|
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 11:51:42
Can't help it that you are who you keep company with. False correlation.
I take it back: you clearly are an idiot, albeit one who knows how to let programs auto-correct his spelling and grammar. Auto-correct is a liberal conspiracy to make stupid people look competent, though, so you should protest it and type without the aid of squiggly red and green lines.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 11:52:49
So the image is from a WSJ article, where two people are responding to a speech by Kerry saying people that don't believe in ACC/AGW are dumb; their response states that the amount of change or the cause isn't under debate, but simply that models have tended to be alarmist with regards to projections.
In other words, they don't argue that it exists, but are questioning the accuracy of future predictions. Which is fair, for what it is worth; I'm currently downloading the document they reference in their graph (warning, ~30MB) to see if I can find the data they are using.
As a note, this describes mid-trophospheric temperatures; reading more into that, it also appears that there is increasing deviations between mid-trophospheric temperature (as measured by satellite) versus ground station.
From WikipediaWhen us "climate deniers" get all riled up, it's not because we discount the notion that CO2 is a warming gas, or that the earth has warmed over the past 300 years, it's that the certainty that the warming is solely due to our use of fossil fuels as an cheap and abundant energy source it's not at all "settled science" and therefore policies that reduce greenhouse gas output at the expense of economic growth should not be implemented.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-02-21 12:01:42
I can't understand the disconnect. We know (and you agree) that CO2 and Methane are powerful warming gasses. We know (and you agree) that burning of fossil fuels and livestock produce insanely large amounts globally. We know (no idea what your stance is) that other things that generated those kinds of greenhouse gasses on Earth and Venus have caused mass extinctions and apocalyptic warming in the past. So why would you believe that current climate change (who's effects are clear) isn't being, at the very least, increased in magnitude by our use of fossil fuels and the methods by which we extract them? Do you think that lessening our emissions and investing heavily in truly green energy sources could be more damaging to the planet?
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-21 12:06:00
Nausi, I'd like a source for the graph; in order to read more about that. As far as I can tell, there's no verifiable source for those lines because it's not an actual figure in the document it claims to draw data from. ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2012.php) I haven't been able to find it anywhere, at least.
We'd have no way of knowing if they're comparing mid-tropospheric data to surface models, vice versa, or something as equally dishonest. The fact that they're even reporting mid-tropospheric rather than surface, which is what people should actually care about, puts all of this into question.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 12:07:38
It isn't sufficient to simply cry "This isn't the cause" without ACTUALLY PROPOSING ANOTHER MECHANISM. Yes, by all means, point out the problems; this leads to improving the models/hypothesis/tests. Keep doing studies. On that note, wasn't there some noise a couple years back that correlated solar activity with climate change? I can't say I have any idea how one can predict what the Sun was doing back in 500 CE, but I do recall things like low sun spot activity during the Little Ice Age and a recent spike in the same. If I recall, we started a new cycle a couple of years ago, and had an abnormally few spots compared to what was predicted (lengthened minimum). We're in cycle 24, and at an average of 10-11ish years per cycle, would put start of recording at approximately 1760ish.
Again from what I recall, lower sunspot activity corresponds to lower irradiance (i.e. lower energy input to earth) due to fun magnetism effects of sunspots.
There are some cycle variations orders of magnitude longer than the sunspot variations, generally it is a matter of (for better or worse) educated guesswork, followed by hypothesis, followed by validation by looking at terrestrial artifacts of the hypothesis.
It's not as easy as it sounds.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 12:14:48
No we don't agree that they are powerful greenhouse gasses.
No we don't agree that we produce large amounts annually.
No we don't agree that CO2 is what has caused mass extinctions on earth.
We agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (whose potency is uncertain)
and we agree that the composition of CO2 in our atmosphere is around .004% (400 ppm)
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 12:17:27
When us "climate deniers" get all riled up, it's not because we discount the notion that CO2 is a warming gas, or that the earth has warmed over the past 300 years, it's that the certainty that the warming is solely due to our use of fossil fuels as an cheap and abundant energy source it's not at all "settled science" and therefore policies that reduce greenhouse gas output at the expense of economic growth should not be implemented. So how is it done? Are there any other hypothesis which have withstood experimentation or analysis?
