Climate change

[mikeh]

.

Nobody claimed that majority opinion is "meaningless" or "experts are wrong all the time". More pathetic casualties in an army of strawmen.[/size]

What's your problem?

 

Let me quote from the post to which I was responding, using (you claim) a strawman argument: Mike777 wrote: "experts are wrong all the time"

 

So please take your own pathetic strawman and stuff it where the sun don't shine

 

Or, and I very much doubt that you have the integrity to do this, apologize for your mistake.

 

I infer from your criticisms of my posts that you get some jollies from making your self-righteous attacks on my posts. Normally I don't bother responding to you because I don't have much respect for you, in the WC or the bridge forums, but when you descend to outright falsehoods, you get my attention.

 

Have I made myself clear to you?

[nige1]

What's your problem? Let me quote from the post to which I was responding, using (you claim) a strawman argument: Mike777 wrote: "experts are wrong all the time". So please take your own pathetic strawman and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Or, and I very much doubt that you have the integrity to do this, apologize for your mistake.

I apologize for my mistake.

I infer from your criticisms of my posts that you get some jollies from making your self-righteous attacks on my posts. Normally I don't bother responding to you because I don't have much respect for you, in the WC or the bridge forums, but when you descend to outright falsehoods, you get my attention. Have I made myself clear to you?

Clear but mistaken.

[mikeh]

I apologize for my mistake. Clear but mistaken.

thank you. apology accepted

[nige1]

"Ad hominem" attacks are popular on BBO. Nevertheless, IMO, among the reasons to avoid them are:

• They side-line discussion away from fact and reason. A pity because climate-change is a vitally important topic, about which we need to be better informed.
• They are often the last refuge for those who are losing a debate.
• If you want to persuade others to your point of view, then impertinence is unlikely to be effective.
• Especially when you share a majority view and are sure you're right, you should test your beliefs, by encouraging rather than discouraging counter-argument from the minority.

[Daniel1960]

I do not think, have never thought, and find it weird that you think I thought that 97% of climate scientists think that all global warming is human-made. I was criticizing the ultra-lunatic fringe who say that none of it is. I suspect that you and I are largely ad idem on the topic, so I have trouble understanding why you keep criticizing me for things you presumably think I wrote when I didn't :D

 

There is room for and, as far as I can tell, need for a real debate about climate change, but the debate is about how to deal with it, not whether it exists or whether human activity contributes to it. That's where, as I understand it, the 97% figure comes from (and I will readily admit that since I got that number from various media sources, it isn't clear precisely how the number was generated, who is included in the sample who arguably ought not to have been and who was excluded who arguably ought to be included. The 97% figure is merely a shorthand way of saying 'by far the majority')

My apoogies Mike,

 

Typically I have found that when people invoke the 97% argument, they are using mass appeal to confirm their position, rather than solid evidence. The other fallacy of those claiming 97% is that since only about 3% flatly oppose the theory (your "ultra-lunatic fringe), that the rest must support it. The figure originated in the Doran report based on the Zimmerman thesis, and was the percentage of climate modelers believing that the Earth had warmed. The figure was ~85%, when all scientists were included. Additional questions about the cause of the warming showed stark differences in opinion, with about half stating than mankind was the primary cause.

 

While the Earth has warmed, and is likely to continue, claims of catastrophic warming in the near future, approaching apocalyptic proportions, appear to be an equally "ultra-lunatic fringe." Since the mid 19th century, our planet has oscillated around a warming rate of ~0.6C/century. Which group appears to be more on the fringe, those claiming cooling of 0.6C or those proclaiming warming of 1.2C this century? Both are equally far from the scientific measurements. One of the biggest questions raging in climate science today is, how much of that warming has been caused by the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels? A reminder: not all of the increase is due to the combustion of carbon-based fuels; deforestation has been a big player also, along with respiration and outgassing.

 

At times, I think we are on the same page on this issues, and at other times, I think not. Thanks for your response.

