The Cellar - What's more current than the weather?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - What's more current than the weather? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=7861)

Judith Curry is one of the most prominent skeptical scientists on AGW. Cherry-pick the page at will I considered linking it but didn't have the audacity to do it! I'm not linking the top skeptics! :lol:

Still, anyone just reading this exchange about it, will now understand a few things they didn't know before:

A) RCP 8.5 is an economic and social model, more than a climate model.

B) It's one of several models about how the world may go in the future.

C) It's the most pessimistic model; which, according to the Curry page, paragraph #1, is "a useful worst-case scenario, but not 'business as usual'".

D) All media stories and infographics and similar "climate porn" will invoke the shit out of it, and not mention the other models.

E) Doing that is disrespectful to the science, and anti-informative to the reader.

Good thread!

E is false and does not follow from any of the previous items.

:lol: eat up your tasty helpings of FaKe NeWs :lol:

Here's a balanced Atlantic article on RCP 8.5.

The current definition of "fake news" is "news Trump doesn't want to be broadcast", which, to the extent it has any relationship to accuracy at all, is a positive relationship.

Yes, I saw that Atlantic article when googling for articles that had criticisms of RCP 8.5, but went with the one that had more explicit criticisms.

This stood out to me, though:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Jackson via the Atlantic

“Even some [of the scenarios] for 3 degrees Celsius assume that at some point in the next 50 years, we will have large-scale industrial activities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous game, I think. We’re assuming that this thing we can’t do today will somehow be possible and cheaper in the future. I believe in tech, but I don’t believe in magic.”

It's all fine and dandy to assume that technology will improve, but to build into the model that a particular technology will be possible, developed, and funded by future people at a worldwide scale is a pretty big assumption in itself. If that assumption is built into any RCPs <8.5, then I don't see how 8.5 any less realistic than them. Trump is reducing efficiency standards and deleting the words "climate change" from scientific reports.

And, of course, just as with the "we'll run out of fossil fuels" criticism from the Wikipedia page, it's not a critique that can be used effectively by AGW skeptics. If the claim is that we don't need to do something, you don't use a model where the assumption is that we do it.

My definition of fake news is news that applies a biased, bogus, or activist narrative. If you ever see me use the term, that is what I mean by it.

Quote:

to build into the model that a particular technology will be possible, developed, and funded by future people at a worldwide scale is a pretty big assumption in itself

You'll be stunned, then, to learn how well this is coming along, and how quickly. It's easily possible, a simple chemical reaction does it, and this has been developed already. It's a hair away from a business model at this stage.

NPR Story on one company who does it, Carbon Engineering

The term already has too many definitions; Before Trump co-opted it, it was actual fake news, i.e. stuff Romanian teens made up and put on websites designed to look like real newspapers, and before that, it was stuff like "the Onion", and now it's just news that Trump doesn't like.

There's nothing stopping you from making up your own definition, I guess (like Humpty Dumpty using 'glory' to mean 'a nice, knock-down argument'), but "biased' and 'fake' are not synonyms in common parlance.

i'm sure my definition will find its way into the parlance

Columbia Journalism Review: "How much confidence do you have in the press?"

http://cellar.org/img/confidenceinthepress0.jpg

http://cellar.org/img/confidenceinthepress1.jpg

http://cellar.org/img/confidenceinthepress2.jpg

That's glory for you I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 1026883)

"How much confidence do you have in the press?"

So where is the study once obvious propaganda sources (National Inquirer, Fox News, the local (5 and 6 PM) gossip, etc are removed? Real news never appeals to the emotional. It states facts that are confirmed. Many so called new sources (scandal sheet, News of the World, talk show hosts, etc) did not and are not required to do that.

Eliminating many news source that clearly are only propaganda should massively change those numbers.

Whats my current weather , Fucken CRAPPY !!!!
30s windy rainy ( i work out side a LOT )
BUTTTTT ,,,,,, in 30 days ill be on a beach in Costarica !!!!

♫ Champagne don't hurt me baby
♪ Cocaine don't drive me crazy
♫ Ain't nobody's business but mine
♪ Way down in Costa Rica
♫ Smoke my hash and drink my liquor
♪ Ain't nobody's business but mine

:thumb2:

It is snowing atm.

Big fluffy goose feathers.

ETA: BIG, fluffy gooth featherth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 1027006)

For the second time, that has reminded me of this: