What are your beliefs on climate change?

[Murphy101]

Didn't read thread...

 

My opinion/belief?

 

It doesn't matter in so far as deciding what needs to be done.

 

What part of reduce, reuse, recycle is considered a bad idea regardless of climate change?

 

If climate change is a myth - does that make the three Rs stupid or pointless? I don't think so.

 

To me the entire focus on climate change is stupid.

 

The focus should be on the fact that the three Rs, in that order, are just good stewardship and for most people, just good economic sense.

 

We have let too much happen that makes it cheaper and easier to not do those things than to do them.

 

For example, there's incentives to make newer planned obsolete yet more energy efficient cars and appliances. But little incentive to make the ones already out last longer and use less. I'd like to see ways to reduce need for more and reuse what's already out there than the constant buy more crap efforts currently in place.

 

Climate change or not, I think that's just smarter in general.

 

There's so much hyping climate change and arguing about it, when I think the focus should be on making these things most people would think are good happen regardless.

[creekland]

 

As a direct result on this increase in CO₂ levels in our atmosphere, the Earth is greening rapidly: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds:

 

This greening is a very good thing for living things on the planet Earth.

 

The link between carbon dioxide and global temperatures is MUCH harder to make since it is such a minor effect.

 

As I have previously noted, the temperatures on Earth are regulated by the oceans, which have a heat capacity of 2100 times that of the atmosphere.  ONLY sunlight can heat the water in the oceans from above (there is a very small contribution from underwater volcanic activity).  This heating is modulated by global cloud cover.

 

The ONLY influence CO₂ has on the temperature of the Earth's oceans is that it ever-so-slightly reduces the loss of heat from the ocean surface.  This effect is so small that it is unmeasurable and is about two orders of magnitude smaller than that of clouds.  As a result of all the additional CO₂ the top 1 micron of the surface of the ocean is less cool than it would otherwise by about only 0.0005K.

 

...

 

No argument.  Humans absolutely have an effect on the planet.  I think two of the biggest effects is urban heat island effect, (which is much of what we see in the surface temperature record) and impacts on water.  Here is an excellent speech which details the issue with drought that CA is facing, detailing many of the influences man has on that situation

 

 

The greening of the earth is both good (more of it) and bad (species changes due to it).  That's the simplified version of it, of course.

 

And as I mentioned, intelligent people disagree about how much effect the increasing carbon dioxide has on our planet (the Greenhouse Effect).  There are plenty who think the warming of our oceans IS directly related:

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-heat

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature

 

There's no doubt the ocean is warming (and storing more heat).  I suspect it's doubtful (for many) that the change is all due to cloud cover.  ;)

 

What it all means for the future of our planet remains to be seen.

 

Urban heat - yes.  It's plentiful.  

 

Changes in our storms, deserts, rainfall amounts, etc, yes (esp locations of occurrences).  They are happening (or so it seems anyway).  We're still collecting data really.  But some of us definitely want pro-Green enforcement, not de-regulation, because it's good for our planet (and us) regardless of whether the changes have any effect on the Greenhouse or not.  

 

Money is a man-made invention.   Greed is a human attribute.  We need to not let those two override what is important in the long run.  We don't need to get caught up in debates about all the horse race odds of what might happen taking our mind off the goal while the greedy say "I got mine - sucks to be them" of our later generations (or those stuck in polluted areas now).

 

I understand the arguments for/against/whatever.  My main response was to someone who seemed to be doubting that the climate was changing.  I hadn't heard that before (from knowledgeable folks).  There's certainly enough data out there showing it is (and you agree too).  We can debate all the "what ifs" all we want - mostly out of curiosity.  I just don't want to lose the goal - keep our planet as healthy as we can.

[swimmermom3]

The belief that CO₂ is significant can ONLY be supported by ignoring the tiny value of the forcing and claiming that the percent of global cloud cover does not change.  But we have the data:  global cloud cover DROPPED approximately 3% during the 1990s, equating to an additional amount of LONGWAVE forcing that is about 10 W/m².  At that time, the SHORTWAVE forcing from CO₂ was on the the order of 0.3 W/m².  In other words, the effect of CO₂ was about 1/30^th of the forcing due to the change in the cloud cover and completely unable to penetrate the surface of the oceans.  This is the clear reason why the global average temperature closely tracks the global cloud cover.

 

The tiny amount of warming that will come from CO₂ if we ever DO get to a doubling will be a welcome benefit to life on Earth, especially when combined with the greening and drought protection that comes with the increase in CO₂ concentration.

 

 

So if I follow all of your arguments and science, then extensive deforestation, and dramatic increases in burning coal, oil, and natural gas would be phenomenal for the Earth and its inhabitants?  We should be doing everything we can to increase CO2 emissions?

 

[Guest]

Murphy, that's pretty much where I'm at on this.

 

Personally I'm pretty neutral - I think the evidence points to cyclical massive global climate swings as being the norm over history, irrespective of the input of man (the question of extent is the golden one, not that they don't affect it but how much?), but that stewardship of resources and environment is a separate and important issue that matters very much since we all live here. So I'm for policies that best balance management and human flourishing, without sacrificing one for the other.

 

When it comes to the climate it will do what it will do and I have no interest in making things worse through irresponsibility. I'm not sure we can say how much human tampering has affects the climate and am wary of policies that seek to blame human activity for something that has been occurring for centuries, and then exert excess regulation and control based on that. But basic management of waste, production, resources, and human spread? Tight control on water and air quality? No problem. But I don't look at the climate and see clear cause and effect with human behavior for everything we note, either, especially in light of the historical data we do have.

 

When we have buildings in town that achieve LEED gold status and actually have to be heated and cooled at the same time in different zones because of their awful design? Or appliances dying sooner and never paying their high cost off that was originally touted as a way to be energy efficient and save money? Asking for clean energy and then decrying all nuclear? There are some actionable policy reforms that could be undertaken to help manage our resources better and waste less for the sake of everyone - those are where I spend my energy, not so much on hand wringing over climate change.

 

I'm well read on the subject but definitely don't feel strongly on it as so many on this thread do - hence why I asked my context question, to see what seemed to be the persuasive genesis for others on this topic and hear what they had to say.

[swimmermom3]

The greening of the earth is both good (more of it) and bad (species changes due to it).  That's the simplified version of it, of course.

 

And as I mentioned, intelligent people disagree about how much effect the increasing carbon dioxide has on our planet (the Greenhouse Effect).  There are plenty who think the warming of our oceans IS directly related:

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-heat

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature

 

There's no doubt the ocean is warming (and storing more heat).  I suspect it's doubtful (for many) that the change is all due to cloud cover.   ;)

 

What it all means for the future of our planet remains to be seen.

 

Urban heat - yes.  It's plentiful.  

