Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[Tim the plumber]

The debate on climate change often gets into the chalenging of data sets and the way these are interperated.

 

The "consensus" is often quoted.

 

This consensus has to be the IPCC's report(s), surely. There are many other articles which get sighted as some sort of authority on what the consensus is but lets stick to the actual IPCC one.

 

They (the IPCC) say that the worste case scenarion is that we have a 6.4 degree temperature rise by 2100 which will give us a 59cm sea level rise.

 

Since making that prediction the temperature rise has been lowered to a worste case of 3.2 degrees. So that would be halving of the sea level rise (less really but..) to less than knee high. Last centuary the sea rose by 18cm. This one may be twice as bad. So expect twice as many cities to disapear below the waves.....

 

The actual climate has in fact not warmed at all since they made this prediction.

 

The other predictions are mostly about exteme weather.

 

Sorry but that's easy to predict. There will always be extreme weather. The increasing accuracy of our data gatering will acomplish the logging of such events without any change in actual weather patterns which will in any case change so producing extremes as always.

 

Weather and climate always change. There thus will always be new "extremes". Such predictions are useless as they will be true whatever happens.

 

When the central, much shouted about, prediction of a group falls down they have lost credibility. Flat temperatures for 15 years have done this.

 

The next problem for thise who wish to panic is that as we see all over the place new inventions such a cheap solar power will be here very shortly, certainly before 2030. As soon as they happen we will nolonger be producing all that CO2. Thus if ther eever was a proble it will vanish very soon.

 

How risk averse are you? There is no problem really, if ther eever was it will be vanishing soon and the future looks bright.

[EdEarl]

My wife says, thanks! She feels much better now that she does not need to listen to the scientists. She can now buy a Hummer.

[pwagen]

The "consensus" is often quoted.

 

This consensus has to be the IPCC's report(s), surely. There are many other articles which get sighted as some sort of authority on what the consensus is but lets stick to the actual IPCC one.

Neither does the IPCC report seem to be "the consensus", nor is it usually a good idea to put all your trust in a single source - in this case the IPCC reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

[iNow]

Reasons NOT to worry about climate change? Ignorance.

 

Are there really any others? Maybe a desire to maintain a false sense of well-being... the ostrich effect?

[waitforufo]

At this point anthropological global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever the proper term we are supposed to use today is nothing more than a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This is not surprising since it is such a young science it has barely gotten its footing. Maybe one day in the future scientists will get an understanding of climate but all we have right now is isolated laboratory experiments and goofy computer models that can't hindcast for forecast with any accuracy. All the hubbub is nothing more than a political movement overwrought exploiting the precautionary principal. "If we don't act now we will all die" loses its political persuasion quickly. This is particularly true when the solutions provided require significant reduction in standards of living if not crippling the economy. Also, ultimately the proposed solutions will all fail to meet the requirements of environmentalists. Just today there was another story about windmills killing protected birds such as golden eagles and whooping cranes in my local paper. So at this point the only acceptable proposed solution is radical population decline and moving back to the shire.

Yes iNow I watched your reinventing fire video. It started out well saying that free enterprise would solve climate change without government intervention because ROI was so high for moving to renewable power sources. Too bad he then quickly abandoned all for that with concepts like fee sharing and other similar nonsense.

[swansont]

The actual climate has in fact not warmed at all since they made this prediction.

 

No, this is not true. Note well that "I can't statistically show it has warmed" is not the opposite of "I can statistically show it hasn't warmed". There is a middle ground of "it has warmed but owing to the noisy nature of the data the statistics can't yet exclude a flat temperature"

 

You can't show that it has not warmed since 2007. The data are too noisy to be able to do so.

 

2010 was tied for the hottest year on record. 13 of the warmest years have occurred in the past 15 years. This is not a downward or flat trend of temperature.

[iNow]

At this point anthropological global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever the proper term we are supposed to use today is nothing more than a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This is not surprising since it is such a young science it has barely gotten its footing.

