Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,326
#1,326
MercyPercy said:
What? If the water levels continue to rise as they have and are projected to, the Maldives will be mostly under water. It's simple math.

I'm not trying to be alarmist about anything, in fact I've made a concerted effort to try and keep politics out of my last couple posts. The scientific fact is that the sea level is steadily rising, low lying areas are the first to see its effects. that's all.
Click to expand...

I could give a crap about the Maldives.....half the "projected" rise puts a majority of South Florida under water. With a 7 foot rise, Andrew would have had waves flowing from the east coast to the west.
 
#1,327
#1,327
Persian Vol said:
The correlation is between increasing global average temperatures and increasing CO2 emissions. Global temperatures has increased and CO2 emission had increased as well. As a result, you can say there is a "correlation between A and B". That itself is nothing to warrant a scientific argument. Factor in the greenhouse effect and and the relationship to one another, "causation" begins too be made through scientific explanations for why the global averages have increased as of late.
Click to expand...

WHAT is the correlation then? Just saying they are related just means there is a correlation. I am asking you what the correlation is? After your "As a result" sentence, you begin to jibber jabber as Sheldon would say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,328
#1,328
TennTradition said:
I think this is how the US will ultimately address any issues from rising CO2 rather than aggressively curbing emissions to stave off the potential issues. I've been stared at like I have two heads when I've said as much in the fine halls of academia. But I believe it is the most likely outcome. I do not see the US passing aggressive GHG legislation given our current political climate.

The problem I have with that is it will only be the nations that are most wealthy that can afford to protect themselves if problems do arise - and in that scenario it is the emissions of those countries that will have caused the issue they have protected themselves from. Less developed nations will not have the resources to protect themselves in all cases, yet they also didn't even contribute to most of the problem.

If that scenario does play out, it's going to be a bitter pill to swallow. I'm sure there'd be aid, but still....
Click to expand...

I think if you look where we are today, our emissions are way down. You want to ***** at someone, ***** at the rest of the f'ing world. China is the smog capital of the damn world. India burns everything in sight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,330
#1,330
82_VOL_83 said:
I think if you look where we are today, our emissions are way down. You want to ***** at someone, ***** at the rest of the f'ing world. China is the smog capital of the damn world. India burns everything in sight.
Click to expand...

In 2012, the US was second in total CO2 emissions. Interestingly, we had about half as much as China, but over twice as much as India. Our emissions per capita blow there's out of the water though.
 
#1,331
#1,331
TennTradition said:
That quote was from 2009 - using data that was likely from 2008 and back. I imagine they have or will be updating variables as better or more recent data is available.

The more important question is why did the transfer rate increase in recent years and how can that dynamic be better captured in the models.
Click to expand...

Who said the transfer rate increased? You're not being very objective.
 
Last edited:
#1,332
#1,332
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I'm waiting for the government to start handing out a Prius to each family. Just imagine if they did that, how much gas would be saved instantly.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Most priuses I see are speeding by me which leads me to believe they really aren't saving on gas...So give Johny Leadfoot a POS Prius and watch the confusion.
 
#1,333
#1,333
Sandvol said:
Who said the transfer rate increased?
Click to expand...

They may not have increased. I haven't seen the measurements Prinn was using nor the current values the IPCC is stating.

They could actually be the same if the numbers in the previous climate models were artificially high. But I suspect the new number the IPCC is using is higher than the number Prinn used - because he is likely part of the group calling this a 'new' higher transfer rate.
 
#1,334
#1,334
FLVOL_79 said:
Dunno. Most priuses I see are speeding by me which leads me to believe they really aren't saving on gas...So give Johny Leadfoot a POS Prius and watch the confusion.
Click to expand...

Even going 80mph, they get better MPG than non-hybrids. Even if it was even at that speeds, the city driving alone would make it no contest.
 
#1,342
#1,342
TennTradition said:
They may not have increased. I haven't seen the measurements Prinn was using nor the current values the IPCC is stating.

They could actually be the same if the numbers in the previous climate models were artificially high. But I suspect the new number the IPCC is using is higher than the number Prinn used - because he is likely part of the group calling this a 'new' higher transfer rate.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean they said it changed. It just means its different than what they thought. Maybe all these probability models aren't really predictive of climate sensitivity at all.
 
#1,347
#1,347
Sandvol said:
But that doesn't mean they said it changed. It just means its different than what they thought. Maybe all these probability models aren't really predictive of climate sensitivity at all.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't know if:

A) there were accurate measurements early in the 2000s and then later accurate measurements and those two were different

B) the old measurements were deemed inaccurate and the new are believed to be more reliable

C) there are no new measurements, just a belief that it must be higher than previously thought and new measurements will be forthcoming

D) something else

Regardless, the climate models are obviously sensitive to accurate measurements for key inputs where available or meaningful probability distributions around likely values for those variables when accurate measurements are not available.
 
#1,349
#1,349
TennTradition said:
You sure about that?
Click to expand...

I know it's been used before, but weather maps change daily, just due to the fact that different factors and data change on a daily basis. It's like trying to predict what my farts will smell like, by trying to predict what I will eat for the day.

I've had this conversation before, but taking care of the planet should be a primary goal for everyone. If we worry about today, and do our best with what we have, then tomorrow will work itself out. Probably an overly simplistic view, but its a lot better than trying to prophesize the damnation of the planet by man with probability models. Besides, if people didn't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make these predictions, they never would happen, and they would be focused on something else.
 
#1,350
#1,350
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I know it's been used before, but weather maps change daily, just due to the fact that different factors and data change on a daily basis. It's like trying to predict what my farts will smell like, by trying to predict what I will eat for the day.

I've had this conversation before, but taking care of the planet should be a primary goal for everyone. If we worry about today, and do our best with what we have, then tomorrow will work itself out. Probably an overly simplistic view, but its a lot better than trying to prophesize the damnation of the planet by man with probability models. Besides, if people didn't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make these predictions, they never would happen, and they would be focused on something else.
Click to expand...

But what exactly is stupid about probability models?

What IS a probability model to you?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top