Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,352
#1,352
TennTradition said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, how much have we decreased our output as compared to other countries? Seems I have seen reports that say we have done a hell of a job while others are still on the increase.....like China, the EU, and India. China's is going through the freaking roof. So where is the advantage in ruining our economy which gives us absolutely NO hope in eventually creating better technologies to reduce and eliminate CO2 output while other countries don't give a **** and keep growing their economies? I don't see the upside to that.
 
Last edited:
#1,354
#1,354
TennTradition said:
Reading some forums, it looks like it must happen. People report 49-52 mpg at 72-73 mph with a loss of 0.5-1 mpg every mph over that. So, 40 mpg at 80 mph seems feasible. I have no firsthand experience.
Click to expand...

How many mpg do they get with your foot on the floor?

It is still a ugly ass car the folks that buy them would be better served spending that money on buying and planting trees if they really wanted to do something beneficial for plant earth
 
#1,355
#1,355
82_VOL_83 said:
Hmmm, how much have we decreased our output as compared to other countries? Seems I have seen reports that say we have done a hell of a job while others are still on the increase.....like China, the EU, and India. China's is going through the freaking roof. So where is the advantage in ruining our economy which gives us absolutely NO hope in eventually creating better technologies to reduce and eliminate CO2 output while other countries don't give a **** and keep growing their economies? I don't see the upside to that.
Click to expand...

Our emissions per capita were fairly constant from 1983 to 2007. They have fallen since 2007. Note that while the per capita quantity was constant in that period, the total emissions were still growing.

The recent drop is probably a combined effect of the economy and coal policy I would imagine. They have fallen about 10-15% I think. Even with that, we're still in the rank I was citing.

For sure China and India have been growing during these periods because they are in a period of rapid industrialization.
 
#1,356
#1,356
TennTradition said:
But what exactly is stupid about probability models?

What IS a probability model to you?
Click to expand...

All probability models are to me, is a best educated guess on what will happen, given the accuracy of data sets they enter into the probability model. To me, forecasting this stuff 50 years into the future is foolish. We have so many things that those bright minds could be tackling right now, but instead the focus is on GHG and the effect or non-effect of what they might have down the road. It just seems like an awful waste of highly intelligent people's time.
 
#1,357
#1,357
g8terh8ter_eric said:
All probability models are to me, is a best educated guess on what will happen, given the accuracy of data sets they enter into the probability model. To me, forecasting this stuff 50 years into the future is foolish. We have so many things that those bright minds could be tackling right now, but instead the focus is on GHG and the effect or non-effect of what they might have down the road. It just seems like an awful waste of highly intelligent people's time.
Click to expand...

In my opinion there is nothing stupid about a "probability model". It is a tool like any other model. In fact, it IS any other model. The difference is that probability distributions for inputs, or discrete different values for inputs, are placed into the model, which produces a range of outputs that are assigned probabilities based on frequency of outcome. It is really a way you choose to run the model when faced with uncertain inputs.

As for the comments about forecasting things out 50 years - climate models are not weather models. They aren't taking weather models and just running them out 50 or 100 years. The detail of the physics that are included/captured are different and what is asked of the model as far as outputs is different. The granularity is also very different.
 
#1,358
#1,358
TennTradition said:
In my opinion there is nothing stupid about a "probability model". It is a tool like any other model. In fact, it IS any other model. The difference is that probability distributions for inputs, or discrete different values for inputs, are placed into the model, which produces a range of outputs that are assigned probabilities based on frequency of outcome. It is really a way you choose to run the model when faced with uncertain inputs.

As for the comments about forecasting things out 50 years - climate models are not weather models. They aren't taking weather models and just running them out 50 or 100 years. The detail of the physics that are included/captured are different and what is asked of the model as far as outputs is different. The granularity is also very different.
Click to expand...

When you can come up with a probability model that will predict the weather for a week with better than a 50% chance of being right I will trust your predictions for 50 years from now. But until then, learn to walk before you fly.
 
#1,359
#1,359
82_VOL_83 said:
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.
Click to expand...

