Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
But you see we should wait until we are certain. I mean just think of the scenarios. There is the probably scenario where is will kill billions, and the unlikely ones where it will kill almost everyone or next to no one.

I mean if we think of the world as our home, what would you do? Would you out in a few hundred dollars to make sure it doesn't burn down while you are sleeping in it or take a risk of it killing you and everyone you love, until you are 110% sure? Obviously you wait until you know for certain.

Yeah, that's how it seems to me.

There's this funny thing where people will pay insurance against 1/100 or 1/1000 odds events, or but wrt GCC, they don't want to take precautions against greater than even odds until they have 100% certainty.
Imagine if no-one paid insurance unless they knew for certain not only that they were going to burgled in the next year, but also exactly which day, by how many people, and exactly what would be stolen?
 

Ledo

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
406
If socialists and communists really cared about saving the planet from global warming, er oh forgot necessary word changes, climate change...they would simply come out against our consumer driven fiat system of money that requires an exponential and continued rise in debt to fuel insane economic growth at all cost, any cost. They are not and never will.

Just another fraud.
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Yeah, that's how it seems to me.

There's this funny thing where people will pay insurance against 1/100 or 1/1000 odds events, or but wrt GCC, they don't want to take precautions against greater than even odds until they have 100% certainty.
Imagine if no-one paid insurance unless they knew for certain not only that they were going to burgled in the next year, but also exactly which day, by how many people, and exactly what would be stolen?

Insurance screwed people at Katrina, the people of the gulf after the oil spill, and also after countless disasters in countless eras were the promises to people betrayed. Why? It's a lie from those in power. By your reasoning, it was right to go to war in the middle east, because even though there wasn't strong evidence hussein had WMDs, there was a chance he might, so we were sold that the right tbing was to go to war, to increase unconscionably, by millions of times, the equisite suffering of humanity. Why do you believe the same people that lied about iraq when it comes to global warming? The same lie is happening now with regards to wanting a decent life. The same lie was used in Hell, the punishment in the after life for wanting to live decently . . sure eternal damnatiom could be a lie, but do you really want to take the chance? What harm is there? Result: the dark ages, a perennial mitigation of human potential, famine, death, suffering. Until this seductive and basic aspect of human psychology is understood and resisted mentally, by a majority, we will continue to grovel in the mud, suffer, and die at the feet of power.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
About a billion times more likely that man made global warming is being covered up by huge US/international oil, gas and car companies looking to maintain their share prices.
Yeah.

You know the cow methane issue is supporting some sort of agenda b/c they never talk about the massive amount that is trapped in snow, and in foliage, something we are unearthing everyday to plant more crops.
Depends who you are listening to. I believe this is recognised and studied - for instance there are studies contrasting the relative effects of tundra and plantation forests. And there are carbon trading provisions to take some account of planting and felling forests. I imagine it's a bit difficult to work it into a measured scheme that rewards sequestering and puts costs on emissions on all the different fronts.

Melting permafrost, evaporating methane, and the large amount of emissions arising from the breakdown of soils from over-cultivation and erosion are known contributors, but harder to attribute to particular people and organisations.

When I Think about this topic I always immediately Think about over population.
Man takes up more and more space, and requires more and more resources. Growth in a closed system Cannot be sustained indefinitely.
This probably is part of the picture, but remember that some of us (esp. westerners, and esp. the top 1%) are using a great deal more of the resources than others, so it's not just a matter of population size, it's alos a matter of how fast we use up the capacity.

Some of the more effective ways to encourage reduction in population growth are ensuring everyone's basic security - improving infant mortality and people having confidence that they will be cared for in old age even if they don't have many children. Also, extreme inequality is one of the key drivers to over-consumption/over-exploitation of resources. So good solutions probably involve working towards greater social and economic equality and security for everyone.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
If socialists and communists really cared about saving the planet from global warming, er oh forgot necessary word changes, climate change...they would simply come out against our consumer driven fiat system of money that requires an exponential and continued rise in debt to fuel insane economic growth at all cost, any cost. They are not and never will.
Which they? I'm not sure who you are defining as socialists and communists. There are lots of people to the left of the worlds governments who are talking about the problems with the current money system and the need for change. That private banks can 'print' money is a bit problematic, from various points of view.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
By your reasoning, it was right to go to war in the middle east, because even though there wasn't strong evidence hussein had WMDs, there was a chance he might, so we were sold that the right tbing was to go to war, to increase unconscionably, by millions of times, the equisite suffering of humanity.
Hardly. The undemonstrated possibility that some other country else is doing something illegal that the US doesn't want them to do (developing WMDs, which the US does a great deal more of than Iraq or any other country) doesn't justify killing millions of people. There is no reason to believe such action would reduce the risk of disaster, and much greater likelihood that it will increase the overall problems the world is facing.

If all you've got is a big military, every problem looks like an opportunity for an aggressive invasion.

The point about preventing unnecessary additional climate change is to stop doing harm, not to do a whole lot more harm. Figuring out how to transform fossil-fuel-dependent economies into sustainable economies, building up the organic matter and fertility of soils, and organising ourselves into societies that meet everyone's needs all really need to be done anyway.

I'm certainly not advocating nuclear power or large scale adventurous or unproven geoengineering responses that would likely do more harm.
 

mujuro

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
696
I make a point of holding suspect anything that becomes politicized. I honestly don't have the energy anymore. I sincerely don't care if AGW is real, but when certain politicians seize this particular topic, the language stinks of propagandist techniques. I wish Jacques Ellul were alive today.
 

whit

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
484
It's clear I believe there is truely a problem. The solution is however murky. I highly doubt the solution lies from some political hacks who seem to make more problems then sell us a solution.

It does lie within each of us.
The planet will survive with or without us. That much has been proven.
The legacy we leave behind for those we love is what truely matters.
There is more here than what we can see. Much much more.
I believe that's why most of us are here having a civil conversation about it.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
From the article here: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all theheat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to meltglaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.

This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009). Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.

Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of thetropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxideinto the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001,Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find moreheat returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the humanfingerprint in global warming.

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.

And from one of the comments following:
.... well there are many articles addressing whether scientists have exaggerated or not (e.g. 'Is the IPCC alarmist?')... so the issue has been covered from that side; predictions of impacts were lower than what has actually been observed, ergo the predictions were not exaggerated.
...
A third approach would be reviewing the results of research by scientists not in the climate field. If climate scientists were exaggerating AGW's impact on Arcticsea ice then biologists would find that seals and bears are not facing adverse impacts, oceanographers would find that the Arctic ocean was not acidifying, botanists would not find plants growing further North of their previous ranges, et cetera. Yet all these other scientific fields are finding results which support what the climate scientists are saying. Ergo, the 'skeptic' argument really becomes a claim that nearly all members of multiple branches of science all over the world are engaged in a vast conspiracy to exaggerate AGW. ...
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
If socialists and communists really cared about saving the planet from global warming, er oh forgot necessary word changes, climate change...they would simply come out against our consumer driven fiat system of money that requires an exponential and continued rise in debt to fuel insane economic growth at all cost, any cost. They are not and never will.

Just another fraud.

Exactly.

Not to forget the planned obsolescence of just about every consumer goods.

From cars designed to rot after 15 years, to hungry motor engines, to light bulbs modified to pop after 1000 - 3000 hours, common appliances failing annually, printers designed to stop after a fixed number of prints, clothes being made of fragile synthetics instead of hemp, etc...

The scam is all around, obvious to anyone caring to use critical thinking. It has become so prevalent and in-your-face that it actually requires super human powers NOT to notice it.

These climate change frauds will never, ever go after this, or even make any mention of it.

Two faced liars, constantly talking out of both corners of their mouths like a broken record.
 
Last edited:

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
There is no reason to believe such action would reduce the risk of disaster, and much greater likelihood that it will increase the overall problems the world is facing.

