Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

Is Man Made Climate Change Fact or Fiction?

Recommended Posts

Del of course I have my own thought on this, indeed this is how my opinions on the matter were formed.  The distinction that you are failing to understand on my position is that I don't presume to know more than the scientist who study this stuff.

 

Now of course you can find some folks that dispute this the majority, but my thoughts on the matter tell me that what they have to say is either biased, uninformed, or malicious.  

 

When Al Gore first presented this information to the public I was skeptical, today I'm MUCH less skeptical, because the global scientific community has weighed in supporting man made climate change. Do you see the distinction?  

 

Fundamentally you've rejected the findings of the scientific community, and I've chosen to accept them. So when you present anecdotal information about unusual weather that means nothing, because the climatologist have already explained this in the context of global climate change.  Now if you are unaware of this fact I'd understand why these weather abnormalities would look like evidence again global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let my  say this very clearly. The numbers don't support thesis. There isn't one model that tracks weather correctly. So we can't really discuss this issue. You're faith in propaganda is moving. It's my black gene that makes me question motivations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and i are different. You are satisfied with expert opinion. I spent more time trying to understand temperature,  weather,  climate and statistics. It is very difficult to find people with any willingness to out in the effort to understand this issue. Its about being informed in order to ask intelligent questions. If there's a referendum yiy can make an intelligent choice. You are projecting your own rigidness.

You have forgotten my response to National Geographic. You hadn't read the link thst had the pros and cons. Or perhaps you didn't comprehend the implications of the responses. You have belief, I have questions which neither you nor climatologists can answer. 

 

They changed the name from global warming, because the actual weather didn't match. How come they couldn't see that, because they are bending the numbers.

 

Al Gore had a staff of four people and the were using more than $100,000 a year in electricity. He was flying all around promoting his program which probably isnt free. I have easily spent scores of hours trying ti understand this issue. Its silly to debate it with those who don't msje any effort to educate themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano you are the one who keeps resurrecting this conversation.

 

I've already demonstrated my flexibility; I was originally very skeptical and now I'm no longer. You are the only one who's demonstrated prodigious rigidity in this regard.

 

And true Gore's carbon footprint did not help his cause.

 

You know your statement: "It is very difficult to find people with any willingness to out in the effort to understand this issue." Is actually incredulous because it ignores the entire scientific community!

 

Now if you're looking for lay people like myself then I would understand why you might have difficulty finding people because most of us simply don't have the hubris to reject the findings of the scientific community the way you have.

 

I'm sorry your scores of hours studying this issue is simply not enough to impress me to change my current position on this issue. 

 

Still it will continue to baffle me why you believe so strongly that you know more than the planets scientific community.

 

Now as a black person I definitely understand the skepticism. But I see no reason for the majority of the scientific community to lie about this issue. If anything it makes more sense to lie and take the position you have the way our current president has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The really interesting bit you missed. Population is a bigger driver than production. There are too many people. Do the math its not that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Del, I was thinking about you the other day after listening to a video of someone explaining why people reject science and facts in favor of their own opinions when it comes to things like climate change, evolution, and religion. Unfortunately I can't find the video and it is not in my history.

 

But here is a video you my find interesting, or not.  Let me know.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I didn't have an opinion before i lookes at the numbers and analysed them. I like to think for myself. Since most people have an agenda. You are satisfied to let those more knowledgeable than you to give you your opinion on climate change. Bill Nye also did a show in astrology you may enjoy it. 

I would listen but he's a popular scientist. Statistical arguments and models that van be analysed. I would have thought that would have appealed to the engineer in you. Perhaps that's to far on the past to be relevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK @Del, I'm sure you've heard about the massive storm here in the United States that pummeled Houston with the greatest rainfall they have seen in recorded history.  

 

Do you believe the scientists who tell us that this very bad storm was made worse because of manmade climate change?  You don't have to elaborate, unless you want to, a "yes" or "no" response will suffice.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantifying the difference is very hard if not impossible because their are many factors including the way the City of Houston was designed.  But that does not mean there is no impact from man made climate change.  

