Climate change

[mikeh]

Past performance may not be indicative of future results but, since 1980, [CO2] has been on the rise and so have temperatures...how urgently? Well, if you find a site that is relatively free of urban influence and Stephenson screen degradation and time of day adjustments then maybe you will get a better idea of the urgency of action related to the warming climate.

 

 

 

Sure you will. But send your money and rights to those involved in saving us from the terrors of...how many degrees?

I know it is futile...you live in your own little echo chamber of selected 'facts' and conspiracy theories....but why don't you go troll someplace far, far away from here. Maybe amongst your own benighted kind?

 

If there is any recognizable civilization on this planet 200 years from now, the political leaders of the late 20th and at least the early 21st centuries will be regarded with even more loathing than the loathing we currently have for the monsters of the mid-20th century.....far, far worse than any 'war' criminal. You and your kind won't be specifically remembered....you are too inconsequential for that....but as a generic group you will be detested for the role that idiots like you played in preventing political action.

 

I'll be long dead before the worst of it happens. The water wars for which militaries around the world are already planning probably won't happen for several decades. But my grandkids will bear much of the brunt, and they'll be the lucky ones, living in a part of the world where the direct impact will be moderate, unless weather patterns change profoundly. However, the world in which they will live when they are as old as I am now will be a very different place than today, and not in a good way. So just f*ck off will you? Do us all a favour.

[Al_U_Card]

So that buoy temperature measurement is bogus? Just what validates the scare-campaign about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? How can the propositions of doom be investigated? Since we are told that rising [CO2] is to destroy civilization, why is it so hard to describe, define and detail? (With observational values derived from the last 60 years or so of rising carbon dioxide levels.) Every metric shows that the past several decades have been less and less threatening rather than more so.

 

Any couple of actual experimental values that are not derived from theoretically challenged models would be fine thanks. I keep showing lots of contradictory, actual measurements. I don't see anything like that from the catastrophist's side because, if they had them, they would be shouted from the rooftops.

 

So, other than vitriol, hysteria and rhetoric, what have you got? (99.5 % of sensible people know that the climate changes and that recent global temperatures are stalled after a fairly mild, cyclical rise over the previous several decades.) Reading up on the IPCC and its origins as well as its mandate is a real eye-opener.

[blackshoe]

Not coming down on one side or the other of the AGW debate, I will say that "you're an idiot, ***** off" is not a convincing argument.

[billw55]

Not coming down on one side or the other of the AGW debate, I will say that "you're an idiot, ***** off" is not a convincing argument.

Indeed, tis better to simply use the ignore function, as I do for the troll mike addresses.

 

Also Mike, I think that considering climate wafflers as worse than Hitler, Stalin, etc is ... an exaggeration.

[PassedOut]

This West Antarctic region sheds a Mount Everest-sized amount of ice every two years, study says

 

Ocean currents circulate in substantially warmer water, which thins the “grounding lines” holding glaciers to a sub-sea bed, which keeps them from escaping into the sea. A rupture in that grounding line would unleash a “chain reaction” leading to the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, a NASA release recently said. “[As] ocean heat eats away at the ice, the grounding line retreats inland and ice shelves lose mass. When ice shelves lose mass, they lose the ability to hold back inland glaciers from their march to the sea. … In this equation, more ice flows to sea every year and sea level rises.”

 

Scientists now have warned there’s no stopping the ice sheet’s collapse. “We feel it is at the point that it is … a chain reaction that’s unstoppable,” a separate University of California Irvine scientist, Eric Rignot, said in May. ” Another researcher added: “That idea that this is unstoppable has been around since the 1970s. We’ve finally hit this point where we have enough observation to put this together.”

Yes, observation. The argument that we should view global warming in a positive light has little appeal for those in low-lying areas.

[nige1]

I know it is futile...you live in your own little echo chamber of selected 'facts' and conspiracy theories....but why don't you go troll someplace far, far away from here. Maybe amongst your own benighted kind?

 

If there is any recognizable civilization on this planet 200 years from now, the political leaders of the late 20th and at least the early 21st centuries will be regarded with even more loathing than the loathing we currently have for the monsters of the mid-20th century.....far, far worse than any 'war' criminal. You and your kind won't be specifically remembered....you are too inconsequential for that....but as a generic group you will be detested for the role that idiots like you played in preventing political action.

