Thread for all the board liberals

[thunder]

Just wanted to make sure we have a thread that identifies all the board liberals. Mention those that haven't been mentioned.
Th'Pusher FuzzyLumpkins

[thunder]

Blake

[thunder]

Spurminator

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Already got that one ignore rogues or whoever you traded the account to. Try another one.

[thunder]

^you're still on the list, keep ignoring me though

[thunder]

Blizzardwizard

[Blizzardwizard]

I don't think I register on this list, right? Obama is a 'liberal' as is Shillary supposedly, friends of the BigCorp. I ain't no Liberal.

[Clipper Nation]

ChumpDumper (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=153)
Splits (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=24583)
boutons_deux (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047)
Nbadan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=78)
DMX7 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=12916)

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo isn't even in the ballpark with most self respecting liberals. That little prick is bum fucking crazy off the deep end. I'm thinking he had a pre-pubescent mommy crush and some republican fucked her to screaming multiple orgasms with the door open and him wanking off down the hall. That's the only logical explanation I can come up with for his eternal mind fuck.

[AntiChrist]

Boo isn't even in the ballpark with most self respecting liberals. That little prick is bum fucking crazy off the deep end. I'm thinking he had a pre-pubescent mommy crush and some republican fucked her to screaming multiple orgasms with the door open and him wanking off down the hall. That's the only logical explanation I can come up with for his eternal mind fuck.

boutons is your modern mainstream progrethive

[Drachen]

boutons is your modern mainstream progrethive

This is patently false.

Oh and Drachen

[boutons_deux]

CC has been bitch slapped by The Great Boutons so many times, his asshole Repugs so exposed, destroyed as total anti-99% assholes, that's he, along with a few others here, are totally obsessed.

[AntiChrist]

This is patently false.

Oh and Drachen (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=430)


Obama agrees with boutons that repugs are evil.


http://youtu.be/YeFijMQzhis

[Clipper Nation]

CC has been bitch slapped by The Great Boutons so many times, his asshole Repugs so exposed, destroyed as total anti-99% assholes, that's he, along with a few others here, are totally obsessed.
Typical Boutons bitch-slap:

http://i.imgur.com/NiA82O6.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

Typical Boutons bitch-slap:

http://i.imgur.com/NiA82O6.jpg

More like:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/8aSUopb_zps9679b40c.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/8aSUopb_zps9679b40c.gif.html)

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol is another little bitch smarting from LOTS of Boutons slappings

[TheSanityAnnex]

Already got that one ignore rogues or whoever you traded the account to. Try another one.


I do hit the view ignored button from time to time:lol little bitch

[m>s]

Keep making the list and I'll forward it to the right guys. Once this country experienced its rebirth it will come in handy or for anti partisan operations.

[DMX7]

Keep making the list and I'll forward it to the right guys. Once this country experienced its rebirth it will come in handy or for anti partisan operations.

How so?

[Splits]

ElNono (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8054)

50% of Clipper Nation

[m>s]

How so?
It's always good to know who your enemies are

[DMX7]

It's always good to know who your enemies are

What specifically are your "anti partisan operations"?

[ElNono]

ElNono (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8054)

:lol depends on the topic and who you ask, tbh...

I prefer fiscal conservatism on the economic side... but definitely a socially liberal...

[m>s]

What specifically are your "anti partisan operations"?
Sup chumpdumper lite

[Nbadan]

Fiscal conservative and social liberal....yes, they do exist...

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol is another little bitch smarting from LOTS of Boutons slappings

lol delusions of relevance.

:lol boutons

[DMX7]

Sup chumpdumper lite

Why don't you want to answer?

[Nbadan]

lol delusions of relevance.

Place wouldn't be the same without Boutons or Wild Cobra....

[Infinite_limit]

ChumpDumper (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=153)
Splits (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=24583)
boutons_deux (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047)
Nbadan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=78)
DMX7 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=12916)
Team Whipping Boy

[m>s]

Why don't you want to answer?
Because im not taking an examination professor cuckold

[ElNono]

Fiscal conservative and social liberal....yes, they do exist...

:lol I'm also pro-2nd amendment, just on a legal basis.

Actually, generally speaking, I feel the right has just gone more right. You used to be able to find more centrist people in the GOP, but in this day and age they're like crucified...

[spurraider21]

:lol depends on the topic and who you ask, tbh...

I prefer fiscal conservatism on the economic side... but definitely a socially liberal...
pls... ShillNono confirmed far, far left of center tbh :lol

http://i61.tinypic.com/wleu5z.png

[Blizzardwizard]

pls... ShillNono confirmed far, far left of center tbh :lol

http://i61.tinypic.com/wleu5z.png

Please. That's 'far far left of center'?

Rookies :lol

[Blake]

Just wanted to make sure we have a thread that identifies all the board liberals. Mention those that haven't been mentioned.
Th'Pusher FuzzyLumpkins

who are you voting for?

[ElNono]

pls... ShillNono confirmed far, far left of center tbh :lol

http://i61.tinypic.com/wleu5z.png

:lol

But that also goes at the heart of what I was saying... the "hot button" issues, which were a big part of that poll, have very strict position on the left or right...

Things like climate change, which I don't buy (and by extension don't really give a crap about)...

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I'm also pro-2nd amendment, just on a legal basis.

Actually, generally speaking, I feel the right has just gone more right. You used to be able to find more centrist people in the GOP, but in this day and age they're like crucified...
Pro 2nd amendment and afraid of guns. ElNono

[spurraider21]

Please. That's 'far far left of center'?

Rookies :lol
you missed the joke you fuck

[Splits]

Actually, generally speaking, I feel the right has just gone more right. You used to be able to find more centrist people in the GOP, but in this day and age they're like crucified...

What do you mean?

563707982337568768

[spurraider21]

Pro 2nd amendment and afraid of guns. ElNono
i think he respects the law behind 2nd amendment but wants a constitutional amendment to change it, tbh

[ElNono]

Pro 2nd amendment and afraid of guns. ElNono

Won't be me denying your right to have em...

[ElNono]

i think he respects the law behind 2nd amendment but wants a constitutional amendment to change it, tbh

No, I think the Constitution is fine, and should be respected. I don't have a problem with anybody that feels comfortable with guns to own them.

[ElNono]

What do you mean?

563707982337568768

Yeah, Ronnie would be a major RINO in this day and age, tbh...

[HI-FI]

No, I think the Constitution is fine, and should be respected. I don't have a problem with anybody that feels comfortable with guns to own them.
respecting the Constitution almost makes you a paleocon in this day and age :lol. But i agree about it and the 2nd amendment. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a centrist. I think being a partisan faggot or following an ideology like a religion is not good.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So I'm liberal now?

I consider myself a whig if anything.

[TheSanityAnnex]

i think he respects the law behind 2nd amendment but wants a constitutional amendment to change it, tbh
You missed the joke you fuck

[TheSanityAnnex]

Won't be me denying your right to have em...
You missed the joke you fuck

[ElNono]

You missed the joke you fuck

sure did

[ElNono]

respecting the Constitution almost makes you a paleocon in this day and age :lol. But i agree about it and the 2nd amendment. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a centrist. I think being a partisan faggot or following an ideology like a religion is not good.

This 100%. Probably helps I didn't grow up in this country, so I didn't get the rah rah bullshit into red/blue team. Definitely can't stand when politics turn into dogma, tbh.. right or wrong, forming your own informed opinion is, IMO, the only way to go.

[Splits]

sure did

No you didn't. The real joke is that TSA has the mental facilities of a ADHD 12 year old.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No you didn't. The real joke is that TSA has the mental facilities of a ADHD 12 year old.
In the two threads we've actually debated you tucked tail never to return or own up to your ass being handed to you. If I am what you claim, where does that leave you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Definitely can't stand when politics turn into dogma, tbh.. right or wrong, forming your own informed opinion is, IMO, the only way to go.

Always respected you most because of this.

[ElNono]

:toast

[Splits]

In the two threads we've actually debated you tucked tail never to return or own up to your ass being handed to you. If I am what you claim, where does that leave you?

I don't engage idiocy or dishonesty. Claim "victory" all you want with your adolescent "arguments", I don't give a fuck.

[spurraider21]

This 100%. Probably helps I didn't grow up in this country, so I didn't get the rah rah bullshit into red/blue team. Definitely can't stand when politics turn into dogma, tbh.. right or wrong, forming your own informed opinion is, IMO, the only way to go.
exactly fucking right

its why i cant stand political discussions because its all partisan bullshit. people follow their party platform to death and its impossible to have middleground. makes discussion maddening with shills like boutons or cobra

obama could ban gay marriage tomorrow and booboo would find a way to spin it into a good thing

[boutons_deux]

obama could ban gay marriage tomorrow and booboo would find a way to spin it into a good thing

You Lie

There's several areas where Obama has clearly failed, not acted, but miles ahead of an Repug Exec in the past 35 years.

[DMX7]

Because im not taking an examination professor cuckold

Seems to me the real answer to that question is different.

[AntiChrist]

Place wouldn't be the same without Boutons or Wild Cobra....

Says 9/11 twoofer

[Blizzardwizard]

I don't engage idiocy or dishonesty. Claim "victory" all you want with your adolescent "arguments", I don't give a fuck.

Leave the old man in peace, senile folk are people too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I don't engage idiocy or dishonesty. Claim "victory" all you want with your adolescent "arguments", I don't give a fuck.

You did both in a single thread, need me to link you to it for a refresher?

[Blake]

Who is op voting for

[thunder]

Uriel get your fagget ass in here partner

[Th'Pusher]

I'd add randomguy and fromwaydowntown.

With a few exceptions, a pretty solid list of contributors to the political forum tbh.

If you put a similar thread together for conservative posters it would be littered trolls, actual morons, emotional unstable and illogical ideologues with very few exceptions. And the exceptions would be what I'd consider to be very moderately conservative.

[Blake]

Uriel get your fagget ass in here partner

Lol messageboard partners

[Cry Havoc]

:lol



Things like climate change, which I don't buy

Seriously?

[Splits]

Seriously?

He's got to keep his wingnut cred and avoid being labeled a liberal. It's the EN style of :cry don't hate me I'm just like you on most issues :cry

Doesn't own a gun but supports the "2nd amendment", etc

[ElNono]

Seriously?

Yeah, I expressed my thoughts on the matter a long time ago on the appropriate thread.

I'm ok with people doing what they can and want on their own to conserve the planet. I think there are extreme cases, like those landfills in China that are a disgrace and something should be done about it.

But overall, I just can't back up the alarmist reaction. As a guy that has worked with highly complex computer models, I just can't buy the projections. Not to the level of forcing people/companies to do things they don't want to do (again, the exception would be the extreme cases, which already stand out on their own, for reasons that go beyond global warming).

[ElNono]

He's got to keep his wingnut cred and avoid being labeled a liberal. It's the EN style of :cry don't hate me I'm just like you on most issues :cry

Doesn't own a gun but supports the "2nd amendment", etc

but, but, I thought I was a liberal :lol

I'm just me, tbh... have been wrong before, will probably be wrong again, and I've changed my mind plenty of times...

[Splits]

But overall, I just can't back up the alarmist reaction..

So you know more than 97% of the world scientists. Got it.

[ElNono]

So you know more than 97% of the world scientists. Got it.

There's no such thing as 97% consensus amongst "world scientists" on the topic.

That said, I don't claim to know more than anybody. That's simply my opinion based on what I've read about the topic and my own experience. It could be wrong.

Ultimately, I've not encountered enough compelling reasons to change my opinion on the subject (yet)

[Splits]

There's no such thing as 97% consensus amongst "world scientists" on the topic.


According to NASA, there is. But obviously NASA is made up of a bunch of anti-coal, politically active shills who put partisanship before facts and the scientific method. A big no-no for "centrists" such as yourself.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree


http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#footnote_1) show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

[ElNono]

Meh, that's not "world scientists", that's "publishing climate scientists"... and the consensus is that "climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities", which is fine.

This is a lot simpler. The state of the art computer climate models can barely forecast over 4 days of weather with any degree of accuracy. Which is actually a pretty amazing improvement compared to weather forecasts from 20 years ago.

There are reasons for that, the typical issues with highly complex computer models: limited historical data, limited real time data, error rate in statistical reduction when you have too many variables, tradeoffs between processing power and accuracy, etc.

You can take just the historical data, and come to the conclusion that human activities have been warming up the planet (what you posted above). But to then take that and project 10-20 years down the road is ridiculous, there's no means to do that with any degree of accuracy at this point in time. The error rate alone on such a projection is risible.

That's why the alarmist part just can't be taken seriously, IMO. That doesn't mean we can't do better. I think bringing awareness to try to do better for our planet is a good thing. But trying to use fear and coercion over the alleged impending doom is just silly.

[boutons_deux]

"But to then take that and project 10-20 years down the road is ridiculous"

you conflating weather, highly, locally variable, with climate, with 100s, 1000s of years of historical data, with the overwhelming consensus pointing to a AGW much hotter, much different future.

[ElNono]

"But to then take that and project 10-20 years down the road is ridiculous"

you conflating weather, highly, locally variable, with climate, with 100s, 1000s of years of historical data, with the overwhelming consensus pointing to a AGW much hotter, much different future.

That makes no sense. Climate *is* weather. Global climate is the sum of all those "highly, locally variable" measures. Measures that comes from a lot of different sources: direct temperate samples, sediments, fauna, etc.

They're volatile sources, which is what makes the model extremely complex.

The "100s, 1000s of years of historical data" can only get you a 5 day forecast with any degree of quality, tops, on a state of the art model.

You can't trust Accuweather to tell you what's the weather going to be next week, but we gotta take your 10-20 year projection seriously? Ridiculous.

Now, if your argument is "from a risk assessment perspective, we should probably strive to be good to our planet", then sure, that makes sense.

But there's a big jump from "strive" to "force"... and the error rate on the projection simply does no warrant that jump, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

That makes no sense. Climate *is* weather. Global climate is the sum of all those "highly, locally variable" measures. Measures that comes from a lot of different sources: direct temperate samples, sediments, fauna, etc.

They're volatile sources, which is what makes the model extremely complex.

The "100s, 1000s of years of historical data" can only get you a 5 day forecast with any degree of quality, tops, on a state of the art model.

You can't trust Accuweather to tell you what's the weather going to be next week, but we gotta take your 10-20 year projection seriously? Ridiculous.

Now, if your argument is "from a risk assessment perspective, we should probably strive to be good to our planet", then sure, that makes sense.

But there's a big jump from "strive" to "force"... and the error rate on the projection simply does no warrant that jump, IMO.

you're conflating SHORT-TERM weather, highly, locally variable, with LONG-TERM climate, with 100s, 1000s of years of historical data, with the overwhelming consensus pointing to a AGW much hotter, much different future.

[ElNono]

you're conflating SHORT-TERM weather, highly, locally variable, with LONG-TERM climate, with 100s, 1000s of years of historical data, with the overwhelming consensus pointing to a AGW much hotter, much different future.

What? Point me to any serious short or long term climate model that doesn't use historical data. Don't look too hard, they don't exist anymore.

Explain what do you think the data points on the "LONG-TERM" projection are if not the "SHORT-TERM weather, highly, locally variable" data points, constrained to make them manageable and projected.

[vy65]

ElNono

[Cry Havoc]

That makes no sense. Climate *is* weather. Global climate is the sum of all those "highly, locally variable" measures. Measures that comes from a lot of different sources: direct temperate samples, sediments, fauna, etc.

They're volatile sources, which is what makes the model extremely complex.

The "100s, 1000s of years of historical data" can only get you a 5 day forecast with any degree of quality, tops, on a state of the art model.

You can't trust Accuweather to tell you what's the weather going to be next week, but we gotta take your 10-20 year projection seriously? Ridiculous.

Now, if your argument is "from a risk assessment perspective, we should probably strive to be good to our planet", then sure, that makes sense.

But there's a big jump from "strive" to "force"... and the error rate on the projection simply does no warrant that jump, IMO.

I actually have a background in Meteorology, so I feel safe to address this.

The reason our short-term forecasts have a variance in precision is very straightforward. It's almost entirely because of cities. Even massive cities are relatively tiny areas of land. Getting a forecast to be exactly right within a tiny area is insanely difficult because it's not just about forecasting that conditions are right for rainfall, it's getting the rain border within a few square miles of land. That requires an immense amount of data. It is very difficult to acquire immense amounts of data for short-term forecasts, as the situation is constantly changing.

To put this into programming terms, you're comparing the following scenarios:

1) Predict how long it will take to debug a program that is acting completely screwy. Predict what bugs will happen and how long they will take to resolve.

That's pretty difficult to give any certainty to. Versus:

2) Give me an estimate for how long it would take to build a specialized system for, say, hospital equipment in SQL.

The second task is DECIDEDLY more complex and involves many more moving parts, but you could probably give a reasonable estimate of conclusion, versus trying to give a micro-managed level of precision to a specific set of variables that are often changing on the fly (99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs).

Notice I used the word precision. The problem is that you're looking for two different levels of measurement, thinking they are direct correlations. We can collect massive amounts of long-term weather shifts, far more than we can for, say, what it's going to be like in Austin on Sunday at 8pm. Yes, we have terabytes more data these days than we did 20 years ago, but it still pales in comparison to how much our climate models are absorbing and responsible for.

And with that said, I still wouldn't call our long-term forecasts precise. They are accurate to the extent that we have an idea of how bad things will be, but we can't for sure say that, given current indications, Miami will be flooded in March of the year 2112. We CAN say that it's likely that water levels will rise by "x" amount of feet due to long-term manmade global warming, and you can extrapolate that from what you will. But that's the difference between long-term accuracy vs. immediate precision in Meteorology and Climatology. It also bears mentioning that if it rains in LA on Monday and we didn't expect it, it's not going to kill anyone. If the climate forecast gets blown, the situation is far more dire. So that adds to the desire for a HUGE amount of resources going into this kind of forecast model.

[DarrinS]

Meanwhile, no statistically significant warming in 18 years, 7 months

[ElNono]

I actually have a background in Meteorology, so I feel safe to address this.

The reason our short-term forecasts have a variance in precision is very straightforward. It's almost entirely because of cities. Even massive cities are relatively tiny areas of land. Getting a forecast to be exactly right within a tiny area is insanely difficult because it's not just about forecasting that conditions are right for rainfall, it's getting the rain border within a few square miles of land. That requires an immense amount of data. It is very difficult to acquire immense amounts of data for short-term forecasts, as the situation is constantly changing.

To put this into programming terms, you're comparing the following scenarios:

1) Predict how long it will take to debug a program that is acting completely screwy. Predict what bugs will happen and how long they will take to resolve.

That's pretty difficult to give any certainty to. Versus:

2) Give me an estimate for how long it would take to build a specialized system for, say, hospital equipment in SQL.

The second task is DECIDEDLY more complex and involves many more moving parts, but you could probably give a reasonable estimate of conclusion, versus trying to give a micro-managed level of precision to a specific set of variables that are often changing on the fly (99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs).

Notice I used the word precision. The problem is that you're looking for two different levels of measurement, thinking they are direct correlations. We can collect massive amounts of long-term weather shifts, far more than we can for, say, what it's going to be like in Austin on Sunday at 8pm. Yes, we have terabytes more data these days than we did 20 years ago, but it still pales in comparison to how much our climate models are absorbing and responsible for.

The climate model actually takes the same input multiplied by many times. You can have petabytes over petabytes of data, and we both know that it would take a year to run a millisecond of that model in raw form. What really happens with the historical data is you run a Markov model on it of you're looking for a pattern, or any other kind of linear regression or interpolation if you're looking for a trend, then you statistically project it, because, obviously, you don't have data for the future.

The statistical models used nowadays to do such projections are tremendous, and in part because you do have much more and better statistically significant data. That's why forecasts nowadays are major improvements over the last couple of decades.

Now I agree that if you had to split the forecast over the climate model, you would have to split over locality and number of inputs. When doing locality, you probably are weighing much more recent geographically-close data, than the historical or remote data. It's the sensible thing to do. With a climate model, you're instead handling a lot more data, but you're also looking for different things, like general trends, etc. It would be difficult to argue off-hand what's more complex. I think they both present their own challenges.


And with that said, I still wouldn't call our long-term forecasts precise. They are accurate to the extent that we have an idea of how bad things will be, but we can't for sure say that, given current indications, Miami will be flooded in March of the year 2112. We CAN say that it's likely that water levels will rise by "x" amount of feet due to long-term manmade global warming, and you can extrapolate that from what you will. But that's the difference between long-term accuracy vs. immediate precision in Meteorology and Climatology. It also bears mentioning that if it rains in LA on Monday and we didn't expect it, it's not going to kill anyone. If the climate forecast gets blown, the situation is far more dire. So that adds to the desire for a HUGE amount of resources going into this kind of forecast model.

See, I don't think we're anywhere near the precision (considering the sheer amount of data, the processing, the error rate, etc) to make that claim. If you read what the "consensus" above is, is that there's a "trend" towards warming that's "likely" man-made.

I actually buy that since the industrial revolution we've released a lot of different gases, etc that could've affected the planet temperature. Debatable if it's to dangerous levels. Clearly not dangerous enough yet, and it would be very debatable where that line is.

I think we should take that information as awareness to do better. But I'd like more research over time to have a better grasp of both that trend and the likelihood of coming from man before we actually break the glass and sound the alarm.

[TeyshaBlue]

Kudos to Havoc and EN for the lucid and enlightening dialogue. This is pretty much how a good bbs works. :lobt2:
Very enlightening...

[ElNono]

Expressing opinions, tbh... nothing wrong with that... I actually keep an open mind on the topic, and I think improvements both on statistical algorithms (like back-propagation neural networks, which are all the rage right now) and computing power can give us a much more solid footing both on what the problem might be and how to effectively deal with it.

[TeyshaBlue]

GFY

[ElNono]

GFY

YOU LIE,,,,bitchslapped

[DarrinS]

GFY

??

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's no such thing as 97% consensus amongst "world scientists" on the topic.

That said, I don't claim to know more than anybody. That's simply my opinion based on what I've read about the topic and my own experience. It could be wrong.

Ultimately, I've not encountered enough compelling reasons to change my opinion on the subject (yet)

Every major science foundation including our own.

As for your 'too many data points' argument, they are never going to be 100% accurate but using empirically tested mechanics they can get with a measurable degree of uncertainty. Given your background I figured you would be familiar with sampling and reconstruction. Even given the uncertainty, the blanket dismissal seems ludicrous to me. Queue the risk management crap that RG posts all the time.

[ElNono]

Every major science foundation including our own.

As for your 'too many data points' argument, they are never going to be 100% accurate but using empirically tested mechanics they can get with a measurable degree of uncertainty. Given your background I figured you would be familiar with sampling and reconstruction. Even given the uncertainty, the blanket dismissal seems ludicrous to me. Queue the risk management crap that RG posts all the time.

Somebody asked me about my opinion on the subject, and I thought I was fairly articulate explaining what my point of view is, and what's based on.

If you haven't read my last few posts in the thread, then that's where it is.

Basically, I don't dismiss the research, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to take rather drastic decisions just yet. More research is certainly warranted in that area, and I think we need to get a better grasp of what we're dealing with.

I don't think it's an irrational position. Then again, I have no expectations of anybody agreeing with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Somebody asked me about my opinion on the subject, and I thought I was fairly articulate explaining what my point of view is, and what's based on.

If you haven't read my last few posts in the thread, then that's where it is.

Basically, I don't dismiss the research, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to take rather drastic decisions just yet. More research is certainly warranted in that area, and I think we need to get a better grasp of what we're dealing with.

I don't think it's an irrational position. Then again, I have no expectations of anybody agreeing with me.

Drastic or any decision at all?

[ElNono]

Drastic or any decision at all?

I don't think it warrants the fear, the regulations, etc at this point in time. To me, those are drastic decisions that have a very real impact on businesses and the economy in general.

