Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
surely you wouldn't then turn around and claim that you could understand it well enough by yourself to feel certain that those scientists are wrong?
Only in your strawman's dreams. I'm saying that I've looked at what they've been saying and the predictions that they've made and decided that their predictions aren't skillful and aren't useful for predicting future climate. I do indeed suspect that this stuff is too complex and chaotic for long term modeling, though maybe we'll figure something out in the future.
I don't have a deep understanding of the science behind a lot of every day things, but the predictions that we can make using that knowledge have proved useful. I don't really understand anti-biotics, but I know that when I get a bacterial infection, taking those makes me healthier, like the doctor predicts.
Climate researchers have predicted stuff and something very different has happened.
-
Well, there's always the macroscopic level - i.e. Earth as a whole.
Let's keep it simple: Do you want to argue that the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that certain gasses are not responsible for said Greenhouse effect?
-
Do you want to argue that the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that certain gasses are not responsible for said Greenhouse effect?
No.
-
@Rhywden said:
Do you want to argue that the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that certain gasses are not responsible for said Greenhouse effect?
No.
Then you acknowledge that increasing the concentration of gasses responsible for the Greenhouse effect also increases the strength of said effect?
-
Then you acknowledge that increasing the concentration of gasses responsible for the Greenhouse effect also increases the strength of said effect?
Yes, all other things being equal.
-
@Rhywden said:
Then you acknowledge that increasing the concentration of gasses responsible for the Greenhouse effect also increases the strength of said effect?
Yes.
Regarding the fact that CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide are both Greenhouse gasses and also anthropogenic to a non-negligible degree, doesn't it also stand to reason that we humans influence the average temperature of Earth through said Greenhouse effect?
-
-
Both: "Greenhouse gas" and "anthropogenic".
-
Regarding the fact that CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide are both Greenhouse gasses and also anthropogenic to a non-negligible degree, doesn't it also stand to reason that we humans influence the average temperature of Earth through said Greenhouse effect?
Yes.
-
There we are then. The actual problem then is more akin to:
What exactly will happen on which part of the Earth?
What will we do about it?Only the first part is actually science. The second part is political in nature which makes this such a problematic debate.
-
Only the first part is actually science. The second part is political in nature which makes this such a problematic debate.
I agree. Sort of. The science part is problematic, too. I mean, you were true to your word and kept it very simple. Too simple to really resolve anything, especially something as big and complex and chaotic as the Earth's climate. Which is basically why our predictions currently suck.
Model proponents like to talk about how the models are just modeling basic physics about which everyone agrees. That's correct, as far as it goes. But even simple cellular automata show emergent behavior that's difficult to predict. It's a very big error to think that a more complicated system like the climate would be less surprising. Current results confirm that we haven't cracked this nut. It should be obvious just from how quickly weather predictions go to crap as they look into the future.
-
I agree. Sort of. The science part is problematic, too. I mean, you were true to your word and kept it very simple. Too simple to really resolve anything, especially something as big and complex and chaotic as the Earth's climate. Which is basically why our predictions currently suck.
Model proponents like to talk about how the models are just modeling basic physics about which everyone agrees. That's correct, as far as it goes. But even simple cellular automata show emergent behavior that's difficult to predict. It's a very big error to think that a more complicated system like the climate would be less surprising. Current results confirm that we haven't cracked this nut. It should be obvious just from how quickly weather predictions go to crap as they look into the future.
No, it's not too simple. There's a macroscopic view which encompasses the Earth as a whole - which is where the Greenhouse effect comes into play - radiation going in, radiation going out. Earth is approximately a closed system, after all.
What effects this has on a "microscopic" level is another question.
Of course it's a chaotic system. Of course there are heat sinks here while there's other stuff over there. Doesn't change the averages, though. You're conflating the macroscopic and microscopic levels.
-
No, it's not too simple. There's a macroscopic view which encompasses the Earth as a whole - which is where the Greenhouse effect comes into play - radiation going in, radiation going out. Earth is approximately a closed system, after all.
Do you think this simplistic and macroscopic view is good at making predictions about the future climate?
Of course it's a chaotic system. Of course there are heat sinks here while there's other stuff over there. Doesn't change the averages, though. You're conflating the macroscopic and microscopic levels.
You're conflating a simple model with an accurate and useful model. You're ignoring a lot about the radiation in and out. That's not a solved problem at all, largely due to clouds. Like I said, your model is overly simplistic and not useful for making predictions.
-
Do you think this simplistic and macroscopic view is good at making predictions about the future climate?
You're conflating a simple model with an accurate and useful model. You're ignoring a lot about the radiation in and out. That's not a solved problem at all, largely due to clouds. Like I said, your model is overly simplistic and not useful for making predictions.