 

I'll be long dead before the worst of it happens. The water wars for which militaries around the world are already planning probably won't happen for several decades. But my grandkids will bear much of the brunt, and they'll be the lucky ones, living in a part of the world where the direct impact will be moderate, unless weather patterns change profoundly. However, the world in which they will live when they are as old as I am now will be a very different place than today, and not in a good way. So just f*ck off will you? Do us all a favour.

Not coming down on one side or the other of the AGW debate, I will say that "you're an idiot, ***** off" is not a convincing argument.

Blackshoe is right. Such arguments are as inappropriate here, as they were in the ant-religion topics. I fear that the majority are right that man's selfishness and greed is causing adverse climate change. But even if they're wrong, we can't take the risk that they're right. If we hope to convince sceptics and vested interests, then we should try to stick to facts and logic.

[Winstonm]

Not coming down on one side or the other of the AGW debate, I will say that "you're an idiot, ***** off" is not a convincing argument.

 

What debate?

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed, tis better to simply use the ignore function, as I do for the troll mike addresses.

 

Also Mike, I think that considering climate wafflers as worse than Hitler, Stalin, etc is ... an exaggeration.

 

Invocation of grandchildren, cries of settled science and consensus as well as the denigration of opposing points of view fall into the same category as fingers in ears while shouting la-la-la. All designed to ignore contrary information and keep it from disturbing a faith-based belief system. When fact is used to refute an argument, then you can have a debate. Otherwise, not so much.

[Al_U_Card]

This West Antarctic region sheds a Mount Everest-sized amount of ice every two years, study says

 

 

Yes, observation. The argument that we should view global warming in a positive light has little appeal for those in low-lying areas.

I suppose that Mt. Everest-size as well as the "Manhattan" (Petermann glacier in Greenland) are as appropriate a measurement as atomic bombs of energy of global warming (Skeptical Science)... Either way, the total sea-level rise is certainly the combination of these ice losses as well as the opposing ice gains in East Antarctica (which is somewhat larger by a factor of 10 or so). Thus we get back to the stasis of the 1.5 to 3 mm / year rise in sea-level over the last several hundred years. Long before [CO2] changes and thus unlikely to be controllable by our efforts to control a small portion of the total based on its overall proven effect on climate...

[mikeh]

Indeed, tis better to simply use the ignore function, as I do for the troll mike addresses.

 

Also Mike, I think that considering climate wafflers as worse than Hitler, Stalin, etc is ... an exaggeration.

Not climate wafflers......take a look at the republican stance on global warming in the US. Take a look at the number of human deaths predicted to occur if changes are not made, not to mention the impact on other forms of life. I don't doubt that the motivations are different, but the effects are different as well....and not in a good way.

 

As for the tone.....the troll, as is typical of his ilk, isn't interested in the facts....he has set himself up as superior in understanding and knowledge to 97% of the people with actual expertise in the field. IOW, he is to global warming what lukewarm is to religion.

 

As for the 'debate', that is a very American view, akin to the republican view that creationism ought to be taught along with evolution, because there is some kind of legitimate debate to be had. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

[Al_U_Card]

Quoting the 97% consensus is like having "steps" on your cc. (Does this count as bridge-related, so I can get some non-trolling activity in? :rolleyes: )

[nige1]

As for the tone.....the troll, as is typical of his ilk, isn't interested in the facts....he has set himself up as superior in understanding and knowledge to 97% of the people with actual expertise in the field. IOW, he is to global warming what lukewarm is to religion. As for the 'debate', that is a very American view, akin to the republican view that creationism ought to be taught along with evolution, because there is some kind of legitimate debate to be had. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

Please stop these ad hominem attacks, Mikeh. It's more true to say that schools teach science than that they teach evolution. The point about science is that hypotheses like evolution are, in principle, refutable by observation and experiment. Similarlly, it is likely that the majority are right about global warming but, historically, majority views have often been proved wrong.

[hrothgar]

Please stop these ad hominem attacks, Mikeh.