[PassedOut]

While the Earth has warmed, and is likely to continue, claims of catastrophic warming in the near future, approaching apocalyptic proportions, appear to be an equally "ultra-lunatic fringe." Since the mid 19th century, our planet has oscillated around a warming rate of ~0.6C/century. Which group appears to be more on the fringe, those claiming cooling of 0.6C or those proclaiming warming of 1.2C this century? Both are equally far from the scientific measurements.

Actually there are no scientific measurements from the future, so neither claim can be said to be "far from the scientific measurements."

 

The problem we face, and it is a complex one, is projecting the future climate using information available now. Doing so requires modeling. You don't evade that requirement by projecting future warming at the rate of warming since the mid-19th century: You merely substitute a much simpler model. There is no reason to suppose that your simpler model will hold in the face of changing conditions, and (I think) plenty of reasons to suppose that it will not.

 

Mankind has been moving buried carbon to the atmosphere at the rate of billions of tons per year to the point where CO₂ levels are the highest in 15 million years. CO₂ traps heat. We are disturbing a complex system, and no one knows exactly how that will play out. However, sea levels are bound to rise and the people living in low-lying areas already face serious problems. If the North Atlantic Drift is disrupted, Europe will experience adverse consequences.

 

Because of the uncertainties involved as well as the impending difficulties that can no longer be stopped, conservatives keep pushing for a market-based approach to reduce emissions. To date the conservatives have been losing politically to the Pollyannas, but that has to change. The sooner it does, the better.

[blackshoe]

Let me ask you this: whose opinion on this matter should actually count? Yours, being ignorant on the topic (assuming you are no more than a reasonably well-read lay person), or the consensus opinion of the vast majority of those with extensive academic expertise and many years of dedicated study?

 

Do you ask your bus driver, your accountant, your daycare provider for medical advice or do you ask your doctor?

 

That is what is so bewildering about people like you. Intelligent but clinging to the notion that your unqualified skepticism should offset the warnings of those who actually know the subject.

 

The fact that YOU personally don't know any of the answers is no reason to reject the advice of those who do. Your attitude is a classic denier stance dressed up not as denial but as 'healthy skepticism'. It is innately dishonest since if we were discussing a field in which you had expertise, you would probably insist that your opinion counted more than the opinions of those with no expertise.

You ascribe to me beliefs I do not hold. Also, I never suggested my opinion should matter to anyone. Nor should yours.

 

I submit that if you ask 1000 climate scientists if they "know the answers," they'll say no. I would suggest that if they say they do, they're not scientists. Scientists know better.

[mikeh]

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.

This seems to reflect the view to which I was speaking. If that doesn't represent your view, then I apologize. I think it clear that I don't consider myself any form of expert on global warming, so my personal opinion is worth nothing in terms of persuading anyone as to the need to do anything....other than what I would hope is the logic behind suggesting that we listen to the experts. Since the experts do appear, to some degree and with lots of uncertainty, to think that it would be a good thing to do something to reduce the man-made contribution to global warming, that is what I support. To that extent I would hope that enough people would agree with that notion that political leaders would be chosen who have the willingness to do the right thing, for a change.

 

Accordingly, people like you, using your words to infer who you are, constitute a real obstacle to progress. Fence-sitting is a luxury we seem unlikely to be able to tolerate anymore than we can tolerate active opposition.

 

Acting could cause harm, acting could be too little, too late, and it could be unnecessary. However, the consensus amongst experts seems to be that doing something to reduce our specie's contribution to global warming is an urgent proposition and in those circumstances, it seems to me to be very foolish to refuse to listen.

[blackshoe]

You described me as "clinging to the notion that your unqualified skepticism should offset the warnings of those who actually know the subject." I'm not "clinging" to any notion; certainly not that one.

 

Your personal opinion might carry more weight if it was not expressed in terms of "you're an idiot, STFU".

 

I note that Nigel apologized to you for his mistake, and you accepted that apology while ignoring that he says in that same post that you were also mistaken. Where's your apology to him?