 

Changes in our storms, deserts, rainfall amounts, etc, yes (esp locations of occurrences).  They are happening (or so it seems anyway).  We're still collecting data really.  But some of us definitely want pro-Green enforcement, not de-regulation, because it's good for our planet (and us) regardless of whether the changes have any effect on the Greenhouse or not.  

 

Money is a man-made invention.   Greed is a human attribute.  We need to not let those two override what is important in the long run.  We don't need to get caught up in debates about all the horse race odds of what might happen taking our mind off the goal while the greedy say "I got mine - sucks to be them" of our later generations (or those stuck in polluted areas now).

 

I understand the arguments for/against/whatever.  My main response was to someone who seemed to be doubting that the climate was changing.  I hadn't heard that before (from knowledgeable folks).  There's certainly enough data out there showing it is (and you agree too).  We can debate all the "what ifs" all we want - mostly out of curiosity.  I just don't want to lose the goal - keep our planet as healthy as we can.

 

My belief is that when many people hear the rhetoric of climate change deniers, they then believe that environmental conservation is unnecessary, so pollute, consume, destroy all you want because it's okay.  I think your point in bold is important and my fear is we are definitely losing sight of that goal.

 

 

[RegGuheert]

So if I follow all of your arguments and science, then extensive deforestation, and dramatic increases in burning coal, oil, and natural gas would be phenomenal for the Earth and its inhabitants?  We should be doing everything we can to increase CO2 emissions?

 

 

No: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/631508-implementing-the-ministry-of-truth-the-fake-news-scare/?p=7330342

 

I will point out that massive deforestation is currently underway in the name of saving the planet.  Forests in North Carolina are being leveled, ground into wood pellets, put onto ships and sent to England to burn in the Drax power plant in order to meet arbitrary regulations set by the EU.  Similar deforestation is being done in Asia to meet EU regulations.  I do fight against this type of insanity.  Fortunately, I believe some of the environmental groups in Europe have finally gotten the attention of the government and helped them to understand how ridiculous these regulations are.

 

[SKL]

I don't understand why nobody ever talks about the people and places who benefit from global warming.  And also those who will suffer most from regulations intended to stop the human factor.

 

Isn't there some evidence that warming etc. would increase crop yields for poor people living in mountain and desert areas?

 

What are the human effects of cutting production in the name of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle?  How many jobs lost, and what will happen to the people losing those jobs?  Hint:  most of the lost jobs would probably be in poor countries where the jobs are literally keeping families alive.  We don't have replacement jobs for them, I don't think.  So that needs to be part of the discussion.

 

I'm not a wasteful person myself; "less is more" is one of my favorite mottos.  I'm not pro-dirty earth.  I'm just saying that we need to remember that there are multiple dimensions to the climate change story, especially if human behavior is a factor.  If indeed some people have reason to worry, the solution needs to take into account all the other people who are affected in other ways.

 

And saying "it's not that simple" does not equal being a denier.

 

Another thought is that the methods used to collect climate data have no doubt changed over time, suggesting that we may be comparing apples to oranges.  Hopefully the actual climate scientists are controlling for that, but I've seen other similar oversights.

Edited December 15, 2016 by SKL

[Guest]

For what it is worth most of those I know who'd be lumped in the insulting category of 'denier' (myself included, depending on who is casting aspersions) actually are for diversified energy, conservation, and sensible use and yield policies. Including the EPA pick who has gotten so much flack. There is a lot of hyperbole that flies around in these debates but very few are burning tires in protest on earth day.

 

It's frustrating that one must apparently be all in with Captain Planet or they hate science and want to destroy the very planet they inhabit.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[creekland]

My belief is that when many people hear the rhetoric of climate change deniers, they then believe that environmental conservation is unnecessary, so pollute, consume, destroy all you want because it's okay.  I think your point in bold is important and my fear is we are definitely losing sight of that goal.

 

 

 

This is why when I'm teaching about in (inside class or out), I break that part away from the argument.  Every student I've ever had will agree to wanting clean air/water/etc.  No student has wanted our air pollution levels to match city areas of China.  No student has been impressed (favorably) with the Pacific Trash Vortex.

 

There are basics we can all agree upon and I don't want the two topics getting morphed together causing those who don't believe in humans affecting climate change to agree to more pollution by default.

 

Otherwise, I teach climate change (itself) as a fact, along with the facts associated with it (increase in CO2, warming of the air and oceans) and then let them know all sorts of theories/ideas, etc, as just that - theories/ideas and what data we have that can support them vs what is just reasoning.  We do not have enough data to extrapolate beyond the shadow of a doubt into the future as to exactly what will happen, but we have some decent potential ideas that are built upon reasoning with the data we have.  Kids should know those.  They should just never forget the real aspects of what pollution and overuse of our resources does - beyond a shadow of a doubt - regardless of what they think is true of humans affecting what's going on climate-wise.

[creekland]

I don't understand why nobody ever talks about the people and places who benefit from global warming.  And also those who will suffer most from regulations intended to stop the human factor.

 

You're obviously not in my classes, because these factors are included in our discussions.  

 

With climate change happening, it's stuff kids need to know.  

 

With the human factor, destroying our planet will always be limited in scope as the product is in limited supply.  Hopefully as the generation I teach grows up they are more open to promoting other ideas (like eco-tourism vs cutting down the rainforest/poaching, or retraining coal/stone miners, etc).

 

We don't expect there to be as many harness makers now that the horse & buggy isn't the favored mode of travel in many places, so those harness makers have other jobs.  That needs to be the plan - what other job can work?

[Murphy101]

My belief is that when many people hear the rhetoric of climate change deniers, they then believe that environmental conservation is unnecessary, so pollute, consume, destroy all you want because it's okay. I think your point in bold is important and my fear is we are definitely losing sight of that goal.

 

 

I'm sure those people exist, but I I have heard it's okay attitudes because what's the point if climate change is going to screw us all anyways?

 

I think some people are just wasteful or selfish regardless of their excuse.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

I don't understand why nobody ever talks about the people and places who benefit from global warming. And also those who will suffer most from regulations intended to stop the human factor.

 

Isn't there some evidence that warming etc. would increase crop yields for poor people living in mountain and desert areas?

 

What are the human effects of cutting production in the name of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle? How many jobs lost, and what will happen to the people losing those jobs? Hint: most of the lost jobs would probably be in poor countries where the jobs are literally keeping families alive. We don't have replacement jobs for them, I don't think. So that needs to be part of the discussion.

 

I'm not a wasteful person myself; "less is more" is one of my favorite mottos. I'm not pro-dirty earth. I'm just saying that we need to remember that there are multiple dimensions to the climate change story, especially if human behavior is a factor. If indeed some people have reason to worry, the solution needs to take into account all the other people who are affected in other ways.

