Climate change

[PassedOut]

And we're back to the normal state of affairs.

 

Rather that addressing the critiques of the crap that he posts, Al responds by changing the subject and posting a whole new graph.

On the other hand, what could he say that would counter Richard Alley's own assessment of the fools who misuse his GISP2 data?

 

Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2

 

So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.

So it is not surprising that Al squirms away again.

 

The argument now is not whether global warming is real, but whether we should do something now to mitigate the damage for future generations. It comes down to character. The "it's all about me" crowd says no.

[Daniel1960]

Mike, what happens if you cherry pick different dates?

Do you still see no long term trend?

 

What happens if you measure water temperature rather than air temperature?

Do you still see no long term trend?

 

You might find the following graph of interest

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Interesting graph, but not very informative. Try the following graph, as opposed to either a linear or step-wise function:

 

http://troyca.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fig2-scenario2basic.png

 

Additional analyses can be found here:

 

http://troyca.wordpress.com/

[Winstonm]

Quoting Dr. Alley from above link:

So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible....

 

I would only ask that Dr. Alley tell us what he really thinks and not sugarcoat it. ;)

[Daniel1960]

In an amazing development, Al has actually responded to a critique of crap he posts.

Maybe, in a year or two, he might even rise to the level of informed response.

 

For now, we'll just need to accept that he prefers his own set of "facts"...

 

BTW, if you don't like Skeptical Science, maybe you prefer the New York Times

They raise the same set of critiques

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

 

or Hot Topic

 

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

Neither the NY Times nor skeptical science is a good source of information. They both have their own biases, which appear readily in their posts. Best to stick with scientific paper, although some have countered that not all peer-reviewed work is worthy of scientific presentation. We get what we get. C'est la vie.

[hrothgar]

Neither the NY Times nor skeptical science is a good source of information. They both have their own biases, which appear readily in their posts. Best to stick with scientific paper, although some have countered that not all peer-reviewed work is worthy of scientific presentation. We get what we get. C'est la vie.

 

So, how do you feel Watt's Up with That which is the source for (almost) all of Al's postings?

[Al_U_Card]

Quoting Dr. Alley from above link:

]

 

I would only ask that Dr. Alley tell us what he really thinks and not sugarcoat it. ;)

 

The "argument" has never been about global warming (except initially when it was deemed to be anthropogenic, incontrovertible and catastrophic) but rather that there was a consensus and a settled science concerning the amount and causes of that warming.

The "argument" is really about the role of CO2 in the control of planetary climate and how we can affect our production of that molecule such that we can overcome natural climatic forces.

The "problem" concerns misplaced altruism, misguided philanthropy and agendized alarmism used to manipulate and monetize our humanitarian efforts around the planet. If you watched the Allan Savoury Ted Talk, you will see a perfect example of this.

Every attempt to "green" our energy production tends to increase CO2 and costs more as well as draining funds from tax-payers to subsidized industrialists. It also drives us closer to the third world (some here would find that acceptable, no doubt) when we could be using the moneys wasted on this shell-game to develop abundant energy that does not diminish food resources or oblige us to return to the stone-age.

[Daniel1960]

So, how do you feel Watt's Up with That which is the source for (almost) all of Al's postings?

About the same as NY Times and skeptical science.

[hrothgar]

 

> So, how do you feel Watt's Up with That which is the source for (almost) all of Al's postings?

About the same as NY Times and skeptical science.

 

Skeptical Science is an advocacy site. I don't think its unreasonable to lump them into the same bucket as WUWT

 

It's ridiculous to treat the New York times in the same category...

[Daniel1960]

Skeptical Science is an advocacy site. I don't think its unreasonable to lump them into the same bucket as WUWT

 

It's ridiculous to treat the New York times in the same category...

Is it so ridiculous, when the Tiems frequently enlists commentary from environmental activists regarding climate? They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc. The Times is also pushing the claim that polar bear could be endangered by mid-century, despite their growing numbers. The science page prints articles summarizes publications which promote CO2-based warming, while nothing can be found with regards to other warming forces. Maybe this is a reason that they dismantled their environmental desk.

[Al_U_Card]

Is it so ridiculous, when the Times frequently enlists commentary from environmental activists regarding climate? They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc. The Times is also pushing the claim that polar bears could be endangered by mid-century, despite their growing numbers. The science page prints articles summarizing publications which promote CO2-based warming, while nothing can be found with regards to other warming forces. Maybe this is a reason that they dismantled their environmental desk.

 

That is because AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is a belief system and is neither a theory (To be posited and disproved scientifically, with a testable null-hypothesis.) nor free from constant and continuous manipulation, mis-representation and malfeasance regarding the promotion of the "ideal".