[billw55]

Acting could cause harm, acting could be too little, too late, and it could be unnecessary. However, the consensus amongst experts seems to be that doing something to reduce our specie's contribution to global warming is an urgent proposition and in those circumstances, it seems to me to be very foolish to refuse to listen.

 

I'm going to split hairs here a bit. There is strong consensus among scientific experts that AGW is happening. There is strong consensus within a certain political movement that reducing it is an urgent proposition. This is not the same thing. The two propositions are separable, despite the movement's efforts to link them.

 

To that extent I would hope that enough people would agree with that notion that political leaders would be chosen who have the willingness to do the right thing, for a change.

 

Unfortunately, there seem to be very few places in the world where politics actually work that way.

 

[Winstonm]

Actually there are no scientific measurements from the future, so neither claim can be said to be "far from the scientific measurements."

 

The problem we face, and it is a complex one, is projecting the future climate using information available now. Doing so requires modeling. You don't evade that requirement by projecting future warming at the rate of warming since the mid-19th century: You simply substitute a much simpler model. There is no reason to suppose that your simpler model will hold in the face of changing conditions, and (I think) plenty of reasons to suppose that it will not.

 

Mankind has been moving buried carbon to the atmosphere at the rate of billions of tons per year to the point where CO₂ levels are the highest in 15 million years. CO₂ traps heat. We are disturbing a complex system, and no one knows exactly how that will play out. However, sea levels are bound to rise and the people living in low-lying areas already face serious problems. If the North Atlantic Drift is disrupted, Europe will experience adverse consequences.

 

Because of the uncertainties involved as well as the impending difficulties that can no longer be stopped, conservatives keep pushing for a market-based approach to reduce emissions. To date the conservatives have been losing politically to the Pollyannas, but that has to change. The sooner it does, the better.

 

The problem with market-based solutions is that first the market must identify a problem and then see the solution to that problem as potentially profitable. If neither problem or profit potential is seen, the market ignores problems. The market sometimes needs guidance and a push start. Pushing the private sector to perform is a role played quite well by the government and government regulations.

 

Case in point is the standard for water use in toilets. This was never considered a problem for business until 1994. It is now standard for toilets to flush using 1.6 gallons of water - it used to take 3.5 gallons. Government regulations mandated that after 1994 new toilets must use 1.6 gallons or less per flush - and that regulatory effect caused industry to find new ways to utilize water for waste disposal. More efficient use of water for waste disposal is a classic example of good government intervention and good private sector response. Without this joint effort, no doubt we would still be wasting water.

 

Just as burying one's head into the sand does not alleviate problems, so does discounting the positive effects government can have provides a dark and sand-like insulation for denial.

[PassedOut]

The problem with market-based solutions is that first the market must identify a problem and then see the solution to that problem as potentially profitable. If neither problem or profit potential is seen, the market ignores problems.

That's why conservatives press for a carbon tax to reflect the adverse externalities of CO₂ emissions. The idea is to make it profitable to provide energy without those adverse externalities, while avoiding allowing lobbyists (and the legislators they've bought) to determine which energy providers become most successful.

 

The government can make carbon sources of energy more expensive in other ways too, and that might turn out to be what happens -- especially if the Pollyannas hold on until folks get really angry. But I really hope that we can avoid Blackshoe's solution of a "government fiat" and give innovators a free hand with this.

[hrothgar]

That's why conservatives press for a carbon tax to reflect the adverse externalities of CO₂ emissions. The idea is to make it profitable to provide energy without those adverse externalities, while avoiding allowing lobbyists (and the legislators they've bought) to determine which energy providers become most successful.

 

The government can make carbon sources of energy more expensive in other ways too, and that might turn out to be what happens -- especially if the Pollyannas hold on until folks get really angry. But I really hope that we can avoid Blackshoe's solution of a "government fiat" and give innovators a free hand with this.