 

And saying "it's not that simple" does not equal being a denier.

 

Another thought is that the methods used to collect climate data have no doubt changed over time, suggesting that we may be comparing apples to oranges. Hopefully the actual climate scientists are controlling for that, but I've seen other similar oversights.

Many of those jobs do not support nor better those people anyways. New jobs and an interest in bettering their lives could just as easily be a boon to them. The three Rs does not have to mean job losses, so much as job shifting.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Without the namecalling, please.

[RegGuheert]

There's no doubt the ocean is warming (and storing more heat).

 

Of course there is.  Firstly, the sampling of the temperature of the ocean is extremely difficult.  Most do not realize that the network of Argo floats that are currently measuring the heat content in the global oceans showed that the oceans were COOLING, but NASA decided to "correct" the results so that they instead show warming.  Is the correction correct?  I don't have any way to know.  But I know that it reversed the measurement trend from cooling to warming.  What's funny here is that they changed the Argo results based on the *corrected* sea-level rise from satellites which run significantly higher than the tidal gauges around the Earth.  Simply put, lots of results have been pushed in only one direction.

 

 

 

 

There's no doubt the ocean is warming (and storing more heat).  I suspect it's doubtful (for many) that the change is all due to cloud cover.   ;)

 

There's a reason you don't see global cloud cover splashed on the nightly news: you cannot tax people for clouds.

 

But some of us definitely want pro-Green enforcement, not de-regulation, because it's good for our planet (and us) regardless of whether the changes have any effect on the Greenhouse or not.

 

This is where we can disagree.  Many of these regulations do significantly more harm than good.  Some of my most-hated green projects are as follows:

 

- Destroying Germany by leveling forests and covering the landscape with wind generators.

- Putting wind generators into the North Sea that will likely consume massively more fossil fuels than any coal power plant would due to the huge amount of maintenance that must be done from ships in that harsh environment.

- Ivanpah thermal solar generator which fries massive quantities of birds and bugs and burns as much natural gas as a (smaller) natural gas plant which could produce electricity whenever needed.  I have calculated that the over $2B wasted on this destructive plant could have been spent putting 5 kW of PV on 100,000 homes in CA, thus eliminating the power bill of all of these customers. That solution would not kill birds or bugs, would not destroy a massive swath of the desert and would produced distributed power which is much more valuable than centralized power.  Instead, the government sponsored large corporations to produce one of the most costly and damaging solar plants in the world.

- Cutting down forests in North Carolina and shipping them to Britain to burn in an electricity power plant.

- Putting hydrogen cars on the highways.  These cars are the most damaging vehicles put on the road today.  They consume massively more resources than any gasoline-powered vehicle.  No hydrogen car should ever be fielded when a battery-electric car can fulfill the job.

 

By making up an imaginary villain instead of addressing the real issues of pollution and resource consumption head-on, these are the kinds of nonsense projects that result.  What needs to be done is we need to make steady, measured steps which move us in the correct direction rather than the knee-jerk reaction which is currently ongoing.

 

Trust me, this kind of waste done in the name of "saving the planet" is a very clear indication to many that something is seriously wrong with the regulations being put into place.

[SKL]

Many of those jobs do not support nor better those people anyways. New jobs and an interest in bettering their lives could just as easily be a boon to them. The three Rs does not have to mean job losses, so much as job shifting.

 

Job shifting will be most likely necessary, but that is a very long-term development, and we in the US have little or no control over that.

 

Those non-green jobs are actual subsistence for many people who have no other real choice.

 

It's just not as simple as some people make it sound.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed quote from deleted post

[creekland]

This is where we can disagree.  Many of these regulations do significantly more harm than good.  Some of my most-hated green projects are as follows:

 

- Destroying Germany by leveling forests and covering the landscape with wind generators.

- Putting wind generators into the North Sea that will likely consume massively more fossil fuels than any coal power plant would due to the huge amount of maintenance that must be done from ships in that harsh environment.

- Ivanpah thermal solar generator which fries massive quantities of birds and bugs and burns as much natural gas as a (smaller) natural gas plant which could produce electricity whenever needed.  I have calculated that the over $2B wasted on this destructive plant could have been spent putting 5 kW of PV on 100,000 homes in CA, thus eliminating the power bill of all of these customers. That solution would not kill birds or bugs, would not destroy a massive swath of the desert and would produced distributed power which is much more valuable than centralized power.  Instead, the government sponsored large corporations to produce one of the most costly and damaging solar plants in the world.

- Cutting down forests in North Carolina and shipping them to Britain to burn in an electricity power plant.

- Putting hydrogen cars on the highways.  These cars are the most damaging vehicles put on the road today.  They consume massively more resources than any gasoline-powered vehicle.  No hydrogen car should ever be fielded when a battery-electric car can fulfill the job.

 

By making up an imaginary villain instead of addressing the real issues of pollution and resource consumption head-on, these are the kinds of nonsense projects that result.  What needs to be done is we need to make steady, measured steps which move us in the correct direction rather than the knee-jerk reaction which is currently ongoing.

 

Trust me, this kind of waste done in the name of "saving the planet" is a very clear indication to many that something is seriously wrong with the regulations being put into place.

 

I don't recall ever saying which projects I was for or against.  Like anything else, we talk more about the pros and cons of various general options like trash to energy and hydropower in classes I'm in.  I figure if I can teach the next generation to think, it does more good than making lists of good/bad for them to memorize.  Every option has pros and cons.  One needs to weigh them out.

 

We spend more time talking about little things they can do such as walking or cycling vs driving.  Even that has pros and cons, of course, esp distance and route.  The "route" part can lead into designing places with bike paths, etc.

[creekland]

Job shifting will be most likely necessary, but that is a very long-term development, and we in the US have little or no control over that.

 

Those non-green jobs are actual subsistence for many people who have no other real choice.

 

It's just not as simple as some people make it sound.

 

It's more simple when more people support it - things like Fair Trade Products.

 

It's not as simple when people throw up their hands saying they can't change the world, so do nothing and support nothing.  Perhaps they can't change the world, but many people changing one small part can lead to changing the world.

[SKL]

It's more simple when more people support it - things like Fair Trade Products.

 

It's not as simple when people throw up their hands saying they can't change the world, so do nothing and support nothing.  Perhaps they can't change the world, but many people changing one small part can lead to changing the world.

 

OK but why is it assumed that when I say "it's not as simple as some make it sound" that equals "throw up our hands and do nothing"?

 

[Murphy101]

Job shifting will be most likely necessary, but that is a very long-term development, and we in the US have little or no control over that.

 

Calling BS doesn't change the fact that those non-green jobs are actual subsistence for many people who have no other real choice.

 

It's just not as simple as some people make it sound.

