“climate emergency”

[LouderVol]

This type of "science" is one of the issues I have with climate scientists. There are disciplines of science which are exact. Those disciplines have two distinct characteristics (which we layman presume to be in all science). Reproducible and predictable. Structural loads are the same for the same specific materials with the same dimensions used in the same way. Engineers, architects, and assemblers make a living on these two characteristics. The same load limits are predictable by different people all across the globe; which also means it is reproducible. Math, Chemistry, some elements of Medicine, Astronomy, and other sciences share these attributes.

Climate science is not reproducible. And it certainly isn't predictable. It is observational. Observational science isn't bad science. It is just a different type of science. The challenge is extrapolating predictive outcomes based on the observational data. For something as complex and mutli faceted as climate, the amount of data points over eons of time are staggering. Add to this challenge, the Earth's land masses are moving thousands of miles, or changing within the land mass itself, over these eons. Furthermore, the use of computer modeling is an issue. Computers spit out what we tell them to spit out. I remember when BartW posted articles claiming the predictive validity of computer modeling. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. Computer models are run on the super bowl. They aren't always predictive. Is an nfl less complex than climate?

Maybe one day climate science will be reproducible and predictive. But it isn't there, yet.

It's an issue that was brought up when I was taught about man's effects on the climate. The observation side of it is only as good as whatever is making the observation. And biases based on better or new tends to override the rest of the science.

And humans are pretty much universally human centric. And the tools we used are fairly human centric.

The joke from the guys at ORNL that worked with us was that these changes arent to protect the environment. It's to protect us and our comfortable way of life. As such our study on the climate is focused around that one piece of the puzzle.

The world has gone thru several extinction events, some natural. Some artificial. What matter does it make to the world, or the enviroment overall if it happens 5 years, 50 years, 500 years, etc later or sooner. They were even of the opinion that delaying the change will lead to more harm than good.

Instead of adapting to change, like evolutionary life has always done, we are trying to arrest that change due to the vain thinking it's perfect now.

 

[OHvol40]

Geez. Here is what I find so exasperating with your religion. You claim a point about the "continental dry line" and when that is shot down, it becomes the "climate boundary" which has shifted, wait for it...

Wait for it...

...140 miles to the east according to folks who probably claim with the same unerring accuracy that the average world temperature will rise x.x degrees in 41 years and six months. Meanwhile, staring real time at the weather with satellites, reporting stations and all kinds of models, they missed the rain storms we were supposed to get yesterday by about six hours.

Holy cow! Hand the economy over to John Kerry, idiot extraordinaire!

You have intimated or implied that people who do not believe that humans, maybe particularly Americans, are destroying the planet by living in historical levels of wealth are sticking their heads in the sand. That any other explanation such as, oh I don't know, the thermostat on the thermonuclear fireball approximately 93 million miles away from us IS NOT THAT FREAKING PRECISE, let alone the vagaries of orbital and planetary axis shifts.

Hey man, you be you. I applaud you planting 150 trees or whatever. Feel good about saving your corner of Ohio! But when you're ready to put up some cash to back up your beliefs on some hard predictions, let me know. May be willing to wager on it, depending on the terms.

 

[Weezer]

I'm of the contention that we will not kill the planet. Eventually, we'll kill ourselves, but the planet will go on.

 

[OHvol40]

Let's say it is. The US already has the most restrictive emission standards on the planet, and your precious Paris accords put even more stringent requirements on us immediately... and the biggest offenders don't even have to start complying for another 5 years. You good with that?

Straw man with the Paris accords, they are neither mine nor have they even been mentioned. Also, no, I’m not good with it. I’m not sure where some of you come up with the idea that I think climate change is strictly a US problem... so let’s clear the air. I don’t think that.

 

[OHvol40]

Man is responsible for all of that? What portion if not? How long if we cut our emissions to zero will it take for the earth to absorb our contribution? If we cut them by 50% how long will it take? If we cut ours by 50% and China keeps adding like the PA allow them to do... what is your stance there? Is America still the evil country you like to proclaim us as being?

