Ice Melt

[snymat68]

I'm not a huge climate change believer. I think we have a pollution problem, but climate change and pollution are mutually exclusive and should not be used interchangeably.

I'm an Actuary and I only deal in CREDIBLE numbers. For data to be credible, it must be; definable, repeatable, and more than 100 unique data points. We also use a fator to adjust data points, 100 points is far less predictable than 1000 points, so we assign a higher credibility to more data points by way of a completion factor.

Climate science with all the above data prerequisites is non existent. The data can not be repeatable, it's not universally definable and there are not enough data points going back to get good credible data. At most we have around 125 years of data compared to the billions of years earth has been around. That might sound like a lot, but considering the time horizon the earth has been around and changing, it's a very small statistical sample. Both sides make some compelling arguments, however both sides have been proven wrong with their theories.

Our species is not going to change the climate, there are forces at work that are far more powerful than human will. I also think it's foolish to try and obtain non-varying weather. The earth has been formed by varying weather patterns for billions of years, I think I would start to worry if the weather all of a sudden started being the same temperature on the same day year after year. I think I will stick with the idea that Climate change is good...

I'm 100% in agreement with this. And that's a number you can take to the bank.

 

[widefat]

I'm not a huge climate change believer. I think we have a pollution problem, but climate change and pollution are mutually exclusive and should not be used interchangeably.

I'm an Actuary and I only deal in CREDIBLE numbers. For data to be credible, it must be; definable, repeatable, and more than 100 unique data points. We also use a fator to adjust data points, 100 points is far less predictable than 1000 points, so we assign a higher credibility to more data points by way of a completion factor.

Climate science with all the above data prerequisites is non existent. The data can not be repeatable, it's not universally definable and there are not enough data points going back to get good credible data. At most we have around 125 years of data compared to the billions of years earth has been around. That might sound like a lot, but considering the time horizon the earth has been around and changing, it's a very small statistical sample. Both sides make some compelling arguments, however both sides have been proven wrong with their theories.

Our species is not going to change the climate, there are forces at work that are far more powerful than human will. I also think it's foolish to try and obtain non-varying weather. The earth has been formed by varying weather patterns for billions of years, I think I would start to worry if the weather all of a sudden started being the same temperature on the same day year after year. I think I will stick with the idea that Climate change is good...

Smart Fella here.

 

[EddieWalker]

I'm not a huge climate change believer. I think we have a pollution problem, but climate change and pollution are mutually exclusive and should not be used interchangeably.

I'm an Actuary and I only deal in CREDIBLE numbers. For data to be credible, it must be; definable, repeatable, and more than 100 unique data points. We also use a fator to adjust data points, 100 points is far less predictable than 1000 points, so we assign a higher credibility to more data points by way of a completion factor.

Climate science with all the above data prerequisites is non existent. The data can not be repeatable, it's not universally definable and there are not enough data points going back to get good credible data. At most we have around 125 years of data compared to the billions of years earth has been around. That might sound like a lot, but considering the time horizon the earth has been around and changing, it's a very small statistical sample. Both sides make some compelling arguments, however both sides have been proven wrong with their theories.

Our species is not going to change the climate, there are forces at work that are far more powerful than human will. I also think it's foolish to try and obtain non-varying weather. The earth has been formed by varying weather patterns for billions of years, I think I would start to worry if the weather all of a sudden started being the same temperature on the same day year after year. I think I will stick with the idea that Climate change is good...

Excellent post!!!

 

[rekees4300]

I'm not a huge climate change believer. I think we have a pollution problem, but climate change and pollution are mutually exclusive and should not be used interchangeably.

The root cause is human over population, the effect is pollution, the consequence is Climate Change. Hopefully humans will feel the pain and take action before it is too late (which may have already happened). The second link in the original post says all the ice will melt in 5,000+ years. Look at the map when sea levels rise 128 feet and the average temperature goes from 58 today to 80 in 7019. It's unlikely humans will survive unless they manage to correct Climate Change or colonize another planet. Folks it's DO OR DIE time!

 

[Snobdds]

The root cause is human over population, the effect is pollution, the consequence is Climate Change. Hopefully humans will feel the pain and take action before it is too late (which may have already happened). The second link in the original post says all the ice will melt in 5,000+ years. Look at the map when sea levels rise 128 feet and the average temperature goes from 58 today to 80 in 7019. It's unlikely humans will survive unless they manage to correct Climate Change or colonize another planet. Folks it's DO OR DIE!

Those are some specific predictions...

Statisticians will never produce a specific value, but a range of outcomes. That, in and of itself, shows what kinda of analysis this is...and it wasn't done by anyone with statistical predictive abilities...

 

[Jstpssng]

The root cause is human over population, the effect is pollution, the consequence is Climate Change. Hopefully humans will feel the pain and take action before it is too late (which may have already happened). The second link in the original post says all the ice will melt in 5,000+ years. Look at the map when sea levels rise 128 feet and the average temperature goes from 58 today to 80 in 7019. It's unlikely humans will survive unless they manage to correct Climate Change or colonize another planet. Folks it's DO OR DIE time!

What workable solution do you endorse? Your first sentence states the root cause of whatever problem the planet has, yet very rarely do you ever hear it mentioned. Generally people will either deny that we have a problem; or they will say 田hanges need to be made... starting with that group over there!

 

[CalG]

The root cause is human over population, the effect is pollution, the consequence is Climate Change. Hopefully humans will feel the pain and take action before it is too late (which may have already happened). The second link in the original post says all the ice will melt in 5,000+ years. Look at the map when sea levels rise 128 feet and the average temperature goes from 58 today to 80 in 7019. It's unlikely humans will survive unless they manage to correct Climate Change or colonize another planet. Folks it's DO OR DIE time!

You don't hear much about ZPG any more.

Zero Population Growth was all the rage for social protest when I was young.

Now it is only a first world problem (non-replacement), the third world seems to have missed the memo....

Go figure.

 

[Jstpssng]

You don't hear much about ZPG any more.

Zero Population Growth was all the rage for social protest when I was young.

Now it is only a first world problem (non-replacement), the third world seems to have missed the memo....

Go figure.

Without immigration, we would be there. Yet somebody needs to become doctors and fill other medical slots. Funny thing, one "idea" to curb wildlife populations without the need for hunting is to somehow provide birth control for wildlife (and places are actually doing it with feral cats... catching them, sterilizing, then rereleasing them.)

Meanwhile for overpopulated, poverty stricken regions we have people like Sally Struthers asking us to send money.

Then they can start buying Georgia property now!






I think talking about population control is one super taboo.
Just keep buying those LED lights and electric cars.

That was exactly my point.

 

[Alan W.]

While I fo believe there is consequences from overpopulation and over use of resources I do not think this causes climate change.
Those that think we are causing climate change need to read up on Mars. It had a climate with liquid water and an atmosphere that climate change wiped away. This all happened without people, farting cows and fossil fuel.
Scientist say that the last ice age and the more recent mini ice age was caused by global warming. Must have been too many cavemen campfires and wooly mammoth farts.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Ice melt works on my driveway.