 

Are you going to answer my question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy quantifying the difference is impossible. I'll ask you again since you have conveniently forgotten my response. Do you have new data. My position is a result of analysis. So if you have some new data or even any statistical data i will post findings. Or you can wring hands a tstatiscal anomalies.

If you want to argue opinions you can continue to do so. You have enough science background to make sense of the numbers. You need not be a meterologist. I simple understanding  of weather and a perusal of the numbers is all I have ever asked of anyone. Yet neither deniers nor affirmers has been willing ti do so since 2011. I  don't reckon that will change. Because it is no longer fashionable to think for oneself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, so you won't answer the question regarding the recent statements of the scientific community.  This is deep.  Just and hour ago you accused NubianFellow avoiding a question due to ignorance, but here you are doing the same thing yourself. 

 

Given your statement it is indeed curious why you won't simply say "No."  Instead you go back to the strawman of an argument and accuse everyone of not thinking for themselves.  

 

If you want "new" or additional more data you can look at rainfall in Houston over time.  But something tells me it won't mean anything to you.

 

Kationa, Sandy, Harvey, statistically anomalies?!  Del these are not anomalies these are and emerging and predicted trend in more severe weather.  

 

The really sad part is that many people on the political right here in America share your viewpoint and are not doing anything to prepare for the increasing number of severe weather events. As a result people are loosing everything and dying as a result.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy really man. I have no allegiance to either side. My position was and is, look at the statistics have a rudimentary understanding of weather and come to a conclusion. I have looked at data from 1700 to 1980.  And have yet to come across any credible statistics. I have since 2011 asked anyone to find a model that shows the relationship. No one can because it doesn't exist. What you will find are models that make predictions but none that show the relationship. Do a little t  Just a little. You can't find a statistical model showing the linkage. Troy I am a thinker and I am really good with statistics. Have been since 1982. Bring your A game and put on your thinking cap. Or repeat what you have heard.

I reckon within 8 years you will see that I am correct. 

Troy reread my post to Nubian Fellow.  I said are you intentionally avoiding the question or do you not know who owns the site. 

Troy one storm no matter how big is not new statistical information. Even though there are statistics related to this storm. Are yiu being intentionally dense or do you not know the difference between the statistics of one event a sample and the population. Troy show me one model that makes the case for climate change.  You can even post a few even if you can't interpret them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Troy said:

Wow, so you won't answer the question regarding the recent statements of the scientific community.  This is deep.  Just and hour ago you accused NubianFellow avoiding a question due to ignorance, but here you are doing the same thing yourself. 

 

Given your statement it is indeed curious why you won't simply say "No."  Instead you go back to the strawman of an argument and accuse everyone of not thinking for themselves.  

 

If you want "new" or additional more data you can look at rainfall in Houston over time.  But something tells me it won't mean anything to you.

 

Kationa, Sandy, Harvey, statistically anomalies?!  Del these are not anomalies these are and emerging and predicted trend in more severe weather.  

 

The really sad part is that many people on the political right here in America share your viewpoint and are not doing anything to prepare for the increasing number of severe weather events. As a result people are loosing everything and dying as a result.  

 

 

 

You are again attributing opinions to me that are totally against my position.  Do not state my  opinion. That is a propagandist technique. I will state my position explicitly since you have conveniently forgotten it.

 

I didnt have an opinion about global warming. So i decided to look at the data for 250 + years and do a statistical analyis. The numbers show a stronger link to population than productuon. The emissions numbers also don't track well with changes in production. There is no large change in emission numbers after the invention of the combustion engine.

 

 

Also up until recently there weren't any statiscal models. If you look at the data it starts trending upwards dramatically in the 1980's. So 250 years of prodction, no large jumps. I have also looked at the prediction models. I posted that here. There isn't one model that tracks climate. You for whatever reason didn't look at that. I also sent you a link that had ten reasons from both sides of the argument. You also refused to read it. And finally i have said even though I dont believe anthropomorhic climate change, it is still a good idea to clean up the environment. So stop linking me to either side. I have analysed the data. And my concerns have never been answered nor addressed since doing the study in 2011. And you patently refuse to consider anything other than its caused by man. So who is being irrational. The steady state scientists got it wrong. Look them up. They were astrophysicist . A lot of people like to reference science and statistics  without really understanding either. If you post numbers be on your A game.  

