Do you believe in "global warming?" - Page 171 - Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums
 201Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #2551 of 2556 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 09:39 AM
Registered User
 
nealric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 927
Garage
Everyone here is just talking politics. I suppose science is just too hard to debate.
nealric is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2552 of 2556 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:18 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
Everyone here is just talking politics. I suppose science is just too hard to debate.
We can debate science. I'll put up sane counsel of Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr., and Freeman Dyson up against any five scientists who you think best frames the valid argument, as you see it.

We can also debate the effectiveness of the commonly-proposed "Green" solutions, as opposed to say, the increased use of nuclear power, in combating the theoretical existential threat of CO2.

Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance; '92 Spider Veloce; '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler; '18 Mustang GT (because Alfa doesn't sell manuals anymore)

Last edited by Rutlefan; 05-08-2019 at 10:23 AM.
Rutlefan is offline  
post #2553 of 2556 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 12:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 3,974
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
Everyone here is just talking politics. I suppose science is just too hard to debate.

Discussing the veracity of predictions for events happening 12 or 100 years in the future is most decidedly not science. At best we're talking about political dogmas. At worst we're talking about magical thinking. Just claiming that something is scientific doesn't mean that it is.

Last time I checked prediction is still inversely proportionate to time.
factotum likes this.

Jim . . . '72 Super 1300, '70, 1750GTV, 2nd series,
'62, Lancia Flaminia Zagato3c, 2nd series
180OUT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2554 of 2556 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 01:43 PM
Registered User
 
nealric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 927
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutlefan View Post
We can debate science. I'll put up sane counsel of Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr., and Freeman Dyson up against any five scientists who you think best frames the valid argument, as you see it.

We can also debate the effectiveness of the commonly-proposed "Green" solutions, as opposed to say, the increased use of nuclear power, in combating the theoretical existential threat of CO2.
Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:

1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.

Rather than talk about personalities or policies, a healthy debate would present evidence for or against those two propositions. And such evidence should be supported by independent research (not just a critique of the research of others).

I have no beef with nuclear power. To the contrary, I think it's a tragedy that nuclear incidents have prevented further development of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement has ironically made nuclear power less safe, by preventing newer and safer designs from coming online and upping the cost of new plants.

I'm also not categorically anti fossil fuel. I make my livelihood in the fossil fuel industry and post in a car forum! It needs to be recognized that, global warming or no, all forms of energy generation have environmental and human impact. But energy is essential to humanity thriving. Even if we disagree on climate change, I think we can agree that a robust energy mix is important.

1986 Spider Veloce Turbo

Last edited by nealric; 05-08-2019 at 01:52 PM.
nealric is offline  
post #2555 of 2556 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 01:48 PM
Registered User
 
nealric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 927
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 180OUT View Post
Discussing the veracity of predictions for events happening 12 or 100 years in the future is most decidedly not science. At best we're talking about political dogmas. At worst we're talking about magical thinking. Just claiming that something is scientific doesn't mean that it is.

Last time I checked prediction is still inversely proportionate to time.
Not necessarily. For example, science can predict to a very high degree of confidence where a celestial body will be in 10, 100, or even 1,000 years time. There are a lot of complex variables even with something as seemingly simple as a planet's orbit, but most of them are known and can be modeled.

Of course, modeling of something as complex as climate is far from perfect. But that doesn't mean its a futile or non-scientific endeavor so long as it proceeds with the scientific method. There was a time when predicting the track of hurricanes more than a day or two out was essentially futile. As modeling has improved, it's now possible to have a very good idea of the track even 4-5 days out.

While weather isn't climate, I would look at climate change forecasts similarly to weather forecasts. They aren't useless, but just because a model predicts a certain amount of warming or sea level rise doesn't mean that it will happen in the amount or on the timeline the model predicted. But that also doesn't mean its wise to ignore them- just as you shouldn't ignore a model telling you a hurricane may be coming. Models are by their very nature probabilistic.

1986 Spider Veloce Turbo
nealric is offline  
post #2556 of 2556 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 04:36 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:

1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.

Rather than talk about personalities or policies, a healthy debate would present evidence for or against those two propositions. And such evidence should be supported by independent research (not just a critique of the research of others).

I have no beef with nuclear power. To the contrary, I think it's a tragedy that nuclear incidents have prevented further development of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement has ironically made nuclear power less safe, by preventing newer and safer designs from coming online and upping the cost of new plants.

I'm also not categorically anti fossil fuel. I make my livelihood in the fossil fuel industry and post in a car forum! It needs to be recognized that, global warming or no, all forms of energy generation have environmental and human impact. But energy is essential to humanity thriving. Even if we disagree on climate change, I think we can agree that a robust energy mix is important.
What I'm suggesting has nothing to do with personalities, it has to do with weighing the arguments of people who know much more about the science than you or I, I am sure. If we were to discuss opposing positions on Quantum Physics, we'd have to argue the positions of people who actually understand Quantum Physics.

I think your propositions are completely inadequate. I agree the Earth is warming -- it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. I also assent to the possibility or even likelihood that we are accelerating the warming. So we agree so far as that gets us, I suppose. Beyond that you have questions about policy and the degree to which one accepts the model-based predictions (usually alarmist predictions).

Re science, good science is able to make predictions which are verifiable; almost all the predictions based on the warming models have a woeful record of verification/accuracy. It's really ridiculous with how every missed prediction there's a belated acknowledgment that some of the assumptions must have been wrong but "we'll get it right next time." Freeman Dyson's criticism of alarmism rests on two things: the inherent inaccuracy and unreliability of these models as predictive tools (for example, they either ignore or downplay feedback mechanisms), and the over valuation of the negative impact of increased CO2 on the environment. Rather, he maintains, the biosphere benefits greatly from increased CO2.

Also, re predictions, I think your use of orbital mechanics as an analogy, even a loose analogy, is really misplaced. I work at the place that built and flew the New Horizons spacecraft. We have posters on the wall from 2006 predicting the date and time of the 2015 Pluto flyby to the second, literally. I think the actual flyby was within a couple seconds of the predicted time. At any rate, we understand orbital mechanics with great precision and can predict intercepts with orbiting objects to an almost unbelievable accuracy. Climate models are NOTHING like that. I imagine only the Drake Equation is more sensitive to unknown variables.

I agree with your comments on nuclear power. It's been hobbled by policy, not what has been achievable technologically. Gen 4 nuclear power promises safe power. Hopefully, we can achieve the something like what was promised by the Integral Fast Reactor, before it was cancelled by Clinton at the behest of Hazel O'Leary and climate alarmist John Kerry (how's that for irony) based on specious and inaccurate arguments.
factotum likes this.

Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance; '92 Spider Veloce; '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler; '18 Mustang GT (because Alfa doesn't sell manuals anymore)

Last edited by Rutlefan; 05-08-2019 at 04:57 PM.
Rutlefan is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome