So how about that global warming?

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 06 Dec 2011 11:47 am

Dear the people who aren't mental in this thread,

Do people seriously not understand the difference between weather and climate?

Love,
Selfish

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 06 Dec 2011 11:52 am

Vzzzbx wrote:Yeah Twit, all these sources drawing the same conclusion are just boring.

Of course they are, they are creating and modifying computer models to give them the predictions they are after and then claim it as fact as what's going to happen. Then when the real world observational data comes in nothing like what the models predicted you still trust them 100%? The whole point is if you said to me, Froggy here is $2 million dollars to look into the suns effects on the earths climate, have no doubt that I'd produce you a model showing the suns solar cycles are responsible for any warming the Earth's produced in the last few decades whilst putting in a disclaimer that no warming that has occured is outside of natural variance. After that I'd happily take more funding to further research specific areas of the suns activity which may or may not be causing issues with warming...

Hercy · Post by **Hercy** » 06 Dec 2011 01:28 pm

Bam. GameHEDed.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 06 Dec 2011 05:23 pm

The whole point is if you said to me, Froggy here is $2 million dollars to look into the suns effects on the earths climate, have no doubt that I'd produce you a model showing the suns solar cycles are responsible for any warming the Earth's produced in the last few decades whilst putting in a disclaimer that no warming that has occured is outside of natural variance. After that I'd happily take more funding to further research specific areas of the suns activity which may or may not be causing issues with warming...

Which is why you would make a shit climate scientist and your results would be quickly dismissed by the scientific community due to poor method, but deniers would forever quote your thoroughly debunked paper because it would support their preconceptions. The real scientists in this very instance did something similar to what you are saying and they found that changes in solar activity added only about 2 x 10^23 joules of energy to the global balance from between 1950 and 2004, as opposed to carbon dioxide’s 9 x 10^23 and other greenhouse gasses accounting for 7 x 10^23. And they interestingly found that cooling aerosol emissions help offset this, which is worrying because they don’t persist in the atmosphere anywhere near as long as CO2 so they really just temporarily mask a worsening situation.

Which is all in the article. Which you didn’t read. I just thought it might interest some folks is all, that a team decided to tackle the issue from a different angle and added to our overall understanding of the situation.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 06 Dec 2011 06:15 pm

Easy tiger. They didn't find those results. They predicted them. It was a simulation and simulators are limited to what parameters the scientists choose. The world is so dynamic that I would take any results from a simulator with a grain of salt because I'd imagine that there are forces at play that we're not even aware of.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 06 Dec 2011 06:42 pm

Yes, the competing theory that some butterfly flapping its wings caused all this warming - it does have merit. But just because something is chaotic doesn’t mean that it can’t be modelled, and just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it can’t be approximated, and just because it’s possible that a brilliant and evil butterfly called Max caused all this doesn’t mean we should ignore the vast weight of scientific work on this subject.

Also, they used observations and historical reconstructions as input to their modelling. I only mention that because you make it sound as if they just pluck this stuff out of their arses or something.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 06 Dec 2011 06:51 pm

I'm just stating that it's a prediction. Stop talking as if it's fact.

Peppermint Lounge · Post by **Peppermint Lounge** » 06 Dec 2011 08:19 pm

What other prevailing theories can we anti-intellectualise into being predictions, not facts.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 06 Dec 2011 08:48 pm

Madmya wrote:I'm just stating that it's a prediction. Stop talking as if it's fact.

That the average global temperature has risen markedly over the past 100 years is a fact, in any reasonably non-epistemologically wank ridden sense. These people are just contributing to our understanding of the reasons behind this observed fact.

Megaman · Post by **Megaman** » 06 Dec 2011 08:56 pm

Peppermint Lounge wrote:What other prevailing theories can we anti-intellectualise into being predictions, not facts.

That the Earth is flat and so if you sail for long enough you will eventually fall off?

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 06 Dec 2011 09:27 pm

Only if your definition of prevailing includes stuff from pre-socratic times.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 06 Dec 2011 09:28 pm

Twit wrote:
Madmya wrote:I'm just stating that it's a prediction. Stop talking as if it's fact.
That the average global temperature has risen markedly over the past 100 years is a fact, in any reasonably non-epistemologically wank ridden sense. These people are just contributing to our understanding of the reasons behind this observed fact.

No shit, why are you telling me this?

Peppermint Lounge · Post by **Peppermint Lounge** » 06 Dec 2011 09:30 pm

Megaman wrote:That the Earth is flat and so if you sail for long enough you will eventually fall off?

That one definitely past its commercial use-by date.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 06 Dec 2011 09:41 pm

Peppermint Lounge wrote:What other prevailing theories can we anti-intellectualise into being predictions, not facts.

I'm talking about the method, not the theory, dick.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 06 Dec 2011 09:58 pm

A whole thread of alternative slang to choose from and you call him a dick? Tockley.

Madmya wrote:No shit, why are you telling me this?

I dunno. I thought it was relevant given what you were saying. I assume then that you’re the sort who accepts the reality of global warming but denies anthropogenic influence? I've never really understood that stance as an excuse to take no action (even if true), unless you’re a nihilist or something. In which case, get an ethos man.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 06 Dec 2011 10:07 pm

What the fuck man? You're continuing to make assumptions about me when all I have said was that they're predictions.

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 06 Dec 2011 10:10 pm

Thx for owning yourself in this thread Twit. One thing I don't get, you seem to be saying because it's getting warmer now there must be a reason for it but you won't accept natural variability which it's well within the bounds of? The climate has never operated at a constant temperature but you seem to think that it was.

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 06 Dec 2011 10:14 pm

Madmya wrote:What the fuck man? You're continuing to make assumptions about me when all I have said was that they're predictions.

That's because he completely missed the point that sent him spazzing off in the first place which you reminded him about

Froggy wrote:Of course they are, they are creating and modifying computer models to give them the predictions they are after and then claim it as fact as what's going to happen.

As I said, Madmya and I could get together with maybe $3mil as he'll want a big slice of the pie to and make some models and run around toting the results as fact.

Cletus · Post by **Cletus** » 06 Dec 2011 10:22 pm

Quick note, Port Melbourne Beach is still not under water. I wouldn't say Bay St is dry. I think there are about 6 pubs from the beach end to city road.

The scientists need to come up with new sciencement. Maybe something like global warming will be the end of life as we know it but you probably won't notice anything different.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 07 Dec 2011 07:49 am

Madmya wrote:What the fuck man? You're continuing to make assumptions about me when all I have said was that they're predictions.

I’m sorry – I thought you were attempting to make some sort of point.

Froggy wrote:One thing I don't get, you seem to be saying because it's getting warmer now there must be a reason for it but you won't accept natural variability which it's well within the bounds of? The climate has never operated at a constant temperature but you seem to think that it was.

Of course there must be a reason. That reason might be natural but our studies indicate that it isn’t. Why does that matter to you anyway? If scientists said “hai guys, there’s this bloody great comet thing heading our way and we think it might impact in the next 100 years or so” would you say “it’s natural for earth to get hit by comets” while Madmya parrots “that’s just like, a prediction man” and therefore do nothing about it?

You can’t deny that it’s warming and you can’t deny that it’s extraordinary. All you can do is conclude (contrary to scientific opinion) that it’s natural, that we are incapable of affecting it, and we should therefore not bother doing anything about it. We will adjust to this new condition of living, like the aptly proverbial boiling frog.

BruceCamblzChin · Post by **BruceCamblzChin** » 07 Dec 2011 08:57 am

Of course you can deny the warming is extraordinary. The climate has been vastly different over thousands of years.

Doing 'nothing' ,as you say, is still doing something. We can monitor the situation, confirm either way what is going on and figure out if there is anything we could change about it instead of going off half cocked in tue name of 'doing something' TM.

If the carbon tax is going to do nine tenths of fuck all to global temperatures then why do it at the enormous cost?

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 07 Dec 2011 09:02 am

The carbon tax was buffeted and butchered to death, so in effect very few people seem to have got what they wanted from it.

Having said that, any measure to reduce pollution is worth doing. You don't need to prove anything about the causes of climate change to see why chucking smaller quantities of noxious shit into the air/sea/soil is a good thing.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 07 Dec 2011 09:23 am

Of course you can deny the warming is extraordinary. The climate has been vastly different over thousands of years.

I meant extraordinary as in simply not appearing to be an ordinary fluctuation, which is the case. Of course the climate has been vastly different over thousands of years, but our knowledge of the past couple thousand suggests that something extraordinary is up.

Doing 'nothing' ,as you say, is still doing something.

Yes, it is potentially making the problem worse as we keep increasing our emissions.

We can monitor the situation, confirm either way what is going on and figure out if there is anything we could change about it instead of going off half cocked in tue name of 'doing something' TM.

Isn't that what we're doing? I completely agree that doing something just for the sake of saying that you did something is never good. The action should contribute to achieving a positive outcome of some degree or it is worthless.

If the carbon tax is going to do nine tenths of fuck all to global temperatures then why do it at the enormous cost?

Because it starts us on the path of pricing this stuff so it can be factored into the economy and will drive us towards a more viable long term solution without too much sudden economic pain down the track when this all gets too far out of hand. You have to start somewhere. Nine tenths of fuck all is still better than making it even worse.

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 07 Dec 2011 10:43 am

So your whole argument is based on the fact you think that we are going to warm to hell so we better prepare for it. Have you ever thought what if it gets hotter anyway regardless of co2? Or that it would be far cheaper and easier to simply adapt if it does indeed get warmer, that's if it even does.

BruceCamblzChin · Post by **BruceCamblzChin** » 07 Dec 2011 10:48 am

I would argue we've been on that path since day 1. We no longer have the smog problems of 20, 30, 80 years ago. We have cleaner energy sources available (which for some irrational reason are out of bounds here in Oz - I'm talking hydro and nuclear here).

As we become more technologically advanced we become 'greener' as a result. People will always have a right to take legal action against anyone polluting their personal environment and they should do. As a result companies and scientists look for safer and cleaner ways to do things and so on.

The government is stepping in, once again, and enforcing penalties which will be used to achieve what? Grants will be given to people savvy enough to build a wind farm which will change err nothing. Old mate from Buenos Aires will get some govt dollars coz he says he planted X amount of trees which 'offset' all the dreadful CO2 you used this year.

The whole thing will make stuff all difference whilst actual things that will work continue to be ignored. It's a fucken joke.

The Games Ranch