My man. A correlation is when two variables have a similar trend. As co2 emission has increased, global temperatures has increased as well. I then began to say corration does not prove causation in its basic form, but when attributing prior knowledge to the variables interaction with one another, it becomes easier for scientist to make an argument for causation.
 
#1,360
#1,360
82_VOL_83 said:
Hmmm, how much have we decreased our output as compared to other countries? Seems I have seen reports that say we have done a hell of a job while others are still on the increase.....like China, the EU, and India. China's is going through the freaking roof. So where is the advantage in ruining our economy which gives us absolutely NO hope in eventually creating better technologies to reduce and eliminate CO2 output while other countries don't give a **** and keep growing their economies? I don't see the upside to that.
Click to expand...

And that is the biggest problem about environmental politics. Getting the world to cooperate and "sacrafice" is not an easy objective.
 
#1,362
#1,362
TennTradition said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only obvious to AGW supporters.
 
#1,363
#1,363
Persian Vol said:
My man

No, not now, not ever.

A correlation is when two variables have a similar trend

No, it isn't. Go back and get your dictionary out.

As co2 emission has increased, global temperatures has increased as well. I then began to say corration does not prove causation in its basic form, but when attributing prior knowledge to the variables interaction with one another, it becomes easier for scientist to make an argument for causation.

Blah blah blah again and again.
Click to expand...

:no:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,364
#1,364
Persian Vol said:
My man. A correlation is when two variables have a similar trend. As co2 emission has increased, global temperatures has increased as well. I then began to say corration does not prove causation in its basic form, but when attributing prior knowledge to the variables interaction with one another, it becomes easier for scientist to make an argument for causation.
Click to expand...

Not a fact. You alarmists keep stating things as if they were a fact when they're not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,365
#1,365
82_VOL_83 said:
When you can come up with a probability model that will predict the weather for a week with better than a 50% chance of being right I will trust your predictions for 50 years from now. But until then, learn to walk before you fly.
Click to expand...

As I said above, it is a different kind of model. Besides, last I checked temperature forecasts are usually pretty good.

As for these 'probability' models, there sure are a lot of opinions on them.
 
#1,369
#1,369
TennTradition said:
What does that even mean?

Perhaps "only obvious to someone who knows anything about modeling" would have been appropriate.
Click to expand...

It means you're the product of herd mentality. Its not obvious climate fluctuations can be predicted with probability calculations. Maybe you don't have a clue what the inputs to the algorithms should be. If you did maybe you'd have a better track record.
 
#1,370
#1,370
Sandvol said:
It means you're the product of herd mentality. Its not obvious climate fluctuations can be predicted with probability calculations. Maybe you don't have a clue what the inputs to the algorithms should be. If you did maybe you'd have a better track record.
Click to expand...

Any model is sensitive to its inputs. Thus the obvious. This has nothing to do with herd mentality. It has everything to do with understanding how models work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,373
#1,373
TennTradition said:
Any model is sensitive to its inputs. Thus the obvious. This has nothing to do with herd mentality. It has everything to do with understanding how models work.
Click to expand...

Any model is sensitive to its inputs.-correct

Thus the obvious.-incorrect

This has nothing to do with herd mentality.-incorrect

It has everything to do with understanding how models work.-incorrect
 
#1,375
#1,375
Sandvol said:
Any model is sensitive to its inputs.-correct

Thus the obvious.-incorrect

This has nothing to do with herd mentality.-incorrect

It has everything to do with understanding how models work.-incorrect
Click to expand...

I was giving you too much credit.

Let me review for you.

1) I saw obviously (climate) models are sensitive to (accurate) inputs

2) You say obvious only to AGW supporters

3) I say obvious to anyone who understands how models work.

4) You disagree. You say it's obvious only to AGW supporters yet you agree all models are sensitive to their inputs.

Are you saying only AGW supporters are intelligent enough for this point you know to be true to be obvious instead?

I'm sorry but saying models are sensitive to their inputs - whether that be a climate model or a reaction model - is not a herd mentality. It is understanding how models work.

That is the point my post was making in saying something was obvious so I have no idea what you are disagreeing with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top