Climate change

[PassedOut]

CO2 levels in atmosphere rising at dramatically faster rate, U.N. report warns

 

Levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose at a record-shattering pace last year, a new report shows, a surge that surprised scientists and spurred fears of an accelerated warming of the planet in decades to come.

 

Concentrations of nearly all the major greenhouse gases reached historic highs in 2013, reflecting ever-rising emissions from automobiles and smokestacks but also, scientists believe, a diminishing ability of the worlds oceans and plant life to soak up the excess carbon put into the atmosphere by humans, according to data released early Tuesday by the United Nations meteorological advisory body.

 

The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organizations monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.

 

If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse, said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMOs Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earths atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.

Whatever happens, no one can say there were no warnings. We have science on the one hand, and the ravings of people who believe the opposite -- the ravings of people who believe just as strongly that George W. Bush was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

[kenberg]

Whatever happens, no one can say there were no warnings. We have science on the one hand, and the ravings of people who believe the opposite -- the ravings of people who believe just as strongly that George W. Bush was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

 

When it all goes to hell, which apparently is what we intend to let happen, we will perhaps acknowledge that "errors were made".

It was a nice planet while it lasted.

[Winstonm]

CO2 levels in atmosphere rising at dramatically faster rate, U.N. report warns

 

 

Whatever happens, no one can say there were no warnings. We have science on the one hand, and the ravings of people who believe the opposite -- the ravings of people who believe just as strongly that George W. Bush was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

 

 

Perhaps this helps explain the latter. Quoting Dr. William Lane Craig:

 

....Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

 

It does not require a trinity or even a religion in order to hold an ideological belief system in a god-like position of worship - and when that type of fervor is allowed to supersede reason and evidence there is cause for concern. When those who hold those beliefs also have power to set the course of a country, it can affect the entire world.

[blackshoe]

I got an email yesterday, from some guy claiming to work for the CIA, saying that there's going to be a major meltdown of the US dollar and a crash of the entire economy before the end of the year. Should I be worried?

[mike777]

When it all goes to hell, which apparently is what we intend to let happen, we will perhaps acknowledge that "errors were made".

It was a nice planet while it lasted.

As someone once said:

 

So long and thanks for all the fish.

[mike777]

I got an email yesterday, from some guy claiming to work for the CIA, saying that there's going to be a major meltdown of the US dollar and a crash of the entire economy before the end of the year. Should I be worried?

 

Yes and you have been warned.

[kenberg]

I got an email yesterday, from some guy claiming to work for the CIA, saying that there's going to be a major meltdown of the US dollar and a crash of the entire economy before the end of the year. Should I be worried?

 

Only if he knows your address.

[PassedOut]

I got an email yesterday, from some guy claiming to work for the CIA, saying that there's going to be a major meltdown of the US dollar and a crash of the entire economy before the end of the year. Should I be worried?

Reminds me of something that happened to Constance this spring. She got a call from a guy claiming to be from the IRS saying she owed some back taxes, so she laughed and hung up.

 

Normally that would be the end of it, but this guy called back every few days three more times, using an increasingly stern tone and demanding this and that (Constance put him on speaker the last two times so we could both enjoy the performance). On the fourth call, he announced that the marshals would be out to pick her up in an hour if she didn't comply. Constance said, "I'm home, they can come right out!"

 

That was the end of it, except that this week our Daily Mining Gazette had a story warning folks not to be taken in by the IRS scammer, so I guess he's still at it.

 

:rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

Hehehe.

[Daniel1960]

I got an email yesterday, from some guy claiming to work for the CIA, saying that there's going to be a major meltdown of the US dollar and a crash of the entire economy before the end of the year. Should I be worried?

 

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The death of the dollar has been greaty exaggerated." The dollar's demise, and economic collapse have been predicted almost as many times as the end of the world. In 2008, Peter Schiff predicted that the dollar would lose half its value by 2010, and be worthless today. These predictions are always popular among the doomsayers. Doug Casey has been predicted a crash of the US markets since 1980. Remember how bad the bird flu was going to be? The Y2K scare? California falling into the ocean? My personal favorite is that planet X will crash into the Earth in {2004, 2006, 2008, 2012, insert date here}.

