Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/02/12 05:58:24
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
My apologies. For my own benefit please explain the joke.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/02/12 06:00:13
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
sebster wrote: I actually just read an argument that claimed that global warming is less than predicted, therefore we should disregard it entirely.
Like if you were sitting at the beach and the tide coming in, and your friend said 'we should move in the next half hour or the water will be over our heads'... and then half an hour later its only at your toes, so you figure your friend can be ignored enitrely and you should keep sitting there.
It's also just completely weird to claim we should start doing less, when we're doing a fraction of what's needed even if we accept Spencer's reduced rate of heating.
If my friend was drawing that conclusion from his own homemade tide chart, I would absolutely conclude he could be ignored entirely, because it's clearly not accurate. Just as I wouldn't trust someone who gave me an altimeter reading of half its real value. Clearly not accurate enough to make important decisions on.
2014/02/12 06:01:13
Subject: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
We do need to do more research into it, but in a thing like this we must confront that time, as it were is off the essence.
Also getting off coal is a better thing for this country long term regardless of the environmental impact.
"The Imperium is nothing if not willing to go to any lengths necessary. So the Trekkies are zipping around at warp speed taking small chucks out of an nigh-on infinite amount of ships, with the Imperium being unable to strike back. feth it, says central command, and detonates every vortex warhead in the fleet, plunging the entire sector into the Warp. Enjoy tentacle-rape, Kirk, we know Sulu will." -Terminus
"This great fortress was a gift to the Blood Ravens from the legendary Imperial Fists. When asked about it Chapter Master Pugh was reported to say: "THEY TOOK WHAT!?""
2014/02/12 06:25:59
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Seaward wrote: If my friend was drawing that conclusion from his own homemade tide chart, I would absolutely conclude he could be ignored entirely, because it's clearly not accurate. Just as I wouldn't trust someone who gave me an altimeter reading of half its real value. Clearly not accurate enough to make important decisions on.
And if the altimeter said 'we have increased from 1,000.0 to 1,000.6 metres', and then on examining his readings corrects that to 'actually we only increased to 1,000.3 metres'... then you would conclude it's clearly not accurate and you should reject that altimeter and entirely reject the notion that you rose in height at all?
You wouldn't.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/02/12 06:37:37
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
sebster wrote: And if the altimeter said 'we have increased from 1,000.0 to 1,000.6 metres', and then on examining his readings corrects that to 'actually we only increased to 1,000.3 metres'... then you would conclude it's clearly not accurate and you should reject that altimeter and entirely reject the notion that you rose in height at all?
You wouldn't.
Well, first of all, nobody who's worth anything in the air uses meters.
And no, I would not conclude that, largely because that degree of specificity is pretty useless for flying. It's also so incredibly minor a difference as to make absolutely no odds either way, which surely is not the argument you're making about the difference between .3 degrees and .6 degrees. If it's not a big deal, then who cares, and we can all ignore this climate change stuff anyway, right?
This boils down to the model being wrong. Which suggests that the people who claim they've got the whole thing figured out actually don't.
2014/02/12 07:29:49
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Seaward wrote: Well, first of all, nobody who's worth anything in the air uses meters.
Feet is it? That's interesting, a legacy of the US being so dominant in the industry?
And no, I would not conclude that, largely because that degree of specificity is pretty useless for flying. It's also so incredibly minor a difference as to make absolutely no odds either way, which surely is not the argument you're making about the difference between .3 degrees and .6 degrees. If it's not a big deal, then who cares, and we can all ignore this climate change stuff anyway, right?
No, this is not about 0.3 or 0.6 being small, because in climate that 0.3 and 0.6 are significant movements. It is about putting the argument in the context of the overall numbers, we are not measuring purely 0.3 or 0.6 of something, but a move from about 288 from absolute zero, to 288.6. That it 'only' increased to 288.3 is not a reason to ignore it entirely. That a model predicted a movement, but overstated it by double does not make the model useless.
And that's before we even start debating the issues with the measure used in the OP, as it relies entirely on surface temperature (looking at deep sea temperature and the models are very close, for instance), and doesn't include sufficient measures for parts of the planet where the warming is believed to be at its greatest.
