Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Teeqoz said:
Lawlight said:

Fertility might decrease in those developed countries but population growth doesn't. The US's population has increased by a factor of 10 in the past 150 years. China doubled in the past 50 years. UK doubled in the past 100 years. Even Japan with its low fertility has seen an increase of 150% in its population over the past 100 years.

You know it's only recently that Japan has had very low fertility rates? So quoting data from the last 100 years makes no sense. I honestly can't tell if you chose a misleading dataset on purpose, or maybe you actually aren't aware that Japan's population has been decreasing since 2009. China too. Again, silly to only use the past 50 years when they are currently at the lowest population growth they've had in modern times.

Effing hell, I typed a response and VGChartz was down and now I don't feel like typing. But the jist of it is that Im using 100 years to correlate it to approximately how long we've had climate change data. The point remains that population has exploded in developed countries which contributes to global warming.

 

China's growth might have slowed but we're still talking about 7M more people each year (7.3M last - highest increase in the past 10 years).



Around the Network
naruball said:
How people keep defending him is beyond me.

He never had any defense. Half of america just falls for the simplest one liners.



Its amusing. Your house could be on fire, and I'm thinking that some of you would still be saying 'Prove it.'



the-pi-guy said:

"We don't know" ≠ "It doesn't

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather

It's not "we don't know", it's that there is "no established relationship" ... 

Once again higher temperatures are not a cause of increase in other forms of extreme weather like floods, droughts, tornados or hurricanes ... 

Even the data that the EPA uses from the NOAA disputes that ... 



Chris Hu said:
Birimbau said:

Yeah that guy is a moron he works for a conservative think tank of course he is gonna denny global warming.

He did win a physics Nobel prize, so he's not a moron. However his field of physics (solid state physics) is completely unrelated to climate science or physics related to the atmosphere. So it's like listening to the opinion of a gynaecologist talking about neurosurgery and preferring that opinion over the opinion of an actual neurosurgeon. Sure the gynaecologist is going to have more intelligent things to say about neurosurgery than your average high school educated person, because they would have studied a bit about the brain in medical school. But their knowledge of neurosurgery is negligible compared to that of a neurosurgeon.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html



fatslob-:O said:
the-pi-guy said:

Climate change leads to higher sea levels.  Which affects flooding and hurricanes.  Heat also helps in forming tornadoes.  

heat waves -> tornadoes

heat waves -> melting ice -> flooding

It doesn't! 

Even the NOAA found no discernible relationship between climate change and other forms of extreme weather like droughts, flooding, cyclones, or hurricanes ... 

The only thing you could argue is that climate change is correlated heat waves but even the united states is benefitting from warmer temperatures as it's citizens are less likely to die than before from colder weather! 

Uh, no its a lot easier to die from a heat wave because of a heat stroke or dehydration then to die from extreme cold.



fatslob-:O said:

It's not "we don't know", it's that there is "no established relationship" ... 

Once again higher temperatures are not a cause of increase in other forms of extreme weather like floods, droughts, tornados or hurricanes ... 

Even the data that the EPA uses from the NOAA disputes that ... 

There is "no established relationship" is not proof that there is no relationship.  

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  

But drawing the connection between warmer temperatures and more complex weather events like drought, flooding, hurricanes—or even the expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet—is way more difficult. “For events like that, it’s not clear that we have an established agreement in the scientific community,” says Stephanie Herring, a NOAA climate scientist and editor of the report. The problem is complexity. Or maybe the problems are complexities. Anyway, it’s confusing. The key metric in these models is called fraction of attributable risk. That’s a measurement of how much stronger, higher, swirlier the thing being tested for—rain, temperature, wind—was in the emissions-heavy model. “For example, in a world without greenhouse gases a heat wave might come in at 5 degrees above normal,” says Herring. “With climate change, you add an extra 1.5 degrees.” Flooding is only slightly more difficult to suss out than heat waves, because scientists have a pretty good idea of how heat and moisture interact in the atmosphere—but still, the models don’t always agree. In these studies, authors determined that several of the droughts they looked at had no discernible links to climate change. Prior to that, the sample size is limited to storms humans or their weather stations sat through first hand. “Because the hurricane data record is so short, there’s a lot of uncertainty,” says Cullen. But revealing those blind spots is one of the goals of these studies.

 

This article is moreso about some uncertainty in how climate affects extreme weather.  There's a ton of uncertainty because these are rare events, and we likely can't link some droughts to climate change.  Whether that's because we don't know enough, or because we need a better model, or whether it's because climate change absolutely 100% doesn't cause those things; we don't know the answer.  

Likely is not the same as absolutely, especially when it comes to ridiculously complicated areas of study like climate.  



Jesus Christ, what an absolute moron.

"Look, I’m somebody that gets it" - Uh huh, like a religious fundamentalist understands the Big Bang Theory.

Unreal that Americans elected a scientifically-illiterate bloviating swine with no redeemable personal qualities and even fewer political skills.



Chris Hu said:

Uh, no its a lot easier to die from a heat wave because of a heat stroke or dehydration then to die from extreme cold.

That's false ... 

More people are likely to have health issues under cooler temperatures than hotter ones ...

the-pi-guy said:

 

This article is moreso about some uncertainty in how climate affects extreme weather.  There's a ton of uncertainty because these are rare events, and we likely can't link some droughts to climate change.  Whether that's because we don't know enough, or because we need a better model, or whether it's because climate change absolutely 100% doesn't cause those things; we don't know the answer.  

Likely is not the same as absolutely, especially when it comes to ridiculously complicated areas of study like climate.  

Which means that the model doesn't work ... 

If a model insists that there will be more extreme weather then it needs to be tried and tested and if the results don't agree then you dump it or throw it in the garbage ...

It's not that hard ... 

No evidence that climate change causes more extreme weather ... 

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  

Like they say, "burden of proof is on the one making the claim" ...