Green new deal NOT about climate? Chakrabarti indicates about economy

[carlv_52]

Because you can defy corporate CEOs. Also because there are competing CEOs and different corporations. That's not the case when power is ceded to Washington.

Hmmm, that doesn't sound like American corporations. No, they just got "personhood status" in order to influence the government and American corporations (ESPECIALLY energy corporations) tend to have a lot more "unquestionable control" over things that consumers really can't impact either way. (this is why it is always a silly effort to do "gasoline boycotts" when the prices are too high at the pump...the market is set up such that those boycotts seldom have any real impact on the corporations).

We actually have REAL WORLD DATA showing how coordinated government systems can solve big problems like the Montreal Protocols of the 1990's. The list goes on.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This sort of approach to skepticism of climate change (based on the fact that the worst predicted hasn't yet happened) would lead people to NOT support seismic retrofit on office buildings in San Francisco.

Wrong. Their is plenty of evidence of catastrophic earthquakes in SF so please don't try to say that one is the same as the other.

People have been predicting the "Big one" in San Fran for decades now. Is it because seismologists have NO IDEA how the earth functions or what causes earthquakes? Nope. But predicting a disaster is very hard on a short term. But we KNOW with 100% certainty that at SOME TIME there will be an earthquake in SF that is as large or larger than 1906. We KNOW this because we know how the tectonic plates work.

This is exactly the same. We are seeing the data and we KNOW how the climate works to a reasonable approximation. We KNOW what we are heading to. Will it become obvious to the most hardened skeptic in 3 years? Maybe, maybe not. Will it become so in 50-100 years? Far more likely. Will it happen within the next 100-150 years? There's a pretty high likelihood.

It is not the same thing. Climate change is all computer modeling, as you noted it is predictive, it is guess work. And so far the guesses have not worked well.....and as with all computer models 'garbage in, garbage out'. So, before we spend trillions of dollars on solutions to problems that can't be proven I would like to see some solid evidence.

The best part is that the longer we wait the LESS OUR OPTIONS EXIST. We've already pretty much sealed our fate because we've been having to explain simple freshman chemistry to "skeptics" in the generation population and they still aren't getting it. So we wait a few more years and nail a few more nails into our coffin.

I just love the surety of a liberal that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong......

 

[Gigimo]

But...but...AOC!

What about her? Other than she's a bigger gaff machine than Uncle Joe Biden...

 

[Gigimo]

I do remember that. Are you trying to say you do not?

 

[Gigimo]

They tried putting one off the Mass. coast and all the rich liberals (and conservatives) got it shut down because they did not want their view spoiled..

But didn't they claim it was killing too many birds? (that were pooping in their swimming pools).

 

[comana]

Ah yes, the prestigious scientific journal Time Magazine.

 

[carlv_52]

Wrong. Their is plenty of evidence of catastrophic earthquakes in SF so please don't try to say that one is the same as the other.

And there's plenty of evidence for global climate change due to human activities. In fact we know a lot about what sort of horrors are possible due to climate change that has happened on earth before human activity could do anything! Ever heard of the End Permian Extinction Event?

It is not the same thing. Climate change is all computer modeling,

Not even close.

Besides, you DO realize that "models" underlay pretty much all of science, right?

as you noted it is predictive, it is guess work.

What is your experience with scientific models?

I just love the surety of a liberal that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong......

Well, I'll put my experience in actual science up against your "opinion" (which seems to require almost no science to support it) any day.

Twice on Sunday.

 

[carlv_52]

You DO realize taht in the 1970's there were MORE actual peer-reviewed science articles written predicting global WARMING than a coming ice age, right?

You DID know that, right? You also know that the 1970's was when we were also figuring out Milankovich Cycles which drive most of the ice ages over the past several million years and that we should be going into another ice age now....yet we are NOT. Precisely because of global warming which we have triggered with our actions!

It's truly astounding to think our actions have been able to be a larger climate forcing than orbital eccentricities!

But here we are.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ah yes, the prestigious scientific journal Time Magazine.

Except people don't read prestigious scientific journals.....the read Time........

 

[carlv_52]

Except people don't read prestigious scientific journals.....the read Time........

And look how uninformed they are about climate topics! As was noted even in those years of the 1970's more actual science was pointing toward warming than toward cooling.

It's almost like one should understand a LITTLE about science in a science topic!

 

[civilwarbuff]

And there's plenty of evidence for global climate change due to human activities. In fact we know a lot about what sort of horrors are possible due to climate change that has happened on earth before human activity could do anything! Ever heard of the End Permian Extinction Event?

I am....and are you aware that if the theories of that event are reasonably accurate they could not have been prevented, let alone predicted, even with today's technology?