[mike777]

comments from Bill James concerning science and research:

 

"It is. The people who keep telling us how many "climate scientists" agree that this is a settled issue just fundamentally do not understand what science is or how it works. And every time they say that, they are just revealing their own ignorance"

 

 

"Bill, so should people believe the experts on climate change who say global warming is real?

 

Asked by: Steve9753

 

 

Answered: 9/9/2014

 

 

Not because they are experts, no. You should believe them if they produce information or arguments that you find persuasive. But to believe them BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERTS--absolutely not."

[hrothgar]

comments from Bill James concerning science and research:

 

"It is. The people who keep telling us how many "climate scientists" agree that this is a settled issue just fundamentally do not understand what science is or how it works. And every time they say that, they are just revealing their own ignorance"

 

 

"Bill, so should people believe the experts on climate change who say global warming is real?

 

Asked by: Steve9753

 

 

Answered: 9/9/2014

 

 

Not because they are experts, no. You should believe them if they produce information or arguments that you find persuasive. But to believe them BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERTS--absolutely not."

 

There is something truly poetic watching someone use an appeal to authority to argue against appeals to authority...

[kenberg]

comments from Bill James concerning science and research:

 

"It is. The people who keep telling us how many "climate scientists" agree that this is a settled issue just fundamentally do not understand what science is or how it works. And every time they say that, they are just revealing their own ignorance"

 

 

"Bill, so should people believe the experts on climate change who say global warming is real?

 

Asked by: Steve9753

 

 

Answered: 9/9/2014

 

 

Not because they are experts, no. You should believe them if they produce information or arguments that you find persuasive. But to believe them BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERTS--absolutely not."

 

Really? I had a ministroke a couple of years ago. I had several MRIs and other tests, I consulted several doctors including three neurosurgeons, and I am now convinced that surgery is not advisable but a certain level of medication (clopidogrel) is. I am foregoing surgery and I am taking medication on the advice of experts. Of course I am. In the other direction, I have a friend who reads every wacko health publication (my assessment of course) he can find and endlessly debates with his doctors. His choice of course, but to me it seems nuts.

 

I don't debate theologians of any stripe, not about God and not about anything, there simply is no future in it. I try to understand what I reasonably can understand, but of course I rely quite often, and for that matter quite confidently, on expert opinion. Experts can be wrong, and a certain level of caution is both natural and healthy. I did see three neurosurgeons rather than one. And I chose them with care. But in life or death situations, when push comes to shove, I go with expert opinion.

 

At some point we have to decide and we have to act. Not because we are 100% certain that we are 100% right but rather because we recognize that for any important question such certainty is unobtainable and it is a very bad idea to postpone action until we reach that (unobtainable) level of certainty.

[Winstonm]

I see this as a twist on the argument used in support of Intelligent Design where it is argued that all theories are equal and thus ID - because it is a theory just as evolution is a theory - should be accepted into the curriculum. In this twist on that tired argument, the position is that the arguments of experts is no more valuable that the arguments of non-experts and thus the arguments of non-experts are of equal value. In other words, 100 non-expert deniers equal 100 experts who agree.

 

Which is, of course, the only claim you could try if the experts were almost unanimously aligned against you.

[Al_U_Card]

Strawman arguments aside, the real question is: "What is the effect of [CO2] on global temperatures and how great is it compared to natural variability?" This is the null hypothesis that must be tested to determine if anything needs to be done to mitigate the [CO2].

 

To date, the only "evidence" offered is modeled projections and statistically dubious proxy analyses. If [CO2] causes warming, cooling, rain, drought, more snow, less snow, etc. then making a statistical test of the null hypothesis is problematic.

 

The models (or their projections, at least) are as close to being invalidated as needs to be to disregard them. Everything else is speculation or hand-waving or religious fervor. Citing arguments from authority or other illogicisms is desperation. They end up where they belong.

 

Be careful who your 97% consensus is comprised of...