 

People who complain about ad hominem attacks are demanding equal opportunity for the stupid.

 

Thankfully, the world doesn't work this way.

We have entire institutions that are designed to identify stupid people and make sure that their opinions are marginalized.

(And I am thankful for this)

 

FWIW, its hard to think of anyone from the forums more deserving of ad hominem attack than Al-U_Card.

 

Before switching over to the grand global warming conspiracy, he spend years trying to convince us of a massive 911 conspiracy.

He openly stated that he is justified in knowly posting false statements if it benefits his cause.

If people do bother to invest the time and effort to refute demonstrate that his never ending stream of crap is factually flawed, he glosses right over it and posts another half-truth.

 

The only way to engage with these sorts of individuals is ad hominem attack and demonstrate that the source itself is tainted.

[billw55]

Not climate wafflers......take a look at the republican stance on global warming in the US. Take a look at the number of human deaths predicted to occur if changes are not made, not to mention the impact on other forms of life. I don't doubt that the motivations are different, but the effects are different as well....and not in a good way.

I predict that all humans will die regardless of climate change, prevention, or adaptation.

 

OK I know, maybe a bit cynical. But I do think that massive, coordinated, worldwide efforts are needed for prevention to have the slightest chance of working; and that the chance of such efforts actually occurring is virtually zero. The reality, in my view, is that GW is going to continue, the world is going to have to adjust like it or not, and we should get used to it and get started. Prevention is not realistic.

[PassedOut]

Please stop these ad hominem attacks, Mikeh. It's more true to say that schools teach science than that they teach evolution. The point about science is that hypotheses like evolution are, in principle, refutable by observation and experiment. Similarlly, it is likely that the majority are right about global warming but, historically, majority views have often been proved wrong.

Ad hominem attacks are unpleasant, for sure. But how else does one deal with a dishonest poster?

 

Everyone makes mistakes, and almost all of the posters here readily acknowledge mistakes when the mistakes are pointed out. Indeed, one of the main reasons for posting opinions clearly is to learn when one's opinions are wrong, to be able to correct them. Alucard (and lukewarm formerly) does not argue honestly, so why should he be treated as if he does?

[mikeh]

Please stop these ad hominem attacks, Mikeh. It's more true to say that schools teach science than that they teach evolution. The point about science is that hypotheses like evolution are, in principle, refutable by observation and experiment. Similarlly, it is likely that the majority are right about global warming but, historically, majority views have often been proved wrong.

One of my favourite writers is the late Stephen Jay Gould. He often wrote essays about scientific ideas that held sway for some time and are now forgotten or, if remembered, are ridiculed. He strove to put those ideas within the context of what was then understood about the way the world worked and, seen in that light, was able to show that those who came up with the ideas were actually (usually) intelligent thinkers, led astray by a lack of knowledge.

 

Thus I am very much aware of how science has moved in fits and starts. Mendelian genetics, and plate tectonics are classics of that type. However, the global warming debate seems unlikely to be subject to revision in the same manner as the mechanism of inheritance of physical attributes or the understanding of how Africa and South America seemed to 'match' in outline and geological features.

 

Indeed, the current research on climate change is more akin to the development of ideas that cause a change in the existing paradigm than to the notion that the IPCC (for one) opinion represents the old school that is about to be found to have been wrong.

 

More importantly, and disquietingly, the 'debate' on global warming largely pits profoundly and proudly ignorant people, who disdain science and understanding, against those who have dedicated their lives to learning about how this aspect of the world actually works.

 

This is especially true in the US, where it is commonplace for republican leaders to preface their refusal to accept scientific opinion as valid by saying 'I'm not a scientist but.....' where what follows is a rejection of science in favour of 'common sense' or biblically based beliefs.

 

Now this troll purports to quote 'science', but does so very selectively, and out of context. He correctly, as far as I can see, identifies instances in which the data suggests that some scenarios forecast by some researchers have not materialized. I don't know of any scientist who claims that his or her modelling is infallible. I don't know of any who claim that their understanding of climate is perfect or that forecasts are even as reliable as predicting tomorrow's weather.

