Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Its not your imagination, it has been freaking cold this year!

Now, last year the alarmist-in-chief along with other alarmists said how the early spring was a sort of bad sign. It meant "climate change." This year is cold, so what do we expect them to blame it on? Climate Change, maybe?

Weather happens!

Quote: AZDuffman

The thing is it is impossible to test. You can make models, but the same people making the models for the next 20 years can't get the weather right a week from now. They are making guesses, and saying that that if it is colder or warmer we are going to die but today is simply perfect.

Meterologists are predicting weather a week from now. Climatologists are using global models and supercomputers to predict climate down the roads based on inputs and known interactions between the inputs and the various systems on the planets. They're two different breeds. The meteorologist working for the FAA or the National Hurricane Centre is not the same climatologist working for NOAA.

The only way to do this is to take discrete points on the planet earth and increment the simulations at an interval where the planet acts like a continuous system as this is how complex the equations are. You can't really apply massive calculus to the equations to make it all come together. Therefore, systems that attempt to predict the future are frought with error. It doesn't mean they should stop trying nor does it invalidate what they are doing. When you put a pile of models together with slightly different assumptions and the results are close to the same, you can start reducing the statistical error in each model and start refining.

Quote:

Oil companies have not asked for tax breaks based on made-up science. They ask based on proven accountancy. And if you want my opinion, it is OPEC who is funding at least part of the global warming alarmism, I mean, who has more to gain?

The science is not made up. Saying that climatology is not a science is the same as saying that astronomy is not a science. The science behind climate change is very real with its equations coming straight out of Newtonian Physics courses (many of which I've taken) and a bit of Chemistry and Geography mixed in. It's not an exact science because you are trying to predict the future of an extremely complex system on a planetary basis. But Astronomy only recently pegged the age of the Universe at 13.9 billion years a few years ago, and that number is likely to change as the advent of the science (one that has been around for millenia) progresses. The science of Climatology is only 40 - 50 years and weather satellites have only existed for fourty years.

Quote: boymimbo

Meterologists are predicting weather a week from now. Climatologists are using global models and supercomputers to predict climate down the roads based on inputs and known interactions between the inputs and the various systems on the planets. They're two different breeds. The meteorologist working for the FAA or the National Hurricane Centre is not the same climatologist working for NOAA.

They might be different people and I never said they were not. My point is they are trying to do the same thing, predict the future weather. As to "models" we can model many things. An analyst can make a model of the stock market and take it all the way back to its founding, something we cannot do with climate. He can then figure inputs and variables and say, "In 5 years we should be at 'x'." But guess what? It rarely happens that neatly. That and the lack of any reliable temperature inputs from more than 150 years ago is why I really do not just swallow what the models say.

Quote:

When you put a pile of models together with slightly different assumptions and the results are close to the same, you can start reducing the statistical error in each model and start refining.

They can refine all they want, just quit telling us that we all need to pay higher taxes until we get some reliable data confirmation. Given the cooling the past 10 years or so it seems the models are not working well.

Quote:

The science of Climatology is only 40 - 50 years and weather satellites have only existed for fourty years.

Which is why I am not willing to just believe it hook, line, and sinker like so many believers are.

Quote: Evenbob

As long as they can goad the West into paying
poorer countries for what we 'did to them' with
GW, it will never go away. The world is run by
the insane.

Can't see the connection to your post and AZ's.

The action of the climatologists who are trying to do good work are not directly connected to the politicians asking for higher taxes. I can understand how people who don't believe in climate change can get frustrated when they see money going to reduce carbon taxes. It would be the same frustration I think smokers would feel about having to stay at least 30 feet away from public entrances, not smoke in restaurants, not be allowed to smoke in their car with children, etc. At the same time, most climatologists (certainly not all of them) stay away from the politics.

That said, what climate skeptics IMO fail to realize is that the magnitude of the climate change seen in the last 150 years and in particular the last 50 years is unprecedented. The only other times in history that climate has changed so dramatically have been explained away through large volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, and abnormally low sunspot activity (the Maunder minimum). That is why the bulk of scientists who understand the evidence believe it. There are no other factors besides human activity that can explain the change in the atmospheric temperature, and given the sensitivity of climate to crucial agricultural activities throughout the world, the subject of climate change is a very important one.

Quote: boymimbo

The action of the climatologists who are trying to do good work are not directly connected to the politicians asking for higher taxes.

Fair enough to a point, but that still does not excuse them from screaming "the debate is over" and trying to discredit and run out those who do not believe their position.

Quote:

That said, what climate skeptics IMO fail to realize is that the magnitude of the climate change seen in the last 150 years and in particular the last 50 years is unprecedented.

Nonsense. We have only measured the last 150 years remotely accurately so we cannot even say this with accuracy. And somehow I think the coming then going of the Ice Age then the Little Ice Age are far more dramatic than a minor change in temperature.

Quote:

The only other times in history that climate has changed so dramatically have been explained away through large volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, and abnormally low sunspot activity (the Maunder minimum). That is why the bulk of scientists who understand the evidence believe it. There are noayother factors besides human activity that can explain the change in the atmospheric temperature, and given the sensitivity of climate to crucial agricultural activities throughout the world, the subject of climate change is a very important one.

The earth has been changing for 4.5 Billion years. It will change for the next 4 Billion until the sun burn itself out. We cannot change this. We cannot change the fact that at some point the earth will shake us off its surface like a dog shaking irritating fleas off its back. Where you completely lose me is when you say, "there are no other fact factors besides human activity that can explain the change in the atmospheric temperature." Humans are responsible for <4% of ALL CO2 emissions. Now, the rest of CO2 is 20Xs what humans put out, and you are going to try to convince me I need to tax myself to death to "reduce carbon" because it *must* be humans?

If a one percent change has a dire effect in a system, the source of that change is important, regardless of it being so small.

Quote: TheCesspit

If a one percent change has a dire effect in a system, the source of that change is important, regardless of it being so small.

One percent is not having a dire effect on the system.

Quote: AZDuffman

One percent is not having a dire effect on the system.

No? There's plenty of systems where a small change can have a very large effect. I'll leave you to argue with the climatologists about whether a small change in total C02 in the atmosphere can have a large change in the weather, but it's incorrect to suggest that small changes can't have large (or even dire) effects.

Quote: TheCesspit

No? There's plenty of systems where a small change can have a very large effect. I'll leave you to argue with the climatologists about whether a small change in total C02 in the atmosphere can have a large change in the weather, but it's incorrect to suggest that small changes can't have large (or even dire) effects.

We are not talking about any possible system, we are only talking about the climate of the earth. I will maintain that a 1% change having dire effects does not pass the smell test. Not with so many other variables. And if the non-man CO2 is 20 times the man-made CO2 then I really don't see it. No reason to assume all other sources have stayed constant.