[mike777]

Clearly posters miss the point here is a bit more from Bill James. None of this is a viewpoint supporting Int. Design or that all theories are equal. In fact it states the opposite.

 

 

"Absolutely: evidence compels consensus, couldn't have said it better. So doesn't widespread consensus among the people who have studied the issue most carefully suggest that there is powerful evidence?

 

Asked by: steve161

 

 

Answered: 9/10/2014

 

 

No sir, it does not. In the history of knowledge there are billions of examples of complete consensus forming around propositions which were later shown to be false. Therefore, the consensus itself is not evidence. Only the evidence is evidence"

 

------

 

None of the above is an appeal to authority for or against climate change.

 

A simple example is the history of smoking, another is the history of trans fat.

For any decision, the unknown will preponderate on one side more than the other

[mike777]

Really? I had a ministroke a couple of years ago. I had several MRIs and other tests, I consulted several doctors including three neurosurgeons, and I am now convinced that surgery is not advisable but a certain level of medication (clopidogrel) is. I am foregoing surgery and I am taking medication on the advice of experts. Of course I am. In the other direction, I have a friend who reads every wacko health publication (my assessment of course) he can find and endlessly debates with his doctors. His choice of course, but to me it seems nuts.

 

I don't debate theologians of any stripe, not about God and not about anything, there simply is no future in it. I try to understand what I reasonably can understand, but of course I rely quite often, and for that matter quite confidently, on expert opinion. Experts can be wrong, and a certain level of caution is both natural and healthy. I did see three neurosurgeons rather than one. And I chose them with care. But in life or death situations, when push comes to shove, I go with expert opinion.

 

At some point we have to decide and we have to act. Not because we are 100% certain that we are 100% right but rather because we recognize that for any important question such certainty is unobtainable and it is a very bad idea to postpone action until we reach that (unobtainable) level of certainty.

 

so it sounds like you agree with what Bill stated. All your points support his position.

For any decision, the unknown will preponderate on one side more than the other. It sounds like you went with the evidence that you found convincing.

[mike777]

When it comes to the burden of evidence another way to look at climate change or what is the best response to the risks of climate change is to look at the history of medicine.

 

We do not need evidence of harm to claim a drug or unnatural via positiva procedure is dangerous procedure. In other words empiricism is not naïve empiricism. Look at the history of medicine and smoking and trans fat. Add the fact when it comes to climate change the risks are nonlinear. A little may not be harmful, a lot may be. But the risks to solve the problem are also nonlinear.

[kenberg]

so it sounds like you agree with what Bill stated. All your points support his position.

For any decision, the unknown will preponderate on one side more than the other. It sounds like you went with the evidence that you found convincing.

 

Edit: I would consider it a favor if no one read this. I'll leave it for the record.

 

 

No.

I went with expert opinion. If you wish to call expert opinion evidence, then you can say I went with the evidence that I found convincing. But your previous note, and I think I understood it correctly, was advising against going with expert opinion.

 

My views on many matters fall into tis pattern: I do not expect to be able to debate medical matters with experts. I do not expect to be able to debate climate change with experts. There are m any areas where I do not expect to be able to debate with experts. I expect to be able to judge well enough whose advice I should listen to, or at least I accept that I will have to judge whose advice to listen to.

 

Although this thread is devoted to climate change, I can better illustrate my approach with my medical issue. What do I understand? not a lot. I understand that I have a partial blockage in my right carotid, not in the neck where people usually think of the carotid but inside my brain. Maybe it has been there forever, the rest of my cardiovascular system is fine.But now it is causing a problem and this problem has to be addresses. Three surgeons have told me that surgery is inadvisable. To quote one of them "If a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins advises you that surgery is not a realistic option, you should not try surgery". I went with this advice. If three neurosurgeons recommended surgery, I would have gone with surgery. I call this going with expert opinion rather than going with evidence. Basically, I ask their opinion, check with others, and when others agree, I follow their advice. If you want to call this going with the evidence you of course can, but. It twists words a bit. You quoted, approvingly, the advice "Not because they are experts, no. You should believe them if they produce information or arguments that you find persuasive. But to believe them BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERTS--absolutely not." Well, I think it must be clear that I am saying I went with their advice precisely because they are experts. I did not at all consult medical literature or in any way try to match my knowledge against theirs. I picked experts, I asked their advice, i went with expert advice.