 

Thus if one is willing to be intellectually dishonest, it is easy to show that some, and indeed many, of the predictions made over the last 30 years have not come true and to then argue that therefore the entire notion is a fraud or an error. Easy, but unfair and on a fundamental level, dishonest.

 

One can legitimately, from what little I know, argue that human understanding of the precise details of how global warming occurs and how it will develop is incomplete. That is not a valid argument to do nothing.

 

Imagine 4 of us standing in a road, seeing a large truck coming towards us. One of us argues that the truck is going slowly enough that we will only be seriously injured. Another, no, the truck's speed is such that we will be killed. A third person says that maybe we are miss-interpreting the direction of the truck....it will probably miss us. What should the 4th person do? Stand still and wait, or move to one side?

 

The climate change deniers are saying, in essence, that we should do nothing to get out of the way, since it is possible that we have miss-interpreted the direction of the truck. Actually, it is worse than that. To make the analogy more accurate, we need 101 people in the road, and 97 of them are saying we need to get out of the way, 3 are saying we stand put, and the 1 blind person, who needs to rely on the advice of others, prefers to listen to the 3 'truck-deniers'.

 

Or you have some symptoms. Tests are run. 100 medical specialists say you need surgery or you will die. 3 say that maybe the tests were inconclusive. Would you have surgery? Or would you go to your local Fox news personality for another opinion?

 

It's easy to find excuses not to accept bad news. Easy but foolish.

[Al_U_Card]

Gee, Einstein only needed ONE refutation to invalidate his "theories", but they, unlike CAGW, have stood the test of time and observation and experimentation.

 

As Richard Feynman acknowledged: "No matter how elegant the theory, if it does not match the observations, it is not valid and must be rejected as a scientific proposition." Don't even bother with predictions errr... projections, as that is what we have but usually far enough away in time to not be testable. But that was Karl Popper's idea about real scientific theories being refutable.

 

As for (dis)honesty, how about some factual, observational information? What do the numbers actually say, as opposed to what the interpreters want us to think that they say?

[hrothgar]

Gee, Einstein only needed ONE refutation to invalidate his "theories", but they, unlike CAGW, have stood the test of time and observation and experimentation.

 

Pity poor Al_U_Card, too stupid to understand the notion of a confidence interval or a false positive.

Too poorly informed to understand the difference between physical laws and statistical processes.

[Al_U_Card]

Ad hominem attacks are unpleasant, for sure. But how else does one deal with a dishonest poster?

 

Everyone makes mistakes, and almost all of the posters here readily acknowledge mistakes when the mistakes are pointed out. Indeed, one of the main reasons for posting opinions clearly is to learn when one's opinions are wrong, to be able to correct them. Alucard (and lukewarm formerly) does not argue honestly, so why should he be treated as if he does?

 

Wow, I really wield a lot of power and influence, invalidating peer-reviewed studies and the efforts of dozens of qualified scientists just by my quoting their results...This approach, however, does allow the avoidance of paying attention to the "disturbing" information. If an acolyte doesn't provide the advice, you must not listen to that of the profane, that is how belief-systems work, is it not?

[mike777]

I happen to believe the evidence is there to show man made global climate change. What I don't know is how urgent the problem is.

 

However again saying 97% of experts say so and so is not evidence. Saying someone is an expert so they must be right and a nonexpert wrong is not evidence. I use the science history of smoking as just one example. IF you want to talk about the burden of evidence, fair enough.

 

One way to look at the burden of evidence is what the detractors say, they will uncover the worst of the scholar's argument. Is there basically zero evidence that the opposite of the thesis is remotely right?

 

I think one common mistake made is mistaking evidence of no harm for no evidence of harm. The first principle of iatrogenics is as follows: we do not need evidence of harm to claim a drug or climate change or an unnatural via positive procedure is dangerous. Harm is in the future, not in the narrowly defined past.

 

 

If you find the evidence or at the very least one side of the argument more persuasive, ok but science is not a vote of experts. Look at the history of science, experts are wrong all the time and that is ok. New evidence or new theories and arguments supplement old ones all the time and that is ok.

 

If the vast majority of people the vast majority of time are unwilling to take the time to look and think about new evidence or new theories that is ok, that is being human.