Besides, you DO realize that "models" underlay pretty much all of science, right?

You seem to be conflating models and theories.....
Scientific modelling. In science, a model is a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly. Models are central to what scientists do, both in their research as well as when communicating their explanations.May 10, 2011
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy).
Now you can really see the difference: theories are testable and can be shown to be false. Models cannot; maybe you can see why climate change believers like models.

What is your experience with scientific models?

Not a whole lot....college chemistry, physics, biology, microbiology, some genetics.....25+ years in the medical field....a good amount of independent reading.

Well, I'll put my experience in actual science up against your "opinion" (which seems to require almost no science to support it) any day.

Twice on Sunday.

Now, now, Sunday is a day of rest........

 

[SimplyMe]

In the next 6 months where I live it WILL rain. I know with 100% certainty that in the next 6 months it WILL rain here. I probably won't rain tomorrow, but it might.

Are you familiar with Flood Maps? There are floods that are called "100 year Floods" because they are very large but low probability. About 1 per 100years. If we have a 100 year flood next week on the river that I live next to it does NOT mean that it will be 100 years before such a flood happens again. It will be on average.

This is the nature of probability and prediction. In the case of anthropogenic global climate change we KNOW exactly where it will lead. It's just a matter of timing.



Most of us who understand the science a bit better know that the earth will be just fine in the long run, minus a big swath of the biosphere. But indeed the REAL danger to us as humans is that we will destroy our way of life. That is a guarantee. Our economy is far more tenuous than life itself. We can easily destroy our civilization without killing off all living things. And that is 100% guaranteed if we ignore the physics and chemistry you claim no one is debating against.



Such as? You DO realize that many of the concepts that have been floated for climate change fixes were already done to take care of a lot of things previously right? Acid rain was greatly dealt with using a cap and trade kind of approach. But back in the early 80's the exact same complaints were there that these fixes would destroy the economy. They didn't. And we are better for it now. Same thing with CFC's.

So what we are seeing now with climate change skepticism is the EXACT SAME GAME that was played out many times before with regards to acid rain, CFC's, even cigarette-cancer linkage! And in all those case the "skeptics" were wrong.

Now the stakes are a lot higher. You wanna bet against the house?

One of the interesting things is my city has had 500 year floods (floods that have a 0.2% chance of occuring in a given year) in the last four years (they were actually three years in a row, 2015-2017). Of course, my city isn't the only one experiencing this phenomena, as we are seeing with the Mississippi River floods.

In fact, while he claims San Francisco isn't taking the "big one" on faith, as they have the evidence of all the smaller quakes -- the fact is the same with climate change. You have similar evidence of climate change in the number 100 year, 500 year, and 1,000 year floods occurring every year in the US, and around the world; as well as several other events (such as rising oceans).

 

[SimplyMe]

Probably the same reason that when a liberal enters a conversation they always know whats best for everyone and are willing to use the government to force them to do it......just say'n.....

Funny, I've seen similar things from Conservatives -- particularly since I have lived in two of the most Republican voting states (Oklahoma and Utah).

 

[carlv_52]

I am....and are you aware that if the theories of that event are reasonably accurate they could not have been prevented, let alone predicted, even with today's technology?

That is not the point. The point is that we know how climates respond to forcings through a lot of the stuff we have learned about the earth's history ("natural" forcings).

You seem to be conflating models and theories.....

No, I know what I'm talking about here. Do you ever move? Yeah, the classic physics equation F=ma that helps us understand something as simple as forces is a "model".

So let's not hack away at models as if "models" per se are the problem. Scientists use models literally all the time. Those models have done quite well by all of us for hundreds of years.

Scientific modelling. In science, a model is a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly.

That's a silly oversimplification of how modeling works in science. In science there are PHYSICAL MODELS and there are STATISITICAL MODELS. The physical models are predicated on known physical features. Like F=ma. We can plug in the numbers and it explains the effect.

Climate models are almost all physical models. Built on fundamental physics. Sure there are a few "empirical" factors built into if there are no simple direct equations to explain the effect. But for the most part they are physical models.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.

And yes, those theories are often underlain by mathematical expressions to explain the theories. That's what's used in the models.

Now you can really see the difference: theories are testable and can be shown to be false. Models cannot; maybe you can see why climate change believers like models.

Wow. That's like fractally wrong about models. IN FACT MODELS CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN! They do it literally ALL THE TIME with climate models! It's called "Backcasting". They have done it for climate data for blocks of time that have been directly observed. They compare the actual historical data to a set of runs on the starting conditions run through model and they compare. This is how they get ERROR TERMS.

Perhaps if you were more familiar with this topic in detail you'd already know that the IPCC has a complete dedicated section to model validation (HERE)

Not a whole lot....college chemistry, physics, biology, microbiology, some genetics.....25+ years in the medical field....a good amount of independent reading.

That's interesting. Because you seem unfamiliar with how models are used in science. (At least as evidenced here in this thread).

 

[SimplyMe]

I'm old enough to remember the TV special on the "coming ice age" (as well as Pres. Kennedy being assassinated), and even think I remember that issue of Time magazine. If I recall right (though I may be confusing it with Newsweek, US News & World report, or even Life), while the Editor took license with the cover, the article was actually relatively well written and acknowledged that it was actually a relatively small minority of scientists that believed we were heading for an ice age.

What I recall is the TV show about the coming "ice age" -- which was based on some very questionable science (if you bothered to investigate) -- and was largely created to help sell a book. Then, if you actually researched the subject, you'd find that most scientists in that field (which I don't believe was "climatology" at the time, as I don't believe the term had been coined yet) believed they were wrong -- and, as was stated, most supported that the Earth would warm rather than cool.

As has been shown multiple times, popular media does a horrible job with science.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is not the point. The point is that we know how climates respond to forcings through a lot of the stuff we have learned about the earth's history ("natural" forcings).



No, I know what I'm talking about here. Do you ever move? Yeah, the classic physics equation F=ma that helps us understand something as simple as forces is a "model".

So let's not hack away at models as if "models" per se are the problem. Scientists use models literally all the time. Those models have done quite well by all of us for hundreds of years.



That's a silly oversimplification of how modeling works in science. In science there are PHYSICAL MODELS and there are STATISITICAL MODELS. The physical models are predicated on known physical features. Like F=ma. We can plug in the numbers and it explains the effect.

Climate models are almost all physical models. Built on fundamental physics. Sure there are a few "empirical" factors built into if there are no simple direct equations to explain the effect. But for the most part they are physical models.

Every one is entitled to their opinion.....


And yes, those theories are often underlain by mathematical expressions to explain the theories. That's what's used in the models.



Wow. That's like fractally wrong about models. IN FACT MODELS CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN! They do it literally ALL THE TIME with climate models! It's called "Backcasting". They have done it for climate data for blocks of time that have been directly observed. They compare the actual historical data to a set of runs on the starting conditions run through model and they compare. This is how they get ERROR TERMS.

Perhaps if you were more familiar with this topic in detail you'd already know that the IPCC has a complete dedicated section to model validation (HERE)



That's interesting. Because you seem unfamiliar with how models are used in science. (At least as evidenced here in this thread).

Everyone is entitled to their opinion......That is the beauty of models......

 

[carlv_52]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion......

Indeed, but, again, opinions predicated on a lack of understanding of the topic are likely to be uninformed and without much value.

Here's a simpler way to approach the topic: I'll use myself here because I don't want to call into question anything about your background.

I know a goodly amount about how scientific models work. Most of my experience is statistical modeling but with my career being what it is I have spent a huge amount of time with regular physical models as well. I even have a pretty solid background in earth science.

BUT, I am not a climate scientist. My experience isn't much related to the vast amount of knowledge in climate science per se, so when I am faced with the information about climate science I have to do a couple of things:

1. Does the climate science make sense on a high level...ie does the basic science comport with the basic science I do know? Climate science does. I mean we know that CO2 absorbs in the IR, we can demonstrate that and it's pretty obvious. We know from isotopic composition where most of the recent run up of excess CO2 is coming from (burning of fossil and vegetal fuels which are depleted in 13-C) so we know it's human activity for the most part. We know from earth's history how these systems respond to perturbations, so yeah, it all makes basic science sense.

2. What about the science I'm not that familiar with? Climate physics, deeper thermodynamics, fluid dynamics. Well, if I see that the vast majority of scientists actually BELIEVE that the science is in pretty good shape I'm much safer siding with the majority of scientists. Otherwise I'd have to come up with a robust reason why I disbelieve the majority of scientists who study something I'm not that familiar with. And that is irrational...if I'm not familiar enough with it to understand it, how can I justify siding with the minority?

 

[Gigimo]

I just love the surety of a liberal that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong......

That's seems to be very common, another common theme is "If I didn't think of it it can't be true so that means you're wrong"

 

[Gigimo]

Ah yes, the prestigious scientific journal Time Magazine.

Time... Democratic Underground... The Onion... It's a tossup

 

[carlv_52]

That's seems to be very common, another common theme is "If I didn't think of it it can't be true so that means you're wrong"

In the case of climate skepticism and denialism, trust me, those of us who have some familiarity with the topic have seen almost all the standard "critiques". And they usually fall quite quickly in the light of what actual science says.