This boils down to the model being wrong. Which suggests that the people who claim they've got the whole thing figured out actually don't.
Climate scientists aren't running around claiming they've got the whole thing figured out. That's just nonsense. They are saying there's still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but several key facts are increasingly clear - there is warming, it is at a rate far greater than observed in history, and it is caused by man. Exactly how the global climate system is absorbing the extra heat is still being studied and debated heavily, and exactly what the total long term trend is is still being debated (as you can see in the divergent models given in the OP).
But to conclude that means 'do nothing' is ridiculous. To return to your altimeter example, when you know the plane is dropping, but the altimeter is reporting a drop of about twice what you think it is, you don't sit there debating and waiting for a better altimeter reading. You pull up, level the plane off, bring in some measure of control, and while doing that continue to develop more refined measures so you know how much control you need.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/02/12 07:49:18
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
sebster wrote: No, this is not about 0.3 or 0.6 being small, because in climate that 0.3 and 0.6 are significant movements. It is about putting the argument in the context of the overall numbers, we are not measuring purely 0.3 or 0.6 of something, but a move from about 288 from absolute zero, to 288.6. That it 'only' increased to 288.3 is not a reason to ignore it entirely. That a model predicted a movement, but overstated it by double does not make the model useless.
And that's before we even start debating the issues with the measure used in the OP, as it relies entirely on surface temperature (looking at deep sea temperature and the models are very close, for instance), and doesn't include sufficient measures for parts of the planet where the warming is believed to be at its greatest.
The point is that if an increase of .6 - which I think we can all agree is a pretty small number - is such a catastrophe, being off by half that number is a pretty significant variance. If .6 is significant, then .3 is significant. Thus I dislike the 1000.3 vs. 1000.6 altimeter analogy, as that is not a significant difference in anything you'd be using the numbers for.
Climate scientists aren't running around claiming they've got the whole thing figured out. That's just nonsense. They are saying there's still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but several key facts are increasingly clear - there is warming, it is at a rate far greater than observed in history, and it is caused by man. Exactly how the global climate system is absorbing the extra heat is still being studied and debated heavily, and exactly what the total long term trend is is still being debated (as you can see in the divergent models given in the OP).
See, I'd buy that if green types hadn't been screaming for years now that we need to completely gut our economy in order to prevent this catastrophic increase in global average temperature from happening.
But to conclude that means 'do nothing' is ridiculous. To return to your altimeter example, when you know the plane is dropping, but the altimeter is reporting a drop of about twice what you think it is, you don't sit there debating and waiting for a better altimeter reading. You pull up, level the plane off, bring in some measure of control, and while doing that continue to develop more refined measures so you know how much control you need.
I would say this analogy's stopped being useful, as there are a number of other indicators and tools you can use if you believe the altimeter's off and we, to the best of my layman's knowledge, don't really have anything other than these models to guide us in climate science. Though to go along with it, I'd say if you're shooting an approach in zero visibility with nothing but an altimeter and a compass, and the altimeter goes faulty, you're kinda fethed. But that's why you're not allowed to do it,
2014/02/12 09:13:40
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Seaward wrote: The point is that if an increase of .6 - which I think we can all agree is a pretty small number - is such a catastrophe, being off by half that number is a pretty significant variance. If .6 is significant, then .3 is significant. Thus I dislike the 1000.3 vs. 1000.6 altimeter analogy, as that is not a significant difference in anything you'd be using the numbers for.
Who said 0.6 is a catastrophe? Where are you getting that from. The issue with the impacts of climate change have always been how that 0.6 was likely to become 1.6, then 2.6 and then 3.6... with increasing problems along that path.
And so the 0.3 becomes a question of whether 0.3 is the new rate of change (so we'd go to 0.8, then 1.3 etc...) or if this a single instance of low increase (so we'd go to 1.3, then 2.3 etc...), or whether the 0.3 is misleading, and we can still expect 1.6, 2.6 etc...
At no point does the answer become 'just ignore everything we've found in the last 15 years because the number came out 0.3, not 0.6'.
