72 hours without electricity

[Renderman]

"What’s up for debate is linking them to adverse weather," The NASA page is quite explicit about predicting increases in extreme weather.

Eg:
"Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.

Projections of future climate over the U.S. suggest that the recent trend towards increased heavy precipitation events will continue. This trend is projected to occur even in regions where total precipitation is expected to decrease, such as the Southwest."

And:
"The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."

 

[plexi59]

Dude, I can "project" that I'll be a billionaire within 10 years. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. The way this should work (and the way some research works) is you register a hypothesis, provide a theory that has predictive power, and then conduct an experiment, or in this case just wait. And before you say we can't wait, well, we could, back when this whole thing came to prominence - in late 90s. If you're right, you take your well deserved Nobel Prize for predicting temperature rise 10 years in advance with a modicum of accuracy. If you're wrong, you hang your head in shame and start over.

Instead, the way this shit works in climate "science" is they create a hundred different models and pick the best fitting one post-facto, and sometimes tweak the data so it fits better. That's not scientific approach at all. And anyone who tries to find any fleas on this dog is immediately ejected as a "climate change denier", even if they don't actually deny that climate is changing, and their inquiry is in good faith.

The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain

See, this was written by an honest person. Their grants don't depend on scaring people shitless. NASA likely also knows about Milankovich cycles and other stuff like that that throws a massive spanner wrench into the idea we can actually do much about this.

 

[Renderman]

Listen, mate: scientific theories don't just spring up out of thin air. They're based on observations of nature. From there models are made from which predictions can be inferred. So yes, of course the climate models are based on observation. And yes, they have predictive power. The NASA article makes several predictions, or 'projections' if you will. But for some reason you're pouring scorn on their projections.
You have a source for this hundred different models? Or are we actually talking about a handful of models where the parameters are tweaked as fresh data comes in?

 

[Ben Randolph]

We were out of power for nearly 40 hours. Our green iguana passed away. A local Red Cross shelter took us and our dogs for two days and fed us. I am furious with certain politicians and corporate leaders (won't mention names since I don't want this to be a political post, but you can probably guess).

We got home yesterday afternoon and our house is heated. I cannot say enough good things about our local City of Grapevine (Dallas suburb) that sent a heavy duty vehicle to get us out of our house when we were iced in and our economy cars couldn't get out.

I did shut off the water at the curb and drain pipes. So much water damage from others, though. This is an insurance catastrophe in addition to a humanitarian crisis. It's so important to know where your water shutoff valve is and have the proper tool to adjust it!

Lower on my list, but still important, was securing my gear. I took my amps, AxeFX and pedals to a place where I knew water pipes didn't go through. I went through a burst pipe fiasco in the 2011 freeze, so I'm not going through that again.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

The 2004 Sumatra earthquake, the 2010 Chile earthquake and, the 2011 Japan earthquake each shifted shortened the length of the day a bit and Earth's axis of rotation a bit. That could, along with greenhouse gas production, change weather patterns. I also remember the skies being a lot clearer in the early part of last year, when the quarantine shutdown stopped most travel for a while. We are definitely affecting the environment to some extent.

https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041229/full/041229-6.html

https://www.altergroup.com/blog/2010/03/chilean-earthquake-shortened-day-knocked-earth-off-its-axis/

https://earthobservatory.sg/blog/how-did-2011-tohoku-earthquake-change-earth’s-rotation

 

[plexi59]

Listen, mate: scientific theories don't just spring up out of thin air. They're based on observations of nature. From there models are made from which predictions can be inferred. So yes, of course the climate models are based on observation. And yes, they have predictive power. The NASA article makes several predictions, or 'projections' if you will. But for some reason you're pouring scorn on their projections.
You have a source for this hundred different models? Or are we actually talking about a handful of models where the parameters are tweaked as fresh data comes in?

Sure. Let me explain in greater detail, focusing on the concrete claim being made here.

1. The concrete claim was that the events in Texas are caused (rather than just coincide with) global warming. To actually prove causality, you'd have to explain why that is. Say you have a theory that maybe evaporation and shifting cyclone patterns affect this.

2. You're a good scientist, you quantify your inputs, create a model, and fit that model to past data for, say 20-30 years, which is for how long reliable measurements for some of the more fine grained metrics have been available. It seems to "explain" what happened. Here's where most people who never did any science get confused: this is not yet a confirmation of the theory. All you have at this point is confirmation bias, and a very high likelihood that your model won't predict what happens in the future. That is, it doesn't even remotely establish causality, and there's 99/100 chance that it's total horseshit. If we called this "science", we'd have this: https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. What's damaging to public discourse, though, is that this is where mass media gets involved, and that's what they sell as "facts" or "scientific consensus".

3. So since you're a good scientist who wouldn't lie for a grant, what you do next is you say "based on my theory I predict that in 10 years average winter temperature in Texas will drop 1 degree celsius, snowfall will increase 10 inches" and so on. Ideally you'd also want to have another identical planet where you could tweak the factors that go into your model, but in this case, obviously, this is not possible. You can put reasonable error bounds on that, just not 50%, and the tighter the better. If this prediction holds up, your theory may be correct, until someone proves it isn't. That's how it works in any other branch of natural science, except climate science. Climate science instead constantly back-fits by picking one model that fits data the best out of hundreds, and then declaring it to be "more correct". I mean, sure, it is more correct with respect to past data, obviously, but again, you're now at step 2 described above and all you have is confirmation bias, not a theory that establishes causality.

Once again: global warming exists - you can measure it. What doesn't exist is a model that accurately predicts it into the future, or causally ties it to major weather events, even though the press does its best to make you believe otherwise. We are being sold the idea of $100T+ change to how we live that may or may not, in fact, affect the things that we hope to change in any way.

In this, climate science is joined by economics. Economists are really good at "explaining" the past, but can never seem to predict the future. And economies are much simpler systems than planetary climate. Worse yet, the two are inextricably linked: https://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

OTOH, you can certainly choose to believe certain parts of it. I think it is likely that CO2 is a bad thing, and reducing my carbon impact even improves my quality of life in some aspects, so I do what I can - don't buy shit I don't need, drive an electric car, work from home. Seems like pretty much common sense stuff anyone can do if they have the means (or in the case of not buying shit, even if they don't). Just don't confuse your beliefs with causal proof. I know humans don't work like that - we perceive what we believe as objective reality, and cherry pick the facts to justify our beliefs. But scientists try to do better than that.

 

[mr_fender]

Texas' grid is back to normal operation today thankfully. There's still plenty of folks without power due to damaged lines and equipment, but at least the rolling blackouts are done. Water is a big issue for many folks right now as busted pipes and lost system pressure has caused outages and boil water notices in many cities. We finally got above freezing today as well so the slop is melting away nicely.

Props to all the line workers, plant workers, and controllers that have been burning the midnight oil trying to restore everyone's power down here. Those folks deserve some serious recognition.

 

[GlennO]

I've been watching the Bobby Whitlock channel on youtube. He was the keyboard player in Derek and the Dominos and has been posting a series of videos with great stories about the Layla sessions with Eric Clapton and the All Things Must Pass sessions with George Harrison. Be sure to check those out if you're interested in those landmark albums. Anyway he's in Austin, so he's feeling the brunt of things and he posted a brief video with an account of what things are like there right now, huddling by the fireplace with no electricity or water.

 

[Renderman]

Sure. Let me explain in greater detail, focusing on the concrete claim being made here.

1. The concrete claim was that the events in Texas are caused (rather than just coincide with) global warming. To actually prove causality, you'd have to explain why that is. Say you have a theory that maybe evaporation and shifting cyclone patterns affect this.