Tara, we finally agree. That is exactly why I oppose climate change as an issue. As i stated above, there is no reason to trust the sources hammering into us that man-made climate change is real, as they are the same people that advocate endless wars. If the bankers, or those with wealth, do control the wars, again, why trust them on man-made climate change? There is no reason to believe taxes on carbon, living green, or anything else which happens to increase poverty and suffering, will affect the climate. Poverty is the cause for most suffering today. How do you propose to change the climate without worsening the human condition? Regarding your insurance comparison above, does the 1% chance man is responsible justify trusting power on the issue of, and the remedy to, climate change? Why is it that all solutions call for more interventions by the state?
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
There have been ice ages on earth before humans, and the ice ages naturally warmed. What evidence is there man is responsible? Is there some supressed, forgotten work in the ways of Koch that postulates man-caused climate change? There is not. Is there an ability of individuals to test climate change for themselves? No. Then the only source of "evidence" for man's participation im the changing climate is the mainstream media, and one would be wise to question the media.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
As i stated above, there is no reason to trust the sources hammering into us that man-made climate change is real, as they are the same people that advocate endless wars.
It's not the same people. You don't have to trust the politicians on this.
Its many scientists in various fields. The scientists are not the people advocating for war. A good many of them are saying, based on logic and wide-ranging empirical evidence that if we don't change tack we and rest of the biosphere are probably facing another major challenge that cannot be solved with weapons.
It's people in the Pacific whose homes will be amongst the first to go, and who are reluctantly beginning to plan for migration to other countries. They are not advocating wars either.
It's people all over the world who know more about it, most of whom don't want any more wars.

Do you take the same basic attitude of disbelief to all science? Where else can you get a real picture of what is going on in the world if you simply dismiss all the science? That approach would seem to leave a lot to the imagination - which I personally am much more sceptical of. It make sense to read the science critically, but please apply at least teh same standard of critique to the denialist claims.

Why is it that all solutions call for more interventions by the state?
Because nation states make the kind of policies that can make a difference, helpful or otherwise. There are no other adequate mechanisms to protect the commons.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Is there se suppressed, forgotten work in the ways of Koch that postulates man-caused climate change? There is not.
Human beings have taken a lot of measurements, which can best be explained by greenhouse gas theory.
"What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001,Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heat returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming."

There is not. Is there an ability of individuals to test climate change for themselves? No.
It's an empirical question with empirical evidence. The world is big. No one person can take all the measurements. That's why researchers do their bit and communicate with each other. If you learned about the relevant disciplines, you could work with other people to take measurements in a number of different fields, limited mainly by the time and resources available to you.
How are you testing the denialist claims?

Then the only source of "evidence" for man's participation im the changing climate is the mainstream media, and one would be wise to question the media.
I assume that means you are not in the habit of reading the relevant scientific articles/papers written by a range of relevant scientists.
Quite reasonable to look at the reliability of the media. Mainstream media in certain countries (including US and UK) are inventing a scientific controversy. There isn't much of it anywhere else. Some reporters and editors call this 'balanced' reporting.
 

whit

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
484
If its called balanced by the source thats a guarantee it's likely not. :wtf
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
It's not the same people. You don't have to trust the politicians on this.
Its many scientists in various fields. The scientists are not the people advocating for war. A good many of them are saying, based on logic and wide-ranging empirical evidence that if we don't change tack we and rest of the biosphere are probably facing another major challenge that cannot be solved with weapons.
It's people in the Pacific whose homes will be amongst the first to go, and who are reluctantly beginning to plan for migration to other countries. They are not advocating wars either.
It's people all over the world who know more about it, most of whom don't want any more wars.

Do you take the same basic attitude of disbelief to all science? Where else can you get a real picture of what is going on in the world if you simply dismiss all the science? That approach would seem to leave a lot to the imagination - which I personally am much more sceptical of. It make sense to read the science critically, but please apply at least teh same standard of critique to the denialist claims.


Because nation states make the kind of policies that can make a difference, helpful or otherwise. There are no other adequate mechanisms to protect the commons.

