Climate Change

[LogicalFallacy]

Well since we are having multiple conversations about the topic I thought I'd go ahead and post the topic I wanted to start here:

 

Please note, the reason I posted here instead of in ToT is to keep it fairly serious and have a good discussion as opposed to just throwing articles and jabbing each other. So looking for fairly serious considerations of members views on the subject.

 

I'll kick off with a series of questions I think might help everyone to understand where everyone else stands on the issue. My answers in Italics.

 

This should hopefully give a good comparison of positions/beliefs/thoughts with the understanding that any party can change their mind based on new info that comes to hand.

 

1) Do you believe that the climate is warming? Why/why not?

 

LF answer: Yes, it's been warming since the last Ice age due to environmental factors that include everything's from the suns cycles to gravitational effects on our planet from other planets.

 

2) Do you believe humans CAUSE climate change?

 

LF answer: No, the climate has changed since 4.7 billion years ago, sometimes disastrously.

 

3) Are humans having any INFLUENCE on the climate?

 

LF Answer: Yes, more likely than not. Data indicates that CO2 does create an insulation effect that traps heat from the sun from going back to space. (To steal from you BO I'm a 7 on this one)

 

4) Can we accurately predict the effects of any climate change?

 

LF answer: This is the corker. I would say yes but only to a confidence level of 5. There are so many variables that as Josh said reality could slap us in the face despite our best attempts to figure out what is going to happen. Time here will be the great equaliser. (I say this to my father when he talks about going in the rapture - one of us is right I say, and only time will tell)

 

5) Is global warming (assuming it to be true for this question) an existential threat?

 

LF answer: Not in and of itself. Assuming humans didn't nuke themselves in a land/resource war humans would survive and learn to adapt to the more hospitable environs. A massive ice age on the other hand could be devastating.

[florduh]

I have tried to examine the available evidence for some time now. What I gather is that the climate is in a warming trend. I can see that emissions from human activities are contributors to warming effect. I can see that there is a correlation in the rise with the advent of the industrial revolution. What is not clear is how much humans actually impact the long term climate since natural effects also largely contribute. My conclusion is that refraining from contributing to the climate change as much as practically possible is just common sense even if not enough in itself to reverse the trend.

 

Fossil fuels carry their own risks beyond the probability that they contribute to climate change. I can't understand why, with all our other advances, we are still stuck on using fossil fuels; other than the vested interests, of course.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Florduh, you make too much sense.

[Jeff]

i just want to post in the calm before the storm.

Thanks

[florduh]

i just want to post in the calm before the storm.

Thanks

The odd thing is how these days so many topics, particularly those regarding science, are reduced to polarized political stances.

 

(Poised to move topic to TOT when necessary)

[Fweethawt]

Well, if Trump would just science better...

[Tsathoggua]

Well, if Trump would just science better...

 

I'm sure that he thinks that he sciences the bestest, though. Better than all those damned scientists put together!

[LifeCycle]

What florduh said.

[florduh]

Guys, don't make me move this!

[LogicalFallacy]

 

i just want to post in the calm before the storm.

Thanks

The odd thing is how these days so many topics, particularly those regarding science, are reduced to polarized political stances.

 

(Poised to move topic to TOT when necessary)

 

Nein nein! The reason for posting here is to have a scientific discussion (as much as possible) without our cheesy politics that go on in ToT.

 

Please please don't devolve this into politics. Fwee & Tsathoggua I am disappoint. Yes very disappoint. Please re-read my opening lines in the OP.

 

Right now that I have dropped to my knees and begged for sanity: (Because I think this and the surrounding environmental topics are important)

 

 

I agree with what florduh said... I think it's pretty much my position. I'll bring up some specific data later.

[florduh]

Nein nein! 

 

It's all up to those who post here. I also long for a reasonable discussion of any topic at this juncture. Odds are against us, but let's stay positive!

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Nein nein!

