It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:13 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1409
Morning, boys. Ok, here we go. Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere. If something has been misrepresented, that's a completely valid point to bring up and I won't condone the behavior. Is this a case of something being misrepresented? Pulling up the article, I don't think so, and don't see what you're getting worked up about.

Here is the full quote.

Quote:
Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.


What does "relatively quickly" mean?

I didn't read every word, but I scanned though the article reasonably well. It presents the results of several different models that forecast the warming effect of an emission over time. Different models yield different results.

Quote:
For a 100 GtC pulse of CO2 released into the atmosphere with a background CO2 concentration of 389 ppm, R&C found the median time between an emission and maximum warming to be 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years


Quote:
For pulse emissions of 1000 GtC, the double-peak shape remains but is less pronounced and the maximum warming occurs 31 years after the emission. For very large pulses (5000 GtC), the first peak disappears due to the decline in ocean heat uptake overwhelming the radiative forcing decline. In this case, the maximum warming occurs 785 years after the emission


Quote:
A large fraction of the warming, however, will be realized relatively quickly (93% of the peak warming is realized 10 years after the emissions for the 1000 PgC pulse). This implies that the warming commitment from past CO2 emissions is small, and that future warming will largely be determined by current and future CO2 emissions.


So, at best, "relatively quickly" means ~decade after the emission. Now what did I say?

Quote:
Isn't that convenient. A theory, output from a model, which cannot be tested or disproved. Something something, scientific method.


The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models. Models which remain untested, the excuse for which is a huge time lag. And that isn't to say this isn't the truth of the situation. The models could be accurate, although they can't all be accurate, but there could be an accurate one in the mix somewhere. But if there is no way to test the models until decades down the road, that's a problem. A big problem. It's not good science to base real-world decisions on faith. As an engineer, if I made decisions like that I'd be thrown in jail. The idea of upending the world's economy on the current body of work is patently irresponsible.

https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

Tell me, how many of these academicians would be willing to subject themselves to prison if wrong? Even in engineering disciplines, the answer is not many. Relatively few engineers in academics have PE licenses or do work that would be subject to such licensing restrictions. They are theoreticians. The'll come up with theories and spend decades nerding out together sussing through the results. I propose we create something like a PE licensing for climatologists, which imposes strict evidence-based standards. Moreover, that these people be held liable for damages they cause. Just like an engineer who designs an unsafe system that results in someone's death, or which results in monetary damages. If I design a control system that brings down someone's plant, oops, my ass is in big trouble. Just like a doctor, I have to maintain liability insurance. If we spend $XXX billions of dollars on "carbon credits" or whatever, because this person predicted that the earth's temperature would rise YYY degrees, but then it doesn't happen - who is held responsible? CO2 levels went up anyway, because China, and oops, temperature didn't rise, the tornados didn't happen, well well well, the person or people who made these predictions should be subject to the same penalties that a PE would. Which is CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

I'm happy to get into the weeds with you, we can turn this into a megathread and start going through the fine details of climate science from beginning to end if you'd like. But I'm not a climatologist. All I can do is state why I am or am not persuaded by a certain argument. My position can be changed, if the data is compelling. But I will not compromise my basic standards, which are high. Just like evolution, or theoretical physics such as string theory, a global warming apocalypse may be a "good" or even the "best" interpretation of the current body of climate science, but that doesn't mean it crosses a credibility threshold that justifies the sort of actions recommended by the IPCC.

honorentheos wrote:
... the expection on the part of the committee is we will "overshoot" the 2% threshold given the political environment and technical challenges involved in preventing it but believe it's likely at some point the effects will force action so that the resulting forced action will hopefully result in a stabilizing...


This right here is precisely what needs to happen. This should not be a lamentation on the part of researchers. They should be pushing for this. They should WANT their work to be born our by empirical results. They should want huge life and death altering decisions to be based on actual knowledge rather than a highly theoretical inquiry.

Moreover, there is the matter of practicality. For sake of argument let's say the doom is real. The most apocalyptic of predictions is accurate. Does it make sense to march into Afghanistan and try to impose democracy? No, this is naïve and idiotic. If the apocalyptic doom is for realz, and we KNOW it to be for realz, our whole approach is wrong. Nobody else will comply. Period. Let's get real. We are better off making as much damn money as we can, throwing as much money towards research and tech as we can. Capping our carbon production is completely and totally idiotic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7300
Location: On walkabout
Post a link to the site you copied the doctored abstract from.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1409
Res Ipsa wrote:
Post a link to the site you copied the doctored abstract from.