Ruins exist from countless civilizations under the sea, for whom the sea drowned thousands of years ago- again, before the harnessing of fossil fuels present today. You know how fervently ray has expounded on the collusions between science and power, of course I'k skeptical of what prominent scientists say! The real scientists are unheard of, you know this. My policy is to give the information a chance and to weigh it intuitively using critical thinking. The contention that man has created climate change by his use of energy does not stand to reason, for reasons i have previously enumerated, foremost among them that a warming planet would release CO2 independent of involvement by man. You could say im not a doctor, but on this site that would be absurd.

I believe we're presupplied with categories and associations. I feel that I'm being placed i the category of "climate change denialist"- that is untrue. The climate has always changed, and always will. It has before man, and it will continue to do so after man is gone or he has evolved into something else. Similarly in regards to categories, i believe many anthropogenic climate change exponents manifest the emotion of frustration in regards to discrepencies in wealth: there are few that have much and many who have little, and of course it is true that wealth is not distributed fairly, for we are slaves. I believe in clinate change, i do not believe that our use of energy, nor any of man'e activities, are responsible. It is simply schizophrenic to distrust on the one hand the state that sacrifices and impoverishes so many and simeltaneously trust, on the other hand, that same state with any promises of bettering the human condition or to trust them for any understanding of the issues. If you want to trust such a source on how to think, that is of course your option. But, it is not logically consistent to trust them with some things, and not others. For, why would power frame one issue to it's advantage, but not the other?

That the state is the only effector of change is a lie. That insinuates our lives are meaningless if not lived for the state. If you want to trust power blindly, that is your prerogative, but i do find it confusing that you should reject the scientific consesus in regards to ray peat while trusting the scientific consensus in regards to man's involvement in climate change.
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Because nation states make the kind of policies that can make a difference, helpful or otherwise. There are no other adequate mechanisms to protect the commons.

Yes, nation states have done a wonderful job solving humanity's problems, right?
 

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
I assume that means you are not in the habit of reading the relevant scientific articles/papers written by a range of relevant scientists.
Quite reasonable to look at the reliability of the media. Mainstream media in certain countries (including US and UK) are inventing a scientific controversy. There isn't much of it anywhere else. Some reporters and editors call this 'balanced' reporting.

The first i heard of the doom and gloom was an intimate tv special from Magnum, P.I. i remember i had my own mini black and white tv. Sewing contention and polarizing the populace are the prime directives of the media. I disagree with those who say the climate never changes, and i also disagree with those who say it is the living of a decent, human life that is responsible.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
You know how fervently ray has expounded on the collusions between science and power, of course I'k skeptical of what prominent scientists say!
Of course. By all means apply scepticism. Acquiring realistic views requires more than just deciding to trust

Which of these looks more like Peat's approach?:
1. Says "They are mainstream scientists - everything they say must be 180 deg backwards. So I'm going to disbelieve everything any of them say and instead accept all the (contradictory) arguments of the alternative medicine sector, new age crystal fairies, fossil fuel industry and flat earthers. Besides, Mr Z is a politician/pahrmaceutical industry representative, and I don't trust politicians or pharmaceutical reps, so y must be false. And Mr W says Mr Z is wrong, so I will believe everything Mr W says."

2. Reads a great many papers written by scientists. Rejects flawed methods, absent evidence, and illogical/unfounded conclusions, and he follows the money and other motivations.
Looks for what evidence there actually is in the studies published, and draws logical conclusions and sometimes tentative but coherent hypotheses after reading a large number of related papers. Presents his views and his evidence for them.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
It is simply schizophrenic to distrust on the one hand the state that sacrifices and impoverishes so many and simeltaneously trust, on the other hand, that same state with any promises of bettering the human condition or to trust them for any understanding of the issues. If you want to trust such a source on how to think, that is of course your option. But, it is not logically consistent to trust them with some things, and not others. For, why would power frame one issue to it's advantage, but not the other?
Who said anything about trusting 'the state'? I'm suggesting looking at the available evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom