Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting and somewhat prescient analysis:

 

The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell (1995)

 

 

 

What all the [ideological crusades of the twentieth-century] have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government....everal key elements have been common to most of them:

 

1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole of society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.

 

2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.

 

3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.

 

4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes....(p.5)

 

What is remarkable is how few arguments are really engaged in, and how many substitutes for arguments there are. This vision so permeates the media and academia, and has made such major inroads into the religious community, that many grow into adulthood unaware that there is any other way of looking at things, or that evidence might be relevant to checking out the sweeping assumptions of so-called "thinking people". Many of these "thinking people" could more accurately be characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind many historic catastrophes. (p. 6)”

[Daniel1960]

Most not near the actual data we are experiencing.

 

When 87 out of 90 models are skewed to one side, then one has to question the assumptions and/or data inputted into the models. The average of the 90 models is ~0.6, while the actual measured is half that. Modelers have countered that the observations are still within the uncertainty of the models. While this is true, one has to wonder whether this is just natural variation or a bias in the models. Many explanations have been postulated as to why the models are running high. But this begs the question, of why the models are not recalibrated to incorporate the new information. Which brings up another question, if these factors are influencing the current measurements, could they not have also influenced the past measurements? Recent observations suggest that natural climatic forces have been undervalued in modeled calculations, while carbon dioxide has been overvalued. This does not eliminated carbon dioxide from the equation, but reduces its influence.

[PassedOut]

I see that Nobel prize-winner (for his work in revealing the chlorofluorocarbon emergency) Mario Molina is spearheading the committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that has taken on the task of explaining the facts about global warming in an easy-to-understand manner. The site looks good: What We Know.

 

The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.

 

Surveys show that many Americans think climate change is still a topic of significant scientific disagreement. Thus, it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is real. Moreover, while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world.

No conservative wants to take on the risk of environmental disaster, so it's important to explain to everyone the very real risks of modifying the air that we all depend upon.

[Al_U_Card]

Yet another statement "explaining" the "urgent" need to better communicate the "danger" to the tax-payers. And they use the same old, tired out, consensus and appeal to authority arguments... Since 99.3% of scientists (from real, proper polls) agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (to some OBVIOUSLY minor extent, seeing as it continues to increase apace yet global temps have remained steady for 17 years and counting...) and that man has some effect on the climate (be it UHI, or GHG or other) we can take a closer look at the "urgency" and the "danger". The models (all they have) fail to accurately predict any current situation. The danger, as presented by the IPCC itself is not a danger at all, but a benefit up to 2C warming by their own reckoning. The AAAS does, however, recognize the significant uncertainty....so they then fall back on strike 3, that we must do something just in case...

 

What a sad state of affairs when scientific principles and observational data are end-run around by warmist zealots that want our money and control of everything (Remember that we breathe out the only stuff that they can control.)

[WellSpyder]

No conservative wants to take on the risk of environmental disaster, so it's important to explain to everyone the very real risks of modifying the air that we all depend upon.

What strikes me about the passage you quote is what it doesn't say, rather than what it does.

 

"climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk" - Indeed, and presumably that applies just as much to non-manmade climate change as to manmade climate change?

 

"human-caused climate change is real" - OK. I'm not sure that is seriously in dispute, is it?

 

"while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world." - OK, I guess, though presumably climate change is reducing the likelihood of certain other local disasters, too. But nowhere does it say that it is manmade climate change rather than other climate change that is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters. And nowhere does it recognise that climate change is inevitable anyway, even if we can have some impact at the margin on the manmade component of it.

[Daniel1960]

What strikes me about the passage you quote is what it doesn't say, rather than what it does.

 

"climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk" - Indeed, and presumably that applies just as much to non-manmade climate change as to manmade climate change?

 

"human-caused climate change is real" - OK. I'm not sure that is seriously in dispute, is it?

 

"while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world." - OK, I guess, though presumably climate change is reducing the likelihood of certain other local disasters, too. But nowhere does it say that it is manmade climate change rather than other climate change that is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters. And nowhere does it recognise that climate change is inevitable anyway, even if we can have some impact at the margin on the manmade component of it.

The site seems to feed into the old adage that change is bad. Looking back at the past century, temperatures have warmed compared to previous, but the previous centuries were unusually cold. All evidence point to the colder centuries putting the population at greater risk than the warm; poorer harvests, colder winters, worse droughts. Historically, warmer periods have been more prosperous, while colder ones have resulted in greater hardship. Maybe some people are just nostalagic, reminiscing about better times, which were not so much better. This leads to the idea that, somehow, the temperatures of some bygone era were optimal; that some prosperity was tied to the climate. Most of the great human migrations occurred during the cold periods, while civilizations flourished during the warm epochs. Warmer climates have shown to be more beneficial, and no limit has been demonstrated (presumably there is such a limit, but it is unknown). Change is inherently risky. However, that does not necessarily make it harmful.

The other issue is the claim concerning 97% of climate scientists. This claim is somewhat circular, as a climate scientist is loosely defined as someone who believes in manmade warming. When expanded to include all the scientists who study some aspect of the Earth's climate, the number falls substantially. The range of warming is also quite broad, including those who feel that the warming will be insignificantly small to dangerously high.

[Al_U_Card]

Be very, very afraid.....or?

 

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/01-giss.png?w=960&h=639

 

35 years of gentle warming brought to you by Mother Nature. :D

[PassedOut]

Change is inherently risky. However, that does not necessarily make it harmful.

For conservatives like me, taking an unnecessary risk of disaster on the off chance that climate change might not turn out to be harmful to one's own geographic area seems absurd and irresponsible. I realize that the folks who want to take that risk calculate that any disaster would be borne mainly by our children and grandchildren, but I loathe that line of reasoning too.

[Daniel1960]

For conservatives like me, taking an unnecessary risk of disaster on the off chance that climate change might not turn out to be harmful to one's own geographic area seems absurd and irresponsible. I realize that the folks who want to take that risk calculate that any disaster would be borne mainly by our children and grandchildren, but I loathe that line of reasoning too.

I agree with your thinking. However, is there really a risk of disaster? How do we know that some of the changes proposed to fight global warming would not put us at a higher risk of disaster? In all likelihood, the risk of disaster is probably quite small. The changes occurring are rather small, certainly not on a disaster scale. The bigger issue is whether these changes will be harmful or beneficial. Obviously, with any change, there will be winners and losers. We consider the change bad, if the negatives outweigh the positives. This far, the positives of the warming have far outweighed the negatives. Some predict that at some point (usually 2C, but this appears arbitrary) the negatives will outweigh the positives. Obviously, it the Earth were to heat up substantially, it would be detrimental to life as we know it. The bigger question is, at what point would that occur? We know that the cooler periods over the past several centuries led to many hardships. The cooler temperatures resulted in more freezes, droughts, and famines. Can we actually say that the temperature today is ideal for life on this planet? We know that previous times experienced temperatures warmer than today, and life flourished and civilizations prospered. Are the risks associated with further warmer greater than the risks associated with planetary cooling? There are those scientists predicting that the planet has reached the maximum of the current warming trend, and that we have already entered a cooling period.

What is more absurd and irresponsible? To go forward into the unknown without adequate knowledge, or to not go forward out of fear of the unknown?

[hrothgar]

This far, the positives of the warming have far outweighed the negatives.

 

I think you meant to say "So far, the negatives of the warming are predominantly being paid by a bunch of darkies"

[kenberg]

What is more absurd and irresponsible? To go forward into the unknown without adequate knowledge, or to not go forward out of fear of the unknown?

 

I regard it as fundamental to life that we always go into the future without adequate knowledge. I am not recommending fear, but I do think caution is a useful trait. Tossing more and more stuff into the atmosphere and trusting that it will all work out does not strike me as cautious.

 

Exactly how to have a world with 7+ billion people in it, all leading enjoyable and energy consuming lives, without making a hash of it is not easy. Maybe it's not possible. I recommend trying.

[Daniel1960]

I regard it as fundamental to life that we always go into the future without adequate knowledge. I am not recommending fear, but I do think caution is a useful trait. Tossing more and more stuff into the atmosphere and trusting that it will all work out does not strike me as cautious.

 

Exactly how to have a world with 7+ billion people in it, all leading enjoyable and energy consuming lives, without making a hash of it is not easy. Maybe it's not possible. I recommend trying.

I am not referring to pollution, whch I feel that we need to reign in. Europe and America tackled this problem a few decades back (still needs some work), and now it is China's turn. Sulfates, nitrates, particulates, and a host of other chemicals need to be curtailed for the benefit of all. However, we do not have any data showing that added carbon dioxide is harmful, while we have data showing benefits to plantlife, which ultimately benefits animals.

