Forums  > Off-Topic  > global warming poll  
     
Page 2 of 5Goto to page: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 Prev Next
Display using:  

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 22:45
Absence of a correct climate model does not make global warming a hoax. But, if you accept that the climate models are no good then you cannot use them to justify a claim of human-caused climate change. If you have no other logically compelling evidence for human-caused climate change then to claim with certainty that climate change is anthropogenic IS a hoax.

pj


Total Posts: 3522
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 23:00
What about the explanation of how carbon dioxide creates the greenhouse effect?
Why is it wrong?

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

pj


Total Posts: 3522
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 23:01
Again double post

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-27 23:06
My $0.02:

1) the models are screwed, in as much as they are shit for any meaningful prediction, and the situation has gotten so screwed up that there’s probably zero possibility of having any model guide policy in any foreseeable future; we’ll just have to deal with the problems as they arise
2) the problems will disproportionately hit the people that are the most vulnerable, and that’s just the way its going to unfold, like it or not
3) to think that industrialization hasn’t contributed to greenhouse gases, and that those gases aren’t changing the earth, is just silly. There’s a clear causal relationship and lunch isn’t free.
4) The boomer generation will be in the ground soon. What sucks about their strategy is that the younger generation will take the pendulum back to the other pole once they’re in the ground and that will set the stage for the next set of problems in about 60 years.

In this regard I agree with Shumacher that certain assets shoudn’t have been treated as sources of income but as capital. It’s made innovation virtually impossible at this point. There’s been virtually no major innovation since the creation of the car, train, airplane, and the nuclear bomb (or anything else that physics gave us up through the 1970s). Add to this the unfortunate coincidence, post-1973, of emergence os Sillycon valley, with all the grand promises, and the role of innovation as playing a pivotal role in the avoidance of a Malthusian dilemma has undergone a bait-and-switch which will require some reverse engineering in the coming decades. None of this work will start before it becomes necessary. I have no idea what form “necessary” will take - maybe war, maybe disease, maybe capital losses - but it certainly will not be proactive, or based on any models.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-28 06:16
pj, Who said that climate warning is a hoax?

I am not a native english speaker but there is a substantial difference between a hoax and a scam, at least from what I get after translation to phrench.

> How explain away the mechanism of how carbon dioxide (and some other gasses) creates the greenhouse effect? Together with current observations?

This one is interesting. There is no real issue I think with the plain physical process. The issue is with complexity. In complex systems (complex != complicated, complex <=> with non linearities and strong coupling) causes and effects are not that palatable anymore. This makes processes hard to model and particularly unintelligible to decision takers. Hence the revolt against a certain mainstream way of thinking and a demand for a more thoughtful and cautious approach. We all teach our kids on the short and long term consequences of crying wolf for whatever reason. The credibility of rationalism and science is at stake here and we all know what would be more than happy to take over.

@Maggette. Regarding your python project, may be the issue is simply the use of python? perl usually gives better results...

More seriously, to validate these models is more voodoo than science. Here the parallel with phynance / trading is interesting. We are in a typical case where traditional scientific approach does not apply because only one realization of the process exists, stationarity is limited which hinders proper reliance on ergodicity.

I would be tempted to ask for systematic and precise forecasts in terms of physical measures (including time). A directory should be set-up and monitored. I do not know for you but to me this would probably quickly end up as Sornette's financial crises / bubble observatory.


I must say I try to look at all this from a very high vantage point. What I see is pitiful homo sapiens, together with his usual suspect friends (dogs, cats, cattle, porks and poultry) systematically ruining the ecosystem he is part of for millenia now, looking for redemption. Claiming to save the planet and fight for the ecosystem's conservation while the only thing of interest to him is the conservation of HIS ecosystem, at least the one that has been prevailing for the last 50k-100k years and created the favorable conditions for his emergence and rising.

My most favourite activity now consists in teasing people trying to lose weights. First of all I have always been amazed by how little people know about how they function. To the question: "Where is the fat you are losing going?" the two main answers are excrements and energy (they must run very fast...). It comes as a shock to discover that this fat comes out as water and carbon dioxide (try it in your neighbourhood and same surprise can be obtained asking what a tree is made of with usual answer "nutrients from the ground"). Then you can follow-up with a comment on how much they contribute to global warming as of course nobody has really understood that the main issue with carbon dioxide being to dig it out from were it was deeply buried a long long time ago. An excellent way to ruin the day of your local desperate housewife / ecolo-bobo. No, Greta would definitely not appreciate to have me in her neighborhood as she would slowly learn all she missed at school
Hammertime








If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-28 12:09
facts:
- Last Ice Age finished ~10k yrs ago. Since then our civilization started to emerge.
- During this period "we" witnessed dry periods (Hammurappi), wet period (Flood myth and break of Dardanelles straits and creation of Black Sea), mini Ice Age (ice skating Venetians) and hot periods (Erik Red and Green Land). Cold periods after eruptions of Sumatra, Vesuvius etc. That's the range of possibilities outside the Ice Age period.
- Glacial periods have ~100/40k frequency. It is proven that it highly correlates with Milankovitch cycles.
- Glacial periods started about 1-2 millions years ago, after (we can visibly see) the average temperature started to decline and the Earth entered into those glacial oscillations. What is the link with the Solar activity? Our star simply cools down. Above certain solar energy flow there were no glacial periods, Milankovitch was irrelevant.

At the same time current observations of those CO2 everyone is referring to are about ~200 years. Everything else (above) is swept under the carpet, just like dust.

Just imaging the time scale of processes.
It is like accounting price anomalies seen at 10 us scale into 1-hour based strategy.

None of your alarm bells is ringing?

My personal opinion (I count it as belief to be honest, given low exposure to the climate science) is that we are very close to the start of new glacial period. It is just over the corner. Indeed, we delayed that a bit. But we must be happy about the warming...

Strange


Total Posts: 1649
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-29 05:19
> coal fired electric automobiles and (nasty toxic don't work at night) solar panels

Hey, these people gave us LS-218 (did a test drive the day before X-mass)! I can't comment on science behind climate change, but I fucking want that bike (*)

* In fairness, I am not qualified to drive that thing, my pants were full of adrenaline after I did the test ride, but I really can't think of any bike that comes close

'Progress just means bad things happen faster.’

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-29 12:37
That's it: adrenaline is the main cause of Global Warming ))

Kitno


Total Posts: 491
Joined: Mar 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-29 22:17
No. We have had lots of climate change in Human history pre-Industrial Revolution (evidently not caused by Humans).

That said, creating masses of CO2 and changing the composition of our atmosphere is evidently bad for equilibrium and we should reverse our actions.

One thing caught my attention: why 5G radiation and not 2.4G or other?

All the soul of man is resolution, which in valiant men falters never, until their last breath.

NeroTulip


Total Posts: 1074
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-30 02:14
It’s 5G as in Generation (5G vs the current 4G), not as in GHz (5GHz vs 2.4GHz).

5G uses a lot more power in order to transmit a lot more data. Some experiments show significantly increased cancer rates in animal models. Totally untested on humans. There is so much money at stake that nobody wants to hear about the risks. Meanwhile, the media is distracting people with the reductionist CO2 doomsday porn because it is easy to monetise with carbon taxes and trading, greenwashing old products, plant-based burgers and other idiocies.

It is one of the dumbest experiments humans are doing on themselves.

"Earth: some bacteria and basic life forms, no sign of intelligent life" (Message from a type III civilization probe sent to the solar system circa 2016)

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-30 16:42
So far the thread has been viewed 880 times and with 34 replies. Very few people are updating the poll at the google form https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pQQNrIZk_tGH8YCWQjnlgsqtsyVuQbhHovPj6s1ieUc

The current count is 8 no's and 0 yes's...

C'mon people!!

