Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[FLVOL69]

$

 

[BartW]

Hey Bart. I need your scientific opinion on this please:

Crime, weather, and climate change


This paper estimates the impact of climate change on the prevalence of criminal activity in the United States. The analysis is based on a 30-year panel of monthly crime and weather data for 2997 US counties. I identify the effect of weather on monthly crime by using a semi-parametric bin estimator and controlling for state-by-month and county-by-year fixed effects. The results show that temperature has a strong positive effect on criminal behavior, with little evidence of lagged impacts. Between 2010 and 2099, climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States.

I haven't read it, but I imagine the reasoning is along the same lines as the 'Arab Spring and Climate Change' article I posted earlier. Drought causes food and water shortages that bring about civil and political unrest. So yes, I expect climate change will cause an increase in crime. I don't know what methodology this paper used to arrive at those figures though.

 

[BartW]

How you can continue to put those lies on the board is beyond me? You have no shame. You call yourself a scientist.
VOSTOK ice core

Source? I post peer-reviewed scientific work. You post Fred Singer quality "science" or cherrypick and misrespresent real science.

Anything anyone says you disagree with is dumb. What's wrong with being a creationist? You have a better explanation. But, I don't believe he is. Someone who is skeptical about Darwinism (talk about far-fetched) is not a Creationist. Also, you're starting to reference Muller now? He also stated that Mann's work is a disgrace and he would never reference or refer to their work.

P.S.-Sandvol-Proud member of Denier's Club

Roy Spencer is dumb independently of what I believe (see the rationalwiki link). Creationism is just as dumb as global warming denialism. But what should you expect from someone that denies basic scientific principles such as spectroscopy. Do you think smoking is healthy too? Do you still believe in the myth of the flat earth?

Muller's turnaround is comical. He acts as if climate science is suddenly more robust now that he's confirmed what scientists have known for years.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages"

Aaaaand Muller is now part of the conspiracy

Richard Muller, covert agent for the climate conspiracy

Lol

You ignorant statist. Those technologies are based upon models that actually work. Not ones that don't work.

They’re based on scientific consensuses, which do exist (I’m talking real consensuses, not like the imaginary consensus that Colombus overturned ).

Climate models are quite accurate, despite your incessant claims to the contrary. They’ve predicted several independent phenomena that we’ve subsequently gone out, observed, and measured. AGW theory has predictive power, which separates real science from pseudoscientific BS like creationism.

Climatic Change
March 2014
Linking two centuries of tree growth and glacier dynamics with climate changes in Kamchatka

Yet another paper that you haven't read, much less considered the implications of. I doubt the authors approve of you or your 'skeptic' website misrepresenting their work to cast doubt on AGW.

You're really embracing your new denialist self. The cycle is plain as day.

1. You (a) ask a question (b) make a claim or (c) copypaste from your 'skeptic' website

2. I address your post

3. Instead of considering my response, evaluating the evidence, and responding with a question or counterargument, you ignore everything and move on to your next denialist talking point.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

I'm sure ignorance is bliss. I've been more than willing to honestly and politely discuss the science (and the politics). Your refusal to even engage in discussion means you're willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is a sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, I-II, q. 76, a. 1, a. 3, Whether ignorance can be the cause of sin?: “It is clear that not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act. …This may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is *bound and able to know.”

*Catholics are bound (required) to learn and know their Faith. A sin against faith (often caused by willful ignorance) is the gravest of all sins according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Augustine, Cited by St. Thomas, characterizes sin against faith in these words: Hoc est peccatum quo tenentur cuncta peccata. "This is the sin which comprehends all other sins."

St. Thomas says: "The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sin against faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins."

You are being willfully ignorant. If you're not, counter a single claim I've made in this thread. If you won't respond to the content of my posts there's no reason for me to continue addressing yours.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Not sure if serious... breathing problems aren't what scientists are worried about. My plots (except A1B) are measurements not models. Roy Spencer has said plenty of dumb stuff. He's also a creationist. If radiative forcings from greenhouse gases outweigh decreases in insolation Earth will not cool, it will continue to warm. What do you base your lulzy prophecy on? Gut feeling?

