SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Underexposed Technical Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: robert b furman who wrote (609)10/15/2019 5:03:33 PM
From: Underexposed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 914
 
Dis: I know I will convince anyone to change their mind but I have read this and see NO EVIDENCE of a reason to change my mind .... only dissing on Climatetologists as though they or on a mission to delude the public on the planet's climate.

here are some issues I have with the post that Robert had me look at.
Message 32367974

Short summary: I now worry less about global warming than I did, the scientific evidence is that it’s not going to be catastrophic. PS Our best course of action is to adapt to the effects and to invest in R&D to develop new low carbon energy.
I disagree with the red part of the sentence but agree with the second half...the author almost seems to be contradicting himself.

NASA SCIENCE -Do scientists agree on climate change?


Here is the opening paragraph of this site:

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.


then I read this in the post

I used it to to rally my colleagues in the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute — “how could we contribute to the solution?” I asked..........................

But then the forecasting scientists in the Institute told me that the forecasts of global warming were not to be trusted. They pointed out that climate scientists were not forecasting scientists, that climate scientists were ignorant of the established principles that help improve the very difficult business of making forecasts (ie predicting the future) in complex conditions, and that their forecasting approaches were a very long way from best practice.

So what is the expertise of this Ehrenberg-Bass Institute I ask myself....hmmmmmm

Ehrenberg-Bass Institute website

This is an institute specializing in MARKETING. Other than marketing science which I am sure they are competent in.... there is not even a natural scientist program in their whole school. Where is their expertise to comment on the validity of climate science....I don't see any.

But look at your own field”, said the forecasting scientists… “what do you think of the consensus of views among marketing academics, do you think this represents real knowledge or rather “group think?”
hahahaha.... I have a certificate in Marketing Management myself one of 3 degrees I have earned Marketing, Education and an Honour degree in Chemistry. I may be a bit out of date on marketing techniques but basically they get their opinions by canvassing opinion froma random sampling of a population.... THERE IS NO HARD SCIENCE in their method. I could not give a toss what Marketing academics think about hard science....any more than I would give credence to a climate scientist's opinion about the success of a new food product introduced into the market.

Based on the forecasting principle of “be conservative” Scott Armstrong proposed a ‘no change’ forecast, which was a bit radical given that everyone knew the climate was warming slowly. The competition wasn’t compared to Al Gore’s dramatic “tipping point” forecast, but instead to the more accepted IPCC forecast of 3 degrees of warming over the next 100 years. Ten years later and Scott Armstrong’s forecast turned out to be more accurate.
Who is this Scott Armstrong ?

J. Scott Armstrong is an author, forecasting and marketing expert, and a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as a Policy Expert at the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank.

well at least this poster is consistent....sticking with his marketing colleagues.

al Gore did not accept the bet but that did not stop the comparison after 10 years...here is the result



the green line is Armstrong's prediction of no change and it looked pretty good for 8 years... the red line is Al Gore's 3 degree/century prediction. My eye says that Armstrong loses in the long run. Also this was based on the temperature of one location...not a global one...

Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were wrong, and how to improve them (some climate scientists claim that with a better understanding of multi-decade variations in speed of warming “the long-term warming trend in response to human emission of greenhouse gases is found remarkably steady since 1910 at 0.07°–0.08°C decade”).
Well these scientists are not wrong and this chart I have presented before this shows it



Where is the evidence of anything but a rising temperature with time?

Global warming is not a existential threat. Global warming means the world is getting hotter (milder winters, hotter summers). Which is of most concern for those who already live in hot places (like Adelaide or Dubai) but probably quite welcome if you live in Northern Europe, China, or America. Each year far more people die due to cold than from heat, even in Australia six times more deaths are due to cold than heat. And most of this isn’t from extremes but rather simply cold winters, and global warming means warmer winters (that’s something the climate scientists all agree upon).
This may mean something to someone in MARKETING but is pretty myopic in a global view

You do know that those in cld arctic climates hate coming south at present....their bodies are not adapted to what for us are moderate temperatures. Turning the lands into the north is NOT good for those people....

Permafrost melts presenting infrastructure problems where everywhere turns into a boggy marsh.

What about wildlife that have existed for centuries in that environment? For polar bears their food source is disappearing as they cannot hunt seals from the melting Arctic ice. What about caribou and reindeer who are running out of habitat...deer would increase in the area but that brings an increase of predators such as wolves.

What about rising sea levels that threaten shorelines and island nations? Could that handle a 2' - 3' increase in water level....you already see what a hurricane surge of that magnitude does to the coastline flooding...imagine what that would be with a 2' headstart.

Thinking about global warming in this simplistic fashion of bringing warmth to northern climes and not the consequences is silly IMHO.

Wildfires are not increasing, “Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago”. Globally, the total acreage burned by fires declined 24 percent between 1998 and 2015. It appears that changes in agricultural practices are more than offsetting the increased fire risk now that they world is 1 degree warmer.
the reference they quote is not GLOBALLY... it is fires that happen in tropical areas only

Here is a reference from a data site they referenced regarding natural disaster deaths earlier but now relating to natural disaster events.



There seem to be an increase in these events to me since 1970...recently a small decrease in some areas such as floods mainly the rest are steady but not in a big decline.

Wild fires in the world is another story.... especially in the USA it seems



This surprised me...we have a lot of wildfires in Canada but very few deaths... we had a huge one that threatened a major city in northern Alberta, Fort MacMurray. It reached the city and burned several suburbs with a huge loss of property but the population of over 66,000 evacuated along the only road to the south with the loss of life of one individual.

As far as property damage goes



I would bet dollars to donuts that the big dollars for the USA are the losses due to wild fires in California... and these are losses due to wild fires...not your run of the mill city fires.

Here is the conclusion of that study

In the coming years climate change will likely cause increase of “fire-weather condi-tions” in numerous regions across the globe. The increasingly favorable fire condi-tions are occurring concurrently with increased human development in flammable biomes, such as sub-urban development in forested regions, and this will likely result in an increase in wildfire disasters (1).

1. Bowman, et al. 2017. Nature Ecology & Evolution

NASA says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

this is a classic case of cherry picking comments from an article

gains of antarctic ice

yes, the ice gains to the Antarctic are higher than the losses but what about the rate of ice accumulation. Here is what the article says about that

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008..

No it does not say the Antarctic ice is shrinking.... but look at the rate decline in the rate that ice is added in recent years...over a 20% decline.... Something is affecting that rate of decline and it is not a cooling trend in the world.

___________________________________________________________________________________

This posting of a discussion by

Source: medium.com@ProfByron/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming-f603a8aca3da

does nothing to change my mind on what is the cause of climate change. A blog written by a MARKETING Professor is not a competent source of information and is in line with the prevalent attitude in some circles that climate scientists don't know what they are talking about.

IMHO that is a load of crap.

UE