The religion that has grown around this project is an offshoot of the environmental movement and prays on the guilt and future anxieties of its adherents. Daily, the tenets of this faith-based construct are refuted or otherwise invalidated yet, the faithful bear witness to the righteousness and rightness of their creed.

It makes no sense but, other than the well-meaningness of the manipulated masses, what religion does?

[mike777]

Al can we at least agree that fossil fuels are harmful in a nonlinear way. The harm is concave. A little bit of it is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.

 

We do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change(caused by humans), though I do, in order to be ecologically conservative.

 

Why not use convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution. Split your sources of pollution among many natural sources. The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.

 

When deciding on one source of fuel against another, or similar comparisons, we do not realize that model error may hit one side more than the other.

For example nuclear energy in France was thought of as clean and cheap and optimal. After Fukushima they needed additional safety features, quickly and at any cost.

[Al_U_Card]

Al can we at least agree that fossil fuels are harmful in a nonlinear way. The harm is concave. A little bit of it is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.

 

We do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change(caused by humans), though I do, in order to be ecologically conservative.

 

Why not use convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution. Split your sources of pollution among many natural sources. The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.

Indeed, all sources of energy have their drawbacks. The problem resides in the availability of reasonably-priced energy.

The answer of the alarmists is not a solution, it is a punishment for most and a reward for some. Using your belief as a crutch is your answer and it, too, is not a solution.

Either way, watch out for those that want your money so that they can tell you what to do. It has never worked and it never will.

[mike777]

Indeed, all sources of energy have their drawbacks. The problem resides in the availability of reasonably-priced energy.

The answer of the alarmists is not a solution, it is a punishment for most and a reward for some. Using your belief as a crutch is your answer and it, too, is not a solution.

Either way, watch out for those that want your money so that they can tell you what to do. It has never worked and it never will.

 

 

Ok AL, if I follow you, your main point is availability of reasonably-priced energy. You are against govt policies that punish most and reward a few.

 

 

The side discussion of man made climate change, melting ice caps and rising seas is not really your main discussion point. Again your main point is you advocate govt policies that encourage the availability of reasonably priced energy.

 

Please suggest a few that you advocate.

[hrothgar]

They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc.

 

Just to be clear, you are asserting that the effects of global climate change are uniform across the globe.

 

If average temperatures go up in one place, during one season of the year, it holds true that the average temperatures will increase uniformly across the entire world, across all seasons?

[hrothgar]

The Times is also pushing the claim that polar bear could be endangered by mid-century, despite their growing numbers.

 

Please provide your reference that polar bear numbers are increasing

[Al_U_Card]

Ok AL, if I follow you, your main point is availability of reasonably-priced energy. You are against govt policies that punish most and reward a few.

 

 

The side discussion of man made climate change, melting ice caps and rising seas is not really your main discussion point. Again your main point is you advocate govt policies that encourage the availability of reasonably priced energy.

 

Please suggest a few that you advocate.

 

Au contraire, Mike. The only issue of relevance, to this thread, is climate change and what to do about it. The current policies, based upon agendized alarmism, are wrong-headed as well as punitive.

 

Will the third world also be subject to low energy-density, inconstant windfarms and solar power? How will they prosper and grow (as we did) without abundant, reliable, low-cost energy? This is the dilemma concerning energy sufficiency and it has little or nothing to do with changing climate.

AGCC is an excuse for the policies proposed, not the cause nor the eventual goal of its control and mastery. It is not even remotely possible, based on the proposed calculations of the alarmists themselves.

Big lies told often and stridently enough...

[dwar0123]

They really need to enable down voting in this thread. I feel so much frustration, having learned that its better to not respond directly but still wanting badly to show my disproval.

[Daniel1960]

Please provide your reference that polar bear numbers are increasing

 

global populations of polar bears has been difficult to obtain. However, the general understanding among scientits is that thier numbers decreased to less than 10,000 (although some content that these numbers were politically deflated to push action), prior to the international hunting ban in 1973, and have increased to between 25 and 30,000 today.

 

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/crockford_polar_bears.pdf

 

http://env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/foxe_basin_polar_bears_2012.pdf

 

In fact, even environmental sites admits that only a few subpopulations have seen any decline in numbers (particularly Western Hudson Bay), but those are the ones in greatest contact with humans.

 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=A997D1CC-1

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/

[Daniel1960]

Just to be clear, you are asserting that the effects of global climate change are uniform across the globe.

 

If average temperatures go up in one place, during one season of the year, it holds true that the average temperatures will increase uniformly across the entire world, across all seasons?

 

No, I am not asserting that temperatures (or changes) will increase uniformly. I am simply challenging the assumption that climate is (has been) stable, and that any changes must be caused by man. By all estimates, current temperatures are similar to those from a millenium ago, and higher than at any time in between. While the decrease was considered to be entirely natural, why are some contending that the incrase since has been entirely manmade? I am not willing to concede to those who think the increase has been entirely natural, either. Two major climatic effects from this would be increased atmospheric water vapor, and decreased pole-to-equator gradients (polar amplification). The first would lead to an overall increase in precipitation, but rainfall only, as snowfall would be diminished due to higher temperatures. This serves to increase the occurrance of floods, but decrease droughts. Indeed, cooler periods have been tied to longer term droughts. The second would lead to a decrease in storm intensity as pressure gradients decrease. Temperature plays a smaller role in storminess compared to the temperature and pressure gradient. The observed larger increse in winter temperatures and decreased diurnal range also supports this premise.

[hrothgar]

No, I am not asserting that temperatures (or changes) will increase uniformly.

 

You specifically raised the following critique of climate change advocates:

 

They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc.

 

If the impacts of climate change are non-uniform, its entirely reasonable to have a range different impacts across different areas.

 

Simply put, you're complaining that folks are being honest in recognizing complexity...

[billw55]

Indeed, effects of climate change are complex.

 

Nevertheless, it just sounds like nonsense when pretty much anything that happens it attributed to warming, and judged as bad.

 

There seems to be a popular body of thought that I find silly, which consists of the following:

 

- there is one true, correct, and best climate

- said correct and best climate is the one of about 100-200 years ago (i.e. right before the observable effects of man-made warming began)

- any weather events which are unusual in comparison to the correct and best climate are consequences of man-made warming,

- this includes any change in precipitation, whether more or less; any change in temperature, whether higher or lower; and many other events, in either direction from the "norm"

- any such deviation is judged as (a) bad (b) unnatural and c) preventable

- we are morally obligated to permanently fix the climate at the correct and best climate of 100-200 years ago, and capable of doing so.

 

It is just all very strange.

[Cyberyeti]

If the impacts of climate change are non-uniform, its entirely reasonable to have a range different impacts across different areas.

 

Simply put, you're complaining that folks are being honest in recognizing complexity...

 

Indeed one of the fears of the UK is that global warming will screw up the Gulf stream/North Atlantic drift and thus make us much colder.

[mike777]

Indeed one of the fears of the UK is that global warming will screw up the Gulf stream/North Atlantic drift and thus make us much colder.

 

 

the good news is you would have all of the very cheap unused coal to burn and keep you warm at low prices. consumer spending will increase and help the UK economy for all those warm clothes now newly in demand, crime tends to go down on cold compared to warm days :)

[Daniel1960]

You specifically raised the following critique of climate change advocates:

 

 

 

If the impacts of climate change are non-uniform, its entirely reasonable to have a range different impacts across different areas.

 

Simply put, you're complaining that folks are being honest in recognizing complexity...

Not at all. It is rather, the lack of complexity with these folks which I am criticizing. They make a simply assumption that a temperature increase will have a specified output. The climate is much more complex than that, and cannot be diagrammed in such simplistic terms.

 

As another poster puts it, my complaint is that everything that occurs in the climate is being blamed on global warming. This planet has experienced hurricanes, blizzard, floods and droughts, before we ever heard the term global warming. Several folks blamed global warming for hurricane Sandy, even though this area has a history of these types of storms.

[dwar0123]

Indeed, effects of climate change are complex.

 

Nevertheless, it just sounds like nonsense when pretty much anything that happens it attributed to warming, and judged as bad.

 

There seems to be a popular body of thought that I find silly, which consists of the following:

 

- there is one true, correct, and best climate

- said correct and best climate is the one of about 100-200 years ago (i.e. right before the observable effects of man-made warming began)

- any weather events which are unusual in comparison to the correct and best climate are consequences of man-made warming,

- this includes any change in precipitation, whether more or less; any change in temperature, whether higher or lower; and many other events, in either direction from the "norm"

- any such deviation is judged as (a) bad (b) unnatural and c) preventable

- we are morally obligated to permanently fix the climate at the correct and best climate of 100-200 years ago, and capable of doing so.

 

It is just all very strange.

 

 

With regards to judging climate change as bad. We humans are adapted to the climate as it was. In the sense that we populate areas based on their present fertility and access to water. Change is very bad for those area's that will be negatively effected by climate change. Of course other areas will benefit, perhaps Canada and Siberia will become the new bread baskets of the world, but not many are living there and while it might bring great fortunes to those that do eventually live there, the people that are stuck across the border are going to be in some deep trouble, Humans are not good at just up and moving people from one location to another across political borders without there being a whole lot of pain and suffering involved. Heck even if it is within the same border, Cities and infrastructure are not easily mobile.