[hrothgar]

Wow, I really wield a lot of power and influence, invalidating peer-reviewed studies and the efforts of dozens of qualified scientists just by my quoting their results...This approach, however, does allow the avoidance of paying attention to the "disturbing" information. If an acolyte doesn't provide the advice, you must not listen to that of the profane, that is how belief-systems work, is it not?

 

How cute, the village idiot confuses mocking for respect...

[Daniel1960]

One of my favourite writers is the late Stephen Jay Gould. He often wrote essays about scientific ideas that held sway for some time and are now forgotten or, if remembered, are ridiculed. He strove to put those ideas within the context of what was then understood about the way the world worked and, seen in that light, was able to show that those who came up with the ideas were actually (usually) intelligent thinkers, led astray by a lack of knowledge.

 

Thus I am very much aware of how science has moved in fits and starts. Mendelian genetics, and plate tectonics are classics of that type. However, the global warming debate seems unlikely to be subject to revision in the same manner as the mechanism of inheritance of physical attributes or the understanding of how Africa and South America seemed to 'match' in outline and geological features.

 

Indeed, the current research on climate change is more akin to the development of ideas that cause a change in the existing paradigm than to the notion that the IPCC (for one) opinion represents the old school that is about to be found to have been wrong.

 

More importantly, and disquietingly, the 'debate' on global warming largely pits profoundly and proudly ignorant people, who disdain science and understanding, against those who have dedicated their lives to learning about how this aspect of the world actually works.

 

This is especially true in the US, where it is commonplace for republican leaders to preface their refusal to accept scientific opinion as valid by saying 'I'm not a scientist but.....' where what follows is a rejection of science in favour of 'common sense' or biblically based beliefs.

 

Now this troll purports to quote 'science', but does so very selectively, and out of context. He correctly, as far as I can see, identifies instances in which the data suggests that some scenarios forecast by some researchers have not materialized. I don't know of any scientist who claims that his or her modelling is infallible. I don't know of any who claim that their understanding of climate is perfect or that forecasts are even as reliable as predicting tomorrow's weather.

 

Thus if one is willing to be intellectually dishonest, it is easy to show that some, and indeed many, of the predictions made over the last 30 years have not come true and to then argue that therefore the entire notion is a fraud or an error. Easy, but unfair and on a fundamental level, dishonest.

 

One can legitimately, from what little I know, argue that human understanding of the precise details of how global warming occurs and how it will develop is incomplete. That is not a valid argument to do nothing.

 

Imagine 4 of us standing in a road, seeing a large truck coming towards us. One of us argues that the truck is going slowly enough that we will only be seriously injured. Another, no, the truck's speed is such that we will be killed. A third person says that maybe we are miss-interpreting the direction of the truck....it will probably miss us. What should the 4th person do? Stand still and wait, or move to one side?

 

The climate change deniers are saying, in essence, that we should do nothing to get out of the way, since it is possible that we have miss-interpreted the direction of the truck. Actually, it is worse than that. To make the analogy more accurate, we need 101 people in the road, and 97 of them are saying we need to get out of the way, 3 are saying we stand put, and the 1 blind person, who needs to rely on the advice of others, prefers to listen to the 3 'truck-deniers'.

 

Or you have some symptoms. Tests are run. 100 medical specialists say you need surgery or you will die. 3 say that maybe the tests were inconclusive. Would you have surgery? Or would you go to your local Fox news personality for another opinion?

 

It's easy to find excuses not to accept bad news. Easy but foolish.

The problem with the debate about global warming is that too many people think there are only two "sides" to the debate, and that one or the other must be right. On one side, we have the group claiming that the warming experienced over the past century has all been manmade, and will multiply several fold in the coming years. On the other side, is the group claiming that all the warming was natural, and that mankind contributes little to the overall equation. They call each other "deniers" and "alarmists" in order to belittle their opponents in the eyes of the general populous. To state that only one of these groups is proudly ignorant and disdains science and understanding is a stretch.