 

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Blackshoe's includes a carbon tax in his definition of "government fiat".

 

20 years ago, you might have been right. I can recall conservatives arguing in favor of carbon taxes.

However, that was many election cycles ago.

[mikeh]

 

 

I note that Nigel apologized to you for his mistake, and you accepted that apology while ignoring that he says in that same post that you were also mistaken. Where's your apology to him?

What is there to apologize for?

 

He wrote a post very critical of me, using provocative language (I have no issue with provocative language as such and it would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise), in which he misstated the facts. I pointed out to him that he had his facts wrong and that his attack on me, founded as it was on an explicit falsehood, warranted an apology. To my pleasant surprise, he apologized. He went up a notch in my estimation, not that that matters to anyone but me.

 

In suggesting an apology was in order, I set out, not as fact but as opinion, my inferences as to why he made such posts, the factually false one being far from his first criticism of me. He says my inference is mistaken.

 

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I hold to it still. I consider those who engage in strawman and ad hominem arguments while simultaneously attacking what they see as those tactics in others do not deserve to have their disavowals taken at face value until more evidence is on hand.

 

I don't apologize for honestly held, honestly expressed opinions when I make it clear that they are opinions. I suspect that you hold a low opinion of me...so what? You can express that as much as you like and I won't ever ask for an apology nor would I dream of thinking I was entitled to one. But start asserting falsities about me or about what I write, and I assure you that I will be calling you out on it. Don't misunderstand me: I am not insinuating that I have seen that or expect that from you. I am merely trying to clarify how I see robust exchanges of view on this forum. I never worry about my ideas being corrected, when I have the facts wrong, or my opinions criticized so long as the criticism is honest. Indeed, I enjoy learning more on topics where it seems my opinions are based on incomplete or erroneous information. As an example, I am grateful to Daniel for his recent posts...I have learned something.

 

I know I tend to write in a rather arrogant style. I suspect part of that is a reflection of an innate tendency towards arrogance, part of it is because of the effect of the internet, which restricts the ability to convey nuances, and part of it is because of my line of work, in which I am frequently called upon to make clear, positive assertions of my clients' positions and arguments in an adversarial environment. Be that as it may, it is unlikely that I will change my style....tant pis.

[PassedOut]

I can recall conservatives arguing in favor of carbon taxes. However, that was many election cycles ago.

Yes, not many conservatives left...

[Winstonm]

That's why conservatives press for a carbon tax to reflect the adverse externalities of CO₂ emissions. The idea is to make it profitable to provide energy without those adverse externalities, while avoiding allowing lobbyists (and the legislators they've bought) to determine which energy providers become most successful.

 

The government can make carbon sources of energy more expensive in other ways too, and that might turn out to be what happens -- especially if the Pollyannas hold on until folks get really angry. But I really hope that we can avoid Blackshoe's solution of a "government fiat" and give innovators a free hand with this.

 

I happen to agree with market solutions - it is in determining problems and establishing parameters that I think government is superior because "the general welfare" should trump corporate profitability as the driving force.

[PassedOut]

I happen to agree with market solutions - it is in determining problems and establishing parameters that I think government is superior because "the general welfare" should trump corporate profitability as the driving force.

For sure. Corporations should not have to worry about "the general welfare." That's what the government is for.

 

Legitimate businesses want to compete fairly within a structure, enforced with an even hand by the government, that itself promotes the general welfare of the people.

[mikeh]

For sure. Corporations should not have to worry about "the general welfare." That's what the government is for.

 

Legitimate businesses want to compete fairly within a structure, enforced with an even hand by the government, that itself promotes the general welfare of the people.

I agree wholeheartedly

 

Government should set and enforce the rules, with societal interests in mind, freeing citizens, and their businesses (which in the US are apparently interchangeable concepts) to pursue their own interests, which (if the rules are well-designed and enforced) will serve to maximize both individual and societal well-being.

 

I suspect most but the equally deluded communists and libertarians would agree on this basic principle. The problem lies more in how much guidance is needed, as well as to what end.