It's all up to those who post here. I also long for a reasonable discussion of any topic at this juncture. Odds are against us, but let's stay positive!

 

Is there any precedent for kicking the post or poster not the thread?

[Joshpantera]

I'll post the link on Global Greening here as well: http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

 

I first heard of this via my marine biologist cousin down in Australia. He posts a lot of interesting info on the scientific and academic side of the debate. And he's very disappointed in how scientists have aligned themselves with political interests and therefore distorted the science.

 

I've been saying that fossil fuel technology needs to fade out regardless of the impact on climate for years now. I completely agree with Florduh. I also hold an optimistic attitude about that as well. Why shit up the atmosphere everyday aside from vested interests, corporate interests? Just in recent years there's been some very interesting advancements in out board boat motors. See below:

 

 

I guess the only possible down side, per the lecture I posted at the top of the page, is what effect eliminating Co2 will do with respect to the greening trend in plant life world wide? Would we see a decrease in greening after the 14% increase? This is a tricky subject with much to consider... 

[Joshpantera]

[LogicalFallacy]

Wow... and two months ago I pondered to my family whether increased Co2 might actually result in bigger plants like they were 65 million years ago (And bigger insects!)

I find this quote (From near the bottom of Josh's linked article) rather compelling.

"Does it matter that our politicians panicked in the early 2000s? Surely better safe than sorry?
Here’s why it matters. Our current policy carries not just huge economic costs, which hit the poorest people hardest, but huge environmental costs too.
We are encouraging forest destruction by burning wood, ethanol and biodiesel.
We are denying poor people the cheapest forms of electricity, which forces them to continue relying on wood for fuel, at great cost to their health.
We are using the landscape, the rivers, the estuaries, the hills, the fields for making energy, when we could be handing land back to nature, and relying on forms of energy that nature does not compete for – fossil and nuclear.
But there is a further reason why it matters. Real environmental problems are being neglected. The emphasis on climate change as the pre-eminent environmental threat means that we pay too little attention to the genuine environmental problems in the world.
We bang on about ocean acidification when it is overfishing and run-off that is most hurting coral reefs.
We misdiagnose climate change as the cause of floods when it is land drainage and urban development that is the cause.
We claim climate change as the cause of extinctions, when it is invasive species that disrupt and damage ecosystems and drive out rare species.
We say climate change is a threat to air quality, when it is climate policy that has hindered progress in improving air quality.
We talk about losing seabird colonies to warming seas and then build wind farms that slaughter the birds while turning a blind eye to overfishing.
Here’s why I really mind about the exaggeration: it has downgraded, displaced and discredited real environmentalism, of the kind I have devoted part of my life to working on."

[Joshpantera]

My favorite: 

 

 

The track record on doom

I said that one reason to be skeptical about dangerous climate change is that environmental predictions of doom are always wrong.

Here’s a list of predictions made with much fanfare and extensive coverage in the media in the 1970s, when I was young and green, in both senses of the word:

• the population explosion would be unstoppable;
• global famine would be inevitable;
• crop yields would fall;
• a cancer epidemic caused by pesticides would shorten lifespan;
• the desert would advance at two miles a year;
• rainforests would disappear;
• acid rain would destroy forests;
• oil spills would worsen;
• oil and gas would run out;
• and so would copper, zinc, chrome and many other natural resources;
• the Great Lakes would die;
• dozens of bird and mammal species would become extinct each year;
• and a new ice age would begin;

All these were trumpeted loudly in the mainstream media. Not one of them has come even close to meeting the apocalyptic expectations of their promoters. Sometimes this was because we took action to avert the danger. Sometimes it is because the jury is still out. More often it was because the scare was exaggerated in the first place.