Your measurements are based on climate models. We can't accurately predict the weather a week out. What makes you think climate change is any different?

I'm basing my "prophecy" on nature. What we're going through is natural. It's not that complicated.

 

[BartW]

Your measurements are based on climate models. We can't accurately predict the weather a week out. What makes you think climate change is any different?

I'm basing my "prophecy" on nature. What we're going through is natural. It's not that complicated.

Past temperatures are measurements, not models. Models are used to predict the future. I've gone into the difference between weather and climate ad nauseam. Go back to page 37, posts 1795-1816. Weather is chaotic and highly dependent on initial conditions. Climate is weather averaged over time and space. Climate change only depends on radiative forcings.

Here's a good link PKT found discussing the difference between weather and climate:

Initial value vs. boundary value problems

Or if you want it explained by Bill Nye, the science guy:

Climate Change is Not a Weather Forecast

You are basing your prophecy on gut feel. If it's science, show me the science. Scientists base their predictions on nature. It's not that complicated, but it is more complicated than your simplistic worldview.

 

[BartW]

Y’all still have yet to explain this outlandish global conspiracy theory to me, particularly in the context of posts 2408 and 2410. Who are the conspirators? What is their goal? How do they intend to achieve it? Where is the money coming from, and where is it going? How? Are all those businesses and conservative economists and politicians in on the conspiracy too? How about Muller?

 

[PKT_VOL]

No, it would still be impossible to determine H(x,y,t) for large t because it’s a chaotic system. If the initial conditions are the tiniest fraction of a millimeter off somewhere the whole system will evolve differently.

Here’s another example of chaotic behavior: predator-prey population curves.

While it’s impossible to determine either population at some point in the future with a high degree of accuracy, we can still predict how the curves will trend based on the system’s parameters (e.g. population capacity). Notice how those curves aren’t regular, like we see for global average temperature.

If anything you could argue that solar irradiance is slightly chaotic because orbital dynamics/the n-body problem is chaotic, but I wouldn’t count on the Milankovitch cycles changing anytime soon. We have begun and will continue to diverge from this regular behavior due to AGW though.

But the scientific method doesn’t end at support/reject hypothesis (also note that the options are support/reject, not confirm/reject). You go back to the hypothesis step and repeat the cycle over and over. So far all the data supports AGW and none has caused scientists to reject AGW. Science never claims 100% certainty, and denialists (not you – I mean those that actively participate in the smear campaign) are quick to misrepresent this scientific uncertainty as real doubt. At this point, there is no real doubt among scientists.

There actually has been a lot of work done in isolating the component of warming due to increased greenhouse gases. You’d be surprised just how much we know about climate forcings. Models based on these forcings are backcasted to test if they replicate historical cycles of warming, such as in the Vostok ice core plot above. If you are interested in the topic and would like to know more here are some good places to start: link1 link2. I wouldn't discount AGW based on your perception that we don't have a good grasp on the variables when you aren't actually aware of what we do and don't know. No offense. This is in part a problem on the scientists' side of communicating science to the public.

My post either went in one ear and out the other or it went completely over your head. Not sure which.

If you don't know what would convince you, let me ask a follow up question. How long do we wait before we admit that we have a problem that requires action?

Not much we can do. Like any other crisis, necessity breeds a solution via technology/ingenuity. Realistically, we are not to that point.

 

[BartW]

My post either went in one ear and out the other or it went completely over your head. Not sure which.

Doubt it, but try reformulating your argument and let's see. Do you still think climate exhibits chaos like weather?

Not much we can do. Like any other crisis, necessity breeds a solution via technology/ingenuity. Realistically, we are not to that point.

 

[Obsessed]

Doubt it, but try reformulating your argument and let's see. Do you still think climate exhibits chaos like weather?

Oh no you didn't!

