T1B

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:45 am Mikey is an actual scientist?

I think that's Mikey's Hadron Collider in the knapsack in Rootbeer's car.

Respect.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:45 am Mikey is an actual scientist?

Not an actual scientist. But I sometimes play one on TV the interwebs.

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

--Al Gore 5/10/2006

https://grist.org/article/roberts2/

That's the game plan right there and it hasn't changed. Frighten people with blatant lies to encourage them to open their wallets for "solutions" to problems which don't exist. Step 3: Profit

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:46 am

Mikey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:24 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 10:40 pm And here is a response to your critic:

https://www.npr.org/2007/03/21/9047642/ ... o-congress

How, exactly, is that a response to the critic?

Here is what your guy said:

The phrase “science is settled” is repeated as Koonin’s target throughout the book, even though it has never been in common use by climate scientists and their supporters.

From NPR:

The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.

You're really great with the obtuseness and throwing up strawmen. Exactly when did ALGore become "my guy?" If I have "a guy" on this issue it would be this guy, who I knew for almost 40 years (his son is a friend since college) and who spent four decades doing actual research and collecting field data. And BTW he has a lot better credentials (and credibility) than YOUR guy:



Look it up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=f+sherw ... s-wiz-serp

He also knew AlGore.

And even if AlGore were some kind of scientific authority (which he most certainly is not), how can a video from 2007 be a response to a review written over a decade later? And now you're citing AlGore as a source for your argument? A guy who is not a scientist saying that the "science is settled" is proof that it's in common use by climate scientists? Please. That's a pretty weak strawman. I thought you were better than that.

I would argue that while AlGore may technically have misspoken, and the science isn't settled, the fact that the effects of CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to heat up is widely acknowledged and accepted by the vast majority of scientists who know what they're talking about and aren't shills for the fossil fuels industry. As the reviewer that you are disputing here argues, the science isn't settled because, as with much science, especially in this field, there are ongoing uncertainties and complexities affecting outcomes, some within our ability to influence and some not. But the general fact of CO2 emissions (and other GHGs) causing global warming, leading to more extreme weather events, is clear and compelling.

Waiting now for your next obtuse response.

Mikey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 5:27 pm

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:45 am Mikey is an actual scientist?

Not an actual scientist. But I sometimes play one on TV the interwebs.

I used to make my living as a research chemist. But, later. I used my science credentials to get into a position where I could help acquire and enforce or defend others in patent matters. Most of my career has been spent on stuff that I personally would value as significant as rubber dog shit (there is a market for it, but it ain’t saving the planet…). But I digress.

I still find science interesting. I can still do math. And I will never let someone else think for me, even if they have more credentials than me (If they are good, it should be easy to convince me, right?).

The SpaceX capture of the heavy rocket today is an engineering accomplishment. Awesome, but Jesus it is in the Newtonian physics world and fairly calculable. The global warming assertions are miles and miles beyond that. Too much variation to even separate signal from noise. I mean really, really difficult to identify potential contributions. Maybe would be used a lot in this area if it was not so political. It is very difficult to even identify human contribution to natural variation, let alone accurately calculate what change of behavior or use might produce. This isn’t direct A to B. The way it is sold by pols is fraud. No other way to sugar coat it. Gore is, at best, a shill. More likely, he was a reckless liar. Poor Greta Thunberg is what you get when you lie to stupid people. I feel sorry for how badly she has been abused. Permanent punch line.

Read Unsettled. He isn’t saying that global warming isn’t happening. He is saying that it is difficult to accurately identify what contribution humans are making to it. It’s small by comparison to natural contributions. The issue is whether the contribution is significant. Maybe. But probably not. And more importantly, if it is significant, it is abundantly clear that mitigation would cost less and be more effective than drastic efforts to prevent it. Bjorn Lomborg anyone?

People who know jack shit about science, but believe others without doing the hard research themselves (Yes, I’m looking directly at you clutching your man purse, Screwy), make me sad. If Mikey, the trunk toting Hadron Collider, has read the science and has something compelling to identify, I’m all eyes. But if they are just jock riding the press accounts of consensus, fuggoff.

The consensus was that Trump colluded with Russia and that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. Consensus is what real scientists wipe their ass on.