 

Back to climate change. I am no expert (yes, a severe understatement) and I have no intention of taking several years of serious study to become an expert. Just as I do not intend to become an expert on neurosurgery. Climate change is a glob ally important issue just as my troubled carotid is a personally important issue. So we must choose. I choose.

 

I choose to go with expert opinion. I imagine that I could, if I put in years of study, have a fully informed opinion. Lacking the time or the inclination to do so, I go with expert opinion.

 

 

So: I am not prepared to hold my own in a debate with a determined skeptic on global warming. Nor on who really shot JFK. Nor with someone totally committed to God having made the universe in six days. These folks have spent more time than I have on gathering their arguments, and when one argument fails they have another one at the ready. I just go with the experts. Mostly, not always, this seems to work.

 

But please, if you advise " BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERTS--absolutely not." and, in response, I say that I did base an important decision on expert opinion because they were experts, don't call that agreeing with what you, or. Bill James, said. I don't mind being disagreed with, I don't all that much being called dumb, but I don't like having my words twisted.

[mike777]

ok then you strongly disagree with Bill.

 

You call expert consensus =evidence. Bill does not..I do not.

 

I point out examples where expert opinion, consensus opinion was very wrong in medicine. You know math, are there examples where consensus in math was wrong?

 

Smoking, trans fat. The expert opinion was wrong, very wrong. There are many other examples...see baseball.

 

 

Given all of that when I go to the ER, at that moment, I do rely on expert opinion, I do tend to rely on the voice of authority in the ER. But when a close loved one had Cancer I did not rely on experts. I challenged them when it came to evidence and treatments. I found that cancer experts know little very little when it comes to cancer and treatments. The unknown was much greater than the known evidence. I found that experimental evidence was in very short supply due to costs and time.

 

 

Time is the most important factor when we discuss evidence. People seem to want to disagree with this.

 

But climate change has not reached the stage of ER?

 

To say that 97% or whatever accept climate warming as evidence for specific policy changes is wrong, in error. Too claim that global warming is settled science is too not know science, the method of science.

 

To put it in math terms, to say 97% of math phd's say a math theory is evidence to accept it as truth is a terrible argument. This sort of thing makes me want to hear from the 3% and their counter evidence. No all theory is not equal, but please put it in terms of evidence not because one is an accepted expert.

 

----------

----

 

to put it in royal English terms.. the royal academy of science are experts. But nonexperts challenge them based on evidence. Of course all theory is not equal and worth your time... thus the problem.

[Winstonm]

ok then you strongly disagree with Bill.

 

You call expert consensus =evidence. Bill does not..I do not.

 

I point out examples where expert opinion, consensus opinion was very wrong in medicine. You know math, are there examples where consensus in math was wrong?

 

Smoking, trans fat. The expert opinion was wrong, very wrong. There are many other examples...see baseball.

 

 

Given all of that when I go to the ER, at that moment, I do rely on expert opinion, I do tend to rely on the voice of authority in the ER. But when a close loved one had Cancer I did not rely on experts. I challenged them when it came to evidence and treatments. I found that cancer experts know little very little when it comes to cancer and treatments. The unknown was much greater than the known evidence. I found that experimental evidence was in very short supply due to costs and time.

 

 

Time is the most important factor when we discuss evidence. People seem to want to disagree with this.

 

But climate change has not reached the stage of ER?

 

To say that 97% or whatever accept climate warming as evidence for specific policy changes is wrong, in error. Too claim that global warming is settled science is too not know science, the method of science.

 

To put it in math terms, to say 97% of math phd's say a math theory is evidence to accept it as truth is a terrible argument. This sort of thing makes me want to hear from the 3% and their counter evidence. No all theory is not equal, but please put it in terms of evidence not because one is an accepted expert.

 

This is simply a word game. It does not get at the heart of the matter and that is that those who are in the best position to interpret the data have looked at that data and 97% reached the same conclusion.