 

It would be foolish to expect any business to conduct itself other than selfishly. Some small minority does, and they are to be lauded, but the vast majority don't and that reflects basic aspects of human nature, which aren't going to change soon, if at all.

[Al_U_Card]

Two's company (Lindzen, Dyson) but three is almost a consensus (among tenured emeritus professors that don't depend on climate grants...)

Despite having drank the kool-aid (But the consensus says that the science is settled! We are doomed but we should pay anyway...) at some point, (stop discussing "externalities" and methodologies and take another look at the "science") the obvious will sink in and the scammers will have to find yet another poster-child for their schemes.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko

[Al_U_Card]

Christmas critiques of those GCM models and their applicability (relevance) to climate projections...

 

Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al 2008:

 

Abstract “Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”

 

Stephens et al. (2010) wrote

 

“models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly…The differences in the character of model precipitation are systemic and have a number of important implications for modeling the coupled Earth system …little skill in precipitation [is] calculated at individual grid points, and thus applications involving downscaling of grid point precipitation to yet even finer-scale resolution has little foundation and relevance to the real Earth system.”

 

Xu and Yang (2012) find that without tuning from real world observations, the model predictions are in significant error.

 

“the traditional dynamic downscaling (TDD) [i.e. without tuning) overestimates precipitation by 0.5-1.5 mm d-1…The 2-year return level of summer daily maximum temperature simulated by the TDD is underestimated by 2-6 C over the central United States-Canada region.”

 

Alan Turing is likely, as regards the parameters used by the GCMs , wiggling in his grave like an elephant's trunk... :rolleyes:

[Al_U_Card]

Hockey stick alert! Despite flat-lining global temps and declining public interest in the "sky-is-falling" climate catastrophism, one area has shown a much too precedented rise of late...

 

The COPs to the UNFCCC (the Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) have evolved into environmental mega-conferences (Gaventa, 2010). They have become the key networking opportunity for environmental professionals of all colours, and attract increasingly large numbers of diverse participants (Okereke et al., 2009). Beyond the negotiations, it seems to be the desire to network, to exchange information and to be part of a larger climate change constituency that drive attendance (Schroeder and Lovell, 2012)

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/clip_image003_thumb.png?w=600&h=371

 

Update... just shows to go ya...

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/12/14/blogs/dotgavel/dotgavel-blog480.jpg

[Al_U_Card]

And as a present for those who are inordinately worried about sea-level rise, here is some data for New York. The last 20 years or so seem the least threatening of all. (About 8 more inches by 2100 if the overall trend is continued.) Happy holidays!

 

http://profmandia.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ny-harbor.png?w=546

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of oceans, their "acidification" is related to.....oceanic warming and cooling cycles? (WHAT? CO2 is yet again not able to control the world?)

 

What the real data (as opposed to modeled (by Feely et al for instance) studies) says:

 

http://www.abeqas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MWAcompilationOfGlobalOcean_pHJan82014.jpg

[PassedOut]

What the real data (as opposed to modeled (by Feely et al for instance) studies) says...

There is no "real data" from the future. There are only predictions based on models, complex or simple. The only argument is about which models are most accurate in reflecting the changing conditions.

[Al_U_Card]

There is no "real data" from the future. There are only predictions based on models, complex or simple. The only argument is about which models are most accurate in reflecting the changing conditions.

 

As with most "mission critical" applications, a model that failed out of sample verification would not even be considered for creating projections (eg. stock market projections are based on past performance and are no guarantee of future results) Here, we have models that fail every measure and test applied to them EXCEPT their ability to generate scare scenarios. The answer? Pay no attention to the model behind the curtain and adapt as needed. Are there other indicators/measures that are better at showing correlation to actual situations? Well... we have limited ability to "predict" solar activity with precision and accuracy but it does seem to have more of a relation to warming than [CO2] at least.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/image_thumb78.png?w=900&h=450