Experts admit global warming predictions wrong

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.
 
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.
https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4
 
Liar Loan said:
inv0ke-epipen said:
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:

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:

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:

?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/fi...ent on Climate Change - 12 March 2018 - 2.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
 
Kings said:
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


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.

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.

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.

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.

 
morekaos said:
George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.[/b][/size][/color]
https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4

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.
[size=12pt]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.


 
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actively promoted measures to combat climate change, with Reagan in 1987 overruling objections within his own Cabinet to a major proposed treaty to protect the ozone layer, according to recently declassified records posted today by the George Washington University-based National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org). As world leaders, including President Barack Obama, meet in Paris for the latest round of climate talks, the posting reveals a desire by the two Republican leaders from the 1980s for strong American leadership on climate issues that sometimes resembles the Obama White House view more than that of many of today?s top GOP officials ? or presidential candidates.

In connection with the Montreal Protocol (negotiated in 1987 and put into effect in 1989), both Reagan and Bush 41 showed a clear desire to tackle environmental concerns and to lead the global community in that effort, according to the documents. Protests by the Domestic Policy Council, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese, and other agency heads led Reagan to step in to ensure adoption of the final set of U.S. objectives for the treaty. Bush basically shared his predecessor?s views on entering office in January 1989.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/N...for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/
 
inv0ke-epipen said:
Kings said:
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

i would at least like to hear why the 3% of people want hillary to be president.  it's not about wanting to be right about a topic, but challenging the topic rather than taking it at face value based on what "experts" say.  "experts" have been wrong, have had an agenda, and don't always have our best interest in mind. 
 
inv0ke-epipen said:
morekaos said:
George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.[/b][/size][/color]
https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4

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.
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.





[size=12pt]But you are not letting the market forces decide. You are imposing an external penalty and trying to socially engineer an outcome and agenda.  If free markets were free than rising oceans or more hurricanes would be reacted to naturally by the population.  They would move, like someone who builds a home on the side of a Volcano,  I don't think they will again, but the decision was theirs to make.  I live 60 feet from the water and I worry not a moment that my home will be submerged by the Pacific.  If it ever does, that's my kids problem or my kids kids. I don't need the government penalizing me with a new tax to get me to move for a perceived greater good, until then I am happy where I am.
 
"Consensus" is NOT science.  The "consensus" of virtually all scientists has been dead wrong again and again for centuries. 

In 1895, the President of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, said "Heavier than air flight is impossible." 

Seven years later, two uneducated bicycle mechanics built the first airplane and flew it at Kitty Hawk.

If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance. v- Orville Wright

[url]https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/orville_wright_130122[/url]

Professor Don Easterbrook presents facts contrary to the narrative of Al Gore, a mediocre mind who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI[/url]

Physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever calls the climate change sharia a massive fraud which will cost the world trillions of dollars and accomplish nothing good, while hurting the poorest very badly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM&t=52s
 
morekaos said:
inv0ke-epipen said:
morekaos said:
George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.[/b][/size][/color]
https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4

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.
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.





[size=12pt]But you are not letting the market forces decide. You are imposing an external penalty and trying to socially engineer an outcome and agenda.  If free markets were free than rising oceans or more hurricanes would be reacted to naturally by the population.  They would move, like someone who builds a home on the side of a Volcano,  I don't think they will again, but the decision was theirs to make.  I live 60 feet from the water and I worry not a moment that my home will be submerged by the Pacific.  If it ever does, that's my kids problem or my kids kids. I don't need the government penalizing me with a new tax to get me to move for a perceived greater good, until then I am happy where I am.



This is exactly where I think the debate should be, not on whether the warming exists or not. Can government reasonably achieve a goal of reducing CO2 emissions, without causing undue harm? There are surely people with agenda's that would care more to expand their own power or that of the governments and use warming as an excuse to do so. I am unsure if the government is capable of achieving this task.