I used to make my living as an energy engineer. My degree is in control systems and mechanical engineering. I retired two years ago as a VP of engineering but, up until the end, I was creating and implementing some fairly complex M&V plans for energy savings projects in industrial facilities. So, I'm not and never was, officially, a "scientist," but I was pretty good at math and measuring stuff. Thirty years ago I was doing field measurements of the components of indoor and outdoor air and ventilation rates, using various methods including gas chromatography. So there has been a little "science" involved. I can recognize "trends" and I know what a "feedback loop" is. BTW, the ambient CO2 concentration in 1990 was around 350 ppm. Now it's over 420 ppm. But I digress

I still find science interesting. I can still do math, though if I open up even a fairly simple Excel workbook that I created four years ago I realize that I wouldn't be able to duplicate it after two year away. And I will never let someone else think for me, though I do tend to give credence to qualified credentialed scientists who have done the work. I mean, isn't that why we things like have "specialists," scientific journals and peer review? I'll have to admit that 88 is way beyond me in this department. He apparently has done the research and math, on his own, to corroborate what "his guy" is telling him. That must have been quite a task for someone who will never let someone think for him.

I'll have to assume that he's also done the research and analysis on how smoking and obesity can shorten your life expectancy; and the relationships between gravity, air density and drag on the terminal velocity of a falling object, among all the other things that most of us take for granted without actually doing the math. Most of just assume that smoking and eating an unhealthy diet will dampen our outlook, or that a piano dropped form a 30 story building will be going really fast when it hits the ground, so we move out of the way in spite of incomplete information. But how "accurately" do we know these things. And how "accurately" do we need to know them. Are we letting someone else "think for us?"

Even though he was once a research scientist, 88 doesn't seem to have a very good handle on the meanings of things like "accuracy," "precision," "uncertainty," "variation" and "repeatability." I'm not going to give a lecture here but "accuracy," which 88 throws around several times here, is not a yes or no, binomial quantity or quality. He seems to think that something is either "accurate" or "not accurate." In fact, there's no way to actually measure accuracy unless you have a standard "real" quantity or result to compare it to. In terms of global warming, we're in a long running experiment where it's impossible to determine the accuracy of our predictions until the results are known, but which time it won't matter anyway.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 12:42 am Too much variation to even separate signal from noise. I mean really, really difficult to identify potential contributions. Maybe would be used a lot in this area if it was not so political. It is very difficult to even identify human contribution to natural variation, let alone accurately calculate what change of behavior or use might produce.

What kind of accuracy is 88 looking for here?

Here are two charts. How accurate are they? Unlike 88, I haven't done the math but I'll go out on a limb and assume that they are of acceptable accuracy.
We've been told that human activity is the main driver of the increase in ambient CO2 concentrations. Unlike 88, I haven't done the math, but looking at these charts and using my technical intuition, I'll accept that as well. Exactly how accurate that is, is impossible to determine because there is some natural variation. How much? I don't know. I wonder what 88 thinks about this.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 12:42 am He isn’t saying that global warming isn’t happening. He is saying that it is difficult to accurately identify what contribution humans are making to it. It’s small by comparison to natural contributions. The issue is whether the contribution is significant. Maybe. But probably not. And more importantly, if it is significant, it is abundantly clear that mitigation would cost less and be more effective than drastic efforts to prevent it. Bjorn Lomborg anyone?

There's a lot to unpack here, so I'll just make a few comments and ask a few questions.

He is saying that it is difficult to accurately identify what contribution humans are making to it. It’s small by comparison to natural contributions. The issue is whether the contribution is significant. Maybe. But probably not.

How do you know this? I'd love to see your math. What kind of accuracy are you looking for, and how would you determine it? What do you mean by "maybe" and "probably not?" What's your definition of "significant?" Or are you just letting someone else think for you? Do you disagree with my assertion that the rise in CO2 levels is primarily driven by human activity? Do you dispute that CO2 has a greenhouse effect? You may claim that it doesn't have as much effect as most people seem to assume. Have you done the research or any math on that, or are you letting someone else think for you?

importantly, if it is significant, it is abundantly clear that mitigation would cost less and be more effective than drastic efforts to prevent it.

How is this abundantly clear? How do you define "mitigation" and the "drastic efforts to prevent it." Have you done the math and economics yourself, or are you taking somebody else's word for it?

How do you "mitigate" in regions that become completely uninhabitable (as we are already seeing)? Do you encourage increased immigration into other countries, like the US? For some reason I can't see your side agreeing to this. Or do we just say fuck them it's their problem?

We know what the problem is, though maybe not accurately enough for your satisfaction. The trends are undeniable. We know what steps we can take to reduce or even reverse those trends, though we may not know with sufficient accuracy for your satisfaction exactly what the results will be. Is it better to try and prevent catastrophe, or to try and deal with it after it happens. I guess that's the basic question.

OK my Hadron Collider is running out of high energy particles. I'm not going to go back and proofread this, so deal with it.

I wonder if Mikey knows ice core sample data indicate an increase in atmospheric carbon AFTER a warming trend. In other words, carbon could be a PRODUCT of warming, not a CAUSE of it.

But what do I know? It's not like I've been classically trained at the Politico School of Democrat Underground Studies.

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 6:46 pm I wonder if Mikey knows ice core sample data indicate an increase in atmospheric carbon AFTER a warming trend. In other words, carbon could be a PRODUCT of warming, not a CAUSE of it.

But what do I know? It's not like I've been classically trained at the Politico School of Democrat Underground Studies.

I'd like to see your source for that, and the data, if you have one. But I would say that if this happened it was before there was any human contribution to atmospheric carbon concentrations and that whatever effect may have caused this is overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 that has been released in the past century, when the concentration has risen by 50%.

And you're correct, you don't know shit and you're still a pussy for not answering my questions.

The REAL MAN who loves to post inflammatory insults, and then runs and hides whenever challenged. You must be real proud of yourself.

Mikey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:14 pm

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 6:46 pm I wonder if Mikey knows ice core sample data indicate an increase in atmospheric carbon AFTER a warming trend. In other words, carbon could be a PRODUCT of warming, not a CAUSE of it.

But what do I know? It's not like I've been classically trained at the Politico School of Democrat Underground Studies.

I'd like to see your source for that, and the data, if you have one. But I would say that if this happened it was before there was any human contribution to atmospheric carbon concentrations and that whatever effect may have caused this is overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 that has been released in the past century, when the concentration has risen by 50%.

And you're correct, you don't know shit and you're still a pussy for not answering my questions.

The REAL MAN who loves to post inflammatory insults, and then runs and hides whenever challenged. You must be real proud of yourself.

This is the closest thing I can pull up that shows raw data without requiring an academic license to access.

Artificial Intelligence Summary wrote:Atmospheric Carbon Increases Tracked

Ice core records reveal a consistent pattern: atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations increase after global temperatures have risen. This lagged response is observed during the end of ice ages and interglacial periods.

End of the last ice age: CO2 levels increased by around 50% while global temperatures rose by approximately 4°C, as documented in ice core records.
Interglacial periods: CO2 levels varied from around 180 to 280 parts per million (ppm) over 400,000 years, with higher levels during warmer periods and lower levels during colder periods.
Ice core data: The records show that CO2 concentrations typically start to rise only after temperatures have begun to climb, debunking the myth that CO2 increases drive global warming.

These findings suggest that temperature changes are the primary driver of CO2 variations in the atmosphere, rather than the other way around. The ice core data provides a clear and consistent picture of the Earth’s climate history, supporting the scientific consensus on global warming.

Artificial Intelligence Summary

Generative ai is mostly a summary of, and/or a recital of a particular pile of bullshit on the internet. Some bullshit is more factual than other bullshit, but without attribution to information origins, it is simple bullshit.

How can we really trust any information not to be bullshit.

Meat Head wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:30 pm

Artificial Intelligence Summary

Generative ai is mostly a summary of, and/or a recital of a particular pile of bullshit on the internet. Some bullshit is more factual than other bullshit, but without attribution to information origins, it is simple bullshit.

How can we really trust any information not to be bullshit.

I really like this part:

The ice core data provides a clear and consistent picture of the Earth’s climate history, supporting the scientific consensus on global warming

.

At least the AI is thinking for itself…

Meat Head wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:30 pm

Artificial Intelligence Summary

Generative ai is mostly a summary of, and/or a recital of a particular pile of bullshit on the internet. Some bullshit is more factual than other bullshit, but without attribution to information origins, it is simple bullshit.

How can we really trust any information not to be bullshit.

Wow. Art Intel isn't tapped into the fountain of pure knowledge. Humans create the data base. Whaddya know.


88 looks like he's carrying mikey for a few extra rounds....

Earth’s temp fluctuates. From a paleoclimate scientist:

If we look even farther back, to the previous interglacial period, which peaked around 125,000 years ago, we do find evidence of warmer temperatures. The evidence suggests the long-term average temperature was probably no more than 1.5 C (2.7 F) above preindustrial levels – not much more than the current global warming level.

Now what?

Without rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is currently on course to reach temperatures of roughly 3 C (5.4 F) above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, and possibly quite a bit higher.

