and occurences, but it cannot prove causation. At best, it can only give evidence for causation, but certainly not proof.
The problem with climate research is that it is hard or impossible to really do an experiement. Other fields of research do not suffer from this difficulty or impossibility. Well, maybe astrophysics and cosmology. So fundamentally, climate research is moe a field of statistics than it is a field of science. However, this is only based on the research that I have seen.
3) Models are great. I use them in my field. But like in my point #2, climate models are fundaentally different. They are fitted and based on statistics NOT EXPERIMENT.
4) Bringing up weather models is not doing you any favors. A few weeks ago, they told me it was going to be 0% chance of rain... it rained.
Again, this is just based on the little climate research that I have seen. If you know of any actual experiements in human contributions, please let me know.
This doesn't mean that humans are NOT causihg climate change. It just means that it is unclear. There needs to be less statistical research and more scientific research. But like I said, it is difficult because the Earth is so large and environments are interconnected.
Lastly, anyone talkig about scientific consensus being proof that humans are causing climate change is being anti-science. The truth does not depend on how many people believe it. People are confusing truth and science with democracy.
Deegree wrote:
2) Other fields of science are "rarely critiqued" because climate change research is fundamentally different. It is not really science. It is statistics (from what I have seen).
Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem be claiming "science" and "statistics" are mutually exclusive which seems a rather limited view of science.
Statistics is can show correlations and occurences, but it cannot prove causation. At best, it can only give evidence for causation, but certainly not proof.
In Poppler's epistemology "proof" doesn't exist in "science" so that doesn't seem to be a fair bar. The best one can do is consilience, that is strong conclusion drawn from multiple independent lines of evidence.