I’ll refer you to the previous post as well.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This type of "science" is one of the issues I have with climate scientists. There are disciplines of science which are exact. Those disciplines have two distinct characteristics (which we layman presume to be in all science). Reproducible and predictable. Structural loads are the same for the same specific materials with the same dimensions used in the same way. Engineers, architects, and assemblers make a living on these two characteristics. The same load limits are predictable by different people all across the globe; which also means it is reproducible. Math, Chemistry, some elements of Medicine, Astronomy, and other sciences share these attributes.

Climate science is not reproducible. And it certainly isn't predictable. It is observational. Observational science isn't bad science. It is just a different type of science. The challenge is extrapolating predictive outcomes based on the observational data. For something as complex and mutli faceted as climate, the amount of data points over eons of time are staggering. Add to this challenge, the Earth's land masses are moving thousands of miles, or changing within the land mass itself, over these eons. Furthermore, the use of computer modeling is an issue. Computers spit out what we tell them to spit out. I remember when BartW posted articles claiming the predictive validity of computer modeling. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. Computer models are run on the super bowl. They aren't always predictive. Is an nfl less complex than climate?

Maybe one day climate science will be reproducible and predictive. But it isn't there, yet.

Most all of our science is “observational” in that we observe a phenomena, formulate a reason why, design experiments on how to replicate, and examine and validate the results. I think I remember reading that up until Einstein proposed General Relativity all scientific laws were empirically derived.

I think the issue on the climate science is comprehending the correct boundary conditions and dealing with the very very VERY long time constants involved in the processes in play. It makes experimentation quite difficult.

 

[McDad]

It's an issue that was brought up when I was taught about man's effects on the climate. The observation side of it is only as good as whatever is making the observation. And biases based on better or new tends to override the rest of the science.

And humans are pretty much universally human centric. And the tools we used are fairly human centric.

The joke from the guys at ORNL that worked with us was that these changes arent to protect the environment. It's to protect us and our comfortable way of life. As such our study on the climate is focused around that one piece of the puzzle.

The world has gone thru several extinction events, some natural. Some artificial. What matter does it make to the world, or the enviroment overall if it happens 5 years, 50 years, 500 years, etc later or sooner. They were even of the opinion that delaying the change will lead to more harm than good.

Instead of adapting to change, like evolutionary life has always done, we are trying to arrest that change due to the vain thinking it's perfect now.

It's similar to the apocalyptic warning about sea levels rising. Sea levels have risen and fallen countless times in Earth's history. Sometimes land masses raise and sink, too. If ice melts off land masses and sea levels rise, it will be no different than it has been since the dawn of time.

Additionally, rising sea levels don't have to kill anyone. I asked during one of the climate discussions what's the worst case scenario for sea levels relative to height and time. I think the
consensus was several feet of rise over decades or longer. What would a human do who is noticing the sea getting closer to their home, farm or community over the course of decades? Would they stay put and drown? Or would they build dykes, relocate, raise the building they lived in, or possibly build up the land and create canals to move about? Every single one of those actions are things that have been done by people who are living at, or below, sea level this current day.

 

[Sandman 423]

I'm of the contention that we will not kill the planet. Eventually, we'll kill ourselves, but the planet will go on.

ehh..... as the sun gets brighter we will become like Venus anyway.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Straw man with the Paris accords, they are neither mine nor have they even been mentioned. Also, no, I’m not good with it. I’m not sure where some of you come up with the idea that I think climate change is strictly a US problem... so let’s clear the air. I don’t think that.

Straw man???? Your boy appointed a climate czar who flew over there and got us back into those damned things. And they DO put the onus on us rather than the biggest offenders. Hardly a straw man, but at least you acknowledge that it isn't a US problem specifically.. Now I want to get you to admit that the leftist government is overreaching with all this green bullsqueeze.

I'll stipulate that man has had an effect. I don't believe that effect is meaningful though.

