Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[TimG]

Scientists have through their work come up with information that makes you and I safewr when we strap into a seat on an airliner.

You completely ignored the caveat in my previous post. When scientists can be held accountable for wrong theories then science is free from politics. This is the case for science used to figure out how to make planes fly because planes that crash get scientists fired.

When it comes to climate science, scientists can make up whatever crap they want and will never face any consequences for bad theories because they will always change the doomsday dates. In these fields scientists spin the data to maximize their funding. Honest assessment of the data is a secondary concern. In fact, there general preference in climate science is to add dubious fudge factors to any data which does not support their desired narrative.

It is basically a big pile of nonsense mixed in with the truth and we have no way to separate the nonsense from the truth.

Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You completely ignored the caveat in my previous post. When scientists can be held accountable for wrong theories then science is free from politics. This is the case for science used to figure out how to make planes fly because planes that crash get scientists fired.

When it comes to climate science, scientists can make up whatever crap they want and will never face any consequences for bad theories because they will always have excuses. In these fields scientists spin the data to maximize their funding. Honest assessment of the data is a secondary concern. In fact, there general preference in climate science is to add dubious fudge factors to any data which does not support their desired narrative.

It is basically a big pile of nonsense mixed in with the truth and we have no way to separate the nonsense from the truth.

Talk about a big pile of crap! No when planes crash people die and scientist's go try to figure out what hapenned and then correct it so it doesn't happen again. Science has done, and should continue to rise above politics. Politicians are full of bullshit, science isn't listening.

[TimG]

No when planes crash people die and scientist's go try to figure out what hapenned and then correct it so it doesn't happen again.

Now you are repeating my argument. I clearly distinguished between fields where scientists are accountable and fields where they are not accountable like climate science. If you can't see the difference then you are fooling yourself. Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Now you are repeating my argument. I clearly distinguished between fields where scientists are accountable and fields where they are not accountable like climate science. If you can't see the difference then you are fooling yourself.

So following that protocol, scientists who speculated planes COULD fly weren't to be taken seriously until after planes flew. Therefore scientists who speculate global warming is hapenning won't be taken seriously until after results are undeniable.

[TimG]

So following that protocol, scientists who speculated planes COULD fly weren't to be taken seriously until after planes flew. Therefore scientists who speculate global warming is hapenning won't be taken seriously until after results are undeniable.

This is true but in many fields there are ways for scientists to gradually build their credibility and knowledge. The 747 was not the first plane ever built and would have never got funding if it was not for the history of successfully built planes.

With climate science we have nothing but a long series predictions that are either too vague to be meaningful or were simply wrong. When faced with wrong predictions climate scientists make excuses and claim they need another 30 years to be proven right.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is true but in many fields there are ways for scientists to gradually build their credibility and knowledge. The 747 was not the first plane ever built and would have never got funding if it was not for the history of successfully built planes.

With climate science we have nothing but a long series predictions that are either too vague to be meaningful or were simply wrong. When faced with wrong predictions climate scientists make excuses and claim they need another 30 years to be proven right.

So I guess those scientists that made 747's fly are now all screwed up and don't know what they are talking about anymore. Somehow or another I find that hard to accept. And then you add in the fact those scientists sent up those damn satellites that actually show us real time pictures of what is going on. Bugger!

[TimG]

So I guess those scientists that made 747's fly are now all screwed up and don't know what they are talking about anymore. Somehow or another I find that hard to accept.

You have reading comprehension problem. It is hard to have to discussion with someone who cannot seem to follow the arguments made. Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You have reading comprehension problem. It is hard to have to discussion with someone who cannot seem to follow the arguments made.

I read pretty good. You seem to have a problem differentiating between disagreeing with arguments you provide and understanding them. Do you understand that?

[On Guard for Thee]

I can put it more simply. It seems some people think that if others disagree, then they must not understand. It's called narrow minded.

[Keepitsimple]

You have reading comprehension problem. It is hard to have to discussion with someone who cannot seem to follow the arguments made.

You got that right! Just about impossible. A corollary to your point is that all forms of media are motivated by sensationalism - the wilder the claims (always prefaced by might, may, could....and over timeframes of decades or centuries), the more media attention they receive. Sensationalism sells!