The problem with your overly complex and handwaving "but oh it's too difficult!" argument is simply one thing:
Errors can usually swing into two directions. Yes, clouds might very well dampen or even cancel the effects from Greenhouse gasses.
They might also increase the effects.
Do you really want to bet your life on the former?
-
Errors can usually swing into two directions. Yes, clouds might very well dampen or even cancel the effects from Greenhouse gasses.
This is true.
Do you really want to bet your life on the former?
A first step to evaluate a model is to see if it can explain the past, or stuff that we already know before we try to predict. Your simple model fails horribly at this. Current climate models are a little bit better, but still not very good.
Yes, I'm willing to bet against current science, since it doesn't present a convincing case. Not by a long shot. Now, back to the politics side of things. I think that many of the current proposals are going to make us poorer by mandated inefficiencies and trying to push technology before it's ready. There's no convincing case of catastrophe. I think we'd be better off being richer in the future as we'd be better able to adapt to whatever happens, in addition to having better lives along the way.
-
I don't doubt that we're able to adapt. I doubt, however, that we're able to adapt without horrible loss of lives along the way.
-
Do you really want to bet your life on the former?
And that's where the science stops and the emotional thinking begins. Emotional thinking that works against the science it proposes. Emotional thinking that gets us bad policies.
adapt without horrible loss of lives along the way.
Which stems from the arguments that increasing levels of natural disasters are due to AGW.
From what I can tell, that's a very weak argument, with less evidence than the world is continuing to warm through the hiatus.Sure the warming is happening in certain places more than others, and sure that might change things like jet streams, which would have disastrous effects like turning Europe into Russia and Texas into Hawaii, but I'm not convinced that we can be certain to have more hurricanes which will certainly hit higher populated areas.
-
What exactly is "emotional" about that?
It's a very rational risk-gain-calculation.
On the one hand we have changes we need to make anyway - on the other hand we have changes which might just prevent a catastrophe.
-
I doubt, however, that we're able to adapt without horrible loss of lives along the way.
What makes you think that will happen? What gives credibility, in your mind, to predictions of catastrophic temperature increases?
-
critical thinking means "thinks like I do."
Of course it does. There are only two kinds of people: People who agree with me, and unthinking idiots.
-
Just look at the 3rd world. We already have huge problems feeding the people there. If you impact the already bad food production in those areas even more negatively, do you think those countries will actually be able to cope with such changes?
-
What exactly is "emotional" about that?
Because you didn't say, "The probabilities of deaths due to natural disasters are increasing".
You said, "Do you want to bet your life on that."
The former is risk.
The latter is an emotional appeal to FUD.
-
Just look at the 3rd world. We already have huge problems feeding the people there. If you impact the already bad food production in those areas even more negatively, do you think those countries will actually be able to cope with such changes?
So your response is to beg the question?
-
We already have huge problems feeding the people there.
Actually we don't.
Government is paying farmers not to grow crops.
We can feed them, we just can't economically get the benefit to where it's needed.
I'm betting that we will be able to adjust to the changes in climates fast enough to keep up food growth. It will be the politics that will slow us down.
All of the arguments that say that food production will stop are based on 200 years of change happening overnight.
-
Now, who's being overly simplistic again?
-
I'm saying that we don't have a food problem because of the climate.
-
Funny, multi-year droughts are not related to climate then?
-
They only create a local food problem.
With the amount of food I know people waste, we could be feeding a lot more people.
The problem is economics, and getting the produce there.
-
Yeah, because it's that easy. You heard it here first, folks: "It's just a matter of distribution!"
Never mind that we had several decades to figure out that "easy" problem.
-
Funny, multi-year droughts are not related to climate then?
Multi-year droughts have been around since before we started burning lots of fossil fuels. How do you know the current ones are our fault? Did you have famine in Europe from multi-year droughts recently? I can't think of any over here.
Modern famine is more of a political problem that is not easily solved.
-
Multi-year droughts have been around since before we started burning lots of fossil fuels. How do you know the current ones are our fault? Did you have famine in Europe from multi-year droughts recently? I can't think of any over here.
Modern famine is more of a political problem that is not easily solved.
I'm not saying that those are our fault. I'm saying that potentially increasing the number and length of draughts is not a good thing. Plus, I was talking about the 3rd world. Context, my dear.
-
It's not easy to distribute, therefore climate change!
Good proof.
-
It's not easy to distribute, therefore climate change!
Good proof.Yeah, good boy. You nailed it.
-
I was talking about the 3rd world.
Because of desertification maybe?