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-21 12:24:45
No we don't agree that they are powerful greenhouse gasses.
No we don't agree that we produce large amounts annually.
No we don't agree that CO2 is what has caused mass extinctions on earth. Who gives a ***? You guys never provide any evidence so there's absolutely no reason to care.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 12:31:00
When us "climate deniers" get all riled up, it's not because we discount the notion that CO2 is a warming gas, or that the earth has warmed over the past 300 years, it's that the certainty that the warming is solely due to our use of fossil fuels as an cheap and abundant energy source it's not at all "settled science" and therefore policies that reduce greenhouse gas output at the expense of economic growth should not be implemented. So how is it done? Are there any other hypothesis which have withstood experimentation or analysis? How is what done? Global warming? I couldn't really tell you, but everyone who seems to think and base predictions on the idea that co2 is a huge contributing factor has been consistently wrong over and over again. So we probably shouldn't doom the human race into a perpetual energy poverty because we're scared of changing out atmospheric composition from .004% to .04%
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-21 12:37:16
At least be like King and link us things that directly contradict what you're saying. Oh wait, you did that too.
By fonewear 2014-02-21 12:47:44
How is what done? Global warming? I couldn't really tell you, but everyone who seems to think and base predictions on the idea that co2 is a huge contributing factor has been consistently wrong over and over again. So we probably shouldn't doom the human race into a perpetual energy poverty because we're scared of changing out atmospheric composition from .004% to .04%
Climate debate aside, strong CO2 emissions are pretty bad for health.
Everything is bad for you. According to experts.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 12:57:30
Yeah real bad, so bad that we naturally expel out a bunch of the stuff as we exhale.
I mean if the air I exhale is 4% co2 and I can not suffer health effects being around other people, clearly I've got room to breath as far as atmospheric capacity right?
Drinking water can kill you too, lets limit that freedom too.
By fonewear 2014-02-21 13:01:34
Don't worry when we destroy the Earth we can always live on the Moon. Well at least build an amusement park on it.
By fonewear 2014-02-21 13:05:57
Yeah real bad, so bad that we naturally expel out a bunch of the stuff as we exhale.
I mean if the air I exhale is 4% co2 and I can not suffer health effects being around other people, clearly I've got room to breath as far as atmospheric capacity right?
Drinking water can kill you too, lets limit that freedom too.
Stop breathing for a minute you can save the planet.
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 13:06:26
Yeah real bad, so bad that we naturally expel out a bunch of the stuff as we exhale.
I mean if the air I exhale is 4% co2 and I can not suffer health effects being around other people, clearly I've got room to breath as far as atmospheric capacity right? Put a bag over your head. See what happens. *(Don't)
It's considered a self-correcting problem; particularly that if *you* drink too much, it affects *you*, not anyone else.
*Edit* Don't go put a bag over your head. I normally wouldn't encourage someone to do that, or feel forced to have to add the disclaimer "DON'T GO DO THIS", or that they may actually not have the knowledge to know that it will kill them.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 13:39:35
Look the statement was made co2 emmisions are bad for our health. Clearly this is misleading, as the potency of co2 in the air I breath doesn't kill others does it?. Are there place on the planet where the co2 concentration are regularly higher than 4% (which is what comes out of my mouth)? Places that are regularly inhabited by a large population of humans?
Not say at the opening of a chimney stack?
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 14:05:27
Look the statement was made co2 emmisions are bad for our health. Clearly this is misleading, as the potency of co2 in the air I breath doesn't kill others does it?. Here's a source if you want to look into it more.
5000ppm is 0.5%; 4% corresponds to 40000ppm. The current limit of permissable exposure is 5000ppm(OSHA/others).