Of course it's a long term development. It's not going to get shorter term by bickering and waiting to do anything. I call BS that it's somehow doing poor places a favor by not insisting on better.

 

It IS simple. Feeding and educating people is only complicated if the people who are already fed and educated can't be bothered to share their largess. Which they have largely been able to afford to accumulate directly because of how little choice and provision is made to others.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Murphy101

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's more simple when more people support it - things like Fair Trade Products.

 

It's not as simple when people throw up their hands saying they can't change the world, so do nothing and support nothing.  Perhaps they can't change the world, but many people changing one small part can lead to changing the world.

 

If indeed they are fair and the companies engaging in the business aren't just using the "fair trade" idea as a means to increase profits.  I know...I know..here I go and get all not trusting of motives.  But no, I don't necessarily trust the motives of some of these companies because at the end of the day it's a lot about profits.

It's like when we had the discussion here about plastic bags and I simply wanted a washable bag and someone showed me some lovely bags that cost over $20 per bag.  And me scoffing over such a high price for a freaking bag equaled well I just don't care.  I'm not willing to be a part of the cause because I don't want to spend over $20 on a freaking bag.

 

Like the guy who brags about his green house and how he has gone green...and look at me how green I am and I've reduced my carbon footprint.  Oh yeah and by the way my house is 500,000 square feet and I live on 150,000 acres of land.  But I've "gone green". 

 

Then that all starts to feel like an indulgence for the very well off. 

 

You know who is helping the planet?  The poor shmuck who sits on the freezing cold city bus everyday.  Way more so than the guy who has the latest expensive electric car and the zillion dollar green property.   

 

I know, this post probably feels quite random.  I haven't read all responses here, but these are some of the thoughts I have.  Some people have swooped down into this thread and others and instead of listening and having a real discussion just call other people stupid.  Stupid for asking questions.  Stupid for not just repeating the right words.  Why bother talking?  That's not talking.  (And I don't mean to aim this all at you, but the fair trade comment stands out to me). 

[creekland]

OK but why is it assumed that when I say "it's not as simple as some make it sound" that equals "throw up our hands and do nothing"?

 

 

Because that's the natural step of "what happens" when I hear that statement IRL.  It may, or may not, apply to any individual I don't know.  Those I know IRL who try to do something also follow up the "It's not that simple" with what they are trying or contributing toward and the hopes they have of someday seeing a difference.

[SKL]

It IS simple. Feeding and educating people is only complicated if the people who are already fed and educated can't be bothered to share their largess. Which they have largely been able to afford to accumulate directly because of how little choice and provision is made to others.

 

OK, if you say so.

 

[Guest]

If indeed they are fair and the companies engaging in the business aren't just using the "fair trade" idea as a means to increase profits. I know...I know..here I go and get all not trusting of motives. But no, I don't necessarily trust the motives of some of these companies because at the end of the day it's a lot about profits.

It's like when we had the discussion here about plastic bags and I simply wanted a washable bag and someone showed me some lovely bags that cost over $20 per bag. And me scoffing over such a high price for a freaking bag equaled well I just don't care. I'm not willing to be a part of the cause because I don't want to spend over $20 on a freaking bag.

 

Like the guy who brags about his green house and how he has gone green...and look at me how green I am and I've reduced my carbon footprint. Oh yeah and by the way my house is 500,000 square feet and I live on 150,000 acres of land. But I've "gone green".

 

Then that all starts to feel like an indulgence for the very well off.

 

You know who is helping the planet? The poor shmuck who sits on the freezing cold city bus everyday. Way more so than the guy who has the latest expensive electric car and the zillion dollar green property.

 

I know, this post probably feels quite random. I haven't read all responses here, but these are some of the thoughts I have. Some people have swooped down into this thread and others and instead of listening and having a real discussion just call other people stupid. Stupid for asking questions. Stupid for not just repeating the right words. Why bother talking? That's not talking. (And I don't mean to aim this all at you, but the fair trade comment stands out to me).

I hear you - that's one of the reasons I do weird things like use cloth napkins and repair vintage sewing machines. And take as few trips in my giant mommy van as possible each week, even living in a commuter town I only drive it two, maybe three trips. These things are small and I don't think about the climate when I'm doing them - they are economic and behavioral choices I make to try and take care of the earth my kids are getting and not be wasteful. I still am not jumping on board the private jet to crazytown with Leonardo DiCaprio, I don't care how much of a green crusader he thinks he is.

[SKL]

Because that's the natural step of "what happens" when I hear that statement IRL.  It may, or may not, apply to any individual I don't know.  Those I know IRL who try to do something also follow up the "It's not that simple" with what they are trying or contributing toward and the hopes they have of someday seeing a difference.

 

Well again, it's not that simple - you don't know what people online here may or may not be doing outside of this discussion.  Just because I'm not telling my whole life story on this thread, that doesn't mean I'm not doing anything.  I've actually been doing a lot of things for years.  Would you believe my law thesis was about incentives for job shifting away from deforestation?  Would you believe I used to work for a company that educated people about saving the rainforests?  And I financially support the education of many kids in developing countries, among other things.  But what I can do is not going to create happy new lives for the hundreds of millions of people who are affected by "simple" decisions.  The issue is a lot bigger than me, and it's bigger than the USA or the Western hemisphere or the whole developed world.

[creekland]

Well again, it's not that simple - you don't know what people online here may or may not be doing outside of this discussion.  

 

I thought I just said it may or may not apply to any individual I don't know... so honestly, where I got my statement from (answering the question you asked) IS that simple.

[creekland]

 

Then that all starts to feel like an indulgence for the very well off. 

 

You know who is helping the planet?  The poor shmuck who sits on the freezing cold city bus everyday.  Way more so than the guy who has the latest expensive electric car and the zillion dollar green property.    

 

This is why we spend far more time emphasizing the little things kids can do to help in their lives.  Those little things not only add up, they can be done.  The rest we talk about in general.  One never knows who can, or can't, do anything meaningful about them.  They can, however, always know how they feel (in general) about anything they come across - looking at the pros and cons of them, of course.

 

Yes, many things that can be done require extra $$ in the budget.  I'm certainly not arguing that point.  But when buying things - kids can (often) make choices with their money.   When we shopped for souvenirs in a country with a 25% unemployment rate we made our choice to buy something locally made from coconuts (a renewable source) rather than common trinkets with Made in China labels on them.  Heck, we've done that in the US too - with locally made renewable options for the area.  And our lunch choice today was a locally owned/operated small Mexican place that knows our typical order without us having to say it.

 

We like supporting the "small guy" so not everyone has to work for or buy products from big business.

 

YMMV

[SKL]

I thought I just said it may or may not apply to any individual I don't know... so honestly, where I got my statement from (answering the question you asked) IS that simple.