If people want to be more proactive about it, only buy electric cars, etc. More power to them.

[DarrinS]

Hey Fuzzy, U.S. Elnono a "sophist piece of shit"? Or, is that reserved for me? I share his views on this issue.

[Th'Pusher]

Oh no. DarrinS doesn't know the definition of sophistry.

[Th'Pusher]

Hint: ElNono is being upfront and not intentionally trying to deceive using specious argument.

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh no. DarrinS doesn't know the definition of sophistry.

I love hot sophistry with cinnamon and honey.....wait a minute.

[Th'Pusher]

I love hot sophistry with cinnamon and honey.....wait a minute.

:lol

[DarrinS]

Hint: ElNono is being upfront and not intentionally trying to deceive using specious argument.

Hmm, but I agree with everything he is saying. I can pull up a five year old post that makes the same points.

[Th'Pusher]

Hmm, but I agree with everything he is saying. I can pull up a five year old post that makes the same points.
Sharing an opinion with someone doesn't mean you didn't use sophist aruguments to demonstrate that opinion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think it warrants the fear, the regulations, etc at this point in time. To me, those are drastic decisions that have a very real impact on businesses and the economy in general.

If people want to be more proactive about it, only buy electric cars, etc. More power to them.

Fear? You just admitted that it was a rational possible outcome. The thermodynamic properties of ghg are well understood. The hope is that the Earth has ecological feedbacks to mitigate the effect and indeed that is showing to be the case.

Trying to quantify the probability and weigh risk seems very appropriate and the bet can be hedged actuarially. It's actually one cool thing about the various national and state insurance commissions and rate reporting is that they are quantifying the economic impact with precision.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey Fuzzy, U.S. Elnono a "sophist piece of shit"? Or, is that reserved for me? I share his views on this issue.

He stated his case and came to his conclusion.

I call you a sophist because you whore yourself out to a conclusion and find any thing you can to feed it. You intentionally mislead and pay no attention to logical consistency. That you cannot tell the difference is hilarious.

[DarrinS]

K
He stated his case and came to his conclusion.

I call you a sophist because you whore yourself out to a conclusion and find any thing you can to feed it. You intentionally mislead and pay no attention to logical consistency. That you cannot tell the difference is hilarious.

Consistency

[ElNono]

Fear? You just admitted that it was a rational possible outcome. The thermodynamic properties of ghg are well understood. The hope is that the Earth has ecological feedbacks to mitigate the effect and indeed that is showing to be the case.

Trying to quantify the probability and weigh risk seems very appropriate and the bet can be hedged actuarially. It's actually one cool thing about the various national and state insurance commissions and rate reporting is that they are quantifying the economic impact with precision.

I mean fear in the sociopolitical presentation of "climate-change, the hot button issue", which is where this conversation started. The "if we don't do all this stuff right now, it's gonna blow!". I don't think the science findings warrant that.

What the science warrants is more research. We found a trend, an observation over a set of data. That's a great start. We don't outright know what combination of factors caused that trend to develop (otherwise, it wouldn't be a trend, it would be direct correlation). So let's do more research and try to pin point what is happening. It would be much informative both on the nature of the problem, the overall causes, and what the right solution to it is. To me, that's much more useful than going around making unquantifiable predictions (at this time) about impending doom.

Now, I'm not naive, and I know you can't make people care about something if there's no drama. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

K

Consistency

We've talked about this several times. I hope youre being intentionally obtuse for effect and not really this dimwitted. There are online dictionaries and you can easily look up the meaning and background of words after all.

You very obviously argue for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the evidence dictate the outcome. RG right from the start in that climate thread had you with like two dozen specious arguments in a month and that didn't include you repeating yourself like an idiot. It is what it is.

[DarrinS]

We've talked about this several times. I hope youre being intentionally obtuse for effect and not really this dimwitted. There are online dictionaries and you can easily look up the meaning and background of words after all.

You very obviously argue for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the evidence dictate the outcome. RG right from the start in that climate thread had you with like two dozen specious arguments in a month and that didn't include you repeating yourself like an idiot. It is what it is.



I'm sue I've posted some dumb shit over the years, but my position is the same.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I mean fear in the sociopolitical presentation of "climate-change, the hot button issue", which is where this conversation started. The "if we don't do all this stuff right now, it's gonna blow!". I don't think the science findings warrant that.

What the science warrants is more research. We found a trend, an observation over a set of data. That's a great start. We don't outright know what combination of factors caused that trend to develop (otherwise, it wouldn't be a trend, it would be direct correlation). So let's do more research and try to pin point what is happening. It would be much informative both on the nature of the problem, the overall causes, and what the right solution to it is. To me, that's much more useful than going around making unquantifiable predictions (at this time) about impending doom.

Now, I'm not naive, and I know you can't make people care about something if there's no drama. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into it.

Like I said the insurance company report losses all across the country. The property and economic losses due to weather and climate events is well documented. That is a significant quantity. For example:


Executive Summary

Since 2005, severe weather and climatological events accounted for 85% to 90% of natural hazards resulting in claims of property damage or personal injury, according to global totals
(Munich#Re, 2012). Prompted by evidence of recent increases in damages due to such events and longer term climate trends, this report presents a summary of the most recent data from the area of climate change research. This effort is intended to inform both the worldwide community of actuaries, business leaders, and the general public of the weight of scientific evidence regarding the Earth’s climate and the changes it is undergoing.

https://www.soa.org/Research/Research-Projects/Risk-Management/research-2012-climate-change-reports.aspx

Actuaries are all about quantification.

[ElNono]

Like I said the insurance company report losses all across the country. The property and economic losses due to weather and climate events is well documented. That is a significant quantity. For example:

https://www.soa.org/Research/Research-Projects/Risk-Management/research-2012-climate-change-reports.aspx

Actuaries are all about quantification.

I don't think what we currently know about climate-change can establish a direct link between it and severe weather events. The good news is that climate-change did inspire a flurry of research on the topic, mostly fairly recent (2004+), but necessary.

That said, if you or other people do believe that, and are potentially hedging against it, that's perfectly fine with me, even if I don't share that opinion at this time.

[Splits]

Expressing opinions, tbh... nothing wrong with that...

Yeah, until your "opinion" is wrong and the Florida Keys don't exist any longer. 97% of climate scientists have come to consensus, but since you have an "opinion" the topic should be open for debate. Got it. There's actually something TERRIBLY wrong "with that".

My uncle's mother-in-law's 3rd husband's grandson told me the earth was flat. I know that most scientists agree the earth is round, but I trust this guy so my opinion is that the earth is flat.


Climate *is* weather.

Seriously? You can't possibly believe that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think what we currently know about climate-change can establish a direct link between it and severe weather events. The good news is that climate-change did inspire a flurry of research on the topic, mostly fairly recent (2004+), but necessary.

That said, if you or other people do believe that, and are potentially hedging against it, that's perfectly fine with me, even if I don't share that opinion at this time.

The temperature record is comprehensive far before 2004 as as are all the indices that the actuaries talked about. The economic impact of climate related events is accountable all the way before WW2 with the formations of state insurance commissions. When the climate cost anomaly is +$100b like the SoA says happened in 2014 then people start hedging like mad.

[DarrinS]

This is hilarious :lmao

[Splits]

I don't think what we currently know about climate-change can establish a direct link between it and severe weather events

Yeah well unless you're a climate scientist, what you "think" doesn't matter. This is settled in the scientific world.

But in your world, what you "think" should override all of the scientific evidence. Because unicorns or something. Got it.

[DarrinS]

Yeah well unless you're a climate scientist, what you "think" doesn't matter. This is settled in the scientific world.

But in your world, what you "think" should override all of the scientific evidence. Because unicorns or something. Got it.

Bullshit

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is hilarious :lmao

I hadn't read that actuarial report before. I bet you never read it.

[ElNono]

Yeah well unless you're a climate scientist, what you "think" doesn't matter.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and you're free to ignore it. But somebody did ask me what I thought. I merely responded.

[DarrinS]

Elnono, I know you expressed these same views years ago in RG's thread. Don't know why people are shocked.