 

What many people fail to realize is that these two groups are not only far apart from each other, but far apart from the scientific measurements and observations. Both sides claim that most scientists must agree with their position, because so few agree with the opposing view. The IPCC stated that there are very confident that at least half of the warming since 1950 is manmade (~0.3C). Most surveys of scientists show support for a 50:50 natural to manmade ratio, with others ranging from 0 to 100%. Based on the scientific data, warming as been fairly constant overall since the 19th century, with oscillating periods of greater and lesser warming. Each of the extreme sides will choose that period of data which best exemplies their position as proof of their stance; 1979-1998 or 1998-2014, depending on which side one is aligned. The same is done with sea ice measurements. Sea level rise has been fairly constant during that timeframe also; both the satellite data and tidal gauges show no trend change over their respective measurement periods. Additionally, using a particularly hot or cold, wet or dry year to claim support is extremely short-sighted and highly misleading.

 

I agree that our understanding of how global warming will develop is limited, as is our understanding of the global climate system. If mankind has caused global temperatures to rise 0.3C over the past 65 years, what justification would anyone have to state a significant deviation from this observation? Since mankind's contribution is expected to continue (whatever its exact portion), nature is unlikely to continue much longer. Some people seem to refer to the debate over AGW as the arguments between the two extreme positions mentioned previously, and conclude that there really is not a debate. Probably true, as neither of these sides really debates anything, rather it is better described as a barroom brawl. The debate that is occurring is over how much mankind and nature have contributed to the warming, and what the future results entail. This is critical in determing how much money need be spent immediately to alleviate potential problems, as opposed to spending money to develop the best long-term solutions, which benefit the most people. First world problems differ substantially from third world ones.

 

In your previous truck analogy, it may be better to say that its brakes fail going downhill. Thus, we have a combination of the truck's velocity and gravity weighing on the situation, with the debate over the initial speed of the vehicle. Standing in the middle of the road at the bottom of the hill would be foolish. However, standing at the top of the next hill would be a completely different story. Some deny that the intial velocity of the truck has any influence, but others deny the effects of gravity.

[PassedOut]

The problem with the debate about global warming is that too many people think there are only two "sides" to the debate, and that one or the other must be right. On one side, we have the group claiming that the warming experienced over the past century has all been manmade, and will multiply several fold in the coming years.

I'm not aware of anyone who insists that the warming "has all been manmade," but you might be right. Have you any references to back you up?

 

The manmade portion of the warming is the portion that we can control, hence the focus.

[mikeh]

The problem with the debate about global warming is that too many people think there are only two "sides" to the debate, and that one or the other must be right. On one side, we have the group claiming that the warming experienced over the past century has all been manmade, and will multiply several fold in the coming years. On the other side, is the group claiming that all the warming was natural, and that mankind contributes little to the overall equation. They call each other "deniers" and "alarmists" in order to belittle their opponents in the eyes of the general populous. To state that only one of these groups is proudly ignorant and disdains science and understanding is a stretch.

 

I echo PassedOut: I think most who have followed the issue understand that there have always, as best we can tell, been fluctuations in global climate, Witness the fate of the Viking colonization of Greenland, for an example in fairly recent human history.

 

However, the consensus is undoubtedly that human activity is contributing significantly to the problem, to the extent that the magnitude of the changes appear to be far greater than anything seen since the last ice age came to an end, and the change is occurring far faster than purely natural change would occur Speed of change negatively impacts the ability of populations (of all forms of life) to adjust or adapt. Magnitude of change similarly affects adaptation.

 

Since there appears to be little we can (or should?) do to negate the natural component, the logical response ought surely to be to look at how we can deal with and limit the human contribution. I fail to see how there can be an honest debate over the need for that sort of response. The debate could, I expect, be over HOW we go about that, but that isn't what the deniers argue over. Just as do creationists claim there to be a debate about their view of human origins and those held by evolutionists(and there is a significant correlation between belief in creationism and science denial, tho the global warming deniers are by no means all creationists) the idiots who deny the man-made contributions to global warming pit irrational belief against actual observation and call it a debate.

[blackshoe]

The manmade portion of the warming is the portion that we can control, hence the focus.

I quite agree that we — whoever "we" is — should focus on what we can control, if there is a need for control. I'm not sure there's a need, even though a need is apparently "obvious" to some. I'm also not sure how much "we" can control, considering that none of any "we" I can identify is Emperor of Earth.