hot enough for ya?

[dead man walking]

melting permafrost, notable problem in n. russia.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/melting-pe ... ion-people

the science of ghg and warming is well-established. the serious questions are not about why the climate is changing, they are about how rapidly and how great the damage will be. those who are critical of mainstream scientists, like curry, don't deny climate change or the causation by ghg. they question the severity.

did I post any links with stories about the problems rising sea levels are already causing for housing markets in miami? norfolk? it is happening.

[Sangoma]

I note again your tendency to quibble over details while completely avoiding the substance of a topic.

Are you kidding? Hockey Stick is central to the question if current climate change is anthropogenic. If the methodology by which this graph is derived is flawed and the data is wrong then global warming gets disconnected from CO2. And you don't need to be a climate scientist to understand the debate. Though you have to put some effort to get into (or quibble over if you will) the details.

[Turdacious]

Who hates Gaia most?

After legalizing adult use almost two years ago, Massachusetts opened the state’s first two recreational marijuana stores last month, which sold more than $2.2 million in product on their first day. The retail sales from recreational marijuana could generate an estimated $219 million in taxes for the state over the next two years.

Yes, but: The state's Cannabis Control Commission’s Energy Working Group (CCCEWG) is concerned with skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions from the cultivating facilities. Massachusetts aims to cut statewide emissions by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. As of 2017, the state was at a 21% reduction, and many fear that the cultivation facilities' increasing energy demands may put the 25% goal at risk.

In cultivation facilities, marijuana producers commonly employ dehumidifiers and high-intensity discharge (HID) lights, which use 80 times the energy of a 100-watt LED bulb. HIDs also generate a significant amount of heat, which then requires ventilation and air conditioning to keep the plants at optimal temperatures.

https://www.axios.com/massachusetts-tac ... 6ae5b.html

[dead man walking]

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

wikipedia

[dead man walking]

background

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downlo ... _DRAFT.pdf

[Fat Cat]

I note again your tendency to quibble over details while completely avoiding the substance of a topic.

Are you kidding? Hockey Stick is central to the question if current climate change is anthropogenic. If the methodology by which this graph is derived is flawed and the data is wrong then global warming gets disconnected from CO2. And you don't need to be a climate scientist to understand the debate. Though you have to put some effort to get into (or quibble over if you will) the details.

No, I'm not kidding. The essence of the question is: "can you continuously add carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to a closed system and not create a warming trend?" The details of the model are just that. It really doesn't matter if the model is wrong, if the answer to the essential question is "no", then it is logical to look at ways to reduce emissions and/or sequester carbon. That way you can deal with the problem whether the source is natural, anthropogenic, or as seems likely to me, both.

[Sangoma]

No, the original question was: what causes current temperature rise? Hockey stick graph was the critical piece of the puzzle that tipped the argument towards currently accepted CO2 = warming view. If this graph is fraudulent - which is what the argument is about - then this hypothesis cannot be considered valid and the proposals to reduce CO2 are meaningless. In that case we should better focus on adjusting to climate change rather than trying to prevent it. Which in my opinion is way more realistic than trying to influence the weather.

[nafod]

No, the original question was: what causes current temperature rise?

That is a different question from, “What will be the impact of dumping an orders of magnitude pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere.”

The hockey stick theoretically could be scientists seeing patterns where there were none at the time, and it still leaves the much more important question of how the system responds wide open. CO2 is increasing, and the rate of CO2 increase is increasing. The whole planet is basically saying, “hold my beer”. Hope it works out OK for our kids.

To boot, the paper you cited was from 2005.

[Fat Cat]

No, the original question was: what causes current temperature rise? Hockey stick graph was the critical piece of the puzzle that tipped the argument towards currently accepted CO2 = warming view. If this graph is fraudulent - which is what the argument is about - then this hypothesis cannot be considered valid and the proposals to reduce CO2 are meaningless. In that case we should better focus on adjusting to climate change rather than trying to prevent it. Which in my opinion is way more realistic than trying to influence the weather.

That's not true at all. Adding huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere is capable of causing warming. If the degree and extent of the model's predictions are wrong, whether through error or intentional fraud, it doesn't affect that basic point. Nor does it affect the potential remedies.

[Sangoma]

Adding huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere is capable of causing warming.

It's not the same as "current climate change is caused by increased CO2 concentration", is it? Don't you think that in order to justify implementing fairly drastic measures that will affect economies in a big way you have to have serious proof of feasibility of the hypothesis.

If the degree and extent of the model's ... sic point.