 

Well it is "simple" to jump to the conclusion that a person saying "it's not that simple" means "throw up our hands and do nothing."  It's simple, but it's not logical and it's not helpful.  It's putting words in others' mouths in order to discredit them and whatever ideas they have expressed.

[creekland]

Well it is "simple" to jump to the conclusion that a person saying "it's not that simple" means "throw up our hands and do nothing."  It's simple, but it's not logical and it's not helpful.  It's putting words in others' mouths in order to discredit them and whatever ideas they have expressed.

 

What's that line you used?  If you say so...

 

Readers can make their own judgment.  I gave my honest explanation.

[treestarfae]

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise

 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1747

[swimmermom3]

Environmental conservation should be completely separated from the entire climate change issue.  We should be teaching people to work for clean air because it keeps US healthy.  We should be reducing/reusing/recycling because it keeps US healthy.  Renewable resources like solar power and planting more trees should be done because it's good for US.  Keeping our planet clean and using resources wisely is necessary because it keeps us healthier and makes our lives better, regardless of whether or not any of that has any impact on climate change. 

 

I have no disagreement with this.  I worry that the issues around climate change politics muddy or obliterate the conservation message.  My point was that many see denial as a free pass to deregulate businesses and muck up the progress we've made in cleaning up previous industrial dumping and other questionable practices.  We live in a city with a SuperFund site. We've attended the meetings. I think it's something like $746 million to clean up the crap.

 

[swimmermom3]

 

This is where we can disagree.  Many of these regulations do significantly more harm than good.  Some of my most-hated green projects are as follows:

 

- Destroying Germany by leveling forests and covering the landscape with wind generators.

- Putting wind generators into the North Sea that will likely consume massively more fossil fuels than any coal power plant would due to the huge amount of maintenance that must be done from ships in that harsh environment.

- Ivanpah thermal solar generator which fries massive quantities of birds and bugs and burns as much natural gas as a (smaller) natural gas plant which could produce electricity whenever needed.  I have calculated that the over $2B wasted on this destructive plant could have been spent putting 5 kW of PV on 100,000 homes in CA, thus eliminating the power bill of all of these customers. That solution would not kill birds or bugs, would not destroy a massive swath of the desert and would produced distributed power which is much more valuable than centralized power.  Instead, the government sponsored large corporations to produce one of the most costly and damaging solar plants in the world.

- Cutting down forests in North Carolina and shipping them to Britain to burn in an electricity power plant.

- Putting hydrogen cars on the highways.  These cars are the most damaging vehicles put on the road today.  They consume massively more resources than any gasoline-powered vehicle.  No hydrogen car should ever be fielded when a battery-electric car can fulfill the job.

 

By making up an imaginary villain instead of addressing the real issues of pollution and resource consumption head-on, these are the kinds of nonsense projects that result.  What needs to be done is we need to make steady, measured steps which move us in the correct direction rather than the knee-jerk reaction which is currently ongoing.

 

Trust me, this kind of waste done in the name of "saving the planet" is a very clear indication to many that something is seriously wrong with the regulations being put into place.

 

So what you are saying, if I can put this in really simplistic terms is sometimes we have practices or regulations in place that are not all that effective. No, that's not quite right.

 

Dh and I have a terrible environmental practice.  We are lazy and we buy organic salad in plastic tubs. :blushing:  We recycle the plastic tubs, but I read not too long ago that few of these tubs actually get recycled and most often they are warehoused.  Here, I think I am doing something great for the environment, but in fact I am looking at it all wrong. I should just buy the lettuce heads and wash those suckers. Maybe even leave the plastic bag at home.  Theoretically, this should have a greater impact.

 

Is this a small-scale example of what you are talking about?

I'll have to go explore some of you examples. Two months of insomnia have sucked my brain power dry.

 

[swimmermom3]

I understand that was the point.  My point is that removing the climate change message all together removes that "free pass."  Not that I believe there are all that many people who think that way. 

 

I'd like to send the ones I know your way then. :D

 

[Rosie_0801]

When I was a kid I remember 1 day that hit 40c (104f). Now we have several days like that most summers. One day hit 46c (114f).

 

That's just anecdotal and it could just be part of a larger climate cycle that we don't understand. But it's definitely happening and bushfires etc are becoming more intense and frequent seemingly.

 

Yeah, and bushfire season starts earlier than it did when we were kids. 

[RegGuheert]

So what you are saying, if I can put this in really simplistic terms is sometimes we have practices or regulations in place that are not all that effective.

 

 

Yes, that's part of what I am saying.  But there is more.  I will start with a statement that I frequently make to people after a couple of decades working personally with renewable energy solutions:

 

"Just because it is renewable does not mean that it is a good idea."

 

Here are the reasons I am so opposed to these types of "solutions":

 

- Most of the examples I gave cause MORE damage to the environment than what they are intended to replace.  (The lone exception may be the wind generators in the plains of Germany, but even there I think the jury is still out.)  Some of these "solutions" do SIGNIFICANTLY more damage to the environment than the incumbent technologies.  Specifically, it apparently costs as much as 100X the original wind generator cost to maintain those turbines in the North Sea.  There is NO WAY that ever makes sense.

- All of these examples cost significantly more than simply sticking with the status quo.

- The biggest issue I have with all of these examples is that by implementing them at high cost to the taxpayers and the environment, you create a massive backlash against renewable solutions in general.  Anybody who was once "on the fence" will learn that "these things do not work".  The classic example of this is the original wind turbines which were installed in Altamont Pass in CA in the very early days (1990s? 1980s).  Those things all failed a few years after they were installed and sat there for DECADES as a monument to how wind power does not work.

- In the case of the Ivanpah thermal solar generators, I feel that taxpayer funds were used to support ridiculously-foolish investments by large corporations.  That solar plant raises the rates for ALL ratepayers.  If PV modules had been installed on individuals homes instead, most of the environmental damage would have been eliminated and some ratepayers would have been able to eliminate their bills (instead of guaranteeing profits to the corporations who made these poor investments).

 

So, what should we do instead?  My thoughts:

 

- Spend most of the money on solutions that are mature and that can be deployed in a fashion that will actually be an improvement for the environment AND the budget.  Closer to the equator, that means installing photovoltaics.  Photovoltaics are now very inexpensive and extremely reliable.  That also means steadily ramping up battery electric vehicles as the battery technology improves.  The Chevy Bolt should start shipping this month with 235 miles of EPA (real) range.-

- We need a wind-based solution for higher latitudes, but the current-generation wind turbines leave a lot to be desired.  I am a big fan of KiteGen.  They are about start some full-scale tests of the technology.  By putting most of the mass on the ground and reaching much higher into the sky, this technology really does have the potential to replace baseload grid power.