This is also not true. Climate science has been progressing for a few hundred years now, and our understanding has only grown with the insertion of so many satellites into orbit that provide massive amounts of data to refine that understanding and knowledge.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

[waitforufo]

The first weather satellite was launched on April 1, 1960. This may seem like ancient history to some, but 53 years of satellite data, regardless of the volume, is a puny amount when trying to determine anthropological climate change. Yes, man has been studying meteorology for some time but this has mostly been for weather forecasting not climate forecasting. I appreciate that weather is not climate unless it supports alarmist claims, but why don’t we just be honest and say it is not.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Meteorology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology

Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere. Studies in the field stretch back millennia, though significant progress in meteorology did not occur until the 18th century. The 19th century saw breakthroughs occur after observing networks developed across several countries. After the development of the computer in the latter half of the 20th century, breakthroughs in weather forecasting were achieved.

So no real progress in meteorology until the 19th century. Again not that long ago and only tangentially aligned to climate. Also, many of the most notable climate change skeptics are Meteorologist.

[swansont]

I appreciate that weather is not climate unless it supports alarmist claims, but why don’t we just be honest and say it is not.

 

You can't get much more straw-man-y than that. Weather being confused for climate is a denialist canard, so way to go in spinning that!

 

Your entire post has essentially nothing to do with climate study. Why don't we be honest and admit that? And then discuss climate science?

[overtone]

 

The first weather satellite was launched on April 1, 1960. This may
seem like ancient history to some, but 53 years of satellite data,
regardless of the volume, is a puny amount when trying to determine
anthropological climate change. Yes, man has been studying meteorology
for some time but this has mostly been for weather forecasting not
climate forecasting. I appreciate that weather is not climate unless it
supports alarmist claims, but why don’t we just be honest and say it is
not.

And paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, ecology, cartography, geology, and so forth, do not exist. Neither do physics and chemistry, thermodynamics, natural history, astronomy, or agronomy.

 

The same people who tell us now (after thirty years of their celebrating every minor cooling blip in the weather record) that weather forecasting is not climate forecasting, are telling us that the newness and unreliability of weather forecasting invalidates climate forecasting. They assert that two centuries of trend in the temperature record tell us nothing, but their particular ten years of that record tell us everything. They assert that since we already have extreme weather events, the likelihood of more or greater extremes doesn't matter. They assert that since the sea level rise so far has not been disastrous, doubling or tripling it in the near future will be no problem. They tell us that it's reasonable to think the large majority of the world's scientists would stake their professional reputations in a conspiracy of public lies and fraudulent propaganda for access to occasional grant moneys, but unreasonable to think that a small minority of the world's wealthy corporate executives would conspire like that for billions in profits. And so forth. Go figure.

 

I figure they are just - - kind of - - how does one put this - - searching for the term - - oh yeah: stupid.

[Tim the plumber]

No, this is not true. Note well that "I can't statistically show it has warmed" is not the opposite of "I can statistically show it hasn't warmed". There is a middle ground of "it has warmed but owing to the noisy nature of the data the statistics can't yet exclude a flat temperature"

 

You can't show that it has not warmed since 2007. The data are too noisy to be able to do so.

 

2010 was tied for the hottest year on record. 13 of the warmest years have occurred in the past 15 years. This is not a downward or flat trend of temperature.

I might be using English the way normal people tend to, with the assumption that the person on the other side of the conversation has a degree of imagination and lee way. The climate has not warmed for the last 15 years in any way that can be measured. Is that OK for you?

 

CO2 has increased a lot, temperature has not. Climate model of the warmists fallen down.

[waitforufo]

Come on people, there is no there there. For example look at this story from the BBC.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

 

The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

 

Clouds? Are you kidding me. They should be told to go away until they figure out clouds.

[Tim the plumber]

If the IPCC does not represent the consensus what does???????

 

I can go and post over a thousand papers which disprove the warmist hype-othosis if you want me to. Not my work but availible.

 

Can you post any peer reviewed paper which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the degree of risk?

[waitforufo]

You can't get much more straw-man-y than that. Weather being confused for climate is a denialist canard, so way to go in spinning that!