Doctored? Words were changed?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
Water Dog wrote:
Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere.


Where was that?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 16761
This is what I got from highlighting, right clicking, and searching Google:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 031001/pdf

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Water Dog wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Post a link to the site you copied the doctored abstract from.

Doctored? Words were changed?

Words were omitted that are clearly there, specifically, the final sentence from the paragraph you quoted.

Since you’re trying to play the “I’m not really complicit in this deception, just helplessly ignorant about what’s happening” game, I’ll add the missing part here for you:

Quote:
Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.


So, where did you source your version from?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Water Dog wrote:
Quote:
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001


I wonder why the final sentence is missing?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7300
Location: On walkabout
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
This is what I got from highlighting, right clicking, and searching Google:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 031001/pdf

- Doc


Thanks, Doc. Had Water Dog read the source material, he would have known that “relatively quickly,” is 93% in 10 years. By leaving out the last sentence, he completely misrepresented the conclusion of the paper.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Quote:
The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models.


Yes. Computer models. That would seem better than depending on soothsayers or prophets.

Did you have a preferable alternate method of testing theories about future trends?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1409
canpakes wrote:
Since you’re trying to play the “I’m not really complicit in this deception, just helplessly ignorant about what’s happening” game, I’ll add the missing part here for you:

Quote:
Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

It's almost like you didn't read my comment, but I know you did, cause you just quoted it. What am I supposed to think about this? It's not quoted deceptively. Either by me, or the original source.

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thanks, Doc. Had Water Dog read the source material, he would have known that “relatively quickly,” is 93% in 10 years. By leaving out the last sentence, he completely misrepresented the conclusion of the paper.

How did I misrepresent the paper? Look, I'm not going to waste time engaging in a discussion that isn't happening in good faith. I fully expect people here to fact check the hell out of anything I say, looking for any trivial thing to ridicule and draw attention towards to distract from the main subject. I didn't make any attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything. Oh, and you're wrong. The paper supports my point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Water Dog wrote:
Look, I'm not going to waste time engaging in a discussion that isn't happening in good faith.

Then start quoting in good faith.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1409
canpakes wrote:
Yes. Computer models. That would seem better than depending on soothsayers or prophets.

Did you have a preferable alternate method of testing theories about future trends?

I love this comment. Lord. Models don't "test" theories, they describe them. The theory, by way of the model, is then tested by comparing the output of the model with real-world observations.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
Water Dog wrote:
I didn't make any attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything.


Waterdog: It's obvious that someone did attempt to mislead by leaving off the last sentence. All we're looking for is your source. Perhaps you can look in your browsing history, find it, and post it here. Thank you, in advance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Water Dog wrote:
canpakes wrote:
Yes. Computer models. That would seem better than depending on soothsayers or prophets.

Did you have a preferable alternate method of testing theories about future trends?

I love this comment. Lord. Models don't "test" theories, they describe them. The theory, by way of the model, is then tested by comparing the output of the model with real-world observations.

Have it your way. Tell us what method would be better, in your opinion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:29 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Morley wrote:
Water Dog wrote:
I didn't make any attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything.


Waterdog: It's obvious that someone did attempt to mislead by leaving off the last sentence. All we're looking for is your source. Perhaps you can look in your browsing history, find it, and post it here. Thank you, in advance.

I included his source in my previous repost of his partial quote of the abstract. Check that link. He c/p all but the last sentence of the abstract.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:33 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
canpakes wrote:
Morley wrote:
Waterdog: It's obvious that someone did attempt to mislead by leaving off the last sentence. All we're looking for is your source. Perhaps you can look in your browsing history, find it, and post it here. Thank you, in advance.

I included his source in my previous repost of his partial quote of the abstract. Check that link. He c/p all but the last sentence of the abstract.


He says he got the excerpted quote from somewhere else.

Water Dog wrote:
Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere.


I'm sure he'll tell where.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:38 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5566
Morley wrote:
He says he got the excerpted quote from somewhere else.
Water Dog wrote:
Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere.


I'm sure he'll tell where.

Yeah, that’s a problem. It puts him in the midst of the liar or fool dilemma.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
Waterdog, I googled it but couldn't find the shortened and last-sentence-bold version, myself. The link should be in your browsing history from yesterday.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1409
Riding this hard, aren't ya?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
Seems pretty simple to me. Everyone wants to know that we're all working in good faith, as you eloquently put it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
I very much agree with this:

Water Dog wrote:
Look, I'm not going to waste time engaging in a discussion that isn't happening in good faith.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group