- We need to continue to develop short-term storage technologies.  Home-based solutions for overnight storage from Tesla and Enphase are already down to about $0.15/kWh.  These are important for areas like Hawaii and parts of Australia where renewable penetration rates are very high, thus resulting in the suspension of normal net-metering possibilities.

- Finally, we need long-term storage solutions.  While I am opposed to using hydrogen for short-term storage applications like transportation due to the extremely low efficiencies, I think they may have some application in seasonal energy-shifting applications.  Germany is starting to do this by electrolyzing extra renewable energies and pumping it into their natural gas pipelines.  It is still low efficiency, but the cost of doing this is attractive and it is much more material-efficient than batteries when storage beyond about a week is needed.

 

The bottom line is that there are no easy answers.  We need to move forward in ways that work and try to carefully avoid the fraud which typically goes along with massive subsidies.  (This is a huge issue in Germany that is creating a real groundswell of backlash.)  Do not expect the transition to happen overnight.  It will take decades to occur.

[Bluegoat]

I don't understand why nobody ever talks about the people and places who benefit from global warming.  And also those who will suffer most from regulations intended to stop the human factor.

 

Isn't there some evidence that warming etc. would increase crop yields for poor people living in mountain and desert areas?

 

What are the human effects of cutting production in the name of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle?  How many jobs lost, and what will happen to the people losing those jobs?  Hint:  most of the lost jobs would probably be in poor countries where the jobs are literally keeping families alive.  We don't have replacement jobs for them, I don't think.  So that needs to be part of the discussion.

 

I'm not a wasteful person myself; "less is more" is one of my favorite mottos.  I'm not pro-dirty earth.  I'm just saying that we need to remember that there are multiple dimensions to the climate change story, especially if human behavior is a factor.  If indeed some people have reason to worry, the solution needs to take into account all the other people who are affected in other ways.

 

And saying "it's not that simple" does not equal being a denier.

 

Another thought is that the methods used to collect climate data have no doubt changed over time, suggesting that we may be comparing apples to oranges.  Hopefully the actual climate scientists are controlling for that, but I've seen other similar oversights.

 

My understanding is that a lot of biologists/ecologists and agricultural experts think that if we get the kind of warming it looks like we will, agricultural output worldwide will be reduced significantly, desertification will increase, and the oceans will have significant die-offs. 

[Bluegoat]

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

 

Part of it is that I know that when science first started talking about climate change, before monetary interests started to stick their oar in and it was just scientific, there really wasn't a controversy.  There was a lot of discussion about what it would look like, but not so much basic disagreement, and in fact conservative governments were really moving forward on it too - more even that the mainstream left is today.  So I have never been able to take the idea that there is a real scientific question all that seriously.

 

And then there is the basic data.  The climate is changing, and as time goes on we are seeing all the predictions coming true, faster than predicted.  These are things that we were told were just not going to happen.  (And its interesting that not that long ago the anti people tried to tell us it wasn't going to happen at all, whereas now they try and say it is just natural.)  There are some that I find really scary, like the failure of northern oceans to produce enough food for bird populations to breed.  My personal experience also fits in - my local climate has seen more and more dry summers and we're told we need to take measures for this in the future; our oceans have risen; we have rarely had enough frozen lakes to even skate on since I've been an adult - in my childhood there were horse races on the lakes every year, and so on.

 

It also always seemed probable to me that releasing that much CO2 would have an effect - just like I'd guess that dumping a lot of acid in a lake would.  More recently, I asked my dh, wo is an atmospheric chemist, about this - I asked if he had no other data about effects, and someone told him that much CO2 was put into the atmosphere, would he expect it to have an effect.  His answer was absolutely without question, and it was really a pretty simple calculation.

 

When people say there isn't enough data about this, I just can't figure out what it is they are asking for.

[Guest]

I have no disagreement with this.  I worry that the issues around climate change politics muddy or obliterate the conservation message.  My point was that many see denial as a free pass to deregulate businesses and muck up the progress we've made in cleaning up previous industrial dumping and other questionable practices.  We live in a city with a SuperFund site. We've attended the meetings. I think it's something like $746 million to clean up the crap.

 

 

We drove past the Brio superfund site today in Houston. I had friends and teachers who lived in the neighborhood built upon that site that had to be torn down in the 80's. It is stunning to me that it's now surrounded by neighborhoods built in the last few years. There's new construction all around it. I can't wrap my head around who would want to live anywhere near that place. I have to wonder if the people buying those houses have a clue why there is a massive land area with barbed wire fencing and warnings surrounding it. 

 

It still pisses me off to no end that this happened time and time again. Some of the most frustrating elements of this discussion to me are that we, the regular non-politicians or corporate magnates (I'm assuming), have so little power over so much of this. I mean we can RRR, but when we're talking about trying to compete with industries and undo the damage they've done, whether ill or well intentioned, it does get hard to not throw my hands in the air. We're talking about things that government officials and billionaires are largely responsible for, but pointing the finger at each other more than anything. We need to be pointing the finger (and you know which one) at the politicians and magnates past and present who knowingly, purposely, created these sites, but it seems many people would rather simply throw insults or work themselves into a tizzy (not saying you on the swimmermom- just generally) about actions yet to occur. I think we have enough to worry about with what we already know is going on than to try and predict the future. 

[treestarfae]

The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-global-warming-blamed-for-40-per-cent-decline-in-the-oceans-phytoplankton-2038074.html

 

The two main reasons for carbon dioxide increases- causing ocean acidification and ocean warming -

 

1. Burning fossil fuels

 

2. Cutting down forests

 

Gas from phytoplankton is responsible for a considerable proportion of aerosols in the atmosphere, which become condensation nuclei for cloud formation.

 

Less phytoplankton, less cloud cover.

 

Stop fossil fuel. Keep trees and phytoplankton.

 

[RegGuheert]

The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-global-warming-blamed-for-40-per-cent-decline-in-the-oceans-phytoplankton-2038074.html

 

The two main reasons for carbon dioxide increases- causing ocean acidification and ocean warming -

 

1. Burning fossil fuels

 

2. Cutting down forests

 

Gas from phytoplankton is responsible for a considerable proportion of aerosols in the atmosphere, which become condensation nuclei for cloud formation.

 

Less phytoplankton, less cloud cover.

 

Stop fossil fuel. Keep trees and phytoplankton.

 

The contention that phytoplankton suffer when the ocean warms is hardly credible.  In fact, a study published this year on phytoplankton in the Indian Ocean included maps which clearly indicate that phytoplankton production was stunted in areas where the ocean DIDN'T warm:

 

The entire issue of ocean acidification has been completely blown out of proportion with what is known and what can actually be measured.  So much so that in January of this year, the decided it was time to start to police their own and took the issue of lack of skepticism that exists in that area of science head-on and invited papers which would counteract the dramatic alarmism that existed in that area of science:

 

 

Ocean acidification†(OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO₂ by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO₂ on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish. Further, the mechanisms underlying the biological and ecological effects of OA have received little attention in most organismal groups, and some of the key mechanisms (e.g. calcification) are still incompletely understood. For these reasons, the ICES Journal of Marine Science solicited contributions to this special issue. In this introduction, I present a brief overview of the history of research on OA, call for a heightened level of organized (academic) scepticism to be applied to the body of work on OA, and briefly present the 44 contributions that appear in this theme issue. OA research has clearly matured, and is continuing to do so.