The fact that your breath is immediately dispersing into a significantly larger volume is the basis why you aren't killing yourself/others.
Revised IDLH: 40,000 ppm
Basis for revised IDLH: The revised IDLH for carbon dioxide is 40,000 ppm based on acute inhalation toxicity data in humans [Aero 1953; Flury and Zernik 1931; Schaefer 1951]. Duration of exposure also plays a role; increase of concentration reduces exposure duration.
Are there place on the planet where the co2 concentration are regularly higher than 4% (which is what comes out of my mouth)? Places that are regularly inhabited by a large population of humans?
Not say at the opening of a chimney stack? Regularly? Not really.
Strong CO2 emissions are bad for your health.
Of course, they could have been poking at your comment regarding "powerful".
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 16:26:37
So here's a thing that confuses me...
We know that there are a lot of factors that go into climate change and honest people will point out that we don't even know all the factors, much less exactly how they work. This is a part of why most of the models produced regarding global temperature increase have been unreliable at best and flat-out wrong at worst. Modelling for some quantity unknown factors is like painting landscapes with a blindfold on.
It seems the only thing we can point to as something we can actually effect is CO2 emissions as a consequence of industry, even if we're less than certain how much and to what extent that is the primary contributing factor in current warming trends. I suspect this is the reason that CO2 tends to be the only point of debate. If it turns out half a billion years from now that our ancestors can laugh at our ignorance and point out that the current warming trend was 99% natural and being compensated for by a variety of planetary mechanisms, won't we feel silly. Or our component atoms spread across the cosmos will, anyhow.
However, the only positive argument that can be made for rescinding or ignoring the proposals of moderate environmental scientists is that it is more profitable today to ***where we eat. Even looking 5 years into the future should be enough to remind anyone rational and ethical why that adage exists. Of course, publicly traded companies run by boards at the behest of investors are rarely ethical and only sometimes rational, so that's a big problem.
On the other hand, though, whether or not human CO2 pollution will have a significant effect on the fate of our planet, the processes that release CO2 into the atmosphere concurrently produce a host of other pollutants that make life miserable, dangerous, or outright deadly. Except to feed into the ever-hungry-never-satisfied maw of the stock market, there is no reason not to seek cleaner methods of doing business. That's not a call to abolish technology, either, merely to reduce or recapture and repurpose waste products. It's one of the things that makes modern landfills so brilliant: the only pollutant they can potentially release into the atmosphere, they instead collect and burn to provide electricity both for their own operations and to sell as surplus to the power grid.
So why does the debate have to almost always focus on climate change? I just don't get it. I suspect most of us born in the '80s and '90s have never been near the kind of cesspits that industrial sectors were prior to the late '70s, but a quick trip to Mexico can clear up any confusion you may have. All it would take is a 10 minute tour of places where there are no environmental regulations, places where one practically needs a hazmat suit to escape with lungs, eyes, mucus membranes, and skin intact, to drive home that permitting a select few to profit is not ethically conscionable. The green movement that started in the '70s has done a lot to clean up the US (and profit-seeking publicly-traded companies have jumped ship as a result), to the point that talking about simple pollution no longer seems to happen.
Maybe I've answered my own question: people don't believe pollution exists because they can no longer go down to their city's southside and see it first-hand. So instead we have to pretend that a global catastrophe is just around the corner because of CO2 emissions. How tedious.
By fonewear 2014-02-21 16:29:06
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
[+]
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-02-21 16:33:08
Of course they would say that it is man-made. If they said otherwise, they would either be a heretic or out of a job.
They are being paid to say that it is man-made.
I know that is a hard concept for both of you, but people do what they are paid to do. If you were given a large sum of money to go around saying the earth is flat, I'm pretty sure you would do it in a heartbeat, and screw with your integrity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure
By fonewear 2014-02-21 17:36:42
When global warming destroys the Earth can someone let me know. I'll be drinking to our demise.
Also I didn't listen!
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 18:11:59
Of course they would say that it is man-made. If they said otherwise, they would either be a heretic or out of a job.