You better hope they don't take the chain off pkt or you are going to wish you skipped his post.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I posted this months ago but noone responded. If a volcano erupting just once or twice releases as much co2 as every car on the planet now does....and you believe the earth is billions of years old...and seismic/volcanic activity is constant....how did humans manage to ruin the atmosphere in say 150 years since the industrial revolution?

I think its all BS. Nature operates in cycles. We have little to no effect.

 

[Obsessed]

I posted this months ago but noone responded. If a volcano erupting just once or twice releases as much co2 as every car on the planet now does....and you believe the earth is billions of years old...and seismic activity is constant....how did humans manage to ruin the atmosphere in say 150 years since the industrial revolution?

I think its all BS. Nature operates in cycles. We have little to no effect.

I've made the same assertions. But volcanos don't get as much grant money.

Old faithful could belch and put half of the USA in turmoil.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

I posted this months ago but noone responded. If a volcano erupting just once or twice releases as much co2 as every car on the planet now does....and you believe the earth is billions of years old...and seismic/volcanic activity is constant....how did humans manage to ruin the atmosphere in say 150 years since the industrial revolution?

I think its all BS. Nature operates in cycles. We have little to no effect.

Common sense my friend. Man's impact is negligible.

 

[tumscalcium]

Doubt it, but try reformulating your argument and let's see. Do you still think climate exhibits chaos like weather?

Your cute little cartoon suggests that we may run into climate change but have yet to be affected by it at all.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I've made the same assertions. But volcanos don't get as much grant money.

Old faithful could belch and put half of the USA in turmoil.

Old faithful could wreck the entire planet.

 

[Obsessed]

Old faithful could wreck the entire planet.

Agreed.

My implication was that a simple belch could/can bring us to our knees.

Makes my f150 look like a amoeba in the grand scheme of things.

 

[BartW]

I posted this months ago but noone responded. If a volcano erupting just once or twice releases as much co2 as every car on the planet now does....and you believe the earth is billions of years old...and seismic/volcanic activity is constant....how did humans manage to ruin the atmosphere in say 150 years since the industrial revolution?

I think its all BS. Nature operates in cycles. We have little to no effect.

We've covered this myth already. Besides illustrating a poor understanding of the carbon cycle it’s also just factually incorrect. Humans presently emit 29 billion tons of CO2 each year, more than 100 times as much as volcanoes.

Volcanoes actually have a transient cooling effect due to the aerosols (mainly SO2) they shoot into the stratosphere.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emssions?

 

[BartW]

Oh no you didn't!

You better hope they don't take the chain off pkt or you are going to wish you skipped his post.

Haha I can’t resist. People get pissy in this thread when I skip their posts.

Though tbh I think many in here are butthurt already because I want to have a serious discussion about climate change and don’t dumb my arguments down to soundbites.

I've made the same assertions. But volcanos don't get as much grant money.

Old faithful could belch and put half of the USA in turmoil.

You’d be surprised, there's tons of research on volcanoes. My neighbor is actually a volcanologist.

Yellowstone has been unusually active lately… pray it doesn’t blow, because ‘turmoil’ is an understatement!

 

[Obsessed]

Haha I can’t resist. People get pissy in this thread when I skip their posts.

Though tbh I think many in here are butthurt already because I want to have a serious discussion about climate change and don’t dumb my arguments down to soundbites.



You’d be surprised, there's tons of research on volcanoes. My neighbor is actually a volcanologist.

Yellowstone has been unusually active lately… pray it doesn’t blow, because ‘turmoil’ is an understatement!

I think you will enjoy your debate with pkt.

And you are correct. Yellowstone has been extremely active lately. I know folks in the field as well. And if she decides she's ready, nothing else will matter.

Please understand, I don't mean to take away from your work. I just find it, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Yellowstone could blow a hour from now, and carbon credits can't save us. While your notion, along with others is admirable, it's not realistic.

 

[BartW]

I think you will enjoy your debate with pkt.

And you are correct. Yellowstone has been extremely active lately. I know folks in the field as well. And if she decides she's ready, nothing else will matter.

