Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[waitforufo]

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.

Agreed. Our contribution may make life on this planet better. I have no problem with finding out, but until we do we should study not act.

[iNow]

Pulling a human cause from the noise has not been done.

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

[EdEarl]

Agreed. Our contribution may make life on this planet better. I have no problem with finding out, but until we do we should study not act.

It is obvious that burning fossil fuels puts CO2 in the atmosphere, and from ice cores that global temperature is linked closely to CO2 levels. Reducing CO2 levels is a worthy goal. However, IMO doing so will not destroy the economy; on the contrary, it is and will continue to revitalize the US economy because we will not be spending billions to buy foreign oil, and these industries will and are creating US jobs. I just read the a 500MW solar power plant in San Antonio, TX created 800 jobs and saved the local power company money compared to them continuing to use an existing coal power plant.

 

On the other hand, there are scenarios whereby the eliminating fossil fuels would be an economic disaster. But, industry will not do that, and they control enough governmental decisions I have no fear the economy will not get into trouble from the conversion.

 

On the other hand, doing nothing to control CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a disaster. Mountain glaciers around the world are disappearing. If they do, many of the worlds major rivers will be dry except when it rains, and millions or billions of people will die.

 

Eliminating CO2 is and will continue to be a balancing act. We need to grow economies and preserve critical natural resources at the same time. It is complicated and cannot be done immediately. Some people clamor for too much too soon, and others want to go too slow. I hope we progress fast enough but not too fast.

[waitforufo]

It is obvious that burning fossil fuels puts CO2 in the atmosphere, and from ice cores that global temperature is linked closely to CO2 levels.

Correlation is not causation.

 

 

 

[EdEarl]

True, correlation is not causation, but without other proof, there is a 50% chance. Since we can create jobs and maintain or improve our economy at the same time we reduce anthropomorphic CO2, it is better to play it safe and reduce CO2. Subsequently, after CO2 reduction, we may better understand the effect of atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

[Klaynos]

The warming models do not agree if you do not include the human contribution to co2 levels, the agreement afterwards is really rather impressive, I'd suggest you do some further research.

 

Here is a good start: http://www.myclimateandme.com/

[John Cuthber]

,,, cause will be found but until that is done why kill the economy?

False dichotomy.

[waitforufo]

True, correlation is not causation, but without other proof, there is a 50% chance. Since we can create jobs and maintain or improve our economy at the same time we reduce anthropomorphic CO2, it is better to play it safe and reduce CO2. Subsequently, after CO2 reduction, we may better understand the effect of atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

That is a political decision not a science decision. At the present time science would say wait and study more. Perhaps this topic should be moved to politics.

 

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

iNow, I watched your vid on reinventing fire. I thought all solutions for global warming/climate change/climate disruption were going to be taken care of with free enterprise. No government involvement needed. Why worry?

[swansont]

That is a political decision not a science decision. At the present time science would say wait and study more.

 

No, at the present time, science is pretty sure what's ahead of us. 97% of the science (a very strong consensus). And it's saying that waiting will only make it worse.

 

The naysayers are by and large not climate scientists.

 

[John Cuthber]

That is a political decision not a science decision. At the present time science would say wait and study more. Perhaps this topic should be moved to politics.

 

iNow, I watched your vid on reinventing fire. I thought all solutions for global warming/climate change/climate disruption were going to be taken care of with free enterprise. No government involvement needed. Why worry?

"At the present time science would say wait and study more."

No it doesn't, the scientific consensus on climate change is very robust.

 

"Why worry?"

Because the free market gave us VHS tapes even though Betamax was a better system.

[EdEarl]

I didn't mean to imply government would not be involved, merely that business will shape laws.

 

Reinventing fire doesn't discuss all the things I have learned about climate change and related issues.

 

There is no doubt considerably more going on that I know about.

 

And, research will yield additional relevant information and advanced technology.

[Tim the plumber]

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.

Yes please tell me of any papers which show that the melting of land ice has been greater than the IPCC's expected rate.

 

You can leave out the bit about the increase in CO2 being greater, I know it is, that's an argument against the CO2/warming argument.

 

I'd also like to see anything which projects the actual ice line and volume of ice projected from any warming.

 

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

I wonder that lots of otherwise rational people have a very deep need to have a "we are all doomed" religious complex going on.

 

If there is not the Christian constant panic that God will turn up and judge us all then these types have the climate disaster vision which they cling to inspite of the massive evidence that all's well.

 

And getting better.

 

Who the F! is under stress?

 

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.

One of the better responses to in this thread, however;

 

1, The way to measure the volume of ice on Greenland is by ice penetrating radar. The figures we get come from satilite gravitational interpretation. That's less precise than looking on google earth. They don't want to use the air based radar because if they do they will lose the billion dolar budgets.

 

2. The head water glaciers of the ganges etc. are as significant to it's overall flow level as me pissing in the river don (Sheffield, England). The amount of rain that falls on the North Indian plane and the rainfall on the mountains is what produces the vast rivers there not a tiny amount of ice melt from tiny glaciers (yes I know some are several cubic klometers of ice).