 

We don't have to call their consensus conclusion evidence but it is stupid to ignore their conclusion and equally stupid to ignore that their consensus is nearly unanimous.

[mike777]

This is simply a word game. It does not get at the heart of the matter and that is that those who are in the best position to interpret the data have looked at that data and 97% reached the same conclusion.

 

We don't have to call their consensus conclusion evidence but it is stupid to ignore their conclusion and equally stupid to ignore that their consensus is nearly unanimous.

 

thank you Winston for taking the time to reply.

 

clearly on the main point we disagree and to post it is ok..

 

I point AS EVIDENCE to such issues as:

 

smoking

baseball

trans fat \

but you can find many others.

 

CLEARLY YOU DENY SCIENCE

 

if AT SOME point you agree to discuss issues on the basis of science, then we are in AGREEMENT

 

 

97 votes discussions are non science.

3% votes discussions are non science

 

BUT NON ROYAL SCIENCE IS A DISCUSSION.

 

 

THE POINT IS METHODS BUT GRANTED NO ONE I MEAN NO ONE DISCUSS THAT FAT

[Daniel1960]

This is simply a word game. It does not get at the heart of the matter and that is that those who are in the best position to interpret the data have looked at that data and 97% reached the same conclusion.

 

We don't have to call their consensus conclusion evidence but it is stupid to ignore their conclusion and equally stupid to ignore that their consensus is nearly unanimous.

 

While a vast majority (consensus) of scientists agree that the global has warmed, the cause(s) of that warming are still being debated. There are "experts" in astrophysics who claim that the majority of this rise is due to solar activity. There are "experts" in oceanography claiming that the majority of the rise was due to ocean currents. There are "experts" in climate modeling that claim that the atmospheric rise in CO2 is to blame. There are "experts" in other areas of meteorology and atmospheric sciences that say it is a combination of all these factors.

 

One must be careful when invoking the term "consensus" when referring to climate change, as the only "consensus" is that the globe has warmed. Even the original Doran / Zimmerman study did reach a conclusion as to the dominant cause (only half the climatologists listed increases in carbon dioxide levels).

[Al_U_Card]

When the proposed mitigation of the problem amounts to the economically-costly reduction of our carbon footprint for a "net" global temperature change beneath the limits of detection, it makes no sense to invest in that solution. Especially if the cost and methods will cripple the developing nations and restrict their access to abundant energy.

 

Every scientific study of the "effects" of global warming shows that weather extremes (and attendant suffering) are not related to global warming. Every analysis of the addition of several hundred ppm of CO2 shows beneficial aspects. Just look into it a little and the man behind the curtain is revealed.

[kenberg]

While a vast majority (consensus) of scientists agree that the global has warmed, the cause(s) of that warming are still being debated. There are "experts" in astrophysics who claim that the majority of this rise is due to solar activity. There are "experts" in oceanography claiming that the majority of the rise was due to ocean currents. There are "experts" in climate modeling that claim that the atmospheric rise in CO2 is to blame. There are "experts" in other areas of meteorology and atmospheric sciences that say it is a combination of all these factors.

 

One must be careful when invoking the term "consensus" when referring to climate change, as the only "consensus" is that the globe has warmed. Even the original Doran / Zimmerman study did reach a conclusion as to the dominant cause (only half the climatologists listed increases in carbon dioxide levels).

 

Let's see where this leads us.

 

Example: "the majority of this rise is due to solar activity." Well, we cannot control the sun. But saying that the majority of the rise is due to solar activity, if that is correct, is not saying that all of the rise is due to solar activity. It seems to me that if there are threats that we cannot control then this, if anything, gives added importance to dealing with threats that we can control.

 

I'm fine with vigorous debate, I am all for it. But if there is broad consensus that there is warming, and broad consensus that it will cause major disruption, really unpredictable disruption, then it would seem we should be working on lessening the problem as best we can. We control what it is within our power to control, and we have to hope that this will suffice. If not, then we are all screwed no matter what. The dinosaurs might well have had this same conversation sometime back.