At that point, we would need to look back millions of years to find a climate state with temperatures as hot. That would take us back to the previous geologic epoch, the Pliocene, when the Earth’s climate was a distant relative of the one that sustained the rise of agriculture and civilization.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-reall ... ars-210126

The Seer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 10:14 pm

Meat Head wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:30 pm

Artificial Intelligence Summary

Generative ai is mostly a summary of, and/or a recital of a particular pile of bullshit on the internet. Some bullshit is more factual than other bullshit, but without attribution to information origins, it is simple bullshit.

How can we really trust any information not to be bullshit.

Wow. Art Intel isn't tapped into the fountain of pure knowledge. Humans create the data base. Whaddya know.


88 looks like he's carrying mikey for a few extra rounds....

.

Says the braindead dumbfuck who mostly posts stuff other people write, without attribution.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

I didn't realize Mikey was so passionate about proper citation. I very much look forward to his commentary regarding Kamala Harris' alleged plagiarism.

Mikey, great take. Seriously. But you are missing the isssue in my opinion.

There is no such thing as climate stasis. The climate is always changing. This planet’s history, most of which has not been affected by humans because we didn’t exist, shows massive fluctuations. Just a mere 30,000 years ago, ice was over 100’ thick over what is now Cleveland, Ohio. There was so much ice that it was possible to walk from Asia to North America.

Without any industrial contribution whatsoever, that ice melted. Ocean levels rose dramatically (hundreds of feet), and life proliferated (human and animal). Did an increase in atmospheric CO2 drive that change? When we look at long term global mean temperature and CO2 proxies, we find many periods with higher temperature and higher atmospheric CO2 than now, yet here we are. Why would return to past conditions result in the cataclysmic feedbacks that you mention and apparently fear?

Most of the climate science is based on modeling. But the models fail in the short term and also do not accurately fit the past. In other words, if you took a model that is supposed to predict the future and ran it starting at some point in the past, it would not fit what has been observed. To someone schooled in science, that means the model is a failure. No other conclusion can be reached.

For me, the global warming/climate change hysteria is not compelling. I’ve been listening to it for nearly 50 years. The predictions have never panned out. There is never any quantification of the benefit that would be realized if the Draconian changes were implemented. If you are going to advocate for massive changes to prevent massive losses, then quantify what the changes will produce and the time line for the changes to be perceptible.

And if you want to read some current information regarding the issue, here is a link to a report that was published in Nature today:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1

Correlation does not mean causation. The rise in atmospheric CO2 and temperature also correlates well to human population. Does a warmer climate benefit humanity? There is a correlation between increased temperature and population. If we trusted that correlation, wouldn’t it make sense to try to increase temperature to increase/improve human population growth?

This is not a serious proposition, as you know. It just shows that cherry picking correlation does not necessarily justify a policy change. You need more.

I ordered the book.

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 2:42 am I ordered the book.

I bet you find it very interesting. But I doubt it will change your views. Smackie read it, I think. He scratched his head and stuff. But I don’t think it made him reconsider any viewpoints.

I’m sure it will be interesting. It will definitely require me to think.

Getting a little tired of John Grisham.

Mikey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 10:34 pm

The Seer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 10:14 pm

Meat Head wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:30 pm

Generative ai is mostly a summary of, and/or a recital of a particular pile of bullshit on the internet. Some bullshit is more factual than other bullshit, but without attribution to information origins, it is simple bullshit.

How can we really trust any information not to be bullshit.

Wow. Art Intel isn't tapped into the fountain of pure knowledge. Humans create the data base. Whaddya know.


88 looks like he's carrying mikey for a few extra rounds....

.

Says the braindead dumbfuck who mostly posts stuff other people write, without attribution.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Except, you're the ill-informed naive moron who plans on voting for kamala. Braindead indeed.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 2:51 amSmackie read it, I think. He scratched his head and stuff. But I don’t think it made him reconsider any viewpoints.

The book’s message was basically that climate is cyclical with or without human intervention, we’re currently in a warming cycle, and the degree to which humans have contributed to the current warming is unknown and extremely difficult to determine. It also discusses the difficulties of determining how effective any proposed countermeasures might be. Basically what my thoughts were before reading it, so it didn’t do much to alter them.

I'm guessing the authors wouldn't line up on the side that wants to do away with technological innovations that make life a bit easier, more comfortable, retain our status as a world power, etc....to allow politicians access to our daily lives and control in an effort to virtue signal about saving the planet with questionable science. There are less invasive common sense approaches like recycling, emission standard setting (without going all electric everything) et.al. Hate to give up my AC here in the desert.

