So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along? - Page 102 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-22-2015, 09:44 AM   #2021
bagher
Account closed.
 
bagher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 17,917
Send a message via AIM to bagher
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDE46 View Post
Doesn't specify human caused climate change probably.
in that case let's do nothing about it!
bagher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2015, 09:46 AM   #2022
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,037
My Ride: '13 128i STX
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagher View Post
in that case let's do nothing about it!
I'm just saying that getting this vote isn't "the big one." It's a step in the right direction. Deniers have been conceding ground for years now. It was originally "NOTHING IS HAPPENING! ****!" Now it's "Okay something is happening! But it wasn't us!"
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2015, 11:03 AM   #2023
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Basically, I think the deniers are basically biding for time until it is too late to effectively mitigate, much less prevent, AGW. Then I suspect you'll get some weasely rationalizations basically saying that since its now too late, why bother with what will then be far more expensive/disruptive actions to address the problem.

End result: the desired status quo for big fossil fuel energy producers and users.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2015, 08:48 AM   #2024
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/77891667
April 16, 1923

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667
July 21, 1932

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/63769747
October 7, 1932

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

__________________
“Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar (infidels). Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed. So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other. So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar." - Turkish President Erdogan, November 2019
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2015, 10:11 AM   #2025
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
So, the point being precisely what? That because some nearly hundred-year-old suppositions, made when climate science was, at best, at its infancy, it thus nullifies today's science on the matter? It's not even that they're necessarily wrong either, perhaps premature given the sparse and nascent data and understandings of climate, particularly polar climate, at the time, but not necessarily wrong.

This seems to feed off one or two non-sequitor denier tropes:
  • Since climate has been changing before/forever, any and all of today's changes are thus entirely natural. One assertion in no way implies the other.
  • Since some earlier climate ideas were incorrect (based on far, far less data and understanding), thus today's climate theories are likewise incorrect.

These are at best logical/argumentative fallacies and at worst misleading rhetorical distortions. They certainly aren't in any way well-grounded, empirical counter-arguments against AGW.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2015, 10:21 AM   #2026
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: such united many state
Posts: 5,899
My Ride: so turbo wow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Time-series based statistics was hardly even a concept back in the 20's and 30's. Box and Jenkins didn't even create the first major model until the late 60's.

Why do you always read tabloid-level news articles/blogs and take it as fact? There are entire scientific journals out there dedicated to explaining all of this, which is exactly what you should be reading. This is what everyone should be reading.

Also, none of those articles imply "We're all going to die." They all say "We're noticing things are getting warmer," which has been shown to be true.

Quote:
South Polar land 30 years ago, says
that the Great Ice Barrier which
fronts the continent with a wall of ice
for 250 miles has receded at least 30
miles since it was first seen and sur-
veyed.

"We saw this one time, then went and measured it again, and saw that it's smaller."

Also known as: One data point, which is your favorite way of measurement.

Do you just like...google things, post them and then conclude what it says based upon the title of the article?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Zell; 01-23-2015 at 10:30 AM.
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2015, 11:20 AM   #2027
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
Time-series based statistics was hardly even a concept back in the 20's and 30's. Box and Jenkins didn't even create the first major model until the late 60's.

Why do you always read tabloid-level news articles/blogs and take it as fact? There are entire scientific journals out there dedicated to explaining all of this, which is exactly what you should be reading. This is what everyone should be reading.

Also, none of those articles imply "We're all going to die." They all say "We're noticing things are getting warmer," which has been shown to be true.

"We saw this one time, then went and measured it again, and saw that it's smaller."

Also known as: One data point, which is your favorite way of measurement.

Do you just like...google things, post them and then conclude what it says based upon the title of the article?
You've clearly missed the point of the post, not shocking.
__________________
“Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar (infidels). Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed. So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other. So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar." - Turkish President Erdogan, November 2019
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2015, 11:39 AM   #2028
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Please help then, just what was the point of pointing to these musty old articles then?
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2015, 12:19 PM   #2029
bagher
Account closed.
 
bagher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 17,917
Send a message via AIM to bagher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Please help then, just what was the point of pointing to these musty old articles then?
science is always wrong so therefore science is wrong now
bagher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 02:48 PM   #2030
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Most Americans Support Government Action on Climate Change, Poll Finds

Article.