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-30 20:06
Isn't 5G based on mm wavelength? Isn't that non ionizing radiations?

Btw, the use of 5G is mistaken. No one should refer to the standard as defined by 5G, mostly based on I/O performance. People should refer to the actual technology as there is not one single technology to achieve the standard.

If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2019-12-30 20:26
@ahd

say "thank you" to those 8.

It is FB/Twitter/Linkedin type of question.

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-30 20:31
@nikol, this is a big time poll! we're up to 9 now (all no's). and, yes, thanks to whomever those 9 hardy souls happen to be. it was 10 seconds of their life that they'll never get back...

pj


Total Posts: 3522
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-30 22:58
A modest proposal for yet another poll
a) ahd takes us for the idiots.
b) ahd doesn't see anything wrong in his logic.

The thread is called a global warming poll.
We are invited to vote on the accuracy of models.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous?
FIY it's called bait and switch technique. Congratulations on not being a part of a herd is just an icing on the cake.

Another analogy, I do not know how the brain works but I do know what would
happen if a bullet hits it.



The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 02:33
what's the bait and switch? and what point are you making with your analogy? perhaps you're too subtle for me... just say what you mean directly, please. there's too much heat and not enough light in global warming discussions as it is. we should try to do better and maybe you or i can learn something.

pj


Total Posts: 3522
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 08:20
So ahd is voting for the point b.

I am asking the third time, what's the logical connection between the accuracy of climate models and the climate change?

If any of you sincerely don't know the meaning of the expression, I would suggest using search engine of your choice.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 13:19
Some climate change has occurred. That's an observation.

Everyone is concerned because they're told that the world is predicted to get much warmer. That's a forecast.

The forecast comes from climate scientists who (correctly) say that the climate is a feature of the physical world and is governed by the laws of physics, which they know. But their climate models are NOT laws of physics and I think they're wrong when they claim to be able to forecast reliably.

My initial post very briefly gave one reason why I don't believe the forecasts are reliable. I have other reasons also and am happy to go into any of them in depth. Reiterating for the sake of clarity: I'm not saying it won't warm further, i.e. I'm not making my own forecast of cooling or stasis. I'm saying that their models are overfit, in-sample, don't include known relevant factors, and therefore should not be assumed to make correct predictions. I have no dog in the fight and will be perfectly happy to be shown errors in my thinking. But I won't be persuaded one way or another by nasty rhetoric.

Does this help @pj?

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 14:40
@pj. Asking for a logical connection between two not well defined objects puts you in a position to receive an answer as worth as: "Stuff that is rare is expensive. But cheap stuff is rare. Hence cheap stuff is expensive." ;-)

If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 15:23
There's sorta 4 separate things that get co-mingled

1) historical time series of global metrics (avg temp, max, min, stdev, atmospheric gases, ....)
2) correlations / conclusions drawn between manmade greenhouse gases and #1
3) future predictions of #1
4) future predictions of #2

Where most people seem to be the most comfy is #1. There seems to be some disagreement over #2, but I think the majority sees a big correlation between industrialization and trends in #1. I tend to view this in terms of irreversible and cyclical processes. For instance, people get all worked up about trees and O2. I like trees and forests and mountains and would prefer all that stuff is untouched. However, if we burned every tree on the planet to the ground today, atmospheric O2 level would barely change by a tenth of a point, moisture would move up into the atmosphere, and it would come back down as rain. It's really the combustion of fossil fuels that is irreversible - most of the earth's carbon is under the ground.

Where things seem to fall apart for people, as is rightly pointed out in this thread, is #3 and #4. I think, setting aside oos predictive power, time scale is also important to get right. One of the arguments championed by climate scientists is that what we've seen in #1 shouldn't happen over the course of 50-100 years, but over much longer time scales. This in-and-of itself is interesting. Even if the models suck, being able to say that the time scales are being altered because of equilibrium issues should be considered.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 16:12
@chiral3: all fair statements.

i'd elaborate a bit on #2 because i think there's an important thing that's true but not well-known. people usually cite ice core data as the historical signature of the greenhouse effect. indeed, [co2] (i.e. concentration of co2) and temp are well-correlated historically in ice core samples. a priori, factors that could account for that correlation include i) sampling error, ii) exogenous changes in [co2] drive changes in temp (greenhouse effect), iii) exogenous changes in temp drive changes in [co2] (outgassing of ocean), or iv) something else drives both changes in temp and changes in [co2]. i don't believe in i). i believe ii) and iii) are real but that iii) is a much larger effect. the evidence for that is at least twofold: 1) methane concentration is as well correlated with temperature as co2 concentration (see petit in nature, 1999) and 2) in the few historical periods when sudden large changes occurred, it's the case that the changes in temperature LEAD the changes in [co2] and [methane] by ~800 years (which is consistent with a calculation of how much time it takes the oceans to react to the change in atmospheric temp by warming up and outgassing). i don't believe in iv) because i can't think of and haven't read about any natural process that would drive correlated changes in [co2] and [ch4]. so while the greenhouse effect is real, it has historically been dominated by outgassing and temperature changes have been the net cause not the net effect of [c02] (and [ch4]) changes.

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 16:23
Regarding (1), these are not "temperatures" but "temperature proxies". Just to mention in passing although you will ask me: "but how do we measure temperature, if not through a proxy....?".

You are right, the O2 story always drives me mad too. This is really the first level of dumb ecologist protesters around: "The amazonia is the lung of the world and we are burning it..."


If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

Strange


Total Posts: 1649
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2019-12-31 23:59
@ahd: this is a big time poll! we're up to 9 now

I don't have an opinion on the subject because I know very little about the subject. I do, however, have an off-topic comment that is going to hurt a little.

Some of the posts in this thread might be the best possible demonstration of cognitive biases (specifically Dunning Kruger) in a cohort of relatively smart and successful people. Imagine if a meteorologist showed up and started saying that she/he "does not believe that stochastic local volatility model properly reflects the volatility dynamics of SPX" or something along these lines. Most people in this thread (judging by when they joined this site) have been killing their brain cells doing finance for decades. None of us are or have been climate scientists yet we feel qualified to opine on the limitations of their models, the measurement methodology, performance out of sample etc.

Everyone here had at least one math PhD approach us with "guaranteed trading strategy" because he thought about stock trading in the bathroom. Years ago, I had a boss (an accountant by trade!) who thought he completely groked quantum physics by reading some Michio Kaku book. It is very common for smart, quantitative people to think that they somehow know everything just by reading Scientific American and watching PBS. I am guilty of this myself even though I rarely stray outside of my own area of expertise - it's even easier to think you understand subject close to your home turf.

Why did I bring this up? To quote a classic sign from Limelight Club men's room: "Stand closer, it's shorter than you think".

Happy New Year!

PS. FWIW, at least two members pretty indirectly said "yes" to the poll (@Magette and @pj) :D

'Progress just means bad things happen faster.’

NeroTulip


Total Posts: 1074
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-01 02:26
Good points about acknowledging the limits of our own understanding. However, as inhabitants of this planet, everyone has to make choices about what kind of life they want to live and what kind of policies they support. Just trusting the experts is a cop out and not thinking straight.

To continue your analogy, imagine a humble accountant who comes across a CDO desk circa 2007 and, although he cannot write a copula, notices that the securities are full of adjustable rate mortgages with 110% LTV to people who fake their income.

You do not need to understand all the intricacies of the model to practice sound risk management.

"Earth: some bacteria and basic life forms, no sign of intelligent life" (Message from a type III civilization probe sent to the solar system circa 2016)

pj


Total Posts: 3522
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-01 11:33
@goldorak

Could you explain more about what logical fallacy am I committing
by refusing to conflate the climate models with climate change?

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 2 of 5Goto to page: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 Prev Next