It's not the degree of prediction, it's the very basis of the hypothesis. If warming of the same magnitude happened several centuries ago we can argue that it is not driven by human activity, that CO2 is the consequence and the cause of warming and that proposed measures are a waste of time.

[Sangoma]

No, the original question was: what causes current temperature rise?

That is a different question from, “What will be the impact of dumping an orders of magnitude pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere.”

The hockey stick theoretically could be scientists seeing patterns where there were none at the time, and it still leaves the much more important question of how the system responds wide open. CO2 is increasing, and the rate of CO2 increase is increasing. The whole planet is basically saying, “hold my beer”. Hope it works out OK for our kids.

To boot, the paper you cited was from 2005.

This is the whole point: the debate happened over ten years ago and was swept under the carpet. Or rather there was no debate at all, and Mann et al. were gently protected from the critique and thorough analysis. To my knowledge there is no new evidence that supports Mann's work, and his name is quoted left, right and centre by every alarming journalist and activist.

[Fat Cat]

It's not the degree of prediction, it's the very basis of the hypothesis. If warming of the same magnitude happened several centuries ago we can argue that it is not driven by human activity, that CO2 is the consequence and the cause of warming and that proposed measures are a waste of time.

Actually, no. If warming was happening several centuries ago it could absolutely be the product of human activity, and even if it wasn't it could still be caused by natural sources of carbon entering the atmosphere, and further, the remedy--removing carbon from the atmosphere--would still remain the same. So all you've got is sophistry and pedantic, nerdy objections to modelling, and since I work in a modelling heavy field I can assure you, that's all myopic little bug men are capable of doing: arguing about details of a model when the fundamental truths are as plain as day.

[dead man walking]

No, the original question was: what causes current temperature rise?

That is a different question from, “What will be the impact of dumping an orders of magnitude pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere.”

The hockey stick theoretically could be scientists seeing patterns where there were none at the time, and it still leaves the much more important question of how the system responds wide open. CO2 is increasing, and the rate of CO2 increase is increasing. The whole planet is basically saying, “hold my beer”. Hope it works out OK for our kids.

To boot, the paper you cited was from 2005.

This is the whole point: the debate happened over ten years ago and was swept under the carpet. Or rather there was no debate at all, and Mann et al. were gently protected from the critique and thorough analysis. To my knowledge there is no new evidence that supports Mann's work, and his name is quoted left, right and centre by every alarming journalist and activist.

wrong. read the wikipedia quotation above. also:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken ... -stick.htm

[dead man walking]

and this, from mann himself, almost as if he had you guys in mind:

"Climate deniers like to make it seem like the entire weight of evidence for climate change rests on the hockey stick," explains Mann. "And that's not the case. We could get rid of all these reconstructions, and we could still know that climate change is a threat, and that we're causing it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ed/275753/

and this, if you want to crawls thru some weeds:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -delusion/

[Turdacious]

and this, from mann himself, almost as if he had you guys in mind:

"Climate deniers like to make it seem like the entire weight of evidence for climate change rests on the hockey stick," explains Mann. "And that's not the case. We could get rid of all these reconstructions, and we could still know that climate change is a threat, and that we're causing it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ed/275753/

and this, if you want to crawls thru some weeds:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -delusion/

LOL. Mann's got about as much credibility as Andrew Wakefield (godfather of the modern anti-vaxxers).

[Turdacious]

I note again your tendency to quibble over details while completely avoiding the substance of a topic.

Are you kidding? Hockey Stick is central to the question if current climate change is anthropogenic. If the methodology by which this graph is derived is flawed and the data is wrong then global warming gets disconnected from CO2. And you don't need to be a climate scientist to understand the debate. Though you have to put some effort to get into (or quibble over if you will) the details.

No, I'm not kidding. The essence of the question is: "can you continuously add carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to a closed system and not create a warming trend?" The details of the model are just that. It really doesn't matter if the model is wrong, if the answer to the essential question is "no", then it is logical to look at ways to reduce emissions and/or sequester carbon. That way you can deal with the problem whether the source is natural, anthropogenic, or as seems likely to me, both.

The biggest problem is the one that nobody wants to admit too-- the largest net producers of carbon are people coming out of desperate poverty (the kind Sally Struthers talked about...). Stop their dogged attempts to get the things we take for granted (heating/air, regular food, cars, etc...), and you stop the carbon problem. Nobody wants to admit that.

[dead man walking]

and this, from mann himself, almost as if he had you guys in mind:

"Climate deniers like to make it seem like the entire weight of evidence for climate change rests on the hockey stick," explains Mann. "And that's not the case. We could get rid of all these reconstructions, and we could still know that climate change is a threat, and that we're causing it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ed/275753/

and this, if you want to crawls thru some weeds:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -delusion/

LOL. Mann's got about as much credibility as Andrew Wakefield (godfather of the modern anti-vaxxers).

you obviously didn't read the "real climate" material. I'm done wasting my time.

