Farmers Almanac More Accurate Than Climate Science

Language: JP EN DE FR
New Items
2023-11-19
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
First Page 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 11:51:42
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
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
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 11:52:49
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
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 Wikipedia
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.
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-02-21 12:01:42
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-21 12:06:00
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
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
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: milamber
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 12:07:38
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
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
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 12:14:48
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: milamber
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 12:17:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-21 12:24:45
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 12:31:00
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-21 12:37:16
Link | Quote | Reply
 
At least be like King and link us things that directly contradict what you're saying. Oh wait, you did that too.
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2014-02-21 12:42:46
 Undelete | Link | Quote | Reply
 
Post deleted by User.
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 12:47:44
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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.
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2014-02-21 12:49:44
 Undelete | Link | Quote | Reply
 
Post deleted by User.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 12:57:30
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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.
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 13:01:34
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Don't worry when we destroy the Earth we can always live on the Moon. Well at least build an amusement park on it.
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 13:05:57
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: milamber
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 13:06:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 13:39:35
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: milamber
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 14:05:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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.


Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
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".
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 16:26:37
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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.
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 16:29:06
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 1533
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-02-21 16:33:08
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
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
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 17:36:42
Link | Quote | Reply
 
When global warming destroys the Earth can someone let me know. I'll be drinking to our demise.

Also I didn't listen!
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 18:11:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
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
Yeah, 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."
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42646
By Jetackuu 2014-02-21 18:14:35
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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.
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 18:16:02
Link | Quote | Reply
 
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.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42646
By Jetackuu 2014-02-21 18:16:31
Link | Quote | Reply
 
fonewear said: »
I only play a scientist on a forums based on video games.

Play a model on forums based on cars then?
[+]
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-02-21 18:17:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
It isn't so much that I don't think global warming exists I just have other concerns more urgent.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 18:19:29
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Jetackuu said: »
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
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Deces
Posts: 485
By Lakshmi.Deces 2014-02-21 18:22:07
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
So here's a thing that confuses me...



Shiva.Onorgul said: »
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.
First Page 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log in to post.