Simply put, unskeptical science is unhealthy science.  It's good that this journal recognizes the challenges authors face in getting unexciting results published.

 

 

Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973). Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…†of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers.

 

 

Many early studies on OA applied treatment levels that greatly exceeded even worst-case climate change scenarios and did not report water chemistry in sufficient detail to determine if the treatment mimicked future OA-driven seawater conditions. Although most recent work has improved with respect to treatment levels, mimicking future water chemistry remains tricky.

 

 

Almost all experiments conducted to assess OA are short-term toxicity challenges. Therefore, using them as the basis from which to make inferences about a process that will occur slowly over the next decades–centuries must be made with appropriate caution. That is, the experiments and the interpretations made from them must consider how populations might acclimatize, adapt, and evolve to climate change, including OA (e.g. Donelson et al., 2011; Hoffmann and Sgrò, 2011; Sunday et al., 2013; Harvey et al., 2014). Recent studies indicate that even the effects of OA that are considered most worrisome—various behavioural impairments resulting from short-term exposure to high CO₂ (see Nagelkerken and Munday, 2016)—might be reduced or overcome through adaptation and evolution (Regan et al., 2016).

 

 

Negative results—those that do not support a research hypothesis (e.g. OA will have detrimental effects on marine organisms)—can provide more balance for a subject area for which most published research reports positive results. Negative results can indicate that a subject area is not mature or clearly enough defined, or that our current methods and approaches are insufficient to produce a definitive result. Gould (1993) asserted that positive results tell more interesting stories than negative results and are, therefore, easier to write about and more interesting to read. He calls this a privileging of the positive. This privileging leads to a bias that acts against the propagation of negative results in the scholarly literature (see also Browman, 1999).

 

 

Jokiel (2016) revisits four key simplifying assumptions that have been made to assess how OA will impact coral reefs and finds that there is currently insufficient evidence to support them and that they should be further evaluated.

Knowing that a strong bias exists toward publishing scary stories should give everyone real pause to look much more skeptically at such stories.  This effect is further amplified by the press.  If you do not take this approach, you are likely to be fooled into thinking things are terrible when they actually are not.

 

It's refreshing to see that some in science are realizing that they are wandering away from reality in their publishing.  Unfortunately, much of the damage is already done and many people do not check their beliefs against the current research, particularly when the media persist in constantly publishing alarmism.

[Saddlemomma]

My "belief" is that it doesn't matter what "we" believe.  Climate change happens.  It happened in the past, it will happen in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it.  Nothing.  Sea levels will rise.  Sea levels will fall.  Temps will rise and fall.  The earth will move through periods of stability and instability.  Regardless of anything we, as humans do...these things will happen anyway.

 

My "belief" is that it doesn't *really* matter what impact humans have.  I think it's a given that humans, just like EVERY OTHER ANIMAL that has ever lived, of COURSE have an impact on our planet and it's climate.  And, of COURSE we should take steps to minimize our impact since we are thinking beings who are capable of making deliberate decisions.  Of course we should be as efficient as possible about our use of resources.  Of course we should find ways to keep our water clean, our air clean, etc etc.  If for no other reason than...we LIVE here and should keep our home clean. 

 

But, we cannot and should not try to stop change.  Change happens.  It's inevitable. 

 

What we should be doing, as humans living on Earth, is figure out the best ways to adapt to changes.  The Earth doesn't care if humans live or die, and we shouldn't be trying to change it to suit us.  The best way for humans to survive on earth is to figure out how to change ourselves to suit the Earth. 

 

You couldn't have stated this any better, and I couldn't "like" your comment enough.  This is totally how I look at the situation.  There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop Earth from undergoing its cyclical and natural changes.  The hysteria about a natural process that has been happening since the beginning of time just totally baffles me.  Let's figure out how to adapt to these changes rather than flailing against windmills.

[Guest]

I am not a climate scientist (obviously) and have an ignorant question. If scientists can't predict the weather more than a couple of days out (and even then it's dicey), can't predict earthquakes with much certainty, can't predict where tropical storms will head with certainty more than a day or two in advance, can't predict tornados etc. etc., WHY are they given so much credence on futuristic models where it's oftentimes taken as fact that A, B, or C is going to happen? 

 

I understand looking at patterns and that we can tell what previously went on, and that they definitely have better predictions than 50 years ago with satellite imagining and things, but they still aren't able to predict much of anything more than a few days out. I can't wrap my head around worrying about something that is 15 years out when that can't even tell me what the weather is going to do here Sunday. Again, not saying any of that to diminish that we need to be responsible for the planet- as a Christian for me that's a major directive of my faith. But it has nothing to do with a climate scientist telling me the future. I guess I'm trying to tease out the reasoning people (in general, not anyone particular here)  have for basing actions off of fear of the future rather than simply saying "this is the right thing to do," on a personal level for what we know NOW. Not what we think will happen. 

[RegGuheert]

I am not a climate scientist (obviously) and have an ignorant question. If scientists can't predict the weather more than a couple of days out (and even then it's dicey), can't predict earthquakes with much certainty, can't predict where tropical storms will head with certainty more than a day or two in advance, can't predict tornados etc. etc., WHY are they given so much credence on futuristic models where it's oftentimes taken as fact that A, B, or C is going to happen?

 

That is the correct question to ask.  In fact, it is currently IMPOSSIBLE to accurately simulate the future climate on the Earth.  I will give several different forms of support for that claim:

 

1)  As you are indicating, the equations which must be solved in order to predict the future climate are chaotic, meaning they are extremely sensitive to initial conditions.  Recently I read that the initial conditions for the current class of climate models were perturbed by 1-one-millionth of a degree Celsius and the results varied from rapid warming to rapid cooling.  That is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions!  (Sorry, I cannot recall where I read that one.)

 

2)  The mathematics to solve the Navier-Stokes equation does not exist.  In fact, it is not possible to prove that a solution to that equation even exists and/or if it is unique!

 

3)  The science behind many of the important contributors to the climate simply are not understood at this time.  For instance, why and how clouds form is still largely unknown.  Some mechanisms are fairly-well understood while others are just being discovered.  In cases like this, the climate models simply make guesses about what would happen.  This is known as parameterization.  Here is what the IPCC has to say about parameterization:

 

Climate models are derived from fundamental physical laws (such as Newton’s laws of motion), which are then subjected to physical approximations appropriate for the large-scale climate system, and then further approximated through mathematical discretization. Computational constraints restrict the resolution that is possible in the discretized equations, and some representation of the large-scale impacts of unresolved processes is required (the parametrization problem).