Please understand, I don't mean to take away from your work. I just find it, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Yellowstone could blow a hour from now, and carbon credits can't save us. While your notion, along with others is admirable, it's not realistic.

No offense taken. It's not my work, I'm just able to understand it because of my background in physics and earth science. Though I do feel it's my duty to try my best to communicate it to the public.

We can prevent AGW. There's not much we can do about volcanic eruptions.

If an asteroid is on course to wipe out Earth, would you have us divert it or sit back and wait for the end?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Doubt it, but try reformulating your argument and let's see. Do you still think climate exhibits chaos like weather?

Depends on how one defines "chaos". Like I have stated multiple times, "weather" and "climate" are both apart of the same system. If chaos theory applies to one, it applies to the other.

Where do you see the political willpower, worldwide, to enact the change you believe is necessary given the present effects of climate change?

 

[BartW]

Depends on how one defines "chaos". Like I have stated multiple times, "weather" and "climate" are both apart of the same system. If chaos theory applies to one, it applies to the other.

I've defined chaos multiple times. It's not a subjective thing. It's a unique mathematical and physical phenomenon. Weather exhibits chaos - predictions for the state at a specific time and location are highly dependant on initial conditions. Those initial conditions are poorly constrained by measurement. Modeling climate is not an initial condition problem. It's a boundary value problem. All you have to know is how much heat is entering and leaving the system.

If you haven’t looked at the initial value vs. boundary value link yet it does a pretty good job of explaining it. The comments are insightful as well. Here’s another link:

Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

"One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting.

However, climate is not weather, and modeling is not forecasting.

Although it is generally not possible to predict a specific future state of a chaotic system (there is no telling what temperature it will be in Oregon on December 21 2012), it is still possible to make statistical claims about the behavior of the system as a whole (it is very likely that Oregon's December 2012 temperatures will be colder than its July 2012 temperatures). There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as El Nino and fluid turbulence, but they all have much less long-term influence than the greenhouse effect. It's a little like an airplane flying through stormy weather: It may be buffeted around from moment to moment, but it can still move from one airport to another.

Nor do climate models generally produce weather forecasts. Models often run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties (one example: Easterling 2009). This is, incidentally, a technique used by mathematicians to study the Lorenz functions."

Where do you see the political willpower, worldwide, to enact the change you believe is necessary given the present effects of climate change?

There are various carbon taxes already in effect around the world. I've listed several businesses and conservative politicians and economists here in the US that support a carbon tax. Really only the US, China, and Russia are impeding global-scale action. I think it'll take another Cuyahoga or two before we get our priorities straight.

 

[tumscalcium]

No offense taken. It's not my work, I'm just able to understand it because of my background in physics and earth science. Though I do feel it's my duty to try my best to communicate it to the public.

We can prevent AGW. There's not much we can do about volcanic eruptions.

If an asteroid is on course to wipe out Earth, would you have us divert it or sit back and wait for the end?

We can't divert one. But we sure know you'd want an asteroid tax.

 

[BartW]

We can't divert one. But we sure know you'd want an asteroid tax.

Lolwut? Analogy fail. You still don’t understand the carbon tax. It’s revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon tax will be matched by tax cuts elsewhere. We’re not raising money to stop global warming. We’re taxing carbon to curb emissions and encourage sustainable development. How is a tax supposed to stop an asteroid?

We could, if necessary, prevent an asteroid impact. You might want to read up on asteroid impact avoidance, or take it up with the fine folks in the space debris thread.

What if we experience a global pandemic? Should we try to cure it, or just accept that it’s our time?

You (and others here) suffer severe dominionist delusions. I bet you’re just giddy for the rapture.

 

[utvolpj]

It’s revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon tax will be matched by tax cuts elsewhere.

what was the last real tax cut passed?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

what was the last real tax cut passed?

Also if this is sooo important, why has the Dem controlled Senate not brought it up for a vote? They have been in control for 8 years and havent brought up one Global Warming bill.