 

3. The world's sea level rose by 18cm last centuary. This centuary it might be twice as bad. How many islands disapeared below the waves last centuary? Multiply zero by 2.

 

4. The residents of Greenland said, in the TV report I watched, that whilst the melting of the coastal ice had changed things it had changed things for the better, that the worry they had about global warming was that it was bringing all these environmetal regulations in which were stopping them hunting.

 

5. It's got a bit warmer. We are in the warm 20% percentile of times since the last ice age. 20% of those times have been warmer. Polar bears managed the even hotter periods OK.

 

On the other hand, doing nothing to control CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a disaster. Mountain glaciers around the world are disappearing. If they do, many of the worlds major rivers will be dry except when it rains, and millions or billions of people will die.

CO2 levels have yet to be shown to anywhere near dangerous.

 

The IPCC says they are not at all dangerous.

 

Glaciers do not provide any significant amount of water to any significant river. Their loss will not matter.

[EdEarl]

I cannot afford most peer reviewed papers, but some reliable sources are available. Here are a few I believe are reliable.

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

http://phys.org/news4906.html

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glacier-sea-rise.html

 

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/climate_glaciers.htm

[waitforufo]

 

No, at the present time, science is pretty sure what's ahead of us. 97% of the science (a very strong consensus). And it's saying that waiting will only make it worse.

 

The naysayers are by and large not climate scientists.

 

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned

my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him

the spinal cord would suffice.

 

Albert Einstein

[overtone]

Climate changes. It always has. It always will. Pulling a human cause

from the noise has not been done.

It has been done to the ordinary scientific standards, 95 - 99% confidence levels. If you want mathematical proof you need to be doing mathematics.

 

 

Perhaps someday a human cause will

be found but until that is done why kill the economy?

The human cause - anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere - has been found. "The economy", whatever anyone means by that, is no more at risk from reasonable precautions than it is from the hazard.

 

 

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation

plus demonstrated mechanism

plus dozens of generated hypotheses solidly supported

plus absence of contradictory findings

plus absence of alternative hypotheses

 

is generally taken to be a pretty good candidate for causation, though.

 

At the least, it puts the burden of proof on the denialists. We have all this anthropogenic CO2, and all these phenomena that are predicted as effects of all this CO2, and these trends that katch and are explained thusly: the burden of proof is on those who claim we can boost CO2 levels like this and not suffer the apparently obvious consequences.

 

 

 

Yes please tell me of any papers which show that the melting of land ice has been greater than the IPCC's expected rate.

So you are conceding the Arctic sea ice? That answers your request then.

 

 

3. The world's sea level rose by 18cm last

centuary. This centuary it might be twice as bad. How many islands

disapeared below the waves last centuary? Multiply zero by 2.

I nominate that for the single most mindbogglingly blockheadedly stupid argument in the entire denialist handbook. Anyone have a better candidate?

Edited May 21, 2013 by overtone

[swansont]

Yes please tell me of any papers which show that the melting of land ice has been greater than the IPCC's expected rate.

The predictions were apparently out of date even as the report was being published

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/11/294403/arctic-ice-thinning-4-times-faster-than-predicted-by-models-semi-stunning-m-i-t-study-finds/

 

The IPCC predicted the arctic would go ice-free sometime after the 2080-2100 time frame. The ice minimum is already down 50% from the long-term average, and new predictions have us being ice-free by 2050

 

edit: I missed the moving of the goalposts to "land ice"

[iNow]

I nominate that for the single most mindbogglingly blockheadedly stupid argument in the entire denialist handbook. Anyone have a better candidate?

I find it generally to be a waste of time seeking to discover who is the tallest guy at a midget convention.

 

On another note, I've personally always found the most powerful scientific assertions to be made using strange fonts and to be loaded with copious examples of awful spelling, the latter of which speaks strongly to the fact that the author both reads a lot and reads often. </sarcasm>

[SamBridge]

There was actually an interesting new point brought to my attention about climate change recently. Clouds. Clouds seem to a part of the error account for errors in predicting what the exact temperature rise will be, different weather groups can predict different outcomes based on how they consider the number of shallow or deep clouds to increase. There's an important discovery to be made though. Clouds trap heat as well as reflect it. However, deep clouds such as thunderstorm clouds will trap more heat, while shallow clouds will reflect more heat that they trap. Because the temperature is currently rising, more water vapor is being put into the atmosphere, and thus the amount of clouds will increase, but will there be more shallow clouds? Or more deep clouds? Or equal mounts? If there's more shallow clouds like stratus and shallow cumulus, then the effect could be the Earth cooling or discontinuing the rise in temperature. However, if a greater amount of deep clouds like cumulonimbus incus clouds are produced, more heat will be trapped.

 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/

Edited May 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

waitforufo,

 

We ask our members to please be mindful of the fact that this is a discussion forum and not your personal blog. We enforce rules that aim to eliminate posts that do not foster positive discussion and as such, I would ask that you please refrain from making soap-box like posts as you have in this thread, especially where those posts are also vaguely insulting.