These were later joined by more predictions of doom:

• sperm counts would fall;
• mad cow disease would kill hundreds of thousands of people;
• genetically modified weeds would devastate ecosystems;
• nanotechnology would run riot;
• computers would crash at the dawn of the millennium, bringing down civilisation;
• the hole in the ozone layer would cause blindness and cancer on a huge scale;

Many predictions of climate doom have already been proved wrong, as this cartoon points out.

Many of the impacts of global warming have not happened as predicted either:

• malaria was going to get worse because of rising temperatures; it didn’t.

• snow would become a thing of the past; yet northern hemisphere snow cover shows no trend

• hurricanes/cyclones would get worse; they haven’t.

• droughts would get worse; they haven’t

• the Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013; it wasn’t.

• glacier retreat would accelerate; yet more than half the retreat of glaciers happened before 1950.

• sea level rise would accelerate; it hasn’t

• the Gulf Stream would falter, as this clip from the movie the Day After Tomorrow latched on to.

All these predictions have also failed so far.

The death toll from droughts, floods and storms has been going down dramatically. Not because weather has got safer, but because of technology and prosperity.

James Hansen in 1988 said that by the year 2000, “the West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there.”

The UNEP predicted in 2005 that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees. In 2010 it tried to delete the web link.

Ten years ago, Al Gore said that within ten years we would have reached the point of no return. [inconvenient truth]

So we should take predictions of doom with a pinch of salt.

[florduh]

Yes, the doom and gloom aspect has been overstated, thus damaging credibility. Problems due to other causes get attributed to climate change. Neither side of the political debate are really married to the facts.

[Joshpantera]

The Paris Conference may as well have been a Revelation Seminar hosted by Pastor Hagee...

[LogicalFallacy]

Yes, the doom and gloom aspect has been overstated, thus damaging credibility. Problems due to other causes get attributed to climate change. Neither side of the political debate are really married to the facts.

Very good point.

 

You have one side saying its all a hoax/conspiracy/not happening

 

You have another side saying its happening, in our lifetime, and humanity is facing an existential threat.

 

It moves the conversation away from other problems that need addressing. florduh already mentioned the issues of fossil fuels regardless of GW.

[Travi]

I certainly believe humans have had a tremendous impact, and the refusal to move away from fossil fuels in some developed countries is troubling in many ways. Otherwise, I also echo some sentiment here that the climate is an ever changing thing, and there seems to be a definite warming trend. I do my own part in terms of trying to reduce my own energy usage, I recycle when I can, and I would love to see a push toward more sustainable energy sources that burn cleaner. Being one who has severe lung issues, getting away anything that puts smog and pollutants in the air improves my personal health.

As far as severe weather goes, in terms of people saying the number of violent storms has increased: While this may or may not be true, I think they forget an important aspect in how technology has come along. 50 or so years ago when radar first began usage to track storms, their power was very insignificant compared to the dishes that are used these days. Also, meteorology as a science has progressed greatly in how these storms form, what conditions are needed and so forth. The "uptick" in violent storms may be more a matter of the fact that technology can see these storms more than 50 years ago, when a tornado that spun up out in the middle of nowhere would go unreported since it was do little, if any, damage. Maybe take out a barn, and the farmer wouldn't know it to be straight line wind from a twister. These days, radar can find these storms out in the middle of BFE and report them. And seeing as how a tornado can spawn just about anywhere, those reports are now officially made and categorized by NWS. So, a tornado outbreak a half century ago (such as 1974) would have crude-compared-to-today standards reporting, compared to these days, such as 2011 in the deep South when entire states were blanketed in Tornado Warnings.

So, while human may be contributing - I don't see them as the main culprit. Mother Nature balances itself out, often in extreme ways. Technology has a lot to do with the increase in violent storm reporting that climate change is supposedly causing, but there are so many factors these days that help mitigate death and destruction. Even the most destructive storms, while still capable of causing death, have a lesser chance so due to the fact that hurricanes can be tracked for days before landfall, tornado signatures show up in radar now, giving people more time to find shelter, and advanced plans of actions are carried out by people to save life and property thanks to technology.

