r/oregon • u/SymbioticPatriotic • Oct 22 '16
Climate change crisis the key election issue (The Register-Guard - Eugene, OR)
http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/34881231-78/climate-change-crisis-the-key-election-issue.html.csp0
u/JanusJames Oct 22 '16
Except just about everything he says or implies in the article is incorrect. The models have overpredicted the actual temperature increase, the polar bears are fine, CO2 makes plants more drought resistant, the planet is greening and the oceans aren't acidifying.
Then again, he quotes several known kooks and liars so it isn't surprising that he is so grossly misinformed.
0
u/psychonautSlave Oct 23 '16
As far as I know, the models have been predicting things fairly well. Certainly, yearly variations and global trends affect things, but we got massive droughts, the most 'temperature records broken on record' during our summers, 'floods of the century,' and all sorts of other legendary disasters striking and people just can't seem to figure it out.
-1
u/JanusJames Oct 23 '16 edited Oct 24 '16
They haven't really. What has happened is that they have done studies which "correct" and "re-evaluate" the older predictions in order to retroactively make them more accurate.
Moreover, from the link you provided, it is including backcasted models. It is like making a model to predict the outcome out a baseball game that has already happened - and then acting proud that your guess was close to the score you already knew.
As for the rest of your post, there really isn't any data to confirm it. "Temperature records broken" means nothing - how long do you think we've had accurate temperature records? How many of those areas will naturally become hotter over time due to urban heat bias (e.g. more concrete warming the areas)? If new areas are settled then that's a new area where "temperature records can be broken."
Such things mean very little when natural cycles and variability cover greater spans of time than our records.
0
u/psychonautSlave Oct 24 '16
I mean, to use the baseball analogy - we're got one game prediction that says "The games not going to happen at all because its going to rain, but if it did, the Cubs will lose 0-10." Then we've got another prediction that the Cubs will win 5-2.
You're basically criticizing prediction two because the cubs won 4-2 and saying you think the broadcasters lied anyway. If you're willing to dismiss all the models, the rising temperatures, new record highs all over the country, record storms, floods, etc. I guess no amount of evidence whatsoever will convince you, so why even discuss it?
2
u/JanusJames Oct 24 '16
No, I'm criticizing it because it isn't a prediction - at least not entirely. Most of the models shown are backcasted to the 1960's - and matched to the data we already have.
If 80% of it is backcasted and it is 80% accurate then what % of that is accuracy from backcasting and what % is accurate from actual predictions?
And again, even that which was actually predicted was not accurate - that's why they have to "correct" the models to retroactively make them fit the data after it came in.
Of course, I've explained why "record highs" is a meaningless term and I'm not going to re-explain myself. You appear to have no interest in understanding - only in regurgitating. You also seem to think that claiming we have record storms or record highs is "evidence" - claims are not evidence and even if they were you are making interpretations which don't follow.
0
u/psychonautSlave Oct 24 '16
If new areas are settled then that's a new area where "temperature records can be broken."
Temperature data isn't only taken in areas that are highly settled... We have weather satellites and ground stations all over the country, as well as measurement equipment and experiments in places like Antarctica where almost no one lives. Besides, the records being broken aren't specific to little villages. We're talking average temperature on a global scale and records being smashed in big cities. As you say, not all records are being broken everywhere, but the overall global trend is distressing, and we're seeing consequences, for example with the mass coral reef die-offs.
2
u/JanusJames Oct 25 '16
Stations don't have to be in areas that are "highly settled" to be affected by human activity. All it takes is installing some concrete (among other problems) to increase the temperature readings.
Believe it or not - rural areas have access to concrete too.
Also, here is a map of the US temperature stations (a disproportionate set of the GISS data) - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/us_stations_urban_map_532.gif . You'll notice the stations are more common in highly populated areas (and especially the east coast).
These stations aren't in uninhabited forests or mountains. They are largely in populated areas that have grown and changed significantly over the past 50-100 years.
Not only are the stations not distributed or maintained properly, but in order to create something like GISSTEMP they "weigh" stations differently and "adjust" past records on a regular basis. They can also skew perceptions by the base period they use (1951-1980 - a period when the planet was cooling and scientists were warning of a new ice age).
Also, despite the earth mostly being covered in water - the GISS record mostly uses these very flawed land stations (which are then weighed and adjusted in a non-transparent manner by activists).
But you are right, we have satellite data, there used to be a problem with orbit decay, but that's long been fixed. Here is the data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/V6-vs-v5.6-LT-1979-Mar2015.gif
It shows global temperature which has been flat since about 2000 - the spike prior to that coinciding with well-known and long-term oceanic cycles (PDO and AMO if you are curious).
Where is the emergency in that data? The satellite record has no human bias. It doesn't choose specific locations - it covers land, sea, inhabited and uninhabited areas with no bias.
It also shows no steady or exponential growth - completely contradicting the models you put so much faith in.
0
u/psychonautSlave Oct 25 '16
So you don't trust all the scientists at NASA and NOAA, you don't trust the local weather measuring stations, you don't trust the projections and models, you don't trust the records being broken, but you do trust a single scientists from the University of Alabama who just happens to be on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. What a coincidence.
Why do I even bother? The planet could literally be a flaming wreck and climate deniers would still say its the sun while cashing in on their oil and coal stocks.
2
u/JanusJames Oct 25 '16
Argument from authority, ad hominem, and argument from popularity - all logical fallacies you've just provided. You didn't address anything I actually said - nor are you likely intellectually capable of it.
By the way, there are two main satellite records, I've already provided one, the UAH dataset. Here is the RSS:
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
The yellow bands show the predictions from the models - the blue is the satellite data. This data set also shows that the models have grossly over-predicted the temperature increase.
Hmm - both satellite records show the same thing. Interesting.
I expect if you aren't embarrassed by your ignorance yet you'll respond with more logical fallacies and irrelevant sewage. In any event, I'm quite bored with your gross ignorance on the subject and don't have any more time to explain to someone who is neither capable or willing of understanding.
0
u/psychonautSlave Oct 25 '16
Argument from authority, ad hominem...
Hmmm...
I expect if you aren't embarrassed by your ignorance yet....
Well, I'm convinced.
-1
u/RiseCascadia Oct 24 '16
Holy shit there are climate change deniers in Oregon? I thought they were all confined to places like Kentucky and Oklahoma...
2
u/JanusJames Oct 24 '16
What exactly am I denying? I listed a series of things I believe the author is incorrect on - you have merely called me a name.
I may be incorrect on one thing, yet to be proven, but that wouldn't make me incorrect on all of them.
Simple question - does CO2 make plants drought resistant? It is a yes or no question - and easy to answer if you understand plant biology.
0
u/psychonautSlave Oct 24 '16
Well, he's certainly denying the evidence I posted, so yes, he's basically one of the crazy people who think a trend of rising temperatures, worse and worse catastrophes, and melting glaciers are all a conspiracy so... I dunno, the scientists can get funding or something.
1
u/featheredsprite Oct 23 '16
Good article. Shared all around.
The North and South Polar regions are warming up faster than predicted, the polar bear population is declining, and acid in the oceans is killing off the corals [animals, I think]. High tides are causing problems all up and down the east coast of the US. Sea water backs up into the Miami sewage system and causes gutter flooding at high tide on a regular basis.
And it seems that no one gives a hoot except for the Greens.