Edited May 23, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

I read pretty good. You seem to have a problem differentiating between disagreeing with arguments you provide and understanding them. Do you understand that?

If you understood my argument you would actually address my point. Instead your responses are ramblings that appear to addressing a conversation you are having in your imagination. If you want to disagree with me then disagree with me by addressing the arguments I actually make instead of beating up on strawmen that miss the entire point. Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

When it comes to climate science, scientists can make up whatever crap they want and will never face any consequences for bad theories because they will always change the doomsday dates. In these fields scientists spin the data to maximize their funding. Honest assessment of the data is a secondary concern. In fact, there general preference in climate science is to add dubious fudge factors to any data which does not support their desired narrative.

What you are talking about here is fraud, full stop.

The vast VAST amounts of money that could be at put at risk by fraudulent advice that was paid for with public funds makes the sort of criminal fudging associated with recent financial collapses that have harmed hundreds of millions of people in recent years seem like petty crime in comparison.

If this conspiracy to defraud the public is as wide and deep as you claim it should be easy to quantify, provide evidence, and produce criminal charges.

[eyeball]

You got that right! Just about impossible. A corollary to your point is that all forms of media are motivated by sensationalism - the wilder the claims (always prefaced by might, may, could....and over timeframes of decades or centuries), the more media attention they receive. Sensationalism sells!

Yes, this is most apparent in claims of economic armageddon and the end of the world by economic alarmists should we follow the advice of the environmental alarmists.

The view is alarming in every direction.

[TimG]

If this conspiracy to defraud the public is as wide and deep as you claim it should be easy to quantify, provide evidence, and produce criminal charges.

It is virtually impossible to prove fraud because we are talking about unprovable scientific hypotheses. Proving fraud would require that the hypotheses can be shown to be false which is impossible just like showing them to be true is impossible. Scientists take advantage of the fact that we really know nothing in order to secure endless funding. Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Scientists take advantage of the fact that we really know nothing in order to secure endless funding.

So scientists are trying to bankrupt the economy so they can secure endless funding? You're not making any sense at all.

Edited May 23, 2014 by eyeball

[On Guard for Thee]

So scientists are trying to bankrupt the economy so they can secure endless funding? You're not making any sense at all.

Stephen Harper found a solution for that. Fire all the scientists.

[Wilber]

Methinks Tim will have to be knee deep in water before he admits the science just might be right. It's that kind of attitude from too many politicians that makes me think we are screwed.

[TimG]

Methinks Tim will have to be knee deep in water before he admits the science just might be right. It's that kind of attitude from too many politicians that makes me think we are screwed.

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is do we have enough confidence in these predictions to make any investments that we would not otherwise do? I say the answer is clearly no because climate scientists keep making predictions that do not come true and then they try to cover up their failure by applying post hoc adjustments to historical data and/or simply issuing the same predictions for some suitably distant future date.

When it comes to SLR the current rate is 2-3mm per year which less than a foot by 2100 (i.e. nothing to worry about). We can monitor this and if it shows any sign of of accelerating then we can discuss it. For now it is scaremongering. There are many more important things to worry about.

Edited May 24, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

I say the answer is clearly no because climate scientists keep making predictions that do not come true and then they try to cover up their failure by applying post hoc adjustments to historical data and/or simply issuing the same predictions for some suitably distant future date.

Isn't this a bit of a guilt by association argument? Some scientists make bad predictions, so we should not take any predictions seriously? Why not value each prediction based upon its merits?

When it comes to SLR the current rate is 2-3mm per year which less than a foot by 2100 (i.e. nothing to worry about).

To be fair, it will accelerate and we should have something between 0.4 m and 1.0 m by 2100. So more than a foot.

[Wilber]

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is do we have enough confidence in these predictions to make any investments that we would not otherwise do? I say the answer is clearly no because climate scientists keep making predictions that do not come true and then they try to cover up their failure by applying post hoc adjustments to historical data and/or simply issuing the same predictions for some suitably distant future date.

