climate change times are a changin'

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Even though you were indeed wrong, why bother apologizing to Rover? It'll just make his Boston ego burst.

you mean their egos can get bigger???

[XYZ]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Where do you think we're going to move? Hey, I know. We'll all relocate to Edina, MN. Howdy neighbor!

Not a chance. You will never be able to afford Edina.

[Rover]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Even though you were indeed wrong, why bother apologizing to Rover? It'll just make his Boston ego burst.

Hey if my ego applied for statehood, it would be our 51st state and 3rd largest!

Husky just getting your goat for being a little too obtuse out here. Again climate change or whatever the hell people want to call it isn't my passion in life. I think society, at least in the Western world, is much much more environmentally aware, and unlike a lot of problems has actually taken action to improve the situation. Provided we keep increasing the progress the world should be in decent shape.

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Why?

I don't need to. The fact that the Earth's climate can fluctuate without man's influence doesn't prove it can't be accelerated independently of natural fluctuations.

Simple. If something is naturally occurring, how could you possibly show any evidence that there is another factor impacting it, especially when it is so dynamic. If you acknowledge it fluctuates naturally, how are you going to break down the % of change is natural versus the % that is impacted by outside sources? There is no way to separate the two. You can't predict the unpredictable so the exact opposite of your statement is also true. Because climate can naturally fluctuate, you cannot prove that man's interactions had any impact. Sure you can site some study, but you can also say that whatever you found is a natural fluctuation. So what if it deviates from trends? You can't always predict trends in an incredibly dynamic system.

I'm sounding like a broken record with this but I'll say it again and continue to beat the dead horse. The Earth is an incredibly powerful force of nature that can be very unpredictable. For us to think we can have such a drastic impact is incredibly arrogant. We are to be good stewards and respect our home. But if the Earth is done with us we are gone and the Earth will continue on and recover just fine. Exhaling and burning naturally occurring elements aren't going to dramatically change the big plan for mankind.

[Rover]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Simple. If something is naturally occurring, how could you possibly show any evidence that there is another factor impacting it, especially when it is so dynamic. If you acknowledge it fluctuates naturally, how are you going to break down the % of change is natural versus the % that is impacted by outside sources? There is no way to separate the two. You can't predict the unpredictable so the exact opposite of your statement is also true. Because climate can naturally fluctuate, you cannot prove that man's interactions had any impact. Sure you can site some study, but you can also say that whatever you found is a natural fluctuation. So what if it deviates from trends? You can't always predict trends in an incredibly dynamic system.

I'm sounding like a broken record with this but I'll say it again and continue to beat the dead horse. The Earth is an incredibly powerful force of nature that can be very unpredictable. For us to think we can have such a drastic impact is incredibly arrogant. We are to be good stewards and respect our home. But if the Earth is done with us we are gone and the Earth will continue on and recover just fine. Exhaling and burning naturally occurring elements aren't going to dramatically change the big plan for mankind.

Appreciate the fatalistic outlook on things but again I come back to my original statement that sitting around with your thumb up your butt and hoping for the best might not be the best strategy in this case, but it appears to be what you're advocating...

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Appreciate the fatalistic outlook on things but again I come back to my original statement that sitting around with your thumb up your butt and hoping for the best might not be the best strategy in this case, but it appears to be what you're advocating...

That's exactly what I'm "advocating" because I don't believe anything I do will impact this "issue." Thought that was pretty clear. But you don't seem to care about this "issue" either so why question my take on it if it doesn't do anything for you? It's really simple. Be a good steward to your home and the Earth can take care of itself.

EDIT: Not really a tough choice for me, being fatalistic or arrogant. Yes, I know being from MN you would assume the latter. But in this case obviously that's wrong.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Simple. If something is naturally occurring, how could you possibly show any evidence that there is another factor impacting it, especially when it is so dynamic. If you acknowledge it fluctuates naturally, how are you going to break down the % of change is natural versus the % that is impacted by outside sources? There is no way to separate the two. You can't predict the unpredictable so the exact opposite of your statement is also true. Because climate can naturally fluctuate, you cannot prove that man's interactions had any impact. Sure you can site some study, but you can also say that whatever you found is a natural fluctuation. So what if it deviates from trends? You can't always predict trends in an incredibly dynamic system.

I'm sounding like a broken record with this but I'll say it again and continue to beat the dead horse. The Earth is an incredibly powerful force of nature that can be very unpredictable. For us to think we can have such a drastic impact is incredibly arrogant. We are to be good stewards and respect our home. But if the Earth is done with us we are gone and the Earth will continue on and recover just fine. Exhaling and burning naturally occurring elements aren't going to dramatically change the big plan for mankind.

Which is the whole point of the graph I posted. 95% of climate models overestimate the increase in temperature. How are we to trust the chicken littles of the climate debate if their models can't even properly compare to the last 20-30 years of solid data that we do have?

[St. Clown]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Which is the whole point of the graph I posted. 95% of climate models overestimate the increase in temperature. How are we to trust the chicken littles of the climate debate if their models can't even properly compare to the last 20-30 years of solid data that we do have?

And that's what really gets me with regards to the whole situation here. We have these models that predict such horrific things, and I don't want to see them happen. Then we hit the timeline given in these models and we're in a much better situation than pretty much every model out there predicts. Until models can be proven accurate, how can we justifiably set public policy based upon their forecasting efforts?

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Simple. If something is naturally occurring, how could you possibly show any evidence that there is another factor impacting it, especially when it is so dynamic. If you acknowledge it fluctuates naturally, how are you going to break down the % of change is natural versus the % that is impacted by outside sources? There is no way to separate the two. You can't predict the unpredictable so the exact opposite of your statement is also true. Because climate can naturally fluctuate, you cannot prove that man's interactions had any impact. Sure you can site some study, but you can also say that whatever you found is a natural fluctuation. So what if it deviates from trends? You can't always predict trends in an incredibly dynamic system.

Luckily for us, climate scientists aren't quite so quick to dismiss finding causation as impossible (it's not). We have strong evidence that humans are the primary driver of the dramatically increasing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere.

I'm sounding like a broken record with this but I'll say it again and continue to beat the dead horse. The Earth is an incredibly powerful force of nature that can be very unpredictable. For us to think we can have such a drastic impact is incredibly arrogant. We are to be good stewards and respect our home. But if the Earth is done with us we are gone and the Earth will continue on and recover just fine. Exhaling and burning naturally occurring elements aren't going to dramatically change the big plan for mankind.

This whole line of reasoning is just silly--it's based on feelings. You just don't feel like human activity could have an impact on something as big and powerful as our planet--therefore, we can't. Compared to our carbon dioxide emissions, our release of CFC's was a drop in the ocean, yet it opened up a gaping hole in the ozone layer.

[unofan]

Which is the whole point of the graph I posted. 95% of climate models overestimate the increase in temperature. How are we to trust the chicken littles of the climate debate if their models can't even properly compare to the last 20-30 years of solid data that we do have?

I wondered why the graph started in 1983. Turns out that's because it was a high point, skewing future changes downward. If you start it a year earlier or a year later, the models are much more accurate than presented in that graph.

It's telling that not even Fox news has a link to that graph when doing a quick Google search for it. Way to use some random blogger.

It's as though you showed a graph of the DJIA with the baseline being the height of the bubble, and then argued that gold is a better investment than stocks in the long run.

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Agreed. He really really sucks. Here is a "good" video on him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM

I would suggest the whole potholer54 climate series for anyone interested. It is the most "objective" and comprehensive source I have found on climate change. Some will disagree...and that's good. Just give the series a shot.

thank you!

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I wondered why the graph started in 1983. Turns out that's because it was a high point, skewing future changes downward. If you start it a year earlier or a year later, the models are much more accurate than presented in that graph.

It's as though you showed a graph of the DJIA with the baseline being the height of the bubble, and then argued that gold is a better investment than stocks in the long run.

Thank you. I was about to post something on this. The first step is to use data that hasn't been manipulated to show what you want it to show. It's true that the models have diverged higher than observations for the last 10-15 years. It turns out though, that the reasons for that are fairly well understood. In order to predict temperatures, the models also have to make some assumptions on solar output--the sun hasn't been very cooperative during this time frame of following its historical pattern.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I wondered why the graph started in 1983. Turns out that's because it was a high point, skewing future changes downward. If you start it a year earlier or a year later, the models are much more accurate than presented in that graph.

It's telling that not even Fox news has a link to that graph when doing a quick Google search for it. Way to use some random blogger.

It's as though you showed a graph of the DJIA with the baseline being the height of the bubble, and then argued that gold is a better investment than stocks in the long run.

The source I linked to is not the original source where I saw the graph, its just where I found to post it here...

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Thank you. I was about to post something on this. The first step is to use data that hasn't been manipulated to show what you want it to show. It's true that the models have diverged higher than observations for the last 10-15 years. It turns out though, that the reasons for that are fairly well understood. In order to predict temperatures, the models also have to make some assumptions on solar output--the sun hasn't been very cooperative during this time frame of following its historical pattern.

I'm shocked the sun is being unpredictable!!! Next thing you know, the Earth won't be predictable either.

Luckily for us, climate scientists aren't quite so quick to dismiss finding causation as impossible (it's not). We have strong evidence that humans are the primary driver of the dramatically increasing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere.


This whole line of reasoning is just silly--it's based on feelings. You just don't feel like human activity could have an impact on something as big and powerful as our planet--therefore, we can't. Compared to our carbon dioxide emissions, our release of CFC's was a drop in the ocean, yet it opened up a gaping hole in the ozone layer.

I've been expecting someone to post a link like that for a while. Thank you for finally doing it. From a quick glance it does appear to be well thought out. Not sure how much of it I'll actually read. Maybe some.

Of course me stating my opinion is based on feelings. More specifically it is based on MY feelings. I know, shocking again. I'm so sorry I haven't performed my own studies to illustrate my point, but I'm pretty sure you haven't either. If you are expecting me to research and post supporting studies of my personal opinion, keep waiting. I have better things to do and don't have enough interest to undertake that.

I wondered why the graph started in 1983. Turns out that's because it was a high point, skewing future changes downward. If you start it a year earlier or a year later, the models are much more accurate than presented in that graph.

It's telling that not even Fox news has a link to that graph when doing a quick Google search for it. Way to use some random blogger.

It's as though you showed a graph of the DJIA with the baseline being the height of the bubble, and then argued that gold is a better investment than stocks in the long run.

Selecting data that illustrates your point better than other sources? Wow, the left NEVER does that. And of course getting in a predictable Fox News shot.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Thank you. I was about to post something on this. The first step is to use data that hasn't been manipulated to show what you want it to show. It's true that the models have diverged higher than observations for the last 10-15 years. It turns out though, that the reasons for that are fairly well understood. In order to predict temperatures, the models also have to make some assumptions on solar output--the sun hasn't been very cooperative during this time frame of following its historical pattern.

If its a good model, shouldn't it work well from any starting point?