See, I'd buy that if green types hadn't been screaming for years now that we need to completely gut our economy in order to prevent this catastrophic increase in global average temperature from happening.
Yeah, as long as you look for a screaming idiot or two on the other side, you'll always find a way to dismiss the other side. But if you want to be right about this, then the best thing to do is to dismiss the screaming idiots on both sides, and then find out what the overall consensus of informed people in the middle of this debate are saying. And their conclusions about climate change are pretty clear.
I would say this analogy's stopped being useful, as there are a number of other indicators and tools you can use if you believe the altimeter's off and we, to the best of my layman's knowledge, don't really have anything other than these models to guide us in climate science. Though to go along with it, I'd say if you're shooting an approach in zero visibility with nothing but an altimeter and a compass, and the altimeter goes faulty, you're kinda fethed. But that's why you're not allowed to do it,
Now that's a good analogy response.
I'd counter by saying that, well, we are doing it, and there's really no alternative other than 'hope the science is wrong'. Meanwhile the models are continuing to improve, and that they did predict an increase, and were quite accurate in the increase in areas other than surface temperature, and therefore the case for action is still extremely strong.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/02/12 15:26:18
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
sebster wrote: And if the altimeter said 'we have increased from 1,000.0 to 1,000.6 metres', and then on examining his readings corrects that to 'actually we only increased to 1,000.3 metres'... then you would conclude it's clearly not accurate and you should reject that altimeter and entirely reject the notion that you rose in height at all?
You wouldn't.
Well, first of all, nobody who's worth anything in the air uses meters.
And no, I would not conclude that, largely because that degree of specificity is pretty useless for flying. It's also so incredibly minor a difference as to make absolutely no odds either way, which surely is not the argument you're making about the difference between .3 degrees and .6 degrees. If it's not a big deal, then who cares, and we can all ignore this climate change stuff anyway, right?
This boils down to the model being wrong. Which suggests that the people who claim they've got the whole thing figured out actually don't.
Only if you're in the US Seaward... anywhere overseas all Visibility and RVR's are going to be reported in meters. Though even Britain reports there ceilings in feet.
And just for general spreading of knowledge, Altimeters are measured in Inches of Mercury. An example would be QNH30.23inHg, which is the current altimeter here at Scott. You'll more commonly see the 4 digit number just prefaced with an A instead of the QNH.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/12 15:29:02
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/12 15:31:44
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
djones520 wrote: Only if you're in the US Seaward... anywhere overseas all Visibility and RVR's are going to be reported in meters. Though even Britain reports there ceilings in feet.
As I said, anyone who's worth anything in the air...
Though yeah. Although, when we flew with the Malaysians, they rocked feet. Maybe they were just being gracious.
2014/02/12 15:32:45
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
djones520 wrote: Only if you're in the US Seaward... anywhere overseas all Visibility and RVR's are going to be reported in meters. Though even Britain reports there ceilings in feet.
As I said, anyone who's worth anything in the air...
Though yeah. Although, when we flew with the Malaysians, they rocked feet. Maybe they were just being gracious.
Or it could have been your AG's just doing the math for you. Don't want to overburden you guys in the cockpit.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/12 15:40:10
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
djones520 wrote: Or it could have been your AG's just doing the math for you. Don't want to overburden you guys in the cockpit.
Oh, God, no. I'm sure there are some guys who work out their circuits in the stack behind the boat to arrive at the fix right on time, but you know what? Flying ridiculously short legs works just as well, and hey, no math!
Actually, now you've got me trying to remember who (military, anyway) I've ever actually heard use meters over feet or at least flight levels. Australia does feet for altitude, but then they make things extra fun by doing all the ground side stuff in meters.
2014/02/12 15:45:18
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
djones520 wrote: Or it could have been your AG's just doing the math for you. Don't want to overburden you guys in the cockpit.
Oh, God, no. I'm sure there are some guys who work out their circuits in the stack behind the boat to arrive at the fix right on time, but you know what? Flying ridiculously short legs works just as well, and hey, no math!
Actually, now you've got me trying to remember who (military, anyway) I've ever actually heard use meters over feet or at least flight levels. Australia does feet for altitude, but then they make things extra fun by doing all the ground side stuff in meters.
