Author Topic: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong  (Read 14192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2018, 01:04:53 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Miami is probably the more interesting place to look at in regards to sea level rises http://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

Though not as good of a headline as Trump's golf course sinking or whatever.

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline Liar Loan

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 389
  • Posts: 1904
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2018, 02:51:23 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2018, 03:11:35 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

Offline Liar Loan

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 389
  • Posts: 1904
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2018, 03:37:19 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2018, 04:28:14 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

The current scientific consensus is that we DO have sufficient data to support those statements. Which is what I'm going with, because like I stated, scientific consensus has proved to be our best tool over the past centuries.  Certainly not perfect, but damn good.

Offline Liar Loan

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 389
  • Posts: 1904
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2018, 05:59:02 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

The current scientific consensus is that we DO have sufficient data to support those statements. Which is what I'm going with, because like I stated, scientific consensus has proved to be our best tool over the past centuries.  Certainly not perfect, but damn good.

I'm in agreement with the scientific consensus, just not the accuracy of computer simulated models.  For one thing, the climate models themselves don't agree with each other.  Secondly, some of them deviate quite a bit from the actual temperature record.  Thirdly, they have been shown to have, in aggregate, a "warming bias" when compared to the actual temperature record.  These are just facts.

So your statements from two posts ago are correct insofar as the models have predicted warming and then warming has occurred, but I disagree that they are reliable enough to guide future policy that would result in radical changes to our way of life.  If the scientific consensus is proposing changes that will lead to increased poverty and human suffering, or mass sterilizations, or punishing citizens for having children, or other radical ideas that seem to be bandied about and casually accepted as necessary by many in the scientific community, I'm not onboard with that.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 06:07:52 PM by Liar Loan »

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2018, 06:08:25 PM »

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

The current scientific consensus is that we DO have sufficient data to support those statements. Which is what I'm going with, because like I stated, scientific consensus has proved to be our best tool over the past centuries.  Certainly not perfect, but damn good.

I'm in agreement with the scientific consensus, just not the accuracy of computer simulated models.  For one thing, the climate models themselves don't agree with each other.  Secondly, some of them deviate quite a bit from the actual temperature record.  Thirdly, they have been shown to have, in aggregate, a "warming bias" when compared to the actual temperature record.  These are just facts.

That is incorrect according to most climate scientists.  Are you going off the popular John Christy chart for those facts?  It misrepresents the data in a number of ways.


Quote
So your statements from two posts ago are correct insofar as the models have predicted warming and then warming has occurred, but I disagree that they are a reliable enough to guide future policy that would result in radical changes to our way of life.  If the scientific consensus is proposing changes that will lead to increased poverty and human suffering, or mass sterilizations, or punishing citizens for having children, or other radical ideas that seem to be bandied about and casually accepted as necessary by many in the scientific community, I'm not onboard with that.

That is exactly where I think the debate should be, over if warming really mandates policy changes. There needs to be a better understanding of what the potential harm of these policy changes is in relation to the potential harm of global warming.

Ultimately, like most economists, I'm of the opinion creating a carbon tax to price the negative externality of warming and letting the market decide what measures to take in response to this price is the best and most fair route to lower emissions.

EDIT: Grammar
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 06:15:27 PM by inv0ke-epipen »

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2018, 06:13:19 PM »
EDIT: accidental double post

Since this post is here, a couple follow ups.

The scientific consensus should be the input that drives our decision; we basically want to make sure we make decisions with good data. The scientific community is telling us the globe is warming and it will likely cause damage, we should be careful not to conflate that with people calling for sterilization or other such radical solutions. The scientific consensus isn't telling us what to do with the data, just what the data is and that we will cause damage. It is up to our government (and since this is a democracy, us) to decide if and how to deal with this information. Some scientists may be calling for radical measures, but again we need to be careful with conflating a scientist's opinion on methods to  mitigate warming with the scientific consensus that warming is happening.

My main point I want to convey across these posts is that we shouldn't let deserved mistrust of government transform into undeserved mistrust of the scientific community. By misrepresenting and distorting the data, and eroding trust in the scientific community, we weaken ourselves. We weaken ourselves not just on this issue, but every issue that requires good data to make a good decision. We can't afford to do that and also maintain our stance in the world with highly focused and increasingly powerful rivals like China to deal with.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 07:19:35 PM by inv0ke-epipen »

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 352
  • -Received: 604
  • Posts: 10819
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2018, 06:19:32 AM »
There are parts of Ireland that are not by the ocean.
My point is it seems like Trump is flip flopping on global warming.
As I previously stated, Trump said on the wall application the reason for a wall is due to global warming.

* this is not fake news, read the previous article I posted.

Eyephone - Have you ever been to Ireland?







Offline Liar Loan

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 389
  • Posts: 1904
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2018, 11:35:48 AM »
That is incorrect according to most climate scientists.  Are you going off the popular John Christy chart for those facts?  It misrepresents the data in a number of ways.

I'm not aware of John Christy's popular chart.  It must not be very popular.  My conclusions are based on looking at model projections individually and in aggregate, studying the data, and comparing them to the actual temperature records.

The source you linked to for that animated graphic is a blog with an agenda (Skeptical Science), not a dispassionate commentator.  For instance, the blog's founder conducted the very unscientific "survey" that concluded 97% of scientists are in agreement about man made global warming, a false conclusion that many of the scientists he lumped in to the statistic vehemently disagreed with.

He created that made up statistic to empower Democrat politicians, and the sheep that follow them, to bludgeon those of us that are capable of using our heads to think about the science for ourselves.  There's nothing scientific or consensus building about that.  He is a partisan hack masquerading as an authority on this subject.

Here's a statement by one of the scientists that he mischaracterized:

Quote
Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Here's a quote from another:

Quote
Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.

Here's another:

Quote
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Not only that, but the author of Skeptical Science is not a climate scientist. 

You warned earlier on this thread against trusting those that don't work in the field of climate science to understand the complexities of it...  Hmm...  Yet here you are linking to a blog by just such an individual.

Perhaps you should reread the quotes I posted above from three actual climate scientists commenting about your non-climate scientist blogger.

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 283
  • -Received: 282
  • Posts: 1469
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2018, 12:18:14 PM »
what do the 3% of scientists have to say about global warming and why don't they agree?

our predictive models aren't 100% accurate today, how do we know that our analysis from 500,000 years ago isn't 100% accurate?

yes the climate is changing but exactly how much can we attribute that increase to human actions?  are we 50% responsible? 2% responsible?  we're flying through space around a giant fireball on a molten rock that we don't 100% understand, so i don't think it's too crazy for some people to feel skeptical, especially when the earth has been through even hotter time periods.  hearing the news talk about "hottest year on record" is a little outrageous considering our "records" only go back 140 years.

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 338
  • -Received: 350
  • Posts: 3348
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2018, 12:47:07 PM »
Even if I were to stipulate the truthfulness of global warming there is NOTHING we could do about it short of banning all industry and your precious technology.(do you know how much energy it takes to mine one bitcoin?)  Better to evolve and adapt to our constantly changing "environment".  George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2018, 07:04:50 PM »
That is incorrect according to most climate scientists.  Are you going off the popular John Christy chart for those facts?  It misrepresents the data in a number of ways.

I'm not aware of John Christy's popular chart.  It must not be very popular.  My conclusions are based on looking at model projections individually and in aggregate, studying the data, and comparing them to the actual temperature records.

The source you linked to for that animated graphic is a blog with an agenda (Skeptical Science), not a dispassionate commentator.  For instance, the blog's founder conducted the very unscientific "survey" that concluded 97% of scientists are in agreement about man made global warming, a false conclusion that many of the scientists he lumped in to the statistic vehemently disagreed with.

He created that made up statistic to empower Democrat politicians, and the sheep that follow them, to bludgeon those of us that are capable of using our heads to think about the science for ourselves.  There's nothing scientific or consensus building about that.  He is a partisan hack masquerading as an authority on this subject.

Here's a statement by one of the scientists that he mischaracterized:

Quote
Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Here's a quote from another:

Quote
Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.

Here's another:

Quote
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Not only that, but the author of Skeptical Science is not a climate scientist. 

You warned earlier on this thread against trusting those that don't work in the field of climate science to understand the complexities of it...  Hmm...  Yet here you are linking to a blog by just such an individual.

Perhaps you should reread the quotes I posted above from three actual climate scientists commenting about your non-climate scientist blogger.

I'll have to look into that blog more, just thought it was a good animation   :). I'll agree to not use him\that site as a source.

How about the comments of actual researchers? http://weatherwest.com/archives/6252

Or prestigious academies of sciences? https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/Commonwealth%20Academies%20Consensus%20Statement%20on%20Climate%20Change%20-%2012%20March%202018%20-%202.pdf

Or NASA? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ They seem to be pretty good at what they do.

Or these prestigious scientific societies?

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2018, 07:27:50 PM »
what do the 3% of scientists have to say about global warming and why don't they agree?
Your missing the point about scientific consensus. Scientists carefully analyze the studies and papers by all research, including research that does not support warming or human responsibility to warming. That 3% data is taken into account. The consensus builds, changes, and evolves as more research is performed. At this point there is a massive body of research supporting warming. Sure the tiny amount of research that doesn't could be correct, but the odds are much much smaller. Why go off the conclusion that is most likely to be wrong? If it is right, with the way consensus works, once more research is done that demonstrates it to be right, it will be adopted and become the new consensus, so the ship would right anyway if there really is merit to the conclusion cO2 is not causing warming.

The current scientific consensus is the best data we have, and the best thing to go off of. It has historically steered us well and given us the technological power we now wield. Why make an exception because you don't like the result? Would you want Hillary be elected if she won 3% of the vote and Trump won 97%?  I honestly don't get it.

Re posting the study explaining consensus: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122410388488
 

Quote
our predictive models aren't 100% accurate today, how do we know that our analysis from 500,000 years ago isn't 100% accurate?
I'm not sure what you mean here, but yeah models are never 100% accurate. Make sure you don't confuse degrees of uncertainty with reliability.

Quote
yes the climate is changing but exactly how much can we attribute that increase to human actions?  are we 50% responsible? 2% responsible?
The consensus is that humans are almost entirely responsible for the current warming cycle.

Quote
we're flying through space around a giant fireball on a molten rock that we don't 100% understand, so i don't think it's too crazy for some people to feel skeptical, especially when the earth has been through even hotter time periods. 
Don't confuse your ability to understand the topic to that of the scientific community's. Certainly not crazy to be skeptical, but be aware that a lot of research and thought has been put into this by those with expertise, and there is a large body of research to support it.

Quote
hearing the news talk about "hottest year on record" is a little outrageous considering our "records" only go back 140 years.
I agree, things like that are meaningless. Would be the same as "coldest year on record" disproves global warming. Consistent hottest year on records for decades though, is something to watch.


Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 56
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 217
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2018, 07:37:26 PM »

George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.[/b][/size][/color]



Funny guy.

First off, the point on 97% of species going extinct, you realize that was caused by SuperVolcanos, Asteroids, and other such massive calamities? The current die off looks similar, but too early too tell, but if it is human based, it implies we are as damaging as a massive global calamity.

But I couldn't care less if all the polar bears die or whatever, I only care about humanity. The earth is fine no matter what, it will move on, but we should work to make sure we aren't one of those 97% of species that get left behind.
Quote
Even if I were to stipulate the truthfulness of global warming there is NOTHING we could do about it short of banning all industry and your precious technology.(do you know how much energy it takes to mine one bitcoin?)  Better to evolve and adapt to our constantly changing "environment". 

There's really nothing we could do short of banning all industry? Do you really think that?

What we can do is price the negative externality of CO2 emissions with a carbon tax, and let the market's response to that cost minimize emissions. If banning all industry was the only way to do it, as you suggest, then industry would continue as normal and we could use the proceeds of the tax to evolve and adapt to our changing environment. Let the  market decide what is truly possible and best by pricing in the cost of emissions.  Tax is a rotten word, but in reality this is just recognizing a cost and paying it.


« Last Edit: May 10, 2018, 08:46:19 PM by inv0ke-epipen »

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters



Related Links

Recent Posts