[PassedOut]

However, we do not have any data showing that added carbon dioxide is harmful, while we have data showing benefits to plantlife, which ultimately benefits animals.

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and mankind is spewing billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The additional heat is disrupting weather patterns and is causing ice sheets on land to melt, raising the sea level. Many people (and plants) live in areas threatened by rising seas. Those effects are harmful.

[Daniel1960]

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and mankind is spewing billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The additional heat is disrupting weather patterns and is causing ice sheets on land to melt, raising the sea level. Many people (and plants) live in areas threatened by rising seas. Those effects are harmful.

 

While carbon dioxide does absorb IR radiation, its contribution to the recently observed warming is contentious. Even if the warming was 100% caused by the added CO2, the decrease in coldest temperatures and increased agricultural output more than offset the small rise in sea level. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is disrupting weather patterns. While Arctic warming (by any means) is thought to slow the jet stream, the results are a mix between beneficial and harmful. The slowing lessens storm severity, but increases local precipitation. Less immediate storm damage (winds, lightning, hail, and tornadic activity), but more flood potential. Someone would need to do a search to determine if one result outweighs the other. They may be a wash (sorry, bad pun)/

[blackshoe]

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and mankind is spewing billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The additional heat is disrupting weather patterns and is causing ice sheets on land to melt, raising the sea level. Many people (and plants) live in areas threatened by rising seas. Those effects are harmful.

"Excess" in what sense?

[PassedOut]

"Excess" in what sense?

More than non-man made emissions.

[PassedOut]

While carbon dioxide does absorb IR radiation, its contribution to the recently observed warming is contentious.

Not according to some local professors that I know to be knowledgeable, honest, and concerned, and not according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and many other scientific organizations.

 

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is disrupting weather patterns. While Arctic warming (by any means) is thought to slow the jet stream, the results are a mix between beneficial and harmful.

Slowing the jet stream is a disruption of the weather pattern.

[PassedOut]

Duplicate

[Daniel1960]

Not according to some local professors that I know to be knowledgeable, honest, and concerned, and not according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and many other scientific organizations.

 

 

Slowing the jet stream is a disruption of the weather pattern.

By all accounts the slowing of the jet stream results when the temperature difference between the tropics and poles decreases. This is a natural process, occurring whether the temperature change is natural or manmade. An observed slowign of the jet stream tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, only that it has occurred.

While some scientific organization readily accept the IPCC-held belief in climate change, others do not. Most notably, the American Physics Society and Meteorology Society. Some very knowledgeable professors at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (known for aerospace and satellite research) disagree with the theory that the warming is anthropogenic. Others contend that the warming is a manifestation of man's activities, but activities which include urbanization and deforestation, as opposed to burning of carbon-based fuels. If you read some of the research on the connection between carbon dioxide and temperatures, you will find widely different correlations.

[mike777]

By all accounts the slowing of the jet stream results when the temperature difference between the tropics and poles decreases. This is a natural process, occurring whether the temperature change is natural or manmade. An observed slowign of the jet stream tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, only that it has occurred.

While some scientific organization readily accept the IPCC-held belief in climate change, others do not. Most notably, the American Physics Society and Meteorology Society. Some very knowledgeable professors at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (known for aerospace and satellite research) disagree with the theory that the warming is anthropogenic. Others contend that the warming is a manifestation of man's activities, but activities which include urbanization and deforestation, as opposed to burning of carbon-based fuels. If you read some of the research on the connection between carbon dioxide and temperatures, you will find widely different correlations.

 

 

Where does this 97% number come from. 97% of climate profs say man made climate change exists?

 

Your post makes it sound like 97% is not accurate number.

[blackshoe]

More than non-man made emissions.

So humans shouldn't be allowed to emit CO₂? Guess we're all going to turn blue and die. Too bad - we'll have an internet, but nobody to use it. :rolleyes:

[mike777]

Side note but since man is part of nature ...fully nature....is not man made stuff natural...just like bird or bees made stuff is natural?

[PassedOut]

So humans shouldn't be allowed to emit CO₂? Guess we're all going to turn blue and die. Too bad - we'll have an internet, but nobody to use it. :rolleyes:

It seems your logic is that if human beings breathe out carbon dioxide, then it's also safe to emit billions of tons of carbon dioxide by burning carbon-based fuels. Interesting.

:P

[mike777]

Not sure the question or test ought to be "is it safe"?

[PassedOut]

Not sure the question or test ought to be "is it safe"?

What do you think the question should be?