Flashing multiple hundreds works pretty well tbh
Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Flashing multiple hundreds works pretty well tbh
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I disagree vehemently that the LT effects of government policy can be seen, at least in this context, better (or at all) than science-based predictions of the effects of warming & rising seas, melting polar ice and glaciers, etc.
It also seems to me that the hue and cry of the destructive effects of progressive economic/environmental regulation is almost inevitably overstated. If global warming is serious problem (and it seems to be, deniers notwithstanding), then the odds of the private sector acting unilaterally to take action to address it are slim and none. There will have to be additional regulations implemented, which will be resisted to the bitter end by business and their allies in government accompanied by no end of horror stories of economic ruin if they do pass. And when they do pass, businesses will adjust, and life, and economic prosperity, will go on as it has after every other economic/environmental regulation has been passed, despite warnings of economic apocalypse should it pass (and that has yet to occur).
We will disagree then. For me, personally, it is much easier to see the effects of policy. Difference in educations I'd assume. I've studied a ton of econ and very little on environmental issues. Probably why.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that if you have studied lots of econ, you'd realize that econ projections are inherently very tenuous, given that even the most sophisticated projections cannot account for all the random noise or the complexity of the systems that we are trying to effect. (These complex systems, moreover, are highly dynamic and respond to changes in quite unpredictable ways at times.)
By the way, I too have extensive background in econ and little in environmental issues, but I've seen enough to have much higher confidence that natural scientists can explain/predict changes in natural systems better than social scientists can explain/predict changes political/economic/and social systems.
can do that too
I'll try and explain again. I'm simply saying that for me, personally (which means I'm pretty sure I'm right), I can see and realize the effects of a tarriff, minimum wage mandate, etc. better than I can see the effects of spraying an aerosol can up at the ozone layer.
I realize what you are saying, but suggesting to me that I am incorrect about myself is kinda nonsense
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting you are incorrect about yourself (which would be nonsense), but I am suggesting that perhaps (what I interpret to be) your confidence in the ability of economic models to predict economic outcomes is a bit misplaced.
The effects of tariffs and minimum wage legislation have clear theoretical implications, but in practice, given all the noise and the ability of complex systems to adapt to 'perturbations', what effect they have in practice doesn't always square with the theory (simply put, ceteris paribus is a useful tool for theorizing, but vastly oversimplifies cause and effect relationships in highly complex systems).
In any case, I get where you're coming from. Sorry for any implied offense.
I agree. However, I have no confidence in economic models and envioranmental models. So it is not misplaced, but nonexistent.
It seems your first paragraph could easily describe environmental projections as well as economic. I'm not sure why you think a natural scientist would be any more adept and making predictions.
Indeed it can. #107
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This has been interesting and it makes me wonder, do the climate models take into account things like plate tectonics, volcanic activity, sun activity and sunspot cycles, things like this? To babe's point, variables on a local solar system and galactic scale? If so how do they model these variables, or are they simply held constant while manipulating the CO2 and other variables they want to look at. If they don't take these into account are they just assuming they have no impact on climate at all?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
My understanding is yes and No.
Global warming projections tend to be done for the next century or two. Plate tectonics for instance won't have a meaningful effect within that time frame.(continents move slowly)
Some of the other items are taken into account but are variables. So you might say that if we dump a certain amount of co2 in the atmosphere then the temperature will increase between a certain range. Depending on those other variables we should fall somewhere within the range. If there happens to be natural cooling trend we will probably end up on the low side and if there is a natural warming trend we will probably end up hitting the higher side of that range.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
The tough thing is figuring out the impact of, say, plate tectonics. How do you filter out the noise over the historical record to be able to say that X% of climate is caused by plate tectonics (or another global or cosmological variable)? And then how to incorporate that into models?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Let's forget about plate tectonics. Different time scale.
I'm not sure about this but I think I recall hearing that...
We have a fairly decent record of the earths climate for last 600,000 years or so.(Polar ice cores) 600,000 gives a sufficient sample so that we can make reasonable assumptions as to what the natural rate of warming or cooling will be.
The biggest problem (imo) facing those that doubt climate change is that we just don't see an increase in temperature that has happened this fast in the record.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Don't panic just to play the vets
So everything we can talk about has a pair of properties: an extensive factor and an intensive factor, on whatever parameter we are looking at. . . . time is one parameter and temperature is another. That makes a minimum of four aspects that need to be kept more or less in mind. . . . while most of our comments are just dealing with one of these at any given time.
history is not prologue. The only value of knowing the past events is being able to put now in perspective. If our discussion omits that perspective, our discussion is worthless.
So, what is wrong. . . . very wrong. . . . damn wrong. . . about the entire "global warming" alarm and everything our current trend of scientists leading the charge in calling this a crisis. . . . is they are lying about the past, and putting now in a false perspective.
The truth about the past is the fact that over the past hundreds of millions of years, the cause of ice ages has been the sequestration of carbon dioxide in geological formations. . . . limestone and dolomite. . . . on a scale that makes our combustion truly irrelevant. The portion of what used to be atmospheric carbon dioxide that has been converted to plant matter is small. . . . what has been converted to fossil fuels. . .oil, coal, gas. . . . is even less. The facts of the worldwide massive carbonate deposits, which are essentially irreversible, is the prevailing significant fact of the whole discussion. It means our atmosphere is too low in carbon dioxide, and that is what is causing our ice ages.
We are in an ice age, though in a very short-term interglacial phase of it, and the earth is too cold. If we have a problem, it will be that we are going to get colder.
The fact that during this interglacial phase we have built our cities on the edges of oceans subject to short-term level changes, and in areas that will become glaciated, is the real problem of our infrastructure globally. We should expect to rebuild as we move from interglacial to glacial phases, and back to interglacial. We are not going to control our sea levels or our temperatures. The sooner we realize that we are not going to end our ice age problem by not burning fuels anymore, the sooner we will actually begin to solve the problem.
Our current trend of politicians are entirely mistaken, and they are willing to take control of us and force us to do all the wrong things to solve our real problems.
People who refuse to see the point here are dangerous, and giving them the power to impose their inherently false imperatives on us is the wrong thing to do.
People like our current trendy progressives who have taken personal positions, as Al Gore has done, to exploit a false "crisis" and benefit from false "solutions" are truly the bane of our age.
There are plenty of examples of much faster increases in temp, and decreases in temp, across the entire past we know anything about. factually wrong. I gave a link above you must not have read. . . . .
With regard to volcanic activity, sun spots, etc., you often see different predictions based on them. For example, you might see three lines on a graph, where the lowest one represents no volcanic activity, the middle a single incident and normal sun activity, and the top one both a volcanic incident and high sunspot activity.
Weather is much more dynamic than climate, because for climate, the short-term variations are averaged out.
As for how adept the scientists are at predicting climate, the predictions from the 1980s and 1990s were very close to being on target. I don't see any reason to think that would have changed.
I read the link, and you are interpreting the graph wrongly. Temperature and CO2 have never climbed as quickly as they have these past 150 years.