 

[McDad]

Most all of our science is “observational” in that we observe a phenomena, formulate a reason why, design experiments on how to replicate, and examine and validate the results. I think I remember reading that up until Einstein proposed General Relativity all scientific laws were empirically derived.

I think the issue on the climate science is comprehending the correct boundary conditions and dealing with the very very VERY long time constants involved in the processes in play. It makes experimentation quite difficult.

All of it starts as observational. What separates the observed phenomena to predictable are actual experiments. Those experiments give explanation and insight to the phenomena. The it turns to an exact science where it becomes reproducible and predictable.

 

[hog88]

Instead of adapting to change, like evolutionary life has always done, we are trying to arrest that change due to the vain thinking it's perfect now.

This is my problem with the climatedavidians. They want to spend trillions of dollars trying to stop something that cannot be stopped instead of figuring out how we can live and thrive with the changes.

 

[Weezy]

My problem with climate science isn't the science which I don't care to read up on. It's the solutions which are clearly not the solutions. Solar and Wind are not capable of grid level baseload power. The evidence is clear, unless you have an enormous amount of hydro, you need nuclear power. And Solar and Wind drive nuclear off the grid due to their daily variability so they are competing. I question if there is a problem if the preferred solution is so obviously wrong.

 

[NorthDallas40]

All of it starts as observational. What separates the observed phenomena to predictable are actual experiments. Those experiments give explanation and insight to the phenomena. The it turns to an exact science where it becomes reproducible and predictable.

That’s just it. General Relativity was based on Einstein’s pontification and he sat down and just derived the laws. THEN people formulated ways to see if they held water. It’s just more of an example on how brilliant that man was.

On the rest, yes.

 

[NorthDallas40]

My problem with climate science isn't the science which I don't care to read up on. It's the solutions which are clearly not the solutions. Solar and Wind are not capable of grid level baseload power. The evidence is clear, unless you have an enormous amount of hydro, you need nuclear power. And Solar and Wind drive nuclear off the grid due to their daily variability so they are competing. I question if there is a problem if the preferred solution is so obviously wrong.

Solar and wind is a solution looking for a problem to solve. It’s a horrible way to set policy much less base a public utility around.

 

[OHvol40]

Straw man???? Your boy appointed a climate czar who flew over there and got us back into those damned things. And they DO put the onus on us rather than the biggest offenders. Hardly a straw man, but at least you acknowledge that it isn't a US problem specifically.. Now I want to get you to admit that the leftist government is overreaching with all this green bullsqueeze.

I'll stipulate that man has had an effect. I don't believe that effect is meaningful though.

Politicians overreact to any hot button issue. Of course they use it to draw support, all sides do it to create impactful propaganda, especially in this country. That’s not the issue I’m concerned with. I’m concerned with both earth’s caring capacity for humans and the human impact on our environment. Of course I recognize impactful change has to be converted to policy, and I’m extremely worried that the misinformation operation waged by fossil fuels over the last 4 or 5 decades has given the politicians that they lobby enough plausible deniability to continue dragging their feet, worsening our problems.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Politicians overreact to any hot button issue. Of course they use it to draw support, all sides do it to create impactful propaganda, especially in this country. That’s not the issue I’m concerned with. I’m concerned with both earth’s caring capacity for humans and the human impact on our environment. Of course I recognize impactful change has to be converted to policy, and I’m extremely worried that the misinformation operation waged by fossil fuels over the last 4 or 5 decades has given the politicians that they lobby enough plausible deniability to continue dragging their feet, worsening our problems.

I have news for you. All that 'green' energy ain't nearly as green as they want you to believe.

It is a fact that life is messy. We make garbage. We make pollution. But you do what you can. If everybody would take care of their own house and stop worrying about everybody else's things might go more smoothly. At my house we put out the trash once a month because everything else is either composted or recycled. I don't care what you do. I don't care what anyone else does. But I do care when government comes down and tells me I am not doing enough. Especially if it costs me money to do more that I don't have to spend. Fossil fuels will die out someday. Everybody will be driving electric cars. You leftists believe in evolution, yet you don't want to practice it in your own life. Curious really.