Funny, my house is all electric everything, including AC, and runs on about 85% solar. My utility bills average about $25 per month with the most expensive gas and electric provider in the country (SDGE).

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:17 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 2:51 amSmackie read it, I think. He scratched his head and stuff. But I don’t think it made him reconsider any viewpoints.

The book’s message was basically that climate is cyclical with or without human intervention, we’re currently in a warming cycle, and the degree to which humans have contributed to the current warming is unknown and extremely difficult to determine. It also discusses the difficulties of determining how effective any proposed countermeasures might be. Basically what my thoughts were before reading it, so it didn’t do much to alter them.

I think you nailed it. And that is my thinking on the subject too. I think the burden is on the people advocating for massive change to our way of life to: (1) establish that inaction will result in definite, measurable harm; and (2) demonstrate, with measurable and confirmable metrics, that the remediation they propose is effective and justified. I ain’t seen nothing like that yet.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:32 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:17 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 2:51 amSmackie read it, I think. He scratched his head and stuff. But I don’t think it made him reconsider any viewpoints.

The book’s message was basically that climate is cyclical with or without human intervention, we’re currently in a warming cycle, and the degree to which humans have contributed to the current warming is unknown and extremely difficult to determine. It also discusses the difficulties of determining how effective any proposed countermeasures might be. Basically what my thoughts were before reading it, so it didn’t do much to alter them.

I think you nailed it. And that is my thinking on the subject too. I think the burden is on the people advocating for massive change to our way of life to: (1) establish that inaction will result in definite, measurable harm; and (2) demonstrate, with measurable and confirmable metrics, that the remediation they propose is effective and justified. I ain’t seen nothing like that yet.

But we have to do SoMeThInG!

~m. i. key

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:32 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:17 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 2:51 amSmackie read it, I think. He scratched his head and stuff. But I don’t think it made him reconsider any viewpoints.

The book’s message was basically that climate is cyclical with or without human intervention, we’re currently in a warming cycle, and the degree to which humans have contributed to the current warming is unknown and extremely difficult to determine. It also discusses the difficulties of determining how effective any proposed countermeasures might be. Basically what my thoughts were before reading it, so it didn’t do much to alter them.

I think you nailed it. And that is my thinking on the subject too. I think the burden is on the people advocating for massive change to our way of life to: (1) establish that inaction will result in definite, measurable harm; and (2) demonstrate, with measurable and confirmable metrics, that the remediation they propose is effective and justified. I ain’t seen nothing like that yet.

Put on your scientist cap for a minute...and use your imagination. Can you think of any possible experiment or activity that could possibly satisfy your requirements here? Any such experiment would have to reliably duplicate (or use), and measure, the entire interaction of land, sea, atmosphere, solar radiation and human activity over a period of multiple decades. What would it take to convince you?

Please don't come back with "well it's their job to come up with this." This is YOUR chance.

Expecting a really dumb response from HPG or Seer in 3...2...1...

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 5:59 pmPut on your scientist cap for a minute...and use your imagination. Can you think of any possible experiment or activity that could possibly satisfy your requirements here? Any such experiment would have to reliably duplicate (or use), and measure, the entire interaction of land, sea, atmosphere, solar radiation and human activity over a period of multiple decades. What would it take to convince you?

Since most of the climate change predictions are based on models, one first step would be to run the models from measurements taken 50 years ago and then compare whether the model’s predictions match what was actually observed in the 50 years that have passed. If a model proves to be accurate, we could run it out 50 years in the future and get a picture of what might occur. And every few years we could continue to compare the model’s predictions with actual observations. If there are deviations, we dump the model as unreliable and try to develop a better one. Until we have a model that is accurate, we are not playing science at all.

I’m intrigued by your question. If the science is so difficult that we cannot even ascertain if there is reason for concern, why would there be any justification for implementing “fixes” we cannot ascertain are working or not? Can you come up with another scenario where this would be acceptable? Suppose a man might have cancer. The science cannot really tell yet. But if he does, it could be catastrophic. Would that scenario justify administering drastic, painful treatments at enormous expense that cannot be evaluated after administration to accurately determine if they are working? I think science says no.

2023 was the warmest year in modern temperature records https://www.climate.gov/news-features/f ... ure-record

because of...

the El Niño–Southern Oscillation https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/11275/2024/

Wonder why the forecast models didn't tell us that shit was going to happen before it did?