[Sangoma]

It's not the degree of prediction, it's the very basis of the hypothesis. If warming of the same magnitude happened several centuries ago we can argue that it is not driven by human activity, that CO2 is the consequence and the cause of warming and that proposed measures are a waste of time.

Actually, no. If warming was happening several centuries ago it could absolutely be the product of human activity, and even if it wasn't it could still be caused by natural sources of carbon entering the atmosphere, and further, the remedy--removing carbon from the atmosphere--would still remain the same. So all you've got is sophistry and pedantic, nerdy objections to modelling, and since I work in a modelling heavy field I can assure you, that's all myopic little bug men are capable of doing: arguing about details of a model when the fundamental truths are as plain as day.

You have two "could" and one questionable "would". Doesn't seem like a solid basis for a model to me. I work in a modeling heavy field too - diagnostic and treatment algorithms in anaesthesiology are based on models of physics, physiology and pharmacology. Moreover, I used to design trading programs in my derivatives trading days. Mind you, derivatives markets are highly volatile and unpredictable, however, if I designed trading with results like what they have in climate we would abandon this approach very quickly. That's the difference between "climate science" where you can either make unverifiable predictions (one hundred years from now, for example) or get away with meek explanations if your predictions are completely off and still keep credibility, while in financial markets the only credible proof is your trading account. Similarly, if my patients take longer to wake up, mortality is higher than the average or if every one is vomiting - my theories will not be taken seriously.

What you call pedantic and nerdy is actually essential for verification of modeling. Look at the diagram I posted earlier: ALL of the models are based on CO2-temperature theory, NONE of them have predicted what was actually observed, the AVERAGE of all of these models is off, and MOST of the models are off by a large degree. That's sufficient reason for someone with basic understanding of scientific methodology to question the theory, the fundamental truth as is plain as day to you. What would you say of an antibiotic that cures pneumonia in zero percent of patients? Or investment methodology that never produces profits?

[Sangoma]

Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat

Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather, and it's not the extreme low or high temperatures that cause the most deaths, according to a study published Wednesday.

The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

[nafod]

I work in a modeling heavy field too - diagnostic and treatment algorithms in anaesthesiology are based on models of physics, physiology and pharmacology.

We are basically dosing a patient (mother Earth, and therefore all of us) with a huge slug of CO2 while we don’t have a model of how the patient will respond, although we know from the past that bad observations (sea level rise, temperature, ocean acidity) correlates with observed levels of high CO2 in the patient.

How do you do your work when you don’t know the outcome of a drug? Do you still administer it, claiming any bad outcomes are not your fault since you didn’t have a model?

[Turdacious]

I love how you Gaia lovers always ignore how regressive your preferred solutions are in practice. The correlation between carbon production and extreme poverty reduction is hard to deny. Why do you hate poor people so much?

[nafod]

Gaia lovers

If there was a planetary version of New Zealand that we could hold joint citizenship in and run to when shit gets real, this would all be a moot point.

[Sangoma]

I work in a modeling heavy field too - diagnostic and treatment algorithms in anaesthesiology are based on models of physics, physiology and pharmacology.

We are basically dosing a patient (mother Earth, and therefore all of us) with a huge slug of CO2 while we don’t have a model of how the patient will respond, although we know from the past that bad observations (sea level rise, temperature, ocean acidity) correlates with observed levels of high CO2 in the patient.

How do you do your work when you don’t know the outcome of a drug? Do you still administer it, claiming any bad outcomes are not your fault since you didn’t have a model?

Nafod, you are making my point: if I don't have the model to reliably predict the response to a drug I don't give it. Models based on the idea that climate change is the result of our "dosing the patient with the slug of CO2" failed quite spectacularly, and this put the whole theory in serious doubt. Furthermore, there is no good indication that proposed measures to reduce CO2 output will reduce the warming. That's why I don't believe, using your metaphor, we should use the drug.

[nafod]

That's why I don't believe, using your metaphor, we should use the drug.

I think are fundamental splitting point here, is I (really Taleb, I am echoing his argument) see the CO2 as the drug that we shouldn't use since (by your argument) we don't have a model to predict what will happen to the Earth when we use it, sending a big-ass monster slug of it into the atmosphere. You've accepted its use as fait accompli, and see potentially reducing it's use as "the drug".

[Wild Bill]

melting permafrost, notable problem in n. russia.

well, its not a problem, its good thing :)