How far would Ink make it in a communist revolution? Killed on the front lines? Long enough to be declared a traitor to the revolution?
I think he'd wind up first building a gulag, then being thrown in it

Thank you for explaining what I couldn't.



This is why I don't want a divorce. Balkanization doesn't stop at the state level.

The hilarious thing is

They don't think they'll be thrown in. They think they'll be in charge, deciding how to ration everything while cackling from an ivory tower

I encourage you not to mistake Goom's long-windedness or confidence for him being correct. Goom's whole schtick is knowing as much as he can so he can actively leave out the important details.



This is incredibly dishonest. The uncertainty you are referring to is because the models are dependent on human action. This produces a wide range of potential effects from "humans doing nothing" to "Humans massively increasing CO2 emissions". When you go back and pick the models that most correspond to our current condition you find that the temperature increases were predicted to be drastically lower for the current state of affairs, even after you account for the uncertainty inherent in the models AND uncertainty in time propagation. It's actually worse for your case that the models are uncertain and we've still been massively underestimating the effects. When you have a wide statistical range and your actual data ends way up past the confidence intervals that's a clear indication you've under-predicted the effects.

You are actively misrepresenting the data here, as always.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 3 2022 03:06pm

I'm no scientist and any say I'd have in helping the climate is moot either way so interpreting data I'll leave to you guys so you can enlighten me. Man this really derailed off the US splitting fairly quickly. How does this all relate? Do you actually believe that the people in charge of the USA trajectory have their constituents and the country's best interests in mind or their own special interests and themselves? From what I've gathered, both left and right pundits and politicians use our political system as an antenna to help promote themselves. Very few in charge actually care. Most are just megalomaniacs like Trump and old career political hacks like Biden. Support for the system has to be at an all time low and Trump being elected caused a media shitstorm that will forever make it impossible for me to believe anything that's said by anyone that doesn't fund themselves(by this I mean like independent pundits generally). What do you think is going to happen in the next couple years with the climate and the old fools in office? Appreciate the discussion. My post count is incredibly low because I never thought to explore JSP outside my trading subforums.

This post was edited by crackersj on Jan 3 2022 03:48pm

Then stop bringing it up. You guys are the only ones who talk about it.

The veterans of Omaha beach didn't fight so that companies can rip them off for their insulin later.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 3 2022 04:58pm

No, the models aren't uncertain based on human action. Again, this is something I've been steeped in for decades. The models are wildly divergent because of how much uncertainty exists over the dynamics of climatology. They can make varying assumptions about CO2 emissions and produce ranges based on that, but even without those inputs, the models are still very different. Some are doomsday scenarios, some are rosy. There was never any sort of authoritative model that anyone could point to as "This is how much the temperature will rise given input conditions" or "This is how much future flooding will increase". Instead there were probabilistic estimates using the best fits of a plethora of different models. When the USACE used models to predict PMP/PMF for future weather systems to adjust the 100-year flood guess for a river system, it didn't plug numbers into one model, it modeled all the models and took the middle.

And again, there were so many models of such divergent prediction that there's no accuracy to saying "They underestimated" or "They overestimated" the impacts. Its somewhere between misleading and meaningless. If you have a room of 100 people and ask them how many marbles are in a jar, and each person gives a different answer, can you say "They overestimated"? Maybe if you take the average of each person's guess, but what if one person says 10 billion and another few guess it on the nose? Will you remove outliers or look at median? Those are exactly the sort of questions that civil engineers and climatologists have been working on for decades when it came to climate modeling, because of all that uncertainty in the models. But as I stress, the models almost all converge on simple obvious trends like "we're getting warmer over time" and "probable maximum flood events have a higher maximum cap"

Here's an example of what it looks like when 44 different models are mapped against historic data;



Climate change deniers just love to look at how 'most' models overestimated how much global warming there would be in the past 20 years, but several models can explain that as a temporary cyclical cool period that might precede a sudden rapid increase as the lag catches up to us (as the data since 2015 might indicate). Some might predict its just a lower gradient than the other models. But they all agree its going up, and it did. There's a reasonable debate to have about what % of global warming is actually anthropogenic vs natural, if there are diminishing return factors or feedbacks not being accounted for, and whether there are unknown novel variables not understood. That one oddball guy even had a model theorizing sun magnetosphere cycles and cloud formation by cosmic ray seeding being able to account for a small % of variation. Was there anything true about it? Fuck if I know, but I know there's something wrong with science if you can't even suggest that theories might be flawed or incomplete when the observable evidence doesn't agree with them.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 3 2022 05:00pm

So you're saying global warming is happening but just not as bad as they make it out to be?

Global warming is happening- that much we know, and some people overestimated and some underestimated and the trend might suddenly skyrocket for all we know, the main takeaway being we don't know.
There's no shortage of folks who want to act as though their beliefs are the one true dogmatic incontrovertible authority and all heretics be damned, but behold how that worked out for covid. Looking at you fauci.