3 ms·

You have an agency that releases an update to its modeling capabilities, from which based on the update, a change is made to the forecast that eliminates a poli

by Agustus 11y ago

You have an agency that releases an update to its modeling capabilities, from which based on the update, a change is made to the forecast that eliminates a political hat upon which an argument is being made. If you release the model, the data, the before and after results, and all of the information, you do not know why and what prompted the change. Internal machinations what they are, the previous Michael Mann situation where we have people admitting: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Nothing externally hinted at any issue, but when an internal machination occurs, the public facing data may not be enough. As an aside, please stop downvoting me for these posts, I am not trying to defend for or against climate change, just pointing out that a reason for suspicion could exist. If you disagree with my internal machination comment, please witness EPA and Pebble Mine, Lois Lerner and her IRS hijinks, and the former Secretary of State on the origins of the Benghazi attack, all of which were forward facing items that looked fine, but internal machinations showed suspicious activity.

coldpie 11y ago
Meanwhile the globe is already 1C warmer than it was before industrialization as Lamar Smith faffs about with emails and is doing everything in his power to cast doubts on the fact that we need to do something about this, much less should already have implemented stronger emissions standards 30 years ago. We're already past the point of "too late," climate science is about damage control now while Smith pisses around denying anything's wrong in the first place. It's time to dig your head out of the sand and move forward. What's Smith doing about that, I wonder? I more-or-less agree with your points about downvotes.
- tertius 11y ago
  You mention the "it's already too late" meme. Where do you get this? I ask because as far as I can tell we were told 20 years ago that it would be too late 10 years in the future (10 years ago for us) based on models that have clearly not panned out. I'm sincere in asking.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I skimmed the recent IPCC report and keep up with science news, mostly via Ars Technica. A good summary is at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report """The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios""" > I ask because as far as I can tell we were told 20 years ago that it would be too late 10 years in the future (10 years ago for us) based on models that have clearly not panned out. Yes, it is unfortunate that science isn't perfect, but it's the best we have, and computer projections have only made it more reliable in recent years than it was in the 80s and 90s. I understand that changing the base of our entire economic system isn't easy, but it's becoming blindingly clear that it needs to happen to halt more disastrous changes. Deniers like Smith are preventing positive action on climate change from occurring, and side-shows like the NOAA investigation are a waste of both critical time and money. If we had taken action twenty years ago, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
    - Agustus 11y ago
      It is not blindingly clear to those nations that are developing. China has brought their coal plants online and they use 4,361,427 thousand short tons of unfiltered or carbon captured coal to the United States carbon capturing EPA mandated 924,442 thousand short tons. Compare areas that have coal plants with those which do not in China versus America [3] and you can see that our nation has it under control and China does not. [1] Are we honestly going to another country and tell them to quit developing? Do we have the will to force them to give up their coal fired plants for nuclear energy (which from internal announcements is set to make up only 5% of their power structure), or natural gas? What does that will look like, money, political manipulation, force? How can you say that computer projections are more reliable now than they were before? Hurricane projections, using state of the art modeling for a shortened horizon cannot say whether a hurricane in three days will bear west or east of Florida. The validation of the computer projections of today will not be evaluated for another fifteen years, all the while, every day you can continue on with that statement, essentially: "All of the previous models had errors, but today's model is perfect." [1] http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/ http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/ [2] I do not have a picture that correctly does this justice, there are ones that are doctored by greenpeace and others where the plant is not running at capacity. So this is not a fair comparison. [3] http://www.ecorevolution.it/img/pho/me6.jpg http://www.ecorevolution.it/img/pho/me6.jpg

by Agustus 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago

Meanwhile the globe is already 1C warmer than it was before industrialization as Lamar Smith faffs about with emails and is doing everything in his power to cast doubts on the fact that we need to do something about this, much less should already have implemented stronger emissions standards 30 years ago. We're already past the point of "too late," climate science is about damage control now while Smith pisses around denying anything's wrong in the first place. It's time to dig your head out of the sand and move forward. What's Smith doing about that, I wonder? I more-or-less agree with your points about downvotes.

tertius 11y ago
You mention the "it's already too late" meme. Where do you get this? I ask because as far as I can tell we were told 20 years ago that it would be too late 10 years in the future (10 years ago for us) based on models that have clearly not panned out. I'm sincere in asking.
- coldpie 11y ago
  I skimmed the recent IPCC report and keep up with science news, mostly via Ars Technica. A good summary is at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report """The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios""" > I ask because as far as I can tell we were told 20 years ago that it would be too late 10 years in the future (10 years ago for us) based on models that have clearly not panned out. Yes, it is unfortunate that science isn't perfect, but it's the best we have, and computer projections have only made it more reliable in recent years than it was in the 80s and 90s. I understand that changing the base of our entire economic system isn't easy, but it's becoming blindingly clear that it needs to happen to halt more disastrous changes. Deniers like Smith are preventing positive action on climate change from occurring, and side-shows like the NOAA investigation are a waste of both critical time and money. If we had taken action twenty years ago, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
  - Agustus 11y ago
    It is not blindingly clear to those nations that are developing. China has brought their coal plants online and they use 4,361,427 thousand short tons of unfiltered or carbon captured coal to the United States carbon capturing EPA mandated 924,442 thousand short tons. Compare areas that have coal plants with those which do not in China versus America [3] and you can see that our nation has it under control and China does not. [1] Are we honestly going to another country and tell them to quit developing? Do we have the will to force them to give up their coal fired plants for nuclear energy (which from internal announcements is set to make up only 5% of their power structure), or natural gas? What does that will look like, money, political manipulation, force? How can you say that computer projections are more reliable now than they were before? Hurricane projections, using state of the art modeling for a shortened horizon cannot say whether a hurricane in three days will bear west or east of Florida. The validation of the computer projections of today will not be evaluated for another fifteen years, all the while, every day you can continue on with that statement, essentially: "All of the previous models had errors, but today's model is perfect." [1] http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/ http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/ [2] I do not have a picture that correctly does this justice, there are ones that are doctored by greenpeace and others where the plant is not running at capacity. So this is not a fair comparison. [3] http://www.ecorevolution.it/img/pho/me6.jpg http://www.ecorevolution.it/img/pho/me6.jpg