[FrankMstein]

Weather is not an exact science, hence the theories differ. I have seen "scientists" argue North and round....

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

Weather is not an exact science, hence the theories differ. I have seen "scientists" argue North and round....

and I have seen "scientists" argue the sky is falling.

There is a difference between "theories differ" and "theories directly clash".

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Scientists universally agree which way is north, that the earth is round and that water is wet. They don't universally agree on on climate, let alone much else.

They absolutely do not agree the Earth is round. They agree it's an oblate spheroid.

I figured I'd add the pedantic, troll posting in this thread.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by JMcLellan

The arrogance on both sides of the climate change argument is really annoying. To assume we know how a billions-years-old planet is going to react long-term is stupid. We are just a little dot in time.

However, I do agree that there are things that humans are doing that are causing changes and I am for people making changes to preserve what we have.

No, it's not stupid. We know about billions of years of evolution by looking at the deep fossil record and genetics. And we do similar work with climate. We understand a lot about the drivers of climate over billions of years by looking at many different lines of evidence and finding a lot of concordance.

The techniques used are sensitive and brilliant, but not perfect. And if you read the work of actual scientists, you'll find them not so much arrogant, but rather explicit about uncertainty.

People substitute they popular media's depiction that sometimes mentions science for the characterizations of scientists themselves and that's a mistake.

The ice core data are super robust and give us a glimpse back close to a million years. Climate is influenced by a number of drivers. GHGs are and have been one of those and that's the one we are tweaking right now. It would be foolish to assume we WOULDNT get climate change based on what we're doing to the atmosphere. Really, physics.

[ezaircon4jc]

The weather guessers can't get it right from day to day, why would I trust some computer generated model? The computer model is only as good as the programmers. I remember the first rule of thumb when I took a FORTRAN class way back when... garbage in, garbage out.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

The weather guessers can't get it right from day to day, why would I trust some computer generated model? The computer model is only as good as the programmers. I remember the first rule of thumb when I took a FORTRAN class way back when... garbage in, garbage out.

The reality is that weather forecasts are quite good, but not perfect. That said, predicting weather and climate are different in many ways.

It's really not a useful comparison.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

The reality is that weather forecasts are quite good, but not perfect. That said, predicting weather and climate are different in many ways.

It's really not a useful comparison.

When I was at SLC we checked with the WX service every morning to see what the wind was going to do. We went opposite what they said and were right well over 50% of the time.

Climate is a function of weather, is it not? Weather prediction is the short-term, climate is long term based on history. It's just too bad there isn't that much quantifiable history and too much computer modeling (which is inherently biased to the programmer's beliefs).

[cooolone2]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

We know much more than a few hundred years through a variety of lines of evidence.

Really? Wow, trying to be smart, my point on Dunning Kruger! Lines of evidence from what? Ice cores... Cave paintings? We don't know shyt thank you. Maybe you'd like to explain the changes in deep ocean currents then and their effect on the El Nino's and how that effects weather patterns. Maybe someone could explain the salinity change occuring due to ice melt and how that's effecting the oceans. Micro plastics and it's effect on ocean viscosity...

Lines of evidence? Yeah, ok!

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by cooolone2

Really? Wow, trying to be smart, my point on Dunning Kruger! Lines of evidence from what? Ice cores... Cave paintings? We don't know shyt thank you. Maybe you'd like to explain the changes in deep ocean currents then and their effect on the El Nino's and how that effects weather patterns. Maybe someone could explain the salinity change occuring due to ice melt and how that's effecting the oceans. Micro plastics and it's effect on ocean viscosity...

Lines of evidence? Yeah, ok!

Yes. There are a number of reports on climate proxies that you can read and the concordance of multiple lines of evidence in the construction of past climate.

The stable isotope work is particularly interesting, but it goes beyond that.

And for our current circumstances, the driver changing the most is GHG concentrations by far. So, we really should expect warming unless there is something that would mitigate it: some other driver offsetting the effect of almost doubling GHG concentrations and we can't find that thing.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

When I was at SLC we checked with the WX service every morning to see what the wind was going to do. We went opposite what they said and were right well over 50% of the time.

Climate is a function of weather, is it not? Weather prediction is the short-term, climate is long term based on history. It's just too bad there isn't that much quantifiable history and too much computer modeling (which is inherently biased to the programmer's beliefs).

Our understanding of climate comes significantly from our understanding of physics. And what we know about climate change doesn't come from the model, the model comes from what we know about climate physics. Now, we do use that model for scenario analysis, that is true.

[floridaorange]

Ya there's no way polluting the planet could have a ripple affect on ecosystems contributing to how weather works. If that were the case you'd probably see terrible fires on the west coast where it's dryer and much stronger storms on the east coast where it rains often.

[dreamingat30fps]

The issue is not climate change. As with so many issues these days IMO the actual issue is the fairy tale solutions put forth to "solve" these problems. Solutions that would only work in some made up fairy tale world.

So temps are going up 2-10 degrees over the next 100 years... sea levels might rise 2-5 feet... ok what do we do? Easy, just stop using all fossil fuels, make everything electric and power it with renewable energy sources and unicorn farts and then MAYBE we can REDUCE global warming.

What about China, Russia and the other 100s of developing countries that don't give half a shit about any of this? Fuck them.

The people proposing these solutions cannot possibly think they are actually going to work. Then instead of coming up with alternate solutions or mitigations they keep going on and on about the same nonsense that's just not going to happen in the real world we live in. Plus even if we did manage to do it there is no guarantee it's going to do anything, so there should still be a plan b and c.

Start migrating inland and invest in some good AC if you plan to be around in a hundred years.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Bking60

Several older homes around Charleston SC have been raised to where the living space floor is 10-12 feet above sea level. They are saying that by 2060 that won't be enough. My garage is only about 8ft above sea level but I'm 11 miles up a river. During the 1000-year flood we had, the water was deep on my road, but the backyard creek attached to the river was only up a little over the king tides we have. My house will be fine for decades but around 2050 water may get into the garage during storms. It has flood vents to let water inside if it's a foot deep outside to equalize pressure on the foundation.

The feds are beginning to require these increases in elevation if the homeowner wants to retain flood insurance.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

The feds are beginning to require these increases in elevation if the homeowner wants to retain flood insurance.

Federal flood insurance can create a perverse incentive to rebuild in a place that will only be an increasingly risky place to be.

Climate will force us to make some hard choices.

[Bking60]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

The issue is not climate change. As with so many issues these days IMO the actual issue is the fairy tale solutions put forth to "solve" these problems. Solutions that would only work in some made up fairy tale world.

So temps are going up 2-10 degrees over the next 100 years... sea levels might rise 2-5 feet... ok what do we do? Easy, just stop using all fossil fuels, make everything electric and power it with renewable energy sources and unicorn farts and then MAYBE we can REDUCE global warming.

What about China, Russia and the other 100s of developing countries that don't give half a shit about any of this? Fuck them.

The people proposing these solutions cannot possibly think they are actually going to work. Then instead of coming up with alternate solutions or mitigations they keep going on and on about the same nonsense that's just not going to happen in the real world we live in. Plus even if we did manage to do it there is no guarantee it's going to do anything, so there should still be a plan b and c.

Start migrating inland and invest in some good AC if you plan to be around in a hundred years.

Smog is really bad in several big cities, plus it blows towards areas that think they have no smog. This is one of the major factors driving electric cars in states like CA. It's a very valid reason especially when added to all the other reasons. Too bad the battery technology is not very good when talking huge sheets of batteries tied together.

[bayarea328xit]

What the Earth Knows

Humans are having an impact on the environment; what that impact means for the climate is a question that requires scientific research.

When the grants for scientific research depend on the results of the study, we run into issues with basic human self-interest and politics.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by bayarea328xit

What the Earth Knows

Humans are having an impact on the environment; what that impact means for the climate is a question that requires scientific research.

When the grants for scientific research depend on the results of the study, we run into issues with basic human self-interest and politics.

The notion that you have to show that climate change is real to get grants is an absolute myth. In fact, if you could show that there was no warming or that releasing GHGs doesn't increase warming, you'd be a very wealthy person. There are soooo many people, interests, and sectors that would like it to not be true, that they would be quite relieved to see those results.

The models are published and the ice cores sent hard to get ahold of. The physics on the gases are well known and a middle school science fair project can be done to confirm the basic findings.

It would take a conspiracy of monumental proportions to fake the findings and keep it secret. The scientific process is robust and would have exposed the fraud long ago.

And it's odd that climate researches are forever faced with "you're just saying that to get more grants." What about doctors doing pediatric cancer researchers? Where's the skepticism with them? Are they not saying children have cancer just to get grants???

I work with a great many climatologists. They are good people and conduct their science with integrity. There results are reviewed by their peers and you can review their results, too. The scientific community can actually be quite savage and if they were to try to publish weak or questionable results, their peers would take them to task.

The basic conclusions are sound. There is always room for discussion, but we know enough to make a great many decisions about what we might do in response. Climate change resulting from GHG emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion is very real.

[bayarea328xit]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

And it's odd that climate researches are forever faced with "you're just saying that to get more grants." What about doctors doing pediatric cancer researchers? Where's the skepticism with them? Are they not saying children have cancer just to get grants???

There is a big difference between climate change and other areas of scientific research. Would you agree that climate change research has the biggest social and political impact in the developed and developing countries? If not, what other area of scientific research has a bigger social/political impact?

Also, notice that China takes a different approach in forming their response to signals re climate change -- their approach is different from the US and Europe in many ways. Assuming their scientists are seeing the same data as ours, doesn't it suggest that policy implementation (as a response to climate change) is not as clear cut as our policy makers would like us to believe?

Note: I want to clarify that I am not saying that the scientific research related to climate change is fundamentally flawed; I am saying that the interpretation of what the results/data mean and how to craft a social/political policy around that interpretation is flawed. I tied grants to political policy because large scale funding of basic research is part of federal and state government spending.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by bayarea328xit

If not, what other area of scientific research has a bigger social/political impact?

Medicine, specifically immunology

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by bayarea328xit

There is a big difference between climate change and other areas of scientific research. Would you agree that climate change research has the biggest social and political impact in the developed and developing countries? If not, what other area of scientific research has a bigger social/political impact?

Also, notice that China takes a different approach in forming their response to signals re climate change -- their approach is different from the US and Europe in many ways. Assuming their scientists are seeing the same data as ours, doesn't it suggest that policy implementation (as a response to climate change) is not as clear cut as our policy makers would like us to believe?

Note: I want to clarify that I am not saying that the scientific research related to climate change is fundamentally flawed; I am saying that the interpretation of what the results/data mean and how to craft a social/political policy around that interpretation is flawed. I tied grants to political policy because large scale funding of basic research is part of federal and state government spending.

I think it's fair to emphasize the distinction between science and policy for sure and that science can inform policy, but not decide policy. Moreover, scientists risk credibility when they stray too far from science and into policy debates.

[bayarea328xit]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

I think it's fair to emphasize the distinction between science and policy for sure and that science can inform policy, but not decide policy. Moreover, scientists risk credibility when they stray too far from science and into policy debates.

I agree with above - I always worry when science (well outside the technical aspects of the scientific field) is used to support broad policy decisions - for example, US nuclear energy policy.

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

The weather guessers can't get it right from day to day, why would I trust some computer generated model? The computer model is only as good as the programmers. I remember the first rule of thumb when I took a FORTRAN class way back when... garbage in, garbage out.

I remember in the 70's watching the weather and it being wrong a lot. After becoming a pilot in the 80's, weather watching was a necessity. I have continued to watch the forecasting and reporting accuracy and it has evolved quite a bit compared to 30-40 years ago. Around the 2005 time range after AI was applied it has certainly advanced.