Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So, a "study" by the people making climate change models says they're getting things right...

    I bet it was even "peer reviewed!"

    Comment


    • I suppose not reading the articles does save time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DingBat View Post
        I suppose not reading the articles does save time.
        I did read them. They're what I stated. Insiders making claims about their, and their colleague's modelling. Hardly compelling.

        Comment


        • How many countries have to burn or drown before most baby boomers realise they're wrong.
          Oceans are warming at the same rate as if five Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second.

          https://link.springer.com/content/pd...020-9283-7.pdf
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            I did read them. They're what I stated. Insiders making claims about their, and their colleague's modelling. Hardly compelling.
            The outsiders can show why the claim of the insiders is wrong since they have the same access to the same data that were used in the study.
            If they remain silent, then that makes the claim of the study quite compelling indeed...

            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • I am far from being knowledgable in this field, but I think one cannot automatically assume that this agreement between model predictions and observation is a sign that there is a solid foundation in the climate modeling. If for example the models use parameters that are fudged (calibrated) in order to constantly align the model with the new observations, then one can artificially create a resemblance of an agreement between those models and the observations without actually improving the underlying theory of physics and climatology that computers model.
              In such case, continuous fudging based on future observations is necessary, and this means that the current model if left as it is may be quite off in its long-term predictions.

              Anyway, just a thought...and I may be completely wrong about the models considering that the last time I actually got involved in computer programming to model something (not climate) was when I was a student using Fortran ...
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • The planet’s oceans were the warmest in recorded history in 2019, according to a new analysis published Monday.

                https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...e&guccounter=1

                maybe it is time to do something. did you know the percaital ton of co2 for china is 7 tons.
                were as the the united state is 19 tons per person. makes you think

                https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environm..._emissions.htm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  The outsiders can show why the claim of the insiders is wrong since they have the same access to the same data that were used in the study.
                  If they remain silent, then that makes the claim of the study quite compelling indeed...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    Lack of reading comprehension:

                    Just because you think I said something, it does not mean I said it

                    "Compelling" does not mean "true"

                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      Anyway, just a thought...and I may be completely wrong about the models considering that the last time I actually got involved in computer programming to model something (not climate) was when I was a student using Fortran ...
                      You're right. I think the point was more that the models were not wrong, which would definitely have shown there was a problem.

                      There was another article that I think I posted recently that showed that the range of forecasts that the models were predicting was starting to narrow. This is what you would expect to happen over time as more data becomes available, scientists gain a better understanding of which variables have a greater impact, noise is identified and eliminated, etc.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                        You're right. I think the point was more that the models were not wrong, which would definitely have shown there was a problem.

                        There was another article that I think I posted recently that showed that the range of forecasts that the models were predicting was starting to narrow. This is what you would expect to happen over time as more data becomes available, scientists gain a better understanding of which variables have a greater impact, noise is identified and eliminated, etc.
                        Exactly!

                        This is how science operates in general. It does not matter if the model is about climatology or the formation and expansion of our universe.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          How many countries have to burn or drown before most baby boomers realise they're wrong.
                          Oceans are warming at the same rate as if five Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second.

                          https://link.springer.com/content/pd...020-9283-7.pdf
                          When the rich and those in power lose their beach front houses due to rising tides.

                          But then again they have the choice of moving to higher ground, and then fall back on their ignorance. I’m surprised we don’t have flat earthers here considering how many dismiss the mounting data.
                          "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                          Ernest Hemingway.

                          "The more I learn about people, The more I love my dog".
                          Mark Twain.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

                            When the rich and those in power lose their beach front houses due to rising tides.

                            But then again they have the choice of moving to higher ground, and then fall back on their ignorance. I’m surprised we don’t have flat earthers here considering how many dismiss the mounting data.
                            I suspect there are a few here. And a few anti-vaxxers for good measure. Anti-science behavior is rarely limited to just one topic.

                            Comment


                            • I think there is room for a certain amount of debate.

                              However, I've also long believed that we should lean towards caution in our management of resources, energy, forestation, re-cycling/disposal of waste, etc.

                              I know that's a very "broad based" statement but I honestly believe we NEED a broad-based approach.
                              To me at least, it seems as if maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the World is taking this seriously (or starting to), while the other 2/3 to 3/4 is either blissfully unaware, in denial*, or doesn't give a damn.

                              For now and at least the relatively near future, we only have one planet to live on. It's not as if we can move anywhere else, if we make too much of a mess on this one. IMO, it should be possible to find the right balance between good business and prosperity on the one hand, and reasonable care for the environment and the future on the other.

                              Just my 20c worth.


                              denial* - By this I mean, denial of even the possibility that we could be doing serious, eventually perhaps irreversible, damage to the Earth's environments; resources, eco-systems, etc.
                              Should we be taking the risk?
                              "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                              Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X