So your sticking point is a near unattainable standard. Convenient. Means you never get to argue anything substantive yet still have something to fall back on. You know very well I do not have access to raw data nor is it widely available. The closest you could come would be emailing corresponding authors. Still, I've linked several more in-depth pieces compared to the one in the OP and have received zero feedback on the actual science. Saying that models need work is like saying water is wet. Top shelf observation.
Is there a good reason why the data isn't widely available? Maybe I'm in an unusual position, but typically when I ask for data, I get it. You can sit there and tell me all day long about your procedures and processes and techniques and tell me how accurate it all is, but the actual evidence is found in analyzing collected data. Everything else may look good on paper, but it's superficial.
Maybe it's because we are so quick to blame something/anything for any/all ills in the world that we will take the quickest route to blame without actually finding out the problem first.
Like how the housing crisis is Bush's fault. ACA is Romney's fault. Iran is Reagan's fault. So on and so forth.
Religious people are more open to discussion than the church of Al Gore. I asked for a tangible solution and get nothing.
You asked for a solution based on a false premise.
But if you want a solution to CO2 being a green-house gas and adding more of it to the atmosphere causing drastic changes in global climate well it should be obvious, but I'll try: reduce the amount of CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere then reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The world will survive, it's us humans that won't at this rate.
Religious people are more open to discussion than the church of Al Gore. I asked for a tangible solution and get nothing.
A tangible solution that doesn't include any change in our current system, doesn't cost any money, doesn't in any way limit anyone or any corporation from spewing as much carbon as they want, and most importantly, doesn't contain any kale.
Talking exactly like the Lordgrim you love so much.
Just because I ask for proof doesn't mean that I am denying that climate change is occurring, just not buying into the whole religion until evidence is presented to me as to why it is happening and how it is occurring and how we can fix it.
Answer those 3 questions, and make sure that everyone agrees with it, and I will buy into your religion.
Also there are many alternatives for energy production. While sure some are still in testing, are exist and work and just aren't used enough. Biomasses for example.
reduce the amount of CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere then reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So how do you do this?
Can'ttellifserious.jpg
Knowing you, I doubt it.
Stop burning so much *** oil would be a good start.
I'm pretty sure Chaos was looking for more specifics. "Stop burning so much oil" is like saying "Can't we all just get along". It's not going to happen on its own, you need to provide an actual plan.
So your sticking point is a near unattainable standard. Convenient. Means you never get to argue anything substantive yet still have something to fall back on. You know very well I do not have access to raw data nor is it widely available. The closest you could come would be emailing corresponding authors. Still, I've linked several more in-depth pieces compared to the one in the OP and have received zero feedback on the actual science. Saying that models need work is like saying water is wet. Top shelf observation.
Is there a good reason why the data isn't widely available? Maybe I'm in an unusual position, but typically when I ask for data, I get it. You can sit there and tell me all day long about your procedures and processes and techniques and tell me how accurate it all is, but the actual evidence is found in analyzing collected data. Everything else may look good on paper, but it's superficial.
From a practical standpoint, these data sets are typically huge and publishing them along with the article proper would be difficult and cost-prohibitive, unless you're an organization like NASA who can just fill their own servers. Researchers could also still be using their data and relinquishing their rights to it by publishing it or just making it publicly available would be destructive to their future research.
Anyone who calls scientific research religion is not someone I'm willing to entertain in debate.
Most scientific research is just that. For some reason, climate science has reached to a point of piety where anyone in that group is absolutely right and everyone outside that group is absolutely wrong. Which is, a religion through and through.
Good job dodging the request though. Like I really expected you to answer any one of those 3 items anyway.
reduce the amount of CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere then reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So how do you do this?
Can'ttellifserious.jpg
Knowing you, I doubt it.
Stop burning so much *** oil would be a good start.
I'm pretty sure Chaos was looking for more specifics. "Stop burning so much oil" is like saying "Can't we all just get along". It's not going to happen on its own, you need to provide an actual plan.
I'm pretty sure he was being facetious, so to his smart *** question I gave a smart *** answer.
There's a lot of plans laid out for it though, the ones that an entire group of people dislike because they're told to.
reduce the amount of CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere then reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So how do you do this?
Can'ttellifserious.jpg
Knowing you, I doubt it.
Stop burning so much *** oil would be a good start.
I'm pretty sure Chaos was looking for more specifics. "Stop burning so much oil" is like saying "Can't we all just get along". It's not going to happen on its own, you need to provide an actual plan.
So long as there is a public debate about whether climate change is real or whether burning hydrocarbons contributes, nothing can change. If the public agreed like the scientists do, there would be more regulation, more money put into clean energy, etc. It's in the interest of people whose fortunes are built on oil to keep the debate going, while they rake in billions of dollars. Hence why people like me strongly advocate outlawing private campaign financing and lobbying. The fox is guarding the hen house, and the people who stand to gain from continued use of fossil fuels are the ones with the biggest voice on the subject. It's abhorrent.
reduce the amount of CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere then reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So how do you do this?
The price of fossil fuels has to more accurately represent their true cost. There's really no way around it. Alternative green energy will just be a novelty until there's a financial incentive to actually invest in the proper infrastructure for it. Solar has been catching on in a lot of places simply because we have parts of the country where the space is cheap and panel technology has become less expensive, but a larger paradigm shift would have to include a much larger shift in order to avoid certain goal lines that we don't really want to reach.
So your sticking point is a near unattainable standard. Convenient. Means you never get to argue anything substantive yet still have something to fall back on. You know very well I do not have access to raw data nor is it widely available. The closest you could come would be emailing corresponding authors. Still, I've linked several more in-depth pieces compared to the one in the OP and have received zero feedback on the actual science. Saying that models need work is like saying water is wet. Top shelf observation.
Is there a good reason why the data isn't widely available? Maybe I'm in an unusual position, but typically when I ask for data, I get it. You can sit there and tell me all day long about your procedures and processes and techniques and tell me how accurate it all is, but the actual evidence is found in analyzing collected data. Everything else may look good on paper, but it's superficial.
From a practical standpoint, these data sets are typically huge and publishing them along with the article proper would be difficult and cost-prohibitive, unless you're an organization like NASA who can just fill their own servers. Researchers could also still be using their data and relinquishing their rights to it by publishing it or just making it publicly available would be destructive to their future research.
So basically it's a stalemate. I don't have access to it because of bureaucratic barriers, and out of pure principle I never accept a graph at face value that I am not allowed to duplicate.
Stop burning so much fossil fuels, brilliant. Like I said before, until this can actually be done, the current plan is to tax the average citizen while both alarmists and oil/coal/fracking companies make more profits.
A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)
If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to fuck around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)
Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
Quote:
The report pointed out that while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?
Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.