Carbon tax seems the most likely to work; pricing negative externalities is economics 101. It is not free market, right. It is putting a constraint on the market, but one that is based on a societal cost. Ideally this would lead to the most efficient outcome with the least total cost needing to be paid. But of course, this is oversimplified, and any carbon tax implementation would be difficult in practice and prone to abuse.
 
What you propose would require a massive leap of faith that the government would efficiently re-deploy assets to achieve the desired goal.  I have little faith in that possibility, look at Obamacare as a great example.  I have more faith in the individuals ability to deploy their assets in an efficient manner. (the volcano example is proof of that).  Creating artificial penalties based on a premise not accepted by everyone (carbon can be controlled) and handing billions to a new government bureaucracy to spend for us, is suspect at best, disastrous economically at worst.
 
morekaos said:
What you propose would require a massive leap of faith that the government would efficiently re-deploy assets to achieve the desired goal.  I have little faith in that possibility, look at Obamacare as a great example.  I have more faith in the individuals ability to deploy their assets in an efficient manner. (the volcano example is proof of that).  Creating artificial penalties based on a premise not accepted by everyone (carbon can be controlled) and handing billions to a new government bureaucracy to spend for us, is suspect at best, disastrous economically at worst.

I agree with most of your concerns here, except for that carbon can't be controlled. We know of ways to de-carbonize, and eventually, we will transition to sustainable energy one way or the other. It's in the definition "sustainable". The idea is to accelerate that transition to reduce harm.

I am a techno optimist, so see an economic opportunity in this energy transition.  I have confidence our brightest engineers will be able to build and develop energy systems that are more efficient and economically productive than our legacy sources of power. Of course this is not a sure thing, and my optimism could be completely misplaced.

It's interesting watching Tesla, as they are an example of a company growing up to meet the challenge of this transition and in response to government incentives/regulation. Will they end up being profitable and a source of wealth for Californians and the U.S? Or will they prove to be an unsustainable sinkole for investor and public money? We should have that answer in a few years.
 
If you look at my posts under Tesla model 3 you know I don't have a lot of faith in Tesla and Musk.  He does many fun things with government money but I have yet to see a legitimate profit in any of his adventures.  I believe that if electric cars are viable than the market would have them already and without government largess.  I actually think Hydrogen is the real answer but that is for another thread. 
 
morekaos said:
  I actually think Hydrogen is the real answer but that is for another thread.

Hydrogen is produced by electrolyzing water.  Of course that process consumed much more energy than is produced by burning the hydrogen back into water, so it is a non-solution.
 
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.
 
USCTrojanCPA said:
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
 
Kings said:
USCTrojanCPA said:
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
I agree, b/w those 2, I?d go with mission E. 
Solar panels on a car currently don?t generate enough.  The Prius has one that barely turns on a fan, it?ll be a long time before powering a car is a reality. Although that?s a really nice idea
 
Kings said:
USCTrojanCPA said:
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
No point buying a Tesla now when the model E will be on sale in 2020.

This isn't Porsche's first foray into electric cars. For all you history buffs, the first car designed by Ferdiand Porsche, founder of what is now the Volkswagen Group, was an all electric car called the Lohner-Porsche of 1898:

Lohner_Porsche.jpg



 
Happiness said:
Kings said:
USCTrojanCPA said:
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
No point buying a Tesla now when the model E will be on sale in 2020.

This isn't Porsche's first foray into electric cars. For all you history buffs, the first car designed by Ferdiand Porsche, founder of what is now the Volkswagen Group, was an all electric car called the Lohner-Porsche of 1898:

Lohner_Porsche.jpg

i wonder if it had a setting called "preposterous speed"
 
President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Change Accord, much to the whiny dismay of virtually every Democrat in the country.  Turns out to have been a  brilliant move, saving us billions of dollars, with his many other efforts.

Even the Europeans themselves aren't practicing what they preach and agreed to IN WRITING!!!  Germany won't meet it's 2020  target and is even MORE likely won't meet it's 2030 target either.  But, hey, everybody has their neato piece of paper, so they got THAT goin'  for 'em.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a21605708/germany-likely-to-miss-emissions-target-for-2020/
 
Back
Top