[Splits]

Bullshit

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

If you had a brain tumor and 97/100 neurosurgeons told you that you needed surgery if you wanted to live, but some random, fat Argentinian guy from Jersey told you he thought they were wrong and that you should just wait it out, because each day (weather) you didn't die meant that you would survive until your life expectancy (climate) would you respect what he was "thinking"?

[Splits]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and you're free to ignore it. But somebody did ask me what I thought. I merely responded.


If you had a brain tumor and 97/100 neurosurgeons told you that you needed surgery if you wanted to live, but some random, fat Argentinian guy from Jersey told you he thought they were wrong and that you should just wait it out, because each day (weather) you didn't die meant that you would survive until your life expectancy (climate) would you respect what he was "thinking"?

[DarrinS]

If you had a brain tumor and 97/100 neurosurgeons told you that you needed surgery if you wanted to live, but some random, fat Argentinian guy from Jersey told you he thought they were wrong and that you should just wait it out, because each day (weather) you didn't die meant that you would survive until your life expectancy (climate) would you respect what he was "thinking"?

Retard much?

[Splits]

:cry I'm a "conservative" so by default I hate science :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bullshit

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

This is dumb. How many times have we discussed the actuarial society and NSF?

You never did say what your thoughts on that Harvard guy that took money from Exxon and lied about it. I always thought you must feel a kinship.

[ElNono]

The temperature record is comprehensive far before 2004 as as are all the indices that the actuaries talked about. The economic impact of climate related events is accountable all the way before WW2 with the formations of state insurance commissions. When the climate cost anomaly is +$100b like the SoA says happened in 2014 then people start hedging like mad.

I didn't dismiss the historical record nor the research. I merely stated that the current findings do not warrant, in my opinion, such hedging.

If anything, I'm simply being rigorous with the scientific method. We had an observation, that invites theories (hopefully more than one), that invite research, and then hopefully end up with a scientific law or more, and greater understanding of why we observed what we did. Very few theories are directly acted upon. Perhaps the greatest outlier is Eistein's theory of relativity. But that was a theory with hard numbers, sound math, and at least partially testable.

I don't know if this theory will ever be testable. The scope is humongous. But at least let's try to advance the research a little more, find some correlations. I think we're in the super early stages of this thing, and it screams for more more research to be done.

[ElNono]

Elnono, I know you expressed these same views years ago in RG's thread. Don't know why people are shocked.

I did mention that a few pages back.

[ElNono]

:lol I love science. I'm one of the more staunch defenders of the scientific method in this place. Have been for years.

[Blizzardwizard]

Damn liberals and all their science shit.

Bend over, I'll show you science.

[ElNono]

Yeah, until your "opinion" is wrong and the Florida Keys don't exist any longer. 97% of climate scientists have come to consensus, but since you have an "opinion" the topic should be open for debate. Got it. There's actually something TERRIBLY wrong "with that".

I don't plan to try to impose my opinion on anybody. If anything, I've been nothing but respectful with people that think otherwise.

[ElNono]

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

Astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, solar scientists, meteorologists... I'm probably missing a few more scientists...

[Splits]

Astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, solar scientists, meteorologists... I'm probably missing a few more scientists...

Cosmetologists, dermatologists, astrologers, fat Jersey computer programmers, etc.

Anyone can do it!

You realize you don't go to a gynecologist if you need a mole removed, right?

[ElNono]

I don't get the scorn, tbh. Anybody that claims to know science would know all the scientists I listed study the effects of their respective fields on earth, including the effects on earth's climate.

It's not meant to dismiss climate scientists (of which I have not said a single bad word about in the entire thread, nor disagreed with their findings), but list other scientists that would be interested in that data.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't dismiss the historical record nor the research. I merely stated that the current findings do not warrant, in my opinion, such hedging.

If anything, I'm simply being rigorous with the scientific method. We had an observation, that invites theories (hopefully more than one), that invite research, and then hopefully end up with a scientific law or more, and greater understanding of why we observed what we did. Very few theories are directly acted upon. Perhaps the greatest outlier is Eistein's theory of relativity. But that was a theory with hard numbers, sound math, and at least partially testable.

I don't know if this theory will ever be testable. The scope is humongous. But at least let's try to advance the research a little more, find some correlations. I think we're in the super early stages of this thing, and it screams for more more research to be done.

Your missing the point of insurance. You hedge as a matter of course. The question is how much.

the thermodynamic principles of the various ghg are law. There is no grand climate equation that explains the world down to a preferred grid level but that doesn't mean that we cannot say that adding ghg to a system increases temperature. Looking at the temperature record there is a clear correlation between ghg levels and the increase in temperature observed over the last 100 years.

and why do you say they have only been studying this since 2004? That was just when IPCC started pooling all the peer reviewed work and tried to come up with a consensus you claim doesn't exist. the spatial geometry + gradient PDEs they use in the ocean and atmospheric models were written in the 60s at Penn State. theyve been modeling it ever since.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and are you really incredulous to the notion of adding energy to a system leading to more turbulence (re:storms)?

[ElNono]

Your missing the point of insurance. You hedge as a matter of course. The question is how much.

It'll be more interesting to see how much they hedge, tbh... they have to come up with hard numbers, based on science that really doesn't know at this point where the danger threshold is at this time, or even if there's such a threshold.
But, yeah, insurance is it's own beast, they have to hedge even on "potentials of risk".


the thermodynamic principles of the various ghg are law. There is no grand climate equation that explains the world down to a preferred grid level but that doesn't mean that we cannot say that adding ghg to a system increases temperature. Looking at the temperature record there is a clear correlation between ghg levels and the increase in temperature observed over the last 100 years.

The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The biggest contributor to it is entirely natural (clouds, vapor). There's nothing inherently wrong with green house gases, the actual question is how much is too much, and even if that point really exists when it comes to climate on earth, considering the earth does also has natural ways to deal with those gases. I think science can answer that question, but it will take more research.


and why do you say they have only been studying this since 2004? That was just when IPCC started pooling all the peer reviewed work and tried to come up with a consensus you claim doesn't exist. the spatial geometry + gradient PDEs they use in the ocean and atmospheric models were written in the 60s at Penn State. theyve been modeling it ever since.

Can you quote me where I said all this?

I said climate-change did inspire a flurry of new research on the topic of severe weather events in connection to climate change since around 2004 (Towards Prediction of Decadal Climate Variability and Change, Meehl et al. 2009; The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves, Schär et al.2004; Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, Karl et al. 2008, and many more). Research that I thought is worthwhile.

I'm also not sure where you gathered that I claimed the consensus doesn't exist. You can actually direct-quote me in this thread stating exactly the opposite.


and are you really incredulous to the notion of adding energy to a system leading to more turbulence (re:storms)?

I'd like more than an hunch. It should be testable at some level when applied to climate. Not the whole argument, but at least some bare parts. We don't really have that right now. I think further research can prove or disprove that alleged correlation when it comes to climate.


What we're really arguing here is what to do with the findings we have at this point. Do they warrant immediate action, or do they warrant more research (or both)?. I lean towards research simply because I think we can make more findings that are less abstract and more conclusive. Which in turn would give us a better handle on establishing the problem domain, and actually addressing it effectively. In the meantime, if we can do actions that have no cost towards what we believe would be beneficial, then they should be done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It'll be more interesting to see how much they hedge, tbh... they have to come up with hard numbers, based on science that really doesn't know at this point where the danger threshold is at this time, or even if there's such a threshold.
But, yeah, insurance is it's own beast, they have to hedge even on "potentials of risk".



The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The biggest contributor to it is entirely natural (clouds, vapor). There's nothing inherently wrong with green house gases, the actual question is how much is too much, and even if that point really exists when it comes to climate on earth, considering the earth does also has natural ways to deal with those gases. I think science can answer that question, but it will take more research.



Can you quote me where I said all this?

I said climate-change did inspire a flurry of new research on the topic of severe weather events in connection to climate change since around 2004 (Towards Prediction of Decadal Climate Variability and Change, Meehl et al. 2009; The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves, Schär et al.2004; Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, Karl et al. 2008, and many more). Research that I thought is worthwhile.