Quote:
An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, ...

...The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of independents, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future.

...And while the poll found that 77 percent of Americans say that the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, the support was greatest among Democrats and independents. Ninety percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans said the government should be fighting climate change.
Wat! How's everyone falling for the Great Conspiracy? I mean, it snowed at my house just the other day -- some "global warming" that is.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 03:55 PM   #2031
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Article.



Wat! How's everyone falling for the Great Conspiracy? I mean, it snowed at my house just the other day -- some "global warming" that is.
The only semi-credible people pushing single data points or events as evidence are the hysterics. OMG big storm, big snow, big wind!
__________________
“Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar (infidels). Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed. So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other. So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar." - Turkish President Erdogan, November 2019

Last edited by Act of God; 01-30-2015 at 04:21 PM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 05:56 PM   #2032
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
The only semi-credible people pushing single data points or events as evidence are the hysterics. OMG big storm, big snow, big wind!
Agreed, quite typically the AGW hysterics. I'll stack up the mountain of peer reviewed, cross-cutting, cross-country trip papers, studies, models, experiments, records, etc. supporting AGW against the thin lump of actual scientific data actually refuting it. Hot, windy, loud and persistent AGW denial rhetoric doesn't count.

Last edited by Rhumb; 01-30-2015 at 06:55 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 12:27 PM   #2033
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Addressing one of the last remaining refuges of AGW denialists, the "global warming slowdown":

Global warming slowdown:
No systematic errors in climate models, comprehensive statistical analysis reveals


Quote:
Date: February 2, 2015

Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Excerpts eptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of Earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted. However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the skeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth's climate. Recently, Jochem Marotzke, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and Piers M. Forster, a professor at the University of Leeds in the UK, have impressively demonstrated this by means of a comprehensive statistical analysis. They also clearly showed that the models do not generally overestimate human-made climate change. Global warming is therefore highly likely to reach critical proportions by the end of the century -- if the global community does not finally get to grips with the problem.

"The claim that climate models systematically overestimate global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations is wrong," says Jochem Marotzke. Climate skeptics often make precisely this claim, citing the warming pause as evidence. Yet they cannot deny that nine of the ten warmest years since systematic climate observations began have occurred in the new millennium and that global warming has slowed at a very high level. The skeptics also ignore the fact that ocean temperatures continue to rise as rapidly as many models have predicted.

"On the whole, the simulated trends agreed well with the observations"

To explain the puzzling discrepancy between model simulations and observations, Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster proceeded in two steps. First, they compared simulated and observed temperature trends over all 15-year periods since the start of the 20th century. For each year between 1900 and 2012 they considered the temperature trend that each of the 114 available models predicted for the subsequent 15 years. They then compared the results with measurements of how the temperature actually rose or fell. By simulating the average global temperature and other climatic variables of the past and comparing the results with observations, climatologists are able to check the reliability of their models. If the simulations prove more or less accurate in this respect, they can also provide useful predictions for the future.

The 114 model calculations withstood the comparison. Particularly as an ensemble, they reflect reality quite well: "On the whole, the simulated trends agree with the observations," says Jochem Marotzke. The most pessimistic and most optimistic predictions of warming in the 15 subsequent years for each given year usually differed by around 0.3 degrees Celsius. However, the majority of the models predicted a temperature rise roughly midway between the two extremes. The observed trends are sometimes at the upper limit, sometimes at the lower limit, and often in the middle, so that, taken together, the simulations appear plausible. "In particular, the observed trends are not skewed in any discernible way compared to the simulations," Marotzke explains. If that were the case, it would suggest a systematic error in the models.