They are being paid to say that it is man-made.
I know that is a hard concept for both of you, but people do what they are paid to do. If you were given a large sum of money to go around saying the earth is flat, I'm pretty sure you would do it in a heartbeat, and screw with your integrity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TenureYeah, and the sad thing is, throwing studies out there without definite proof and proclaiming "This is happening because if you look at the numbers on an uneven leap year during a harvest blue moon while tapdancing a polka upside down in an airplane dropping fast enough to eliminate the gravitational pull of Venus, you will see that I'm right and you are wrong" isn't "just cause" enough to remove tenure from said "professors" or "scientists."
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-21 18:14:35
It's cute how a person who isn't a scientist thinks they know more than a consensus of scientists does, without having ANYTHING backing them up.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
By fonewear 2014-02-21 18:16:02
I only play a scientist on a forum based on a video game. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know. I'm not well versed in climatology.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-21 18:16:31
I only play a scientist on a forums based on video games.
Play a model on forums based on cars then?
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-21 18:17:59
It isn't so much that I don't think global warming exists I just have other concerns more urgent.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 18:19:29
It's cute how a person who isn't a scientist thinks they know more than a consensus of scientists does, without having ANYTHING backing them up.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. True, but ask yourself this:
Why do you try?
Lakshmi.Deces
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 485
By Lakshmi.Deces 2014-02-21 18:22:07
So here's a thing that confuses me...
So here's a thing that confuses me...
So why does the debate have to almost always focus on climate change? I just don't get it. I suspect most of us born in the '80s and '90s have never been near the kind of cesspits that industrial sectors were prior to the late '70s, but a quick trip to Mexico can clear up any confusion you may have. All it would take is a 10 minute tour of places where there are no environmental regulations, places where one practically needs a hazmat suit to escape with lungs, eyes, mucus membranes, and skin intact, to drive home that permitting a select few to profit is not ethically conscionable. The green movement that started in the '70s has done a lot to clean up the US (and profit-seeking publicly-traded companies have jumped ship as a result), to the point that talking about simple pollution no longer seems to happen.
Maybe I've answered my own question: people don't believe pollution exists because they can no longer go down to their city's southside and see it first-hand. So instead we have to pretend that a global catastrophe is just around the corner because of CO2 emissions. How tedious. You simply ask why in 3 paragraphs, I will give you a short answer. One side wants to tax the hold dog5hit out of everything no matter the excuse and will not stop until doing so.
This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”
This, however, was dead wrong. As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the “mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”
CPC grades its prediction accuracy on a Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfect accuracy) to -50 (no better than playing pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded).
CPC’s score for October’s weather predictions for November through January was -22 and the September weather prediction for October through December was at -23.
“Not one of our better forecasts,” Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director, told Bloomberg Businessweek.
What actually happened this winter? A “polar vortex” swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January along with 1,073 record snowfalls.
The most recent winter storm that slammed into the eastern U.S. last week knocked out power for more than 1 million people in the Southeast and caused 21 deaths along the East Coast. More than 2,500 flights were delayed last Friday and 1,500 were canceled from East Coast airports.
Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”
“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” Sandi Duncan, the almanac’s managing editor, told CBS News in August.
While there was thankfully no snow on Super Bowl Sunday, those sad Broncos fans trying to get back home from New Jersey had some trouble as snow started falling the day after the most important football game of the year.
The Midwest and Great Lakes regions also saw terribly cold weather and record levels of snowfall this winter. Major Midwest cities like Chicago, Cincinnati and Detroit have seen record levels of snowfall. Chicago alone saw 45.8 inches of snow by the end of January, and, as of Friday, the Great Lakes were 90 percent frozen over.
The Midwest and New England were hit with frigid weather and snow for long periods of time. So long, in fact, that there were propane shortages and natural gas prices spiked due to increased need for heating and supply bottlenecks.
The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX="1" href="This">Libtards are gonna cry over this one
|
|