I'm also not sure where you gathered that I claimed the consensus doesn't exist. You can actually direct-quote me in this thread stating exactly the opposite.



I'd like more than an hunch. It should be testable at some level when applied to climate. Not the whole argument, but at least some bare parts. We don't really have that right now. I think further research can prove or disprove that alleged correlation when it comes to climate.


What we're really arguing here is what to do with the findings we have at this point. Do they warrant immediate action, or do they warrant more research (or both)?. I lean towards research simply because I think we can make more findings that are less abstract and more conclusive. Which in turn would give us a better handle on establishing the problem domain, and actually addressing it effectively. In the meantime, if we can do actions that have no cost towards what we believe would be beneficial, then they should be done.

It is much more than a hunch. They've been studying storm formation for years. The difficulties in modeling storms comes because storms are turbulence and by definition it's nondeterministic flow which we don't know how to formulate simply. You end up having to slug out each interaction individually. We have several forms of approximation through regression, geometric, f domain and other means. We know that they closely adhere to reality because we are able to fly airplanes.

Meanwhile we've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over 100 years and we can see it shining obeying thermodynamic principles we understand perfectly adding a quantifiable amount of energy to the Earth's energy level. It sits there too because unlike methane and most of the other ghg it doesn't react with much outside of chlorophyll. I just don't understand why your incredulous that adding energy to a system would increase turbulence.

[ElNono]

It is much more than a hunch. They've been studying storm formation for years. The difficulties in modeling storms comes because storms are turbulence and by definition it's nondeterministic flow which we don't know how to formulate simply. You end up having to slug out each interaction individually. We have several forms of approximation through regression, geometric, f domain and other means. We know that they closely adhere to reality because we are able to fly airplanes.

Meanwhile we've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over 100 years and we can see it shining obeying thermodynamic principles we understand perfectly adding a quantifiable amount of energy to the Earth's energy level. It sits there too because unlike methane and most of the other ghg it doesn't react with much outside of chlorophyll. I just don't understand why your incredulous that adding energy to a system would increase turbulence.

I think you've read my position on a different discussion on why that is. I think we covered this on the religion vs science/god of the gaps thread a few years back and I thought you agreed with me in that case (although thinking back, I'm not sure if it was you, but it was certainly somebody very close to the way you generally opine). While we theorize in science, there isn't just a binary position of for or against in specific areas. "Don't know yet" is a very valid position to have at that stage. In that old thread my position was exactly the same. I'm not in the denial camp either, because if my opinion is that drawing conclusions from inconclusive evidence warrants a "don't know yet" position, then I can't hardly be ok with jumping to conclusions, for or against, be it by faith, association, etc. It was especially difficult to explain such a position to people of faith (and that was somewhat the premise of the god of the gaps discussion, assigning god to what we don't know yet). But anyways, while I'll concede that this topic is not at the very top of my reading material, I think a breakthrough in this area can come, will come, and will be highly publicized. And I certainly keep an open mind about this and if we find that connection, I'll be more than happy to modify my position on it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I think you've read my position on a different discussion on why that is. I think we covered this on the religion vs science/god of the gaps thread a few years back and I thought you agreed with me in that case (although thinking back, I'm not sure if it was you, but it was certainly somebody very close to the way you generally opine). While we theorize in science, there isn't just a binary position of for or against in specific areas. "Don't know yet" is a very valid position to have at that stage. In that old thread my position was exactly the same. I'm not in the denial camp either, because if my opinion is that drawing conclusions from inconclusive evidence warrants a "don't know yet" position, then I can't hardly be ok with jumping to conclusions, for or against, be it by faith, association, etc. It was especially difficult to explain such a position to people of faith (and that was somewhat the premise of the god of the gaps discussion, assigning god to what we don't know yet). But anyways, while I'll concede that this topic is not at the very top of my reading material, I think a breakthrough in this area can come, will come, and will be highly publicized. And I certainly keep an open mind about this and if we find that connection, I'll be more than happy to modify my position on it.
Modifying positions on spurstalk is a big nono ElNono

[ElNono]

Modifying positions on spurstalk is a big nono ElNono

:lol it's been done before. People survived.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think you've read my position on a different discussion on why that is. I think we covered this on the religion vs science/god of the gaps thread a few years back and I thought you agreed with me in that case (although thinking back, I'm not sure if it was you, but it was certainly somebody very close to the way you generally opine). While we theorize in science, there isn't just a binary position of for or against in specific areas. "Don't know yet" is a very valid position to have at that stage. In that old thread my position was exactly the same. I'm not in the denial camp either, because if my opinion is that drawing conclusions from inconclusive evidence warrants a "don't know yet" position, then I can't hardly be ok with jumping to conclusions, for or against, be it by faith, association, etc. It was especially difficult to explain such a position to people of faith (and that was somewhat the premise of the god of the gaps discussion, assigning god to what we don't know yet). But anyways, while I'll concede that this topic is not at the very top of my reading material, I think a breakthrough in this area can come, will come, and will be highly publicized. And I certainly keep an open mind about this and if we find that connection, I'll be more than happy to modify my position on it.

I get the skepticism as opposed to the easy copout in the god of the gaps but I don't see how that applies here. God of the gaps means you fill in any gaps in knowledge with divinity as the explanation. I don't see that here.

You can come up with a statistically significant sample and reconstruct a signal with measurable degrees of uncertainty. There is no sample of God that I know of. They use geometric constructs and all the various dynamic equations that are the basis of our technology. We just cannot model turbulence as anything more than output and bounds. From that though you can also work backwards and start measuring probability of outcomes. Determine the frequency. It's all empirical.

You don't seem to be arguing that the climate is warming. Youre just not sure that the consequences will be negative? Do you disagree that the glaciers are melting and going out to sea?

[CosmicCowboy]

If there really is a heaven and hell and I reach that great sorting pen in the sky without giving my ass to Jesus I'm gonna really be pissed.

[DarrinS]

You don't seem to be arguing that the climate is warming. Youre just not sure that the consequences will be negative?

Ding ding ding. It's like a lightbulb just tuned on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ding ding ding. It's like a lightbulb just tuned on.

I'll let him speak for himself, dipshit.

So the actuarial report indicating the extra $100b we spent on extra climate related costs as opposed to the running average, what do you have to present that outweighs that?

https://www.soa.org/Research/Research-Projects/Risk-Management/research-2012-climate-change-reports.aspx

That is a dispassionate quantified cost.

[DarrinS]

I don't care about actuarial reports. Models vs observation is all that matters. We're on an 18 year hiatus. Essentially, since Duncan was drafted, the models and the data have diverged.

[DarrinS]

http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY

[ElNono]

I get the skepticism as opposed to the easy copout in the god of the gaps but I don't see how that applies here. God of the gaps means you fill in any gaps in knowledge with divinity as the explanation. I don't see that here.

You can come up with a statistically significant sample and reconstruct a signal with measurable degrees of uncertainty. There is no sample of God that I know of. They use geometric constructs and all the various dynamic equations that are the basis of our technology. We just cannot model turbulence as anything more than output and bounds. From that though you can also work backwards and start measuring probability of outcomes. Determine the frequency. It's all empirical.

That's called an observed trend. We then offer one or more theories of why that developed (one of them would be high ghg concentration). Then we test the claim(s) and either prove or falsify the theory. In either case, the fact that we can test some of the parts, normally advance the science. Once we can find direct correlations, then we can better understand where the problem lies and if that statistically significant trend poses a problem the planet cannot handle.

You have, for example, been asking me to associate severe weather events with climate change, based on the premise that "adding energy to a system would increase turbulence". In other words, associate a fairly generic claim that would generally apply to every system, to the climate system. Now, it's not that your theory doesn't make sense. It's that I'm not aware that research backs it up when it comes to the climate system. That doesn't mean your theory isn't true. It means we don't quite know yet, and that's where we stand right this minute.


You don't seem to be arguing that the climate is warming. Youre just not sure that the consequences will be negative? Do you disagree that the glaciers are melting and going out to sea?

I actually said earlier that I would buy that climate warming has everything to do with releasing gases since the industrial revolution, provided we find more conclusive evidence. I think it's a theory that makes sense to explain what we observed. But observing a trend alone doesn't make a theory to a law, falsifiability does. I don't think our research is there yet, but I would really like it to be. For example, in the severe weather area, as I was explaining above, I remain on the "we don't know yet" camp, simply because I feel that's where science is at. On the overall theory, I think there's some other areas that also need more research. Like, is there a dangerous line?, if there is, what's the ballpark of where that line is?, etc.

Now if the insurance industry wants to apply risk management, go through every possible outcome, weight them based on whatever they feel the potential for risk is (which, as I told you earlier would be the interesting take, IMO), and then adjust policies accordingly, well, they're certainly free to do so, I suppose, as long as their clients are ok with the added cost. I don't think that changes anything on where we are at the science side, nor that such risk projections necessarily directly apply to other industries.

[Cry Havoc]

That's called an observed trend. We then offer one or more theories of why that developed (one of them would be high ghg concentration). Then we test the claim(s) and either prove or falsify the theory. In either case, the fact that we can test some of the parts, normally advance the science. Once we can find direct correlations, then we can better understand where the problem lies and if that statistically significant trend poses a problem the planet cannot handle.

You have, for example, been asking me to associate severe weather events with climate change, based on the premise that "adding energy to a system would increase turbulence". In other words, associate a fairly generic claim that would generally apply to every system, to the climate system. Now, it's not that your theory doesn't make sense. It's that I'm not aware that research backs it up when it comes to the climate system. That doesn't mean your theory isn't true. It means we don't quite know yet, and that's where we stand right this minute.



I actually said earlier that I would buy that climate warming has everything to do with releasing gases since the industrial revolution, provided we find more conclusive evidence. I think it's a theory that makes sense to explain what we observed. But observing a trend alone doesn't make a theory to a law, falsifiability does. I don't think our research is there yet, but I would really like it to be. For example, in the severe weather area, as I was explaining above, I remain on the "we don't know yet" camp, simply because I feel that's where science is at. On the overall theory, I think there's some other areas that also need more research. Like, is there a dangerous line?, if there is, what's the ballpark of where that line is?, etc.

Now if the insurance industry wants to apply risk management, go through every possible outcome, weight them based on whatever they feel the potential for risk is (which, as I told you earlier would be the interesting take, IMO), and then adjust policies accordingly, well, they're certainly free to do so, I suppose, as long as their clients are ok with the added cost. I don't think that changes anything on where we are at the science side, nor that such risk projections necessarily directly apply to other industries.

Just to chime in, you're correct. Individual systems do not have strength determined by climate change, at least not in a directly measurable sense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't care about actuarial reports. Models vs observation is all that matters. We're on an 18 year hiatus. Essentially, since Duncan was drafted, the models and the data have diverged.

So the value of all the goods put at risk by climate events doesn't matter in determining risk?

So now we're not warming again? It's difficult to take you seriously. The last two years have been the hottest on record.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

There was a solar peak around 2003 and you had it come back last year on its 1 year cycle. Funny how that works. Here in a few years as the solar radiance goes down the downslope we can hear you say the same shit as the temperature doesn't decrease. Latent heat funny how that works.

We have had this conversation too concerning the BEST analysis. When you look at ENSO too you look even more foolish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's called an observed trend. We then offer one or more theories of why that developed (one of them would be high ghg concentration). Then we test the claim(s) and either prove or falsify the theory. In either case, the fact that we can test some of the parts, normally advance the science. Once we can find direct correlations, then we can better understand where the problem lies and if that statistically significant trend poses a problem the planet cannot handle.

You have, for example, been asking me to associate severe weather events with climate change, based on the premise that "adding energy to a system would increase turbulence". In other words, associate a fairly generic claim that would generally apply to every system, to the climate system. Now, it's not that your theory doesn't make sense. It's that I'm not aware that research backs it up when it comes to the climate system. That doesn't mean your theory isn't true. It means we don't quite know yet, and that's where we stand right this minute.



I actually said earlier that I would buy that climate warming has everything to do with releasing gases since the industrial revolution, provided we find more conclusive evidence. I think it's a theory that makes sense to explain what we observed. But observing a trend alone doesn't make a theory to a law, falsifiability does. I don't think our research is there yet, but I would really like it to be. For example, in the severe weather area, as I was explaining above, I remain on the "we don't know yet" camp, simply because I feel that's where science is at. On the overall theory, I think there's some other areas that also need more research. Like, is there a dangerous line?, if there is, what's the ballpark of where that line is?, etc.

Now if the insurance industry wants to apply risk management, go through every possible outcome, weight them based on whatever they feel the potential for risk is (which, as I told you earlier would be the interesting take, IMO), and then adjust policies accordingly, well, they're certainly free to do so, I suppose, as long as their clients are ok with the added cost. I don't think that changes anything on where we are at the science side, nor that such risk projections necessarily directly apply to other industries.

We don't know what? That if you add energy to a system you increase turbulence by a proportional amount or that the climate goes against this principle because of . . . .

The insurance findings are interesting because you can use the information to extrapolate the value of all the at risk property and not only that which is insured. It quantifies the economic costs and risk across the country.

[ElNono]

Fuzzy, I've been giving some thought to our conversation here, and I think I've established what our fundamental disagreement is. I think it will save us a lot of time and back and forth. You let me know what you think, ok?

I think our main disagreement boils down to the standard of rigorousness we would like applied. And because of that, I think our differences are irreconcilable at this time. I feel this is a pretty huge deal not just on it's possible effects, but also on the battle that some people wage on science, and as such, I really would like the full rigor of the scientific method to apply to it.

Under the standard I prefer, I'd like theories to be put together, then tests developed, run, and then either confirmation or rework as needed. The confidence level on the theory is built upon each successful test result. It's a process that takes time, a lot of research, but that I feel is the correct approach due to the magnitude (in more senses than one) of the problem. On the other hand, I think your position is that due to repeat observation, there's a certain high (or extremely high) confidence level that we can move past a specific area and then build on that. I think it's a more dynamic, but a bit looser standard than the one I prefer, but it's certainly respectable. Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong. And so while your standard allows you to move on and build on that, I instead choose to be more cautious and await my test results and research, before building on it. As such, our standards are not really compatible, and so they're irreconcilable.

Thanks for the refreshing conversation, and let me add that while thinking about this, I thought about an article I read a bunch of years ago (link (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/deepspace/grav_b.html)), about NASA finally being able to build a rig to test (and confirm) one of the claims in Einstein's theory of relativity. My first thought when I read that back then was, damn, science does take a long time sometimes, but it almost always catches up to you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, I've been giving some thought to our conversation here, and I think I've established what our fundamental disagreement is. I think it will save us a lot of time and back and forth. You let me know what you think, ok?

I think our main disagreement boils down to the standard of rigorousness we would like applied. And because of that, I think our differences are irreconcilable at this time. I feel this is a pretty huge deal not just on it's possible effects, but also on the battle that some people wage on science, and as such, I really would like the full rigor of the scientific method to apply to it.

Under the standard I prefer, I'd like theories to be put together, then tests developed, run, and then either confirmation or rework as needed. The confidence level on the theory is built upon each successful test result. It's a process that takes time, a lot of research, but that I feel is the correct approach due to the magnitude (in more senses than one) of the problem. On the other hand, I think your position is that due to repeat observation, there's a certain high (or extremely high) confidence level that we can move past a specific area and then build on that. I think it's a more dynamic, but a bit looser standard than the one I prefer, but it's certainly respectable. Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong. And so while your standard allows you to move on and build on that, I instead choose to be more cautious and await my test results and research, before building on it. As such, our standards are not really compatible, and so they're irreconcilable.

Thanks for the refreshing conversation, and let me add that while thinking about this, I thought about an article I read a bunch of years ago (link (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/deepspace/grav_b.html)), about NASA finally being able to build a rig to test (and confirm) one of the claims in Einstein's theory of relativity. My first thought when I read that back then was, damn, science does take a long time sometimes, but it almost always catches up to you.

The question isn't whether or not increasing ghg levels increases latent heat. The question isn't whether or not adding energy to a system leads to increased turbulence. those are well studied and demonstrable truths. The question is what are the actual energy levels once you factor in all things physical and chemical. Ultimately thermodynamics is quantum behavior as atoms absorb and emit photons and bounce around because of it. A worldwide quantum matrix is unfeasible. Instead we use approximations through infinitesimal calculus to approximate the behavior wholistically with a measurable degree of uncertainty.

It's like when you say it's unquantifiable and unfalsifiable. ghg forcing is verifiable and quantifiable. we can observe it in the atmosphere and determine what its doing.

I just am uncertain at what you think is possible. That there is some force, element, dimension etc that we cannot account for that is absorbing the energy?

[ElNono]

The question isn't whether or not increasing ghg levels increases latent heat. The question isn't whether or not adding energy to a system leads to increased turbulence. those are well studied and demonstrable truths. The question is what are the actual energy levels once you factor in all things physical and chemical. Ultimately thermodynamics is quantum behavior as atoms absorb and emit photons and bounce around because of it. A worldwide quantum matrix is unfeasible. Instead we use approximations through infinitesimal calculus to approximate the behavior wholistically with a measurable degree of uncertainty.

It's like when you say it's unquantifiable and unfalsifiable. ghg forcing is verifiable and quantifiable. we can observe it in the atmosphere and determine what its doing.

I just am uncertain at what you think is possible. That there is some force, element, dimension etc that we cannot account for that is absorbing the energy?

Let me see if I can put it in analogous terms. This might be a little long, but I'm hoping you'll catch my drift. We know increasing ghg increases heat. We also know that photosynthesis is one way earth absorbs some of that ghg and turns it into something that doesn't (directly) contribute to the greenhouse effect. So I can theorize that another large contributing factor to increased heat on the planet is massive deforestation. It makes as much sense as the argument that temperature increases have to do with pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere (and they could both obviously be contributing factors). We know photosynthesis is a natural process that is falsifiable and a demonstrable truth. I'm sure you're nodding in agreement right now. But my theory is that it's a "large contributing factor to increased heat on the planet". So one obvious, interesting question that stem from my claim right away is: what's the photosynthesis absorption rate within that system (the planet)?

And within a complex entire global system, that's a tough as hell harder question to answer. While we already know the factors that increase the rate of photosynthesis (light intensity, CO2, temperature), we need to take into account that certain plants are in cold climates, and the rate is slower there. That some plants get a lot of light and heat, and so their rate is much bigger. That some plants might cast shade on other plants, and diminish their absorption rate. Under the scientific method, which has served science well for over 3 centuries, the fact that my claim makes sense, that massive deforestation is a historical fact, and that photosynthesis is a well studied, demonstrable truth is not enough to conclude my theory is right. What confidence level I have on my theory is not enough either. It's a massive claim, that, as I'm sure you imagine, will probably require massive testing to prove. The next step under the process is to come up and develop such tests that prove my claim, some maybe easier than others, but due to the vast complexity of the problem, I might not have answers to some of them for a long ass time (Could easily be dead by then).

And this parallels a lot of other claims that we don't know yet. We know and constantly measure the universe expanding, and that aligns with the big bang theory, but that doesn't mean we can conclude that theory is true. Or in the Einstein case I posted above, he was long dead by the time he had an answer to one of his claims. Science isn't for the impatient.

Now, because we're curious cats, or because some people don't want to wait (your insurance industry example is classical) what we normally do in cases like this is try to use different statistical processes to take into account a variety of values (like temperature, CO2 concentration, etc) and come up with a ballpark idea of what that absorption rate is, while we wait for the real deal. It's a cool hack, a well known and studied shortcut, and our statistics have improved tremendously over the years, due to a variety of reasons (computing power, advances in hysteresis, more and better quality data, etc). It's hard math. We understand it. We understand the pros. We understand the cons. We know that if you build a statistical model with 99% accuracy (especially on a incredibly complex system like that) you probably are deserving of a Nobel Prize, and, well, you have a 1% error rate. We know that if you try to build something with light interaction over it, the 1% error propagation is unlikely to matter a whole lot. Your error creep will likely be fairly low (always keeping in mind that you'll get the occasional crazy value). Now if the amount of interactions on top of it are pretty heavy, that 1% is gonna creep up like a motherfucker. (I can give you a more practical example of why this is, if you want).

So if you just want a ballpark value, that will probably work. If you want to use that approximation as a building block of a much more complex system (ie a global model, a t storm model, etc), then we might need to enter the fudging territory. If you're lucky enough to be able to detect some of the errors then you might be able to apply an error compensation system (ie: hysteresis) into it and the incidence of error creep will be diminished. Not gone, but diminished. That's not always an option though. The more complex the interaction of the parts, the more errors you'll introduce into the system. So we know that works for low interaction cases, but when you start building out too far, it gets extremely unreliable. Obviously, nothing matches having the error-free real deal.

Due to the complexity of this specific case, you have to statistically model not just photosynthesis, but precipitations, the natural mix of gases with the ocean, oxidization, and all the other factors of absorption, plus all the largest contributors (vapor/clouds, CO2, Methane, Ozone), interacting with one another. It's a massive, massive scale. Each single 'step' of the interaction is likely adding error from one or more components, which then propagates into the entire system as you interact into further steps. We see this kind of problem in every area where we apply statistical modeling, because it's a well know artifact of it. Up to a certain level of interaction, it's useful. But past that level it becomes nearly useless. So, at that scale and level of interaction, with our current tools, I don't think it's reliable. I, then, have to sit back and wait. Wait for major advances in statistical modeling (ongoing), error compensation (ongoing), technology (ongoing), or tests that corroborate the theory under the scientific method (not sure if this is even going on) or death (ongoing). That's what my position is (phew).



What do I think it's possible? That's more of a personal/philosophical question. I'm not a person of faith, I'm fully invested in science. I think the scientific process has shown over the centuries that's a suitable way to both acquire knowledge, and do so on a reliable way, which has given us and continue to give us solid building blocks. I think everything is possible, given time. Sometimes, a lot of time. But we need to be able to say, sometimes, that we don't know yet.

[pgardn]

http://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY

Another vid taken out of context.

How do you make a guess about anything unless you have observed or got interested in some physical phenomenon in the first place? What was, or was not left outbefore the first second of this video is hugely important. If Feinman did not say this he should have. It's painfully obvious.

[DarrinS]

Another vid taken out of context.

How do you make a guess about anything unless you have observed or got interested in some physical phenomenon in the first place? What was, or was not left outbefore the first second of this video is hugely important. If Feinman did not say this he should have. It's painfully obvious.

Nope. If a theory doesn't comport with reality, it's wrong.

[JoeChalupa]

All I know is that when I moved back down here 22 yrs ago my progressive ass didn't go through such hot summers as recent years have been. That's all the science I need. Now for a tall glass of sun tea.

[DarrinS]

All I know is that when I moved back down here 22 yrs ago my progressive ass didn't go through such hot summers as recent years have been. That's all the science I need. Now for a tall glass of sun tea.

:lol

[ElNono]

How do you make a guess about anything unless you have observed or got interested in some physical phenomenon in the first place? What was, or was not left outbefore the first second of this video is hugely important. If Feinman did not say this he should have. It's painfully obvious.

The process is really ongoing, recurrent. You could certainly start with an observation, and observation is certainly part of the process. But you could instead start when the theory has been posited already, developing tests to falsify it. That might take different observations you could make on your own. There really isn't a start or end. Arguably, observation is generally the first step. But technically, you can start and contribute at any/every stage.

EDIT: didn't watch the video, BTW. Just addressing what you were commenting on.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that humans have not effected the climate with as much pollution as we've spewed into our atmosphere.

[ElNono]

:lol personally, I'd like the NBA to start already... I typed more than I wanted to in this thread, even if for the most part it was enjoyable.

[pgardn]

Nope. If a theory doesn't comport with reality, it's wrong.

This is NOT what I am typing about.
A guess is NOT the first thing a scientist does.
Read again.