 

However every couple of months you bring some irrelevant argument to the discussion. Post a model that proves your point. What a second you can't do that because climate change is a fiction. You would have to post about 20 models. And only a handful are good at predicting one component of weather. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del sit is plain to see you will not answer my direct and simple question.  Instead you cloud the issue will irrelevant points that we've already gone over.

 

All I asked was, Do you believe the scientists who tell us that this very bad storm was made worse because of manmade climate change? 

 

Again, if you don't want to answer one question, which at this point you made abundantly clear that you don't, that is fine, but you can save the other stuff, as you said before.  You've also demonstrated a prodigious propensity for shooting down anything I might have to say on the subject. So again if you won't answer my question you can rest your finger muscles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy  Why not ask me if I think Santa Claus had an impact on the storm. Yeah my fingers and your mind are resting.

Man made Climate Change is a fiction. You can not find one predictive model to prove the link. Because your scientist need twenty models and 15 of them don't work. That is also in the info that I have posted which you refused to read. Stubborness is not the cure for ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del asking you if Santa Claus had an impact is a patently silly question.  But your outrageous and nonsensical analogy with Stana makes your answer clear.  I was attempting to gauge how fixed your opinion was on climate change was.  I thought the massive storm Harvey might have an impact, but you are far more rigid and fixed than I expected.  This issue is a religious one with you.  

 

Again, I see the beliefs of the scientific community, new information, another unprecedented weather calamity will not change your position one iota. This is tantamount to trying to tell a Christian that Jesus was not raised from the dead or even telling you that Astrology is bunk.

 

Now I understand, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you don't. Post One Predictive Model. That supports your claim. And I will concede the point. Can you post a statiscal instead of opinionated argument. I keep saying this. I looked at statistical data show me a model that proves your case. You are an IT person it shouldn't be that hard. Should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a link for IPCC.

And here is what they say about their own models page 826

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

 

Inevitably, some models perform better than others for certain climate variables, but no individual model clearly emerges as ‘the best’ overall.

 

On the other hand, many studies have failed to find strong relationships between observables and projections. Whetton et al. (2007) and Knutti et al. (2010a) found that correlations between local to regional climatological values and projected changes are small except for a few regions. Scherrer (2011) finds no robust relationship between the ability of the CMIP3 models to represent interannual variability of near-surface air temperature and the amplitude of future warming.Raisanen et al. (2010) report only small (10–20%) reductions in cross-validation error of simulated 21st century temperature changes when weighting the CMIP3 models based on their simulation of the present-day climatology.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Del the last paragraph in the executive summary says:

 

"In general, there is no direct means of translating quantitative measures of past performance into confident statements about fidelity of future climate projections. However, there is increasing evidence that some aspects of observed variability or trends are well correlated with inter-model differences in model projections for quantities such as Arctic summertime sea ice trends, snow albedo feedback, and the carbon loss from tropical land. These relationships provide a way, in principle, to transform an observable quantity into a constraint on future projections, but the application of such constraints remains an area of emerging research. There has been substantial progress since the AR4 in the methodology to assess the reliability of a multi-model ensemble, and various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections are being explored. However, there is still no universal strategy for weighting the projections from different models based on their historical performance."

 

Which is a long winded way of saying they can't predict the weather with a high level of certainty, which is not exactly a revelation.  Is it?  

 

I was interesting to see just how many factors they incorporated, many of which are man made, including land use, methane (farming), aerosol particles, carbon, etc into their models.

 

The report is over 100 pages long and full of terms I'd need to look up to fulling understand.  But skimming the graphs of the actual measurements collected they all  have an upward trend.  The report is not new and is missing most of the past decade.  It is possible a similar report with up to date information might draw slightly different conclusions.  Would you agree?  