When it comes to SLR the current rate is 2-3mm per year which less than a foot by 2100 (i.e. nothing to worry about). We can monitor this and if it shows any sign of of accelerating then we can discuss it. For now it is scaremongering. There are many more important things to worry about.

I sure don't claim to be an expert on the science but last January we took a cruise out of Valparaiso to Buenos Aires that included three days cruising the Palmer Archipelago and Antarctic Peninsula. On board giving daily talks and pointing out what we were seeing were a three people. One spent his career in USAP and the NSF and was very knowledgeable on the political history of the region and the current science. Another went down as a university student to work as a diver at McMurdo and ended spending his whole career down there and eventually managing all three stations. The other was a naturalist great nephew of Edward Wilson the naturalist on Scott's two expeditions and died with him returning from the pole.

When we were off Palmer Station, a dozen personnel came out in Zodiacs for a Q and A. Some of them had 20 years experience in the region.

After we left the area, the ice pilot who spent his whole career on Coast Guard ice breakers in both arctics joined in.

These people aren't geeks 5000 miles away analyzing computer data and they are not scaremongers, they have long term intimate knowledge of the place and even though I am no authority, after listening to them I'm damn sure none of them would agree with you.

During a couple of the talks, the fellow from the NSF became quite frustrated with one fellow who wanted to debate. He said "look, I'm not here to debate, I'm just telling you what we are finding" Some people just don't want to know.

[TimG]

These people aren't geeks 5000 miles away analyzing computer data and they are not scaremongers, they have long term intimate knowledge of the place and even though I am no authority, after listening to them I'm damn sure none of them would agree with you.

When have I said the planet is not warming? When have I said that seas are not rising? I am sure that these researchers are seeing real changes. But just because they are seeing changes that does not mean their predictions of what the future will be like have any credibility. To have credibility to predict the future their computer models must actually make non-trivial predictions that come true more often than they make predictions that fail. So fair the field has not produced such computer models.

[Wilber]

When have I said the planet is not warming? When have I said that seas are not rising? I am sure that these researchers are seeing real changes. But just because they are seeing changes that does not mean their predictions of what the future will be like have any credibility. To have credibility to predict the future their computer models must actually make non-trivial predictions that come true more often than they make predictions that fail. So fair the field has not produced such computer models.

The planet is warming and sea levels are rising but because they can't give you exact predictions just ignore them. Hell of a strategy you have there.

[TimG]

The planet is warming and sea levels are rising but because they can't give you exact predictions just ignore them. Hell of a strategy you have there.

No. I said we monitor the real data and the real data says seas are rising consistently at 3mm per year which is no more than 1ft by 2100. This means it is not a concern. If the real data shows signs of acceleration then we can revisit, however, making decisions today based on a unverified computer prediction that SLR will accelerate exponentially in the near future is insane.

The same is true of temperature changes. The general rule is warmer temps are better for life but we are inundated with predictions of doom despite the absence of any real evidence that warming is a net harm.

Edited May 24, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

As CO2 emissions are now three times original Kyoto levels and increasing, only a fool would think these increases are linear and have a limit. If anything is to be done to limit the rate of increase, it will have to be done in spite of people like you.

[TimG]

As CO2 emissions are now three times original Kyoto levels and increasing, only a fool would think these increases are linear and have a limit.

Well since the theoretical response of temperatures to CO2 is roughly logarithmic the doubling/tripling of CO2 concentrations is a linear input to the system. In this case, you are showing that you do not understand the basic science behind the problem and are reacting to misinformation.

If anything is to be done to limit the rate of increase, it will have to be done in spite of people like you.

No. If anything is done it will be because of people like me because the technology does not exist today and the only way it will get built is if we have a robust economy that can support R&D into speculative energy sources. People who insist on pissing away money on technology which cannot work in its current form are making the problem worse.

Case in point: both Japan and Germany are increasing their CO2 emissions because of fear of nuclear. Yet the fear of nuclear is not coming from people like me - it coming from the same people demanding we "do something" about CO2. IOW - the people demanding we do something because of their inability to prioritize are actually making the problem worse because they are preventing us from deploying technology that works today.

Edited May 24, 2014 by TimG