Earth will continue to warm up

"The difference in sensitivity explains nothing really," says Jochem Marotzke. "I only believed that after I had very carefully scrutinised the data on which our graphs are based." Until now, even climatologists have assumed that their models simulate different temperature rises because they respond with different degrees of sensitivity to increased amounts of solar energy in the atmosphere. The community of climatologists will greet this finding with relief, but perhaps also with some disappointment. It is now clear that it is not possible to make model predictions more accurate by tweaking them -- randomness does not respond to tweaking.

Quite apart from their role as scientists, researchers have another reason for greeting the study with mixed feelings: no all-clear signal has been sounded. Climatologists have been fairly correct with their predictions. This means: if we continue as before, Earth will continue to warm up -- with consequences, particularly for developing countries, that we can only begin to fathom.

Last edited by Rhumb; 02-03-2015 at 04:37 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 12:58 PM   #2034
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
awesome link, good job. I thoroughly enjoyed checking it out for myself.

IPCC admits to the pause. You are delusional.
__________________
“Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar (infidels). Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed. So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other. So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar." - Turkish President Erdogan, November 2019
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 02:03 PM   #2035
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 166
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
LOL, I particularly like this statement:

"Yet they cannot deny that nine of the ten warmest years since systematic climate observations began [at least they worked in this important little qualifier...] have occurred in the new millennium..." So they are equating weather from one year to the next with the randomness of a coin flip, as if one year's climate is completely independent of the previous or subsequent years.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 04:37 PM   #2036
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
awesome link, good job. I thoroughly enjoyed checking it out for myself.

IPCC admits to the pause. You are delusional.
I should have put "pause" in quotes as that's referring more to a deniers meme shorthand than anything else.

Yes, there has been a "pause," well, a bit of a slowing from the level of atmospheric warming that some models predicted. However, most of the accumulating warmth is not in the atmosphere, which loses heat rather quickly. That is why it can be 100 degrees during the day in a desert yet get quite chilly by sun rise the next day. However, on, say, the island of Bermuda, surrounded by vast ocean expanses, the thermometer needle hardly budges one way or another. The vast bulk of the AGW heat is being squirreled away in the vast heat sink of the depths of our oceans and that warming has been proceeding apace.

You, too, seem to miss the main thesis of this study, that the "pause" is "not due to systematic errors of the models, as the skeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth's climate, according to a comprehensive statistical analysis." And, "...clearly showed that the models do not generally overestimate human-made climate change. Global warming is therefore highly likely to reach critical proportions by the end of the century."

Last edited by Rhumb; 02-03-2015 at 04:48 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 04:45 PM   #2037
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,037
My Ride: '13 128i STX
You expect a law office custodian to understand heat capacity of water vs air?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 04:46 PM   #2038
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
LOL, I particularly like this statement:

"Yet they cannot deny that nine of the ten warmest years since systematic climate observations began [at least they worked in this important little qualifier...] have occurred in the new millennium..." So they are equating weather from one year to the next with the randomness of a coin flip, as if one year's climate is completely independent of the previous or subsequent years.
Which, if the systemic climate observations were all we had backing up AGW, you might have a point. Of course, we have a vastly larger, cross-cutting and corroborating base of empirical data, studies and research that compellingly point to AGW.

I think they put that statement in more as a narrow refutation the AGW deniers overstated and misleading assertion of some overall AGW "pause," where, in fact, its more accurately a slowdown of warming in relation to model predictions and that nonetheless, it has still been warming precipitously the past decade or so, even on land and in the atmosphere (which only accounts for a small percentage of actual warming anyway).
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 05:39 PM   #2039
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 166
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Which, if the systemic climate observations were all we had backing up AGW, you might have a point. Of course, we have a vastly larger, cross-cutting and corroborating base of empirical data, studies and research that compellingly point to AGW.

I think they put that statement in more as a narrow refutation the AGW deniers overstated and misleading assertion of some overall AGW "pause," where, in fact, its more accurately a slowdown of warming in relation to model predictions and that nonetheless, it has still been warming precipitously the past decade or so, even on land and in the atmosphere (which only accounts for a small percentage of actual warming anyway).
You might want to look up the definition of precipitously, because you are the only person on this planet making that claim.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 06:55 PM   #2040
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Making which claim?
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.