 

It is not clear to me why you reject man made climate change based upon what you've read in this report. But if you have read the entire thing and understand it perhap you can shed some light based upon what it actually contained in the report and how it informs your decision to reject man made climate change as "fiction," in the same category as Santa. Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy I am going to paraphrase the first sentence of your quote. There is no way to confidently use the projections to predict future climate. 

That being said invalidates the projections. Basically what they do  saying is the predictions from the model dont match the actual observations. But we have high correlations on the models independent variable with the dependent variable.

You are correct i am not a climatologist nor a meteorologist. However I am really good with statistics. 

The other issue is each model is good with predicting one variable let say sea levels. But there isn't one model that is inclusive. Which is why i stated there are about 20 models but only a handful work and not inclusively. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Troy said:

 

Del the last paragraph in the executive summary says:

 

"In general, there is no direct means of translating quantitative measures of past performance into confident statements about fidelity of future climate projections. However, there is increasing evidence that some aspects of observed variability or trends are well correlated with inter-model differences in model projections for quantities such as Arctic summertime sea ice trends, snow albedo feedback, and the carbon loss from tropical land. These relationships provide a way, in principle, to transform an observable quantity into a constraint on future projections, but the application of such constraints remains an area of emerging research. There has been substantial progress since the AR4 in the methodology to assess the reliability of a multi-model ensemble, and various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections are being explored. However, there is still no universal strategy for weighting the projections from different models based on their historical performance."

 

Which is a long winded way of saying they can't predict the weather with a high level of certainty, which is not exactly a revelation.  Is it?  

 

I was interesting to see just how many factors they incorporated, many of which are man made, including land use, 

It is not clear to me why you reject man made climate change based upon what you've read in this report. But if you have read the entire thing and understand it perhap you can shed some light based upon what it actually contained in the report and how it informs your decision to reject man made climate change as "fiction," in the same category as Santa. Thanks.

 

@Troy I did an analysis that spanned three centuries and taught myself some of the drivers of weather. This study didn't change my mind it's changing your mind. I have said to you repeatedly look at the numbers not what is being said and let's discuss that. It's only taken you four months. Instead of me explainging the models why not read the links i posted. Starting with 10 pro and cons concerning climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 9:04 AM, Troy said:

@Del, I was thinking about you the other day after listening to a video of someone explaining why people reject science and facts in favor of their own opinions when it comes to things like climate change, evolution, and religion. Unfortunately I can't find the video and it is not in my history.

 

But here is a video you my find interesting, or not.  Let me know.

 

 

He may be good at physics but his argument is illogical. Nothing he says shows a link between temperature and weather. Notice he doesn't mention any data or models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I wasn't even aware that there were three centuries of weather data to collect.  SO that is news to me.

 

Granted you invested more time that I have in analysing the data, but that is not saying much because other than the data that you've shared i have not attempted to double check the findings of the world's climatologist.

 

No scientist can predict the weather 24 hours from now with absolute certainty; nor will they say that they can.  Predicting the Earth's climate 50 years from now is obviously much more difficult. 

 

@Del, we have hurricane Irma, the second strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic basin, for which current models disagree where this monster of a storm will hit. They don't even say with certainty how strong it will be when it does hit.  No one in their right mind will reject the storm potential impact.  As a result people are preparing for it's impact--even though it might not hit them.

 

Of course there are people who say that weathermen, suck at predicting the weather and that they have previously prepared for storms that they were warned about but never came.  So why should they bother this time?  Needless to say many people have lost their lives with the reasoning.

 

In my mind Del your absolute rejection of global climate change is no different that the folks ignoring Irma's forecast and failing to prepare for it.  However in this case it is not us who will suffer the consequences of failing to act, but our children.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy lets discuss numbers and models. Because that's is what the experts are using. You have studied more mathematics. Read the last report so we can in the words of Bill Nye study "relevant " facts. So after you put in the time to inform your opinion by having a rudimentary knowledge of weather. Then we can have an intelligent discussion. 

Although I don't think you have either the time or inclination to do so.

There are too many illogical and contradictory statements by you.

Perhaps someone else will pickup the baton. 

Which means this is my last response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×