Thread: Climate Change
View Single Post
Old 09-14-2017, 10:08 AM   #31
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Bryan I work with models, I sometimes build models for the purposes of predicting insurance losses. The accuracy of any model, is very sensitive to the magnitude of the assumptions that underly the model. In the case of predicting the impacts of climate change, there is a tremendous amount of speculation behind the assumptions. We don't know if the atmosphere or the oceans have the ability to absorb, or offset, increased emissions. We have almost no idea. It's very, very speculative at this point. If you are about to flip a coin a thousand times, we know that you'll get approximately 50% heads. That is established science. You want to predict what the effect will be, of unprecedented emissions? Speculation. The third world has never been developed before, so we have very little actual empirical evidence, upon which to base our assumptions. Which means the assumptions are speculative. The last time I checked, polar bear numbers were increasing. That wasn't supposed to happen if the models were accurate.

I want to pay taxes to fund the research. But I don't like the idea of some limousine liberal, suggesting that people
In developing countries don't have the same right to the cheap comforts ( heat in the winter, a/c in the summer) that the limousine liberal enjoys. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the ranks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes there are assumptions.
Absolutely, correct.
But if you company made a model for life insurance based on risk factors, and one variable was for smoking, if there were 100 different models with 100 different assumptions about life expectancy and smoking, and all 100 had a slightly different reduction in life expectancy, but all said you were going to die sooner, your company would charge more for insurance for smokers, right? Or because one models aid average life expectancy is reduced 8 years, and one says 6 years and ones says 4 years, you would say, nope, all models are bad.

The models vary assumptions. They vary parameters in future concentrations, and sequestration and volcanoes and increased cloud cover, and future absorption of carbon in the deep ocean etc etc etc.. But the trend of the models is the same. More GHG's more warming. More warming less land based ice and higher sea levels (among other things).


Actually, from the geologic record, we have a very good idea of past conditions. The last time we saw 400ppm of CO2, was 4 million years ago. The cause of that rise was of course not anthropocentric, but one thought is that changes to ocean heat balances (currents) over long time periods produced changes in T and CO2. At that time average temperatures in the arctic were much higher than present (one link below from Julie B-G's team at UMASS).

Do you dispute the basic physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

What do you think of the Pope's stance on climate change?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-400ppm/

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote