Global warming

[wtcobb]

PROBABLY RUSSIA








If we're going to continue down this route, I'm only typing in all caps.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Meteorologists are not climatologists.

I have a helluva lot more respect for meteorologists than I do for climatologists.

At least one produces something and can admit when he/she's wrong. The other arrogantly claims he/she's always right, and if you dont believe me, well, you just wait 247 years!

Where do you think these people get their grants from?

Seriously. As I said before, I'm amazed at someone not "getting" this aspect in 2017.

 

[Puck it]

I have a helluva lot more respect for meteorologists than I do for climatologists.

At least one produces something and can admit when he/she's wrong. The other arrogantly claims he/she's always right, and if you dont believe me, well, you just wait 247 years!



Seriously. As I said before, I'm amazed at someone not "getting" this aspect in 2017.

I was talking about both sides. The money dictates the research findings.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The money dictates the research findings.

Not always true, but sadly often true enough, and also, "not how science works".

 

[jack97]

^^^ yep funding dictates the "research" findings. Below from a National review article. Micheal Mann of the infamous hockey stick graph received 6 million dollars I believe he started publishing and getting funding around 1996. So he brings in $300K/year of funding. Forget what the split is to the rest of the institution and how much he actually pockets along with the salary he gets.

[FONT=&quot]"Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails."[/FONT]

 

[benski]

If you guys think money dictates finding, then where are the oil company scientist?

 

[NYDB]

This thread is a huge bowl of depressing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[deadheadskier]

This thread is a huge bowl of depressing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using AlpineZone mobile app

They always suck. Every single online Global Warming discussion throughout the history of the internet ends up like an NFL game ending in a 2-2 tie. Zero meaningful forward movement and a couple good defensive stands. That's all you get.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Not Sure]

They always suck. Every single online Global Warming discussion throughout the history of the internet ends up like an NFL game ending in a 2-2 tie. Zero meaningful forward movement and a couple good defensive stands. That's all you get.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app

Good anology! but Like roadkill you stop and look anyway.

 

[Edd]

Well, if the only consequence is that the interest on the bill increases and you can't default, why not?

I'm thinking because the service could get shut off...because you're not paying. And the general point I was making was that the timelines of potential climate change induced flooding catastrophe and the sun swallowing the Earth are vastly different, like billions of years.

So the two events seem to have barely anything to do with each other. Which is not a reason to just chill out about climate change.

 

[benski]

And why do you guys think the government has a problem with funding climatologists who deny climate change. The only benefit to society from cutting co2 emissions is not having climate change. Otherwise its just aimlessly reducing economic growth by making goods more expensive and increasing government costs without increasing services.

 

[jack97]

And why do you guys think the government has a problem with funding climatologists who deny climate change. The only benefit to society from cutting co2 emissions is not having climate change. Otherwise its just aimlessly reducing economic growth by making goods more expensive and increasing government costs without increasing services.

That's more of a political approach. IIRC, someone has already mentioned that AGW is taken away funding from more important environment issues. Below are excerpts from Professor Emeritus Botkin's testimony to congress which mentions the same.

The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now.
Energy
Fresh water
Phosphorus and other essential minerals
Habitat destruction
Invasive-species control
Endangered species
Pollution by directly toxic substances
Fisheries
Forests



As for having more CO2, what we put into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude lower than the natural processes. The earth is greening, quite ironic that the "Green" movement does not like the molecule that allows this to happen.

 

[machski]

What crack pot science is this... and then you go on to agree with the findings of the article except in far less detail. Did you read it?

I will say the authors appear to adhere to the scientific method better than a lot of the climate science I've seen.

Nope, don't agree with this study. Do you know how many atmosphere variables are in play besides just a lack of contrails over the entire United States over those 3 days? I would have to really examine the study to see how well they isolated variables (which aren't really able to be physically isolated so they would have to estimate them out). I hate statistics, you can manipulate data to show almost whatever you want. Very slippery slope in my opinion.

Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[wtcobb]

IT'S SNOWING 8-12" TODAY GLOBAL WARMING MY A$$

smh

 

[bdfreetuna]

Nope, don't agree with this study.

ok

I would have to really examine the study

Wait. Shouldn't that come first?

you can manipulate data to show almost whatever you want. Very slippery slope in my opinion.

I suppose you can but this study neither goes against or with the grain of the mainstream "climate consensus". It's another variable to consider which is poorly understood.

This is NASA's quote:

"Climatologists consider the role of clouds to be the largest single uncertainty in climate prediction. Less than a third of the models participating in the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included indirect aerosol effects, even in a very limited way, and those considered only sulfate aerosols." Source

 

[Puck it]

^^^ yep funding dictates the "research" findings. Below from a National review article. Micheal Mann of the infamous hockey stick graph received 6 million dollars I believe he started publishing and getting funding around 1996. So he brings in $300K/year of funding. Forget what the split is to the rest of the institution and how much he actually pockets along with the salary he gets.

"Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails."

Typical overhead on grants is 45-50% to the unviversity.

 

[benski]

Typical overhead on grants is 45-50% to the unviversity.

This is the real problem. Overhead at universities has exploded over the last 30-40 years and likely is responsible for much of the increase in the cost of higher education, along with ways to game the system of ranking and a lack of incentives in those ranking to provide a good price.

 

[Domeskier]

I'm thinking because the service could get shut off...because you're not paying. And the general point I was making was that the timelines of potential climate change induced flooding catastrophe and the sun swallowing the Earth are vastly different, like billions of years.

So the two events seem to have barely anything to do with each other. Which is not a reason to just chill out about climate change.

I guess why not just manage the effects of climate change until the asteroids come or some fanatics get their hands on a genetically modified disease that wipes out the human race or some politician starts WWIII. Even assuming everyone that matters came to agree that global warming is happening and that it is the direct result of human actions that, if stopped, would reverse the process, the normative question of what, if anything, we ought to do about it would still remain. Maybe we do nothing because the benefit of providing a slightly cooler climate to future generations is not worth the costs to people who are actually alive today.

Deciding what kind of obligations we owe to people who don't currently exist, who may never come to exist and whose identities are contingent on the very choices we make is a difficult question. The dramatic changes in how we live that would be required to do something meaningful about climate change would almost certainly result in future generations consisting of different people than those who would exist if we did nothing. Which group of potential future people matter more? Maybe we have an obligation to bring about the best possible environment who whomever lives in the future. However, it's not clear that future generations could fault us for any action we take now when in all likelihood, the people who make up those future generations would not exist but for the actions we take now.

Ah well, given the uncertainties about global warming and its effects, as well as the existence of much more critical existential threats to the continued existence of life on earth, I can't really get worked up about it even if we ignore the fact that the environment is going to inevitably heat up on its own in the distant future.

 

[JimG.]

Zen has been achieved.

 

[Edd]

Zen has been achieved.

See also: