Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 23, 2020.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
anonymous argumentum ad verecundiam
Sorry, but I haven't the time to list all 11,000 of them, but you're free to read the reports once you come out of the cave you've been hiding.
But, but, but... There's a guy in a lab coat who says that the science is all wrong. His climate models don't fit the data, but Donald Trump likes him so why shouldn't he be taken seriously? Everyone knows that climate science is largely based on the Navier-Stokes equation, and that equation is derived from Newton's laws, which are highly dubious without their constitutionality being upheld by the Supreme Court.
Sure, it's warming - but we're not doing it! It's the SUN! It's all the SUN! What, do you think we control the SUN? What sort of idiot thinks we control the SUN? After all, this super accurate peer reviewed paper PROVES that the SUN is the reason that we are . . . .
What? The paper's been retracted due to factual errors? Well . . . uh . . . it's still the SUN. I feel it in my gut!
Well it's not really solar activity that's causing the issue. Global warming is actually proven to be caused by liberals running their furnaces full blast in order to drive Ford and GM out of business. Regarding the sun's responsibility for nearly every other crisis under the sun, it has a corona, so it must be causing the Coronavirus and we may as well not bother with reporting or responding to it, just leave it to Dr. Donald Trump MD to find a cure. Gun violence is caused by full moons, better not touch that one either.
You guys are a hoot.
It seems that many simple minds would make of climate science a single variable equation.
I think that to be folly.
One would think that anyone who had looked at Milankovitch's equations would tend to think in multiple variables.
In particular, the persistent 400-kyr periodicity should peak one's curiosity.(Do you know what earth's climate was like 400 kyrs ago?)
(it ain't just the sun) We live on a planet, whose climate is impacted by the motion of other planets, within a solar system which resides within an arm of a spinning galaxy which is hurtling through space. Sometimes, we are at the compressed head of that galaxy, sometimes on the leading or trailing side, and sometimes in the stretched out rear... Does our position within the galactic arm, and that arms position within the galaxy effect the sun?
that being said
We know next to nothing of the sun's long term variable output.
Extrapolating long term patterns from short term observations in also, most likely, folly.
Fortunately, we have proxy information from ice and deep sea cores.
Many variables, and many paths to knowledge for those who would look.
That being said
If simplifying your cognition to a single variable equation eases your troubled minds:
Do not let me stand in your way.
Scientists HAVE looked, their report is just above in the link I provided you. They understand the other variables, but unlike you, they understand those other variables are not the ones causing the current climate change catastrophe.
That is your folly. What a hoot, eh?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Picture this on the shores of the arctic ocean.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree. Fortunately climate change scientists do not do that.
As climate change scientists do. They examine thousands of variables, and eliminate potential causes one by one until they are left with the actual causative agents.
For example, by examining the output of the sun over the past few decades, and by realizing that solar output is decreasing, they have been able to eliminate that as a cause of warming.
We have a reasonable idea.
Do you know what the climate was like 66 million years ago?
Indeed. But extrapolating century-long patterns from decades-long patterns is . . . what science is very good at. Similar to how a doctor can extrapolate the next decades of your life from the years of observations he has of your health, your activity level, your diet, your habits, your history etc. Indeed, they do a very good job at that - which is why we can say with great certainty that smoking is, in general, bad for you, and quitting is a very good idea.
Now, a dedicated smoker, determined to both keep smoking and justify his decision, may well try his best to cast doubt upon that. "Do you have ANY IDEA how complicated the human body is? Claiming that you can extrapolate the next five decades of my life from one thing I do is folly. Why not study my bone density, or my telomere length, or my liver function before claiming that smoking is bad and I should quit?"
Agreed! Fortunately we have thousands of scientists who have done that work and now know a lot more about how the planet's climate works. Pretending that one has "inside knowledge" that invalidates all that work is folly.
None of the AGW researchers are doing that.
And many who have looked.
They have done us the favor of telling us what they saw, and explaining carefully and calmly the knowledge they have obtained.
It turns out to be fairly dramatic - we seem to have been fouling our nest in a particularly dangerous way. We are setting ourselves up for disaster, apparently.
One would think that heeding such warnings would be a well-respected and prudently supported course of action.
You're the one trying to simplify everything to being about the sun and completely ignoring human contributions. The proper way to study climate science is to account for all significant variables human and non-human simultaneously, and only when you do that do you get accurate models that match real world data. Also what are Milankovitch's equations? I only see Milankovitch graphs, please provide links if it's not just a bad effort on your part to sound informed.
Do you honestly think thousands of people study this stuff for a living, running simulations night and day on the world's most powerful supercomputers, but they're only working with high school algebra and modelling temperature as a function of Confederate carbon emissions?
The rate is irrelevant.
Your goal is trying to get the planet to do what you want. Your won't succeed, the earth's climate is not as simple as you think.
and, then, we have this from the research at Lake el'gygytgyn
"Simulations using a state-of-the-art climate model show that the high temperature and precipitation during the super interglacials(11,31,etc) can't be explained by Earth's orbital parameters or variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases alone, which geologists usually see as driving the glacial/interglacial pattern during ice ages."
Obviously indicating a missing variable/missing variables.
Had the missing variable or variables been found and applied to the models, that should have been front page news. True?
the picture posted in #109 is of the forest of the Amur valley,
"MIS11 forests show a similarity to modern Picea-Larix-Betula-Alnus forests of Siberia. While dark coniferous forest also characterizes MIS31, the pollen taxa show an affinity to the boreal forest of the lower Amur valley (southern Russian Far East)."
Who wants the current frozen arctic desert instead of the lush biome of the last superinterglacial?
Nope, quite the opposite. My goal is to stop trying to change the planet's climate, and let nature (not man) determine what the climate should be.
The history of life on Earth disagrees.
"I tried to quit smoking and I felt AWFUL! Obviously the doctors don't understand all the variables. I'll keep smoking until doctors know for sure if it's bad for you."
Anyone who tells you that you're doing something harmful is just trying to stop you from having fun. Little known fact, stop signs are legally only there as friendly suggestions, feel free to disregard them as long as you sincerely believe you can drive like Dale Earnhardt Jr.
So is this basically another way of saying "the science doesn't prove anything, and even if it does, disregard it anyway"? What would the fields of psychology and psychiatry be if they were held to the same level of scrutiny you're attempting to place on climate scientists?
The climate is complicated.
If all of the variables are in the models----------most likely not---but if they are in the models.
The weighting of variables seems to need adjusting.
If you would trust the models to predict the future, then the models must also be able to predict the past.
So far, this ain't happened
Man's computer models will never ever predict the climate. Alarmists believe they can. The amount of co2 humans pump out is insignificant to what the planet does.
Separate names with a comma.