I mean, that big desert in Africa isn't getting any smaller, and I'm sure it's been getting bigger for longer than 100 years.
-
I'm not saying that those are our fault. I'm saying that potentially increasing the number and length of draughts is not a good thing. Plus, I was talking about the 3rd world. Context, my dear.
I agree that increasing the droughts is bad. But the context here is that you're assuming all this is true for some reason. I asked why you thought it was true and you came up with stuff that has been theorized might happen if temperatures soar.
IOW, you're trying to scare me instead of explain your reasons for why those things might happen. THAT's the context, my dear (is that a common thing to say in German? it comes across as really weird / condescending in English).
-
Because of desertification maybe?
I mean, that big desert in Africa isn't getting any smaller, and I'm sure it's been getting bigger for longer than 100 years.Yeah, those goat herds are certainly innocent of desertification.
-
@xaade said:
It's not easy to distribute, therefore climate change!
Good proof.Yeah, good boy. You nailed it.
But that's exactly what you did! I think that we can only conclude that you're an anti-science troll, which is really awful considering you're apparently employed as a science teacher.
-
@Rhywden said:
@xaade said:
It's not easy to distribute, therefore climate change!
Good proof.Yeah, good boy. You nailed it.
But that's exactly what you did! I think that we can only conclude that you're an anti-science troll, which is really awful considering you're apparently employed as a science teacher.
Yeah, nice ad-hominem. I'm out.
-
Yeah, nice ad-hominem. I'm out.
You checked out a while ago when you refused to answer questions about why you think your simple models were worth anything.
I'll add that you don't understand ad hominem in addition to science, because what I said was perfectly accurate to the way you responded in this topic. Unless I was just being trolled, in which case, you definitely got me.
-
Do you think this simplistic and macroscopic view is good at making predictions about the future climate?
For long term averages, yes.
For next year's weather, no.
-
Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, "You'd have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today."
The issue is that if the temperatures continue to rise at the rate they are going now, can we simply pack up and move our entire agricultural base to match the weather?
What happens to the US when Canada becomes the place you can grow all of the food? Whether that takes 50 years or 200 years, it would surely be extremely detrimental to our country. Maybe it won't affect us during our lifetimes, or even our children's lifetimes. But if we are heating up at this rate, it will come. If we were all one big happy single world nation, maybe these things wouldn't be a problem. I doubt it will be so catastrophic in terms of everyone is going to be starving to death, but it is going to drastically shift the balance of economic power. WW3 = US tries to overthrow Canada to keep agriculture?
-
The US has a large buffer of subsidies.
And it won't kill our agriculture, it will simply change WHAT we grow.Yeah, people have to adjust, but no more than other shocks to the market system.
2120 - Farmers are said to be too big to fail, and massive bailouts go to pay for farmers adjustments to new crops. Legalization of pot no longer a matter because pot doesn't grow in California.
Sounds like a good place.
-
For long term averages, yes.
Some follow up questions:
How would you define long term?
Have you validated this against past data?
What sort of predictions would this model make?
-
The issue is that if the temperatures continue to rise at the rate they are going now, can we simply pack up and move our entire agricultural base to match the weather?
But temperatures aren't going up very fast right now. And our "best science" can't explain that. So why would I believe that they're going to do what the models say in the future?
Is begging the question really all you guys have?
-
1000+ years to be sure. But at the same time, we'll continue to claim that the world as we know it will be gone in 10 years. Every 10 years. It's like a legitimized version of the guy on the street corner.
We have some temperatures recorded from uneducated merchant ships using wooden buckets.
Disaster!
It's like science has decided to compete with end-times prophets. tech 2000, no mayan 2014, no wait...
-
1000+ years to be sure.
Yeah...I don't think a 1000 year average is much use in policy planning.
-
But temperatures aren't going up very fast right now.
Orly. that's news to everyone who knows how to read a graph.
If by "not very fast", you mean faster than any point in the last 100,00 years, you're dead on I guess.
-
Orly. that's news to everyone who knows how to read a graph.
No clue what you're talking about.
If by "not very fast", you mean faster than any point in the last 100,00 years, you're dead on I guess.
It was going up faster 20 years ago, for instance. Look, you can be as certain as you like, but don't expect other people to take that on face value without some actual, y'know, evidence.
-
nifty graphs with temps over the lst 100 years and predictions from the us govt (so it's all lies)
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data
The problem here seems to be that everyone thinks "oh, 1C every 50 years, that's nothing" despite it being faster than temperatures have ever risen. no one seems to have any concept at all of larger time frames.
-
It was going up faster 20 years ago, for instance
going up faster 20 years ago right before when people started trying to curb our effects on everything? who'd have thought.