TL;DR: Humans are probably contributing, and the switch to sustainable energy needs to be made, and we need to be more conscious of pollution in general and get back to the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle way of thinking.

[♦ nivek ♦]

California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe

 

 

Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California every 100 to 200 years. Such floods are likely caused by atmospheric rivers: narrow bands of water vapor about a mile above the ocean that extend for thousands of kilometers.

The atmospheric river storms featured in a January 2013 article in Scientific American that I co-wrote with Michael Dettinger, The Coming Megafloods, are responsible for most of the largest historical floods in many western states. The only megaflood to strike the American West in recent history occurred during the winter of 1861-62. California bore the brunt of the damage. This disaster turned enormous regions of the state into inland seas for months, and took thousands of human lives. The costs were devastating: one quarter of California’s economy was destroyed, forcing the state into bankruptcy.

 

 

..snipped from an informative article

 

kL

[Joshpantera]

Another article: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

I'm not surprised at all about the model's inability to accurately predict future climate on large scale correctly. As a surfer I spend much time following weather models like the European and GFS, which are usually the basis for surf forecasting. We try and look 180 hrs or more out at the swell models which are based on wind and seas predictions. We all understand that they're just guess work. A lot if not most of the time the models are subject to change. So we watch as the models change around trying to pin point whether a swell will arrive on schedule or whether we'll get skunked altogether. 

This isn't very different from what I'm seeing from climate change predicting. As discussed previously in the lecture I've posted, the models are set up with unrealistic expectations and that's why they've fallen short. This is so obviously stacked and staged for the purpose of alarm. We're seeing in real time how potentially corrupted something like science can turn out to be. That's why I'm very skeptical of everything mainstream from religion, to politics and extending into science itself. And that's unfortunate. I lament seeing scientists stoop to the levels I'm now seeing. But as I said before, this isn't very different at all from the issue of the Ozone layer. Both issues are turning out to be more similar than people thought. Alarm was unwarranted. The Ozone hype hushed up and went away. And from what I keep seeing it's not improbable to expect the same result from climate science. Some day people will be asking, "hey what ever happened to climate change?" Remember back in the early 2,000's when that was all the hype? Good thing it was just a bunch BS the entire time...

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Hmm Michio Kaku is a scientist I respect, but even this could be scaremongering? 

Within a few decades we should know - 3 feet should be enough for BO to measure if it happens.

Funny, he actually states that he is no longer skeptical of HUMANS driving climate change, as opposed to being no longer skeptical of climate change. I wonder if this distinction is important?

Is it possible our science could be off and that the planet might naturally cool and warm faster than previously thought?

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Here's a Q&A session about the climate. Some deniers/skeptics asking hard questions which are answered. (Fairly well I thought)

 

 

[♦ nivek ♦]

From NASA Study. I like to see the actual ice rather than listen to blather about "cause". 
Earth seems to be a well oiled machine that does its own thing despite what people think "it oughta do!!111!!!!1One!!!".
***********************
What do we as humans do in response to cutting back on POL and hydrocarbon use? We consume more, buy more shit made of cheap plastics, use plastic bags, purchase items triple security wrapped and sealed in hard to recycle plastic. Our homes are filled with, autos made of, damn near everything we have is "man-made" and that from petroleum. 
We use it more often than not once or until it is worn and broken, throw it away rather than repair.
Our landfills from this overdependence on cheap abundant-now Petroleum-Oil-Lube based products is not a big deal until we manage to strangle our seas and oceans full of shit we are too lazy to either burn for hog fuel or try to recycle.

Political answers IMNHO are as bad as the problem "they" are attempting to solve.

kL

*****************************

 

NASA article from 15, updated in 16.

Quote

Oct. 30, 2015

 

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

 

 

 

 

 

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

 

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

 

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

...snipped. Graphics and pics at above URL