2. You're a good scientist, you quantify your inputs, create a model, and fit that model to past data for, say 20-30 years, which is for how long reliable measurements for some of the more fine grained metrics have been available. It seems to "explain" what happened. Here's where most people who never did any science get confused: this is not yet a confirmation of the theory. All you have at this point is confirmation bias, and a very high likelihood that your model won't predict what happens in the future. That is, it doesn't even remotely establish causality, and there's 99/100 chance that it's total horseshit. If we called this "science", we'd have this: https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. What's damaging to public discourse, though, is that this is where mass media gets involved, and that's what they sell as "facts" or "scientific consensus".

3. So since you're a good scientist who wouldn't lie for a grant, what you do next is you say "based on my theory I predict that in 10 years average winter temperature in Texas will drop 1 degree celsius, snowfall will increase 10 inches" and so on. Ideally you'd also want to have another identical planet where you could tweak the factors that go into your model, but in this case, obviously, this is not possible. You can put reasonable error bounds on that, just not 50%, and the tighter the better. If this prediction holds up, your theory may be correct, until someone proves it isn't. That's how it works in any other branch of natural science, except climate science. Climate science instead constantly back-fits by picking one model that fits data the best out of hundreds, and then declaring it to be "more correct". I mean, sure, it is more correct with respect to past data, obviously, but again, you're now at step 2 described above and all you have is confirmation bias, not a theory that establishes causality.

Once again: global warming exists - you can measure it. What doesn't exist is a model that accurately predicts it into the future, or causally ties it to major weather events, even though the press does its best to make you believe otherwise. We are being sold the idea of $100T+ change to how we live that may or may not, in fact, affect the things that we hope to change in any way.

In this, climate science is joined by economics. Economists are really good at "explaining" the past, but can never seem to predict the future. And economies are much simpler systems than planetary climate. Worse yet, the two are inextricably linked: https://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

OTOH, you can certainly choose to believe certain parts of it. I think it is likely that CO2 is a bad thing, and reducing my carbon impact even improves my quality of life in some aspects, so I do what I can - don't buy shit I don't need, drive an electric car, work from home. Seems like pretty much common sense stuff anyone can do if they have the means (or in the case of not buying shit, even if they don't). Just don't confuse your beliefs with causal proof. I know humans don't work like that - we perceive what we believe as objective reality, and cherry pick the facts to justify our beliefs. But scientists try to do better than that.

You were disputing the concrete claim. I was disputing the argument you put forward to dispute it. In particular, you said: "What’s up for debate is linking them to adverse weather." Someone had already posted a bunch of citations. I looked at one of them - the NASA one - and so far as they're concerned the connection of climate change to adverse weather is not in dispute. You've offered nothing concrete to counter that. You agree with some other things that are said on that link because it concords with your 'common sense'. How's this for common sense: NASA predicted adverse weather conditions. Now the US is seeing adverse weather conditions.

You talk about 'hundreds' of different models. I questioned you on that and you just repeated the claim. Frankly, I find it hard to believe. It just sounds like exaggeration to make a point. You draw a false equivalence between climate science and economics. The reality is that fluid dynamics is a well understood branch of physics, governed by laws of conservation of energy and mass. Unfortunately, it's a chaotic system and therefore precise, local, long-term predictions are going to be incredibly difficult to make. But generalised predictions can, and have been predicting temperature rises for many years now, predictions borne out by observation. And yes, the parameters will be tweaked as new data comes in to make the model a better fit. You imply this is somehow dishonest or not real science, but it has in fact been part of the scientific method since astronomers started tweaking epicycles to explain observed retrograde motion of the planets.

 

[plexi59]

Always look for weasel words: “may” contribute. “Possible”, “could”, and so on. If you press for proof (or, heck, even for concrete predictions you could hold them to), there is none - all they have are correlations, with very few exceptions. The most concrete and provable thing is the greenhouse effect - you can even replicate it in a lab. Increased rainfall is plausible too, but note that they can’t predict by how much it will increase or where, or when. Tying global warming to frozen Texas - that’s a bridge too far.