Yeah, altitude is universal in feet. But ground is reported in meters everywhere but the US and Canadia. Here in N. America we report ground visibility in statute miles, and RVR in feet.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/12 15:51:06
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
djones520 wrote: Yeah, altitude is universal in feet. But ground is reported in meters everywhere but the US and Canadia. Here in N. America we report ground visibility in statute miles, and RVR in feet.
Not universal, actually! Russia and China do meters.
And stop confusing me. I started out the analogy with ground, and sebster (quite reasonably) thought I was talking about airborne altitude, and, rather than take the time to explain what I meant, I just switched over to that. Then you come in here getting me thinking that I somehow missed the fact that everyone else uses meters for FL. I was going, "What? No, can't be." The madness must stop, I say.
2014/02/12 22:41:20
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Global Warming is a completely made up term, and really doesn't have anything based in fact about it.
However...there is such a thing as "F-ing up our damn planet" that is a whole lot scarier and is definitely making an impact.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2014/02/12 22:54:10
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
In truth, that sunrise was probably on the screen for less than 10 seconds at a time, as it was part of an ad for tourism in China’s Shandong province. The ad plays every day throughout the day all year round no matter how bad the pollution is. The photographer simply snapped the photo at the moment when the sunrise appeared. Look closely, and you can even see the Shandong tourism logo in the bottom right corner. The photo was credited to ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images, so a Daily Mail reporter did not take it.
Why do people still take things from the daily mail seriously?
Correction: The original post did not mention that the large screens in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square broadcast panoramic scenes on a daily basis, regardless of atmospheric conditions, nor did it state that the sunrise was part of a tourism commercial.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2014/02/12 22:58:54
Subject: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
2014/02/12 23:03:15
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/12 23:17:08
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Snow yes not hurricanes,
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
2014/02/12 23:18:38
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Correction: The original post did not mention that the large screens in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square broadcast panoramic scenes on a daily basis, regardless of atmospheric conditions, nor did it state that the sunrise was part of a tourism commercial.
That isn't smog?
I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek blurb.
But, seriously, dat smaug.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/02/12 23:20:49
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Snow yes not hurricanes,
That's isn't a hurricane. It's a low pressure system. Hell it's not even as deep of a system as what passed through the UK last week.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/12 23:21:51
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Respond to what I said in the context of what you said, thanks. Don't make up crap strawmen.
You said that due to smog china has resorted to showing the sun. That is utter bs.
China has -so much gak- it deserves to be gak on for, making up crap doesn't help anyone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/12 23:22:31
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2014/02/12 23:32:59
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Snow yes not hurricanes,
That's isn't a hurricane. It's a low pressure system. Hell it's not even as deep of a system as what passed through the UK last week.
A man has died apparently trying to clear a fallen tree as hurricane-force winds batter parts of the UK.
The dead man, believed to be in his 70s, was killed after the tree brought down power cables in Wiltshire.
Gusts of over 100mph were recorded as Met Office "red warnings", the first of the winter, were issued. Sixteen severe flood warnings remain in place.
Power and transport networks have been badly hit, in what has been called an "almost unparalleled natural crisis".
Residents in many parts of the UK have been warned not to go out.
Wiltshire Police say the dead man was killed in a suspected electrocution in Bremhill, a village between Calne and Chippenham, on Wednesday afternoon.
The severe flood warnings remain for Berkshire, Surrey and Somerset, which have already been hit by severe flooding, with hundreds of homes evacuated.
Assistant chief of the defence staff Major General Patrick Sanders, who is co-ordinating the armed forces response, described the ongoing severe weather as an "almost unparalleled natural crisis".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/12 23:37:19
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
2014/02/12 23:39:18
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Climate change is a true thing, even in the strictest sense of the word. We as humans have literally changed the climate of portions of the world, and usually not for the better. For example, the Chinese turning large portions of their nation into what is basically desert.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2014/02/13 00:00:37
Subject: Re:95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Now that's a good analogy response.
containing data from a recent Cowtan & Way publication
