gyrofry posted:I like how
Superabound posted:daddyholes posted:lol that kid is cool as fuck. i bet he broke his arm doing a wicked jump
yeah it's really the best link itt and on the zzone right now
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot… ”They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”
“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
hubris and folly from our cretinous technocratic elite
Panopticon posted:i don't know very much about climate models, did the IPCC actually say why they are now 95% confident in theirs?
probably because they are paid off by big green to act as consultants on wind farms and shit, and if they said they were only 50-50 then chicks in suits with dreads won't give them blowjobs at german ecology industry conferences.
Panopticon posted:i don't know very much about climate models, did the IPCC actually say why they are now 95% confident in theirs?
no but you can see what they're doing, doubling down on a Big Lie is what institutions do when things start falling apart: 'you're doing a heck of a job Brownie.
Regardless of the politics of it, i'm sick to death of how being wary or sceptical of computer models (that are constantly being proven wrong or inadequate) are labelled as 'deniers' and dismissed. It's truly pathetic and the media/UN/Big Science/Green Energy sectors have cried wolf so many times that it's starting to become farcical.
Right before the 2012 election i saw progressive commentators basically state that Hurricane Sandy was Gaia's punishment for America's sinful resource-intensive economy. That is some fucked up wacky creationist bullshit and it's sad how many people have drunk the kool-aid.
Turns out that there's been no actual increase of hurricanes due to climate change at all, are we meant to now just ignore all the carpetbaggers and Green Gatsby's who have pushed huge amounts of fear and panic into peoples lives based more on a pathological need for attention rather than anything that could be called rational thought.
Truly disgusting.
roseweird posted:i don't know or care that much about global warming but we regardless are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and it would make me happy if we focused on using what is left to manufacture and install solar panels, because doing that will require a lot of energy that we won't have anymore after we've burned everything on cell phones and cars and feeding 20billion humans. anyway talking about climate change if you are not an atmospheric chemist is just a way to cryptically communicate your values wrt current industrial forms and your hopes for their future extensions or modifications, it's a shame to see you falling for it iwc
what do atmospheric chemists know about oceans or solar radiation
jack
fucking
shit
roseweird posted:regardless of what you believe about climate change a global economy based on fossil fuels and their byproducts is gross and unsustainable and it seems naive to point to the dishonesty and hyperbole of climate researchers without putting it in the context of a fossil fuel lobby that has a long history of dismissing much less controversial environmental/public health concerns, because the only thing they want is to dig up and sell all of the earth's goos and gassy discharges. basically if the entire world fell for a climate hoax but the end result was a global economy running on solar and nuclear power i would say it was a pretty good lie
yeah this is a wonderful fantasy i suppose, i'll pass it along to the coal mienrs and manufacturers who lose their jobs in support of silly rainbow-chasing green schemes
roseweird posted:please, donald, consider the legacy you will leave for the future
you're right... i'm going to go into finance so i can donate to the Rose W. Eirdelstein Center for Human Evolution
roseweird posted:i don't know or care that much about global warming but we regardless are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and it would make me happy if we focused on using what is left to manufacture and install solar panels, because doing that will require a lot of energy that we won't have anymore after we've burned everything on cell phones and cars and feeding 20billion humans. anyway talking about climate change if you are not an atmospheric chemist is just a way to cryptically communicate your values wrt current industrial forms and your hopes for their future extensions or modifications, it's a shame to see you falling for it iwc
Problem: While only scientists are equipped to actually understand global warming, they have neither the time, training, nor power to effect the policy which can avert catastrophic climate change. As such there must be a discourse between scientists and individuals within the social-political power structures capable of enacting effective policy, even if the politicians or activists or revolutionaries cannot independently judge the accuracy of claims about ocean acidification on deep sea carbon sequestration.
Of course for most people talking about CC is just a way to check which tv pundits their acquaintances are watching, but that doesn't mean there isn't reasons for non-experts to hold an opinion.
also lol if you think iwc believes anything he says
Ironicwarcriminal posted:roseweird posted:i don't know or care that much about global warming but we regardless are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and it would make me happy if we focused on using what is left to manufacture and install solar panels, because doing that will require a lot of energy that we won't have anymore after we've burned everything on cell phones and cars and feeding 20billion humans. anyway talking about climate change if you are not an atmospheric chemist is just a way to cryptically communicate your values wrt current industrial forms and your hopes for their future extensions or modifications, it's a shame to see you falling for it iwc
what do atmospheric chemists know about oceans or solar radiation
jack
fucking
shit
gee i wonder what chemical oceanographers and physicists have to say about global warming...
ilmdge posted:well if iwc says climate science is bunk that's good enough for me
how many times have we heard 'the science is settled'?