 

[OHvol40]

I have news for you. All that 'green' energy ain't nearly as green as they want you to believe.

It is a fact that life is messy. We make garbage. We make pollution. But you do what you can. If everybody would take care of their own house and stop worrying about everybody else's things might go more smoothly. At my house we put out the trash once a month because everything else is either composted or recycled. I don't care what you do. I don't care what anyone else does. But I do care when government comes down and tells me I am not doing enough. Especially if it costs me money to do more that I don't have to spend. Fossil fuels will die out someday. Everybody will be driving electric cars. You leftists believe in evolution, yet you don't want to practice it in your own life. Curious really.

Sure, people should practice personal responsibility... but none of that really has anything to do with what I said or what we were talking about before, so I’m not quite following the idea hopscotch here.

If you have something to get off your chest I’m all for it, just stop tagging me in it lol

 

[hog88]

Politicians overreact to any hot button issue. Of course they use it to draw support, all sides do it to create impactful propaganda, especially in this country. That’s not the issue I’m concerned with. I’m concerned with both earth’s caring capacity for humans and the human impact on our environment. Of course I recognize impactful change has to be converted to policy, and I’m extremely worried that the misinformation operation waged by fossil fuels over the last 4 or 5 decades has given the politicians that they lobby enough plausible deniability to continue dragging their feet, worsening our problems.

LOL

If you were concerned about the earth’s carrying capacity for humans you wouldn’t have been supportive of mask mandates and shutdowns during the pandemic.

 

[McDad]

LOL

If you were concerned about the earth’s carrying capacity for humans you wouldn’t have been supportive of mask mandates and shutdowns during the pandemic.

Tough spot to be in. Too many humans are problematic but I don't want people to die.

Perhaps he just doesn't want any to be born. Or, like China, wants to limit the number born per family.

 

[hog88]

Tough spot to be in. Too many humans are problematic but I don't want people to die.

Perhaps he just doesn't want any to be born. Or, like China, wants to limit the number born per family.

It's just a cause for him, something to believe in. Not much if any different than a religion or cult.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Just to get a perspective of population density, Atlanta is 3,670/sq mi. NYC is 27,755.

At slightly over Atlanta's population density (3727/sq mi, the entire population of the earth could live in:
Texas
California
Montana
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
Colorado
Oregon
Wyoming
Michigan
Minnesota
Utah
Idaho
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
Washington
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Missouri
Florida
Wisconsin

This would, fortunately, leave Tennessee for VolNation. Polar bears would have the entire state of Alaska to do what polar bears do. OhVol could play OhVol Pinetree Seed and plant the entire state of Ohio in white pines.

 

[OHvol40]

Tough spot to be in. Too many humans are problematic but I don't want people to die.

Perhaps he just doesn't want any to be born. Or, like China, wants to limit the number born per family.

You jest, but overpopulation is a real problem. People can do as they please, but personally, at this point, I view having more offspring than your replacement value is plain dumb.

 

[OHvol40]

LOL

If you were concerned about the earth’s carrying capacity for humans you wouldn’t have been supportive of mask mandates and shutdowns during the pandemic.

So you’re saying those things saved lives? Interesting.

 

[OHvol40]

Just to get a perspective of population density, Atlanta is 3,670/sq mi. NYC is 27,755.

At slightly over Atlanta's population density (3727/sq mi, the entire population of the earth could live in:
Texas
California
Montana
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
Colorado
Oregon
Wyoming
Michigan
Minnesota
Utah
Idaho
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
Washington
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Missouri
Florida
Wisconsin

This would, fortunately, leave Tennessee for VolNation. Polar bears would have the entire state of Alaska to do what polar bears do. OhVol could play OhVol Pinetree Seed and plant the entire state of Ohio in white pines.

I’m all for it. Give me Ohio and I’ll try my best to manage the whitetail population myself. I’ll even sell you guys the venison.

 

[hog88]

So you’re saying those things saved lives? Interesting.

Not at all. I'm simply asking why you pushed them so hard if you are concerned about load?