 

Your entire post has essentially nothing to do with climate study. Why don't we be honest and admit that? And then discuss climate science?

 

Swansont,

I don't have the time to look through the gigantic volume of climate change debate in Science Forums looking for all the instances where the alarmists smacked down skeptical contributors with the old “weather isn’t climate” line but it was frequent. Now that the climate hasn’t warmed in over a decade while CO2 continues to increase suddenly the alarmists move on to extreme weather events even though extreme weather has existed forever and is not increasing. So now weather is climate. If my statement is a straw man now, why wasn’t it a straw man when it was used by alarmists?

Edited May 20, 2013 by waitforufo

[pwagen]

Now that the climate hasn’t warmed in over a decade (...)

It hasn't?

 

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173739884/since-end-of-last-ice-age-rates-of-global-warming-amazing-and-atypical

Edited May 20, 2013 by pwagen

[waitforufo]

And paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, ecology, cartography, geology, and so forth, do not exist. Neither do physics and chemistry, thermodynamics, natural history, astronomy, or agronomy.

 

The same people who tell us now (after thirty years of their celebrating every minor cooling blip in the weather record) that weather forecasting is not climate forecasting, are telling us that the newness and unreliability of weather forecasting invalidates climate forecasting. They assert that two centuries of trend in the temperature record tell us nothing, but their particular ten years of that record tell us everything. They assert that since we already have extreme weather events, the likelihood of more or greater extremes doesn't matter. They assert that since the sea level rise so far has not been disastrous, doubling or tripling it in the near future will be no problem. They tell us that it's reasonable to think the large majority of the world's scientists would stake their professional reputations in a conspiracy of public lies and fraudulent propaganda for access to occasional grant moneys, but unreasonable to think that a small minority of the world's wealthy corporate executives would conspire like that for billions in profits. And so forth. Go figure.

 

I figure they are just - - kind of - - how does one put this - - searching for the term - - oh yeah: stupid.

I didn't say that climate science wasn't science. I said it was still a young science with little knowledge. Someday maybe.

[swansont]

I might be using English the way normal people tend to, with the assumption that the person on the other side of the conversation has a degree of imagination and lee way. The climate has not warmed for the last 15 years in any way that can be measured. Is that OK for you?

 

That's still a dicey statement. If you graphed the temperature, the best fit would not be a line with zero slope.

Here's an analysis from a few years ago that explains what I mean. I doubt it has changed substantially in the intervening time.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4942

 

The problem with claiming no temperature increase is that one can just as easily claim twice the slope as the best fit, and be on similar statistical footing.

 

CO2 has increased a lot, temperature has not. Climate model of the warmists fallen down.

 

How much should temperature have increased? "A lot" is not a number.

 

Swansont,

I don't have the time to look through the gigantic volume of climate change debate in Science Forums looking for all the instances where the alarmists smacked down skeptical contributors with the old “weather isn’t climate” line but it was frequent.

 

Yes, and even non-alarmists have done this. Equating weather and climate is a denialist tactic.

 

 

Now that the climate hasn’t warmed in over a decade

 

A statement that is backed up by no data whatsoever, and thus untrue.

 

 

while CO2 continues to increase suddenly the alarmists move on to extreme weather events even though extreme weather has existed forever and is not increasing. So now weather is climate. If my statement is a straw man now, why wasn’t it a straw man when it was used by alarmists?

 

Extreme weather events ≠ weather

 

Also, "extreme weather happened before CO₂ increased, therefore CO₂ doesn't cause extreme weather" is a failure of basic logic

"People died before guns were invented, therefore people don't die as a result of guns" would be a logical equivalent. You really expect anyone to swallow that?

 

Plus, there are all of the people other than alarmists saying this. i.e. the vast majority of the scientific climate community. Not just the few alarmists out there.

[overtone]

 

Can you post any peer reviewed paper which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the degree of risk?

] Any peer reviewed paper detailing the actual increase in atmospheric CO2 as of 2013, which has been greater than the IPCC estimations. Any peer reviewed paper which details the extent of ice melting in the Arctic (land or sea) as of 2013, which has been much more severe than the IPCC estimations.

 

And so forth.

 

 

I didn't say that climate science wasn't science. I said it was still a young science with little knowledge.

No you didn't. You said meteorology was a young science with little knowledge. Then you claimed that invalidated any warnings or unfortunate predictions made by climate scientists. Then you wanted us all to "admit" that climate science was not weather science. Hello?

[waitforufo]

Meteorology is primarily the science of predicting weather. They are fairly good at predicting weather out 5 days. Anything beyond that is a crap shoot. I believe all meteorologists will tell you that. Weather satellites, particularly the early ones, were designed to look at weather in the pursuit of improving weather prediction. That is why they are called weather satellites not climate satellites. As Swansont says, weather is not climate. Equating them is a denialist tactic. But somehow extreme weather is climate. Go figure. But let me remind you that extreme weather is not increasing as CO2 is increasing.

If I understood iNow’s post #7 he said “climate science has been progressing for a few hundred years now. My argument is that Meteorology has been progressing for a few hundred years. The best meteorology has been able to come up with is reasonably accurate weather predictions that extend out 5 days. I think the butterfly effect was coined to explain that it would never get any better than that. Climate science is claiming 100+ year predictions. They do this even though they don’t understand how clouds impact climate or if water vapor produces positive or negative feedback. Yet climate science is trying to dictate political policy. The precautionary principal is not science it is politics.

[overtone]

 

But let me remind you that extreme weather is not increasing as CO2 is increasing.

You don't know that. You have no data support for that guesswork.

 

Drought is weather. Thawing of sea ice is weather. Monsoon year by year intensity and regularity and timing is weather.

 

Meteorology has been progressing for a few hundred years. The best
meteorology has been able to come up with is reasonably accurate weather
predictions that extend out 5 days. I think the butterfly effect was
coined to explain that it would never get any better than that. Climate
science is claiming 100+ year predictions. They do this even though
they don’t understand how clouds impact climate or if water vapor
produces positive or negative feedback. Yet climate science is trying
to dictate political policy.

You again merge and confuse climate science with meteorology.

 

 

The precautionary principal is not science it is politics.

So?

[EdEarl]

Sometimes I wonder if some people have a lemming gene that makes the suicidal or irrational during times in the face of prolonged stress.

[waitforufo]

So what you are trying to tell me is that after hundreds of years of successful climate science study, and the launch of the first weather climate satellite, the world celebrated by creating the following.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1302&bih=644&q=1960+muscle+cars&oq=1960+muscle&gs_l=img.3.0.0l2j0i24l3.1771.15660.0.19696.23.11.9.3.5.0.159.764.10j1.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.14.img.YeDzu5ownhg

How did climate science go so wrong after April 1, 1960?

[EdEarl]

About 10,000 years ago, glaciers covered New York City, and many other places. This year, for the first time in recorded history, it was warm enough for the Greenland ice cap to melt enough for a thin layer of water to cover it everywhere. Glacier National Park is almost glacier free because they have been melting for a very long time. In fact, most mountain glaciers in the world are receding, in other words melting in the summer faster than they are being replenished in the winter. Permafrost in Alaska is melting, in other words it is no longer permafrost. The evidence for global warming is pervasive, and obvious. Yet, some people who live in parts of the world where there is no obvious evidence, deny the evidence exists.

 

Get up from your couch and visit somewhere like Tuvalu, the headwaters of the Ganges, Greenland, or Alaska and talk to people who are experiencing global warming. If such an experience does not convince you that global warming is real, then you will have convinced me that humanity is self destructive.

[waitforufo]

Climate changes. It always has. It always will. Pulling a human cause from the noise has not been done. Perhaps someday a human cause will be found but until that is done why kill the economy? There is enough human suffering now.

[EdEarl]

Climate changes. It always has. It always will. Pulling a human cause from the noise has not been done. Perhaps someday a human cause will be found but until that is done why kill the economy? There is enough human suffering now.

Yes, climate has always changed. We are a part of nature, and we contribute to the change. The only question, is how much we contribute, and whether our contribution is contrary to our needs or not.