Squalid posted:roseweird posted:
i don't know or care that much about global warming but we regardless are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and it would make me happy if we focused on using what is left to manufacture and install solar panels, because doing that will require a lot of energy that we won't have anymore after we've burned everything on cell phones and cars and feeding 20billion humans. anyway talking about climate change if you are not an atmospheric chemist is just a way to cryptically communicate your values wrt current industrial forms and your hopes for their future extensions or modifications, it's a shame to see you falling for it iwc
Problem: While only scientists are equipped to actually understand global warming, they have neither the time, training, nor power to effect the policy which can avert catastrophic climate change.
No this isn't the problem. The problem is that our models and plans and forecasts and academies and disciplines are woefully unequipped to be able to honestly measure the myriad inputs and variables that contribute to our climate. They know this which is why they need to quickly try and shut down anybody who questions it with the truly abysmal label of 'Denier'.
The extent to which the public (and a surprising amount of otherwise critical people here) put the motives and capabilities of science above reproach is truly baffling.
Panopticon posted:i don't know very much about climate models, did the IPCC actually say why they are now 95% confident in theirs?
From AR4
TS.4 Understanding
and Attributing Climate
Change
Attribution evaluates whether observed changes are
consistent with quantitative responses to different forcings
obtained in well-tested models, and are not consistent
with alternative physically plausible explanations. The
fi rst IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) contained little
observational evidence of a detectable anthropogenic
infl uence on climate. Six years later, the IPCC Second
Assessment Report (SAR) concluded that the balance
of evidence suggested a discernible human infl uence on
the climate of the 20th century. The TAR concluded that
‘most of the observed warming over the last 50 years
is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations’. Confi dence in the assessment of
the human contributions to recent climate change has
increased considerably since the TAR, in part because
of stronger signals obtained from longer records, and an
expanded and improved range of observations allowing
attribution of warming to be more fully addressed jointly
with other changes in the climate system. Some apparent
inconsistencies in the observational record (e.g., in
the vertical profi le of temperature changes) have been
largely resolved. There have been improvements in the
simulation of many aspects of present mean climate and
its variability on seasonal to inter-decadal time scales,
although uncertainties remain (see Box TS.7). Models
now employ more detailed representations of processes
related to aerosol and other forcings. Simulations of 20thcentury climate change have used many more models and
much more complete anthropogenic and natural forcings
than were available for the TAR. Available multi-model
ensembles increase confi dence in attribution results
by providing an improved representation of model
uncertainty. An anthropogenic signal has now more
clearly emerged in formal attribution studies of aspects
of the climate system beyond global-scale atmospheric
temperature, including changes in global ocean heat
content, continental-scale temperature trends, temperature
extremes, circulation and arctic sea ice extent. {9.1}
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Squalid posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
roseweird posted:
i don't know or care that much about global warming but we regardless are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and it would make me happy if we focused on using what is left to manufacture and install solar panels, because doing that will require a lot of energy that we won't have anymore after we've burned everything on cell phones and cars and feeding 20billion humans. anyway talking about climate change if you are not an atmospheric chemist is just a way to cryptically communicate your values wrt current industrial forms and your hopes for their future extensions or modifications, it's a shame to see you falling for it iwc
what do atmospheric chemists know about oceans or solar radiation
jack
fucking
shit
gee i wonder what chemical oceanographers and physicists have to say about global warming...
who cares? they aren't climatologists or botanists.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Squalid posted:roseweird posted:
i don't know or care that much about global warming but we regardless are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and it would make me happy if we focused on using what is left to manufacture and install solar panels, because doing that will require a lot of energy that we won't have anymore after we've burned everything on cell phones and cars and feeding 20billion humans. anyway talking about climate change if you are not an atmospheric chemist is just a way to cryptically communicate your values wrt current industrial forms and your hopes for their future extensions or modifications, it's a shame to see you falling for it iwc
Problem: While only scientists are equipped to actually understand global warming, they have neither the time, training, nor power to effect the policy which can avert catastrophic climate change.No this isn't the problem. The problem is that our models and plans and forecasts and academies and disciplines are woefully unequipped to be able to honestly measure the myriad inputs and variables that contribute to our climate. They know this which is why they need to quickly try and shut down anybody who questions it with the truly abysmal label of 'Denier'.
The extent to which the public (and a surprising amount of otherwise critical people here) put the motives and capabilities of science above reproach is truly baffling.
That's a different problem. Everybody please write your congressmen and ask for more science funding.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:who cares? they aren't climatologists or botanists.
That's why they work together. Also climatologists are often also botanists or ocean chemists or physicists. Paleobotany can produce some really good temperature proxies.