Glaciers draining Antarctic basin destabilized, 4m level rise all but certain

[garbon]

While I don't want to excuse Russia, I cannot help but feel, at least a little bit, kind of "oh well" about whatever happens to the Ukraine.

Fundamentally, a state has to be strong enough to protect itself - at least at some nominal level that makes it's existence actually credible. The Ukraine is so thoroughly corrupt and screwed up that they seem to completely lack the ability to protect themselves from largely disorganized bandits, basically. Yes, I am aware that those are in fact a bunch of d-bags, some of which are being supported by Russia, if not actually Russian. But the reason that works is because the Ukraine is so incredibly weak that such a transparent farce is actually effective.

Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.

You do realize that climate change will affect other countries than Ukraine?

I thought we didn't care much about Ukraine because we don't think changes in its political climate will affect us.

[grumbler]

grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?

Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?

I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases.  I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet. 

I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose.  That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.

[grumbler]

While I don't want to excuse Russia, I cannot help but feel, at least a little bit, kind of "oh well" about whatever happens to the Ukraine.

Fundamentally, a state has to be strong enough to protect itself - at least at some nominal level that makes it's existence actually credible. The Ukraine is so thoroughly corrupt and screwed up that they seem to completely lack the ability to protect themselves from largely disorganized bandits, basically. Yes, I am aware that those are in fact a bunch of d-bags, some of which are being supported by Russia, if not actually Russian. But the reason that works is because the Ukraine is so incredibly weak that such a transparent farce is actually effective.

Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.

You do realize that climate change will affect other countries than Ukraine?

I thought we didn't care much about Ukraine because we don't think changes in its political climate will affect us.

I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge.

[crazy canuck]

grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?

Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?

I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases.  I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet. 

I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose.  That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.

Grumbler - anti sciencer

[crazy canuck]

Incidentally this is too big of an issue to let Grumbler get away with his usual bull shit.

His assertion that the IPCC is forced to make assumptions based on their bias because they lack knowledge, here is how the IPCC described how they arrived at the conclusions in their 2013 report:

The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams' evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).

Regarding Grumblers assertion that the IPCC concluded the climate change is caused by human activity and thus assumes it can be reversed by different human activity.  He should read working group III's report which:

assesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues

It is the ignorance of poeple like Grumbler bleating on about how the scientists dont know what they are saying that is the real problem here folks.

[grumbler]

Incidentally this is too big of an issue to let Grumbler get away with his usual bull shit.

His assertion that the IPCC is forced to make assumptions based on their bias because they lack knowledge, here is how the IPCC described how they arrived at the conclusions in their 2013 report:

The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams' evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).

Regarding Grumblers assertion that the IPCC concluded the climate change is caused by human activity and thus assumes it can be reversed by different human activity.  He should read working group III's report which:

assesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues

It is the ignorance of poeple like Grumbler bleating on about how the scientists dont know what they are saying that is the real problem here folks.

I'm just going to leave this here, since it is clear that the IPCC report doesn't actually challenge any of my statements at all, but you childishly insist that it does, for reasons I think anyone can figure out.

[Jacob]

Incidentally this is too big of an issue to let Grumbler get away with his usual bull shit.

His assertion that the IPCC is forced to make assumptions based on their bias because they lack knowledge, here is how the IPCC described how they arrived at the conclusions in their 2013 report:

The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams' evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).

Regarding Grumblers assertion that the IPCC concluded the climate change is caused by human activity and thus assumes it can be reversed by different human activity.  He should read working group III's report which:

assesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues

It is the ignorance of poeple like Grumbler bleating on about how the scientists dont know what they are saying that is the real problem here folks.

I don't know... it seems out of character for grumbler

[crazy canuck]

I'm just going to leave this here

That is wise of you given the bs position you took.

[grumbler]

I don't know... it seems out of character for grumbler  

exactly.  I don't debate a lot of issues here because I don't know enough about them.  I know something about this, though, and base my conclusions on what is publicly available.

I don't think CC has read (or maybe he has read and just doesn't understand) what I have written on the topic, but nothing I have said contradicts the IPCC reports.  His claims that they do are just that;  claims, without substance.

[Razgovory]

grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?

Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?

I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases.  I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet. 

I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose.  That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.

Grumbler - anti sciencer

This is sort of like when he pretends to be a lawyer.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler.  Your criticisms regarding the IPCC were so baseless that when confronted with the facts all you can do is assert you were right all along. 

Keen readers of this forum will detect the patented Grumbles drop roll and cover strategy on this one.

[crazy canuck]

grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?

Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?

I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases.  I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet. 

I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose.  That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.

Grumbler - anti sciencer

This is sort of like when he pretends to be a lawyer.

Its similar.  Normally what happens there is he asserts a legal principle; some kind soul explains to him he doesn't have it quite right; he attacks the kind soul; kind soul posts the authority showing Grumbles he was wrong; Grumbles claims he was right all along and that people just didnt understand his first position.

I have fond memories of Grumbles doing a 180 on the law of defamation a while back and then claiming his ending position was exactly what he stated at the beginning.  We just didnt understand his brilliance the first time.

[grumbler]

Grumbler.  Your criticisms regarding the IPCC were so baseless that when confronted with the facts all you can do is assert you were right all along. 

Keen readers of this forum will detect the patented Grumbles drop roll and cover strategy on this one.

  This dog of your just don't hunt.  I've said that i do not disagree with the IPCC (I merely point out that the biases of the scientists working on it are clearly in favor of there being solutions to the causes of climate change and that affects the assumptions that they must make), but you insist that I don't know what I am talking about and in reality i am making "criticisms."  Here's a news flash:  all science involves assumptions, and all reports contain bias.  It is not a "criticism" to address either topic. 

I think it is clear to everyone here but Raz which of the two of us better understands my position, and Raz thinks that it is you.

[Razgovory]

Stop Stalking me.

[crazy canuck]

Stop Stalking me.

Not only is he reading your posts now, I think he likes you.