[waitforufo]

!

Moderator Note

waitforufo,

 

We ask our members to please be mindful of the fact that this is a discussion forum and not your personal blog. We enforce rules that aim to eliminate posts that do not foster positive discussion and as such, I would ask that you please refrain from making soap-box like posts as you have in this thread, especially where those posts are also vaguely insulting.

Why pick on me. Do you not find anything faguely insulting about post # 42 in this topic? Do the rules not apply to iNow?

[iNow]

I suspect I'm probably given more latitude because I'm not here arguing in favor of continued ignorance, but either way... This is off-topic and should be a discussion held in the Feedback forum if you wish it to continue... Or, report my posts if you feel they were out of line. That's an option, too.

 

It should be noted, though, that when it comes to arguing the on-topic points around climate change I can support my position with data and evidence. I am not using my snark or misrepresentations of others to support any argument. You, however, are basing almost your whole position on it. That's an important distinction.

[Tim the plumber]

 

The predictions were apparently out of date even as the report was being published

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/11/294403/arctic-ice-thinning-4-times-faster-than-predicted-by-models-semi-stunning-m-i-t-study-finds/

 

The IPCC predicted the arctic would go ice-free sometime after the 2080-2100 time frame. The ice minimum is already down 50% from the long-term average, and new predictions have us being ice-free by 2050

 

edit: I missed the moving of the goalposts to "land ice"

I have never got the reason why anyone cares about floating ice. Let it all melt. So what? More humidity into the Greenland weather system thus more snow on the ice sheet.

 

I know the area of Arctic sea ice has been lower than n the 1970's for a bit but again, so what?

 

The cause, well it might be something to do with the present climate being on the warmish side. Only 20% of the time since the last ice age has been warmer.

[swansont]

Is it too much to ask that you use the same color font as everyone else? Highlighting effects are for highlights, not full posts.

 

 

I have never got the reason why

I've always been fascinated by this situation of admittedly not understanding, yet knowing something was wrong, or unimportant.

I have never got the reason why anyone cares about floating ice. Let it all melt. So what? More humidity into the Greenland weather system thus more snow on the ice sheet.

 

Snow and ice reflects better than water or land. So with less snow and ice, more energy is absorbed by the earth. The heating rate increases.

 

Warmer temperatures and lots of humidity means more snow in winter in some places. Storms dumping a foot or two are problems for traffic, and people are known to die in these storms. It's a change to the weather patterns.

 

Greenland is warming, too. That raises the sea level. Warming water expands, which also raises the sea level. Most port facilities have a limited range of seal level they can cope with. It'll be a huge expense to rebuild all the ports, and then there's all of the coastline that will be underwater.

 

The cause, well it might be something to do with the present climate being on the warmish side. Only 20% of the time since the last ice age has been warmer.

 

Yes, the cause is being on the "warmish" side. That's the whole point of the discussion. The warming is caused by increased CO₂, which humans have dumped into the atmosphere.

[overtone]

 

I have never got the reason why anyone cares about floating ice. Let it all melt. So what?

The principle that what you don't know can't hurt you is dubious enough.

 

When it's carried into 'what you don't understand can't hurt you', then things get weird. When it coalesces as 'what I don't understand can't hurt anyone' it becomes a political problem. When it solidifies as 'what I don't understand does not exist' with a side brace of 'what I don't understand is unscientific and biased' it has entered political pathology.

 

Note that this psychological sequence afflicts the technologically adept as well as the unskilled - it's a common feature of the arguments against restricting the deployment of genetically modified organisms or nuclear power plants, for example.

 

The common feature - and it's perhaps more easily seen in the flipped state of "what I don't understand will kill us all" - is the human difficulty in mentally handling risk, especially but not entirely in low unfamilar probability/high damage or high probability/low familiar damage scenarios.

[Tim the plumber]

The common feature - and it's perhaps more easily seen in the flipped state of "what I don't understand will kill us all" - is the human difficulty in mentally handling risk, especially but not entirely in low unfamilar probability/high damage or high probability/low familiar damage scenarios.

Yes, there are those who handle risk daily in their lives. Police, construction workers, soldiers etc. Then there are those who sit in offices. They don't cope very well with risk at all especially when they cannot have some sort of authoritive figure to hold on to. Their reasoning falls down.

 

Do you fully understand the workings of the rail trafic signaling system? Then how can you use the train?

 

We do not fully understand the effect of increased CO2 in the air. We do understand that the process of humans putting lots of it into the air will be short lived (next couple of decades before we have something better) and that the effects will be very minor if any.

 

I do get the exact same arguments fired at me when ever any slight climate change is mentioned. Increased humidity of arctic air over Greenland is unlikley to cause significant trouble with trafic flows.

 

Oceanic heating will not cause significant thermal expansion. I could site various papers on it but let's just stick to the IPCC's.

 

"How many second rate scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?"

 

"CHANGE???!!!"