 

 

Parametrizations are typically based in part on simplified physical models of the unresolved processes (e.g., entraining plume models in some convection schemes). The parametrizations also involve numerical parameters that must be specified as input. Some of these parameters can be measured, at least in principle, while others cannot. It is therefore common to adjust parameter values (possibly chosen from some prior distribution) in order to optimise Model Simulation of particular variables or to improve global heat balance. This process is often known as ‘tuning’.

 

 

4)  Modern supercomputers do not have the capability to simulate the future climate states accurately into the future even if we did know all the science and math to solve them.  For a detailed discussion of what scientists currently face when trying, here is an interesting and entertaining lecture on the topic:

 

 

5)  Some of the math used in the basic climate models is simply incorrect.  The following video gives details of several issues which were recently uncovered.  A paper is submitted on this topic and hopefully will be accepted for publication soon:

 

 

Doesn't Christopher Monckton look like Rodney Dangerfield? The guy is a scream! :lol:

 

6)  Significant structural errors have been uncovered in the basic models used for climate simulation by a simulation expert from Australia named Dr. David Evans.  He has written a long, detailed series of technical blog posts on this topic.  Two papers on this work have been accepted for publication (one paper covers the mistakes in the current model and the other covers a proposed new model).  Here is the link to the first in the series of 26 posts on this topic:  New science 1: Pushing the edge of climate research back to the new old way of doing science.  I highly recommend this series to anyone wishing to understand what is behind the climate models.  He goes over the underlying model in great detail before providing critical analysis of some of its structural flaws.  Interestingly, he provides his criticism without challenging ANY of the physics behind the models.  Instead, he challenges they ways in which feedbacks are represented in the models and that they do not capture how the Earth really functions.

 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to follow through this entire series because there are other blog posts interspersed within the series (which stretches over a year of time).  The best I can offer is to do this search and then go to older posts until you get to the beginning.  Then look for posts which begin with "New Science".

 

7)  When climate simulations have made predictions for dates which have come to pass, they have almost universally been incorrect.  All simulation results from climate simulations should be looked upon with a VERY skeptical eye!

 

 

The bottom line is that it is simply impossible to accurately simulate some things.  The climate is not alone in this regard.  It is impossible accurately perform a full transistor-level simulation of most microcircuits today.  There are some recent improvements in the area of massively-parallel time-domain simulation which bring that possibility closer to reality, but suffice it to say that with most chips only small blocks are simulated in gory detail and the overall chip is simulated as a bunch of parameterized behavioral blocks all tied together.

[treestarfae]

RegGuheert- That's a good question of what is killing the phytoplankton. If it's not warming, could it be acidification? Warming would be a result of when the phytoplankton are dead. We lose the dimethyl sulfide gas from phytoplankton for cloud formation. There are clues to what is killing phytoplankton in this link from Woods Hole.Oceanographic Institute.

 

Short-circuiting the Biological Pump- http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/short-circuiting-the-biological-pump

 

texasmom33- you are saying short term regional uncertainty compares to a long term global phenomena? Warming is only one reaction that we are focusing on and it's results.

 

Here's a list from Nasa about human impact on global warming http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Bluegoat]

I am not a climate scientist (obviously) and have an ignorant question. If scientists can't predict the weather more than a couple of days out (and even then it's dicey), can't predict earthquakes with much certainty, can't predict where tropical storms will head with certainty more than a day or two in advance, can't predict tornados etc. etc., WHY are they given so much credence on futuristic models where it's oftentimes taken as fact that A, B, or C is going to happen? 

 

I understand looking at patterns and that we can tell what previously went on, and that they definitely have better predictions than 50 years ago with satellite imagining and things, but they still aren't able to predict much of anything more than a few days out. I can't wrap my head around worrying about something that is 15 years out when that can't even tell me what the weather is going to do here Sunday. Again, not saying any of that to diminish that we need to be responsible for the planet- as a Christian for me that's a major directive of my faith. But it has nothing to do with a climate scientist telling me the future. I guess I'm trying to tease out the reasoning people (in general, not anyone particular here)  have for basing actions off of fear of the future rather than simply saying "this is the right thing to do," on a personal level for what we know NOW. Not what we think will happen. 

 

I just asked my dh this - he works for meteorological services so does a fair bit of weather stuff.  He's working on a paper at the moment in the basement and so gave me a rather laconic answer - "It's not the same at all."

[MistyMountain]

The info that is being posted on wind farms and phytoplankton and other topics is not good information. I have done life cycle cost benefit analysis on all different energy types and of course maintainable costs are included in that. Wind is not perfect and cannot meet all our energy demands but it does have a low resource demand compared to other energy sources. Watts and other sites posted are very junky sites comparable to infowar a or natural earth news. Wotts up tackles what they post. The best way to read though on topics is on the journal articles. I used to have access but no longer do.

 

I had no epiphany moment with climate change. I lived in a state with a good science curriculum and did a lot of reading on my own. Then when I went to college I loved reading the journal articles I had access too. Carbon dioxide may only be in the atmosphere in small percentiles but it effects are not debated. Human actions are affecting the climate which in turn is causing big changes in the ecosystem and causing lots of plants and animals to go extinct.

Edited December 16, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Murphy101]

I just asked my dh this - he works for meteorological services so does a fair bit of weather stuff. He's working on a paper at the moment in the basement and so gave me a rather laconic answer - "It's not the same at all."

Hmmm. I would think that even though it's called climate change, it's really geological change? Geology has a better predictive chance of accuracy?

[Guest]

RegGuheert- That's a good question of what is killing the phytoplankton. If it's not warming, could it be acidification? Warming would be a result of when the phytoplankton are dead. We lose the dimethyl sulfide gas from phytoplankton for cloud formation. There are clues to what is killing phytoplankton in this link from Woods Hole.Oceanographic Institute.

 

Short-circuiting the Biological Pump- http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/short-circuiting-the-biological-pump

 

texasmom33- you are saying short term regional uncertainty compares to a long term global phenomena? Warming is only one reaction that we are focusing on and it's results.

 

Here's a list from Nasa about human impact on global warming http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

No, I'm asking how they can predict anything out long range. Also, define "long term". I can understand if there were cyclical earth cycles on an obvious basis with no other factors coming into play, but when you throw in the variables of human interaction I don't understand how anything at all can be predictive. There seem to be too many variables that could change anything. Again, not even close to a climate scientist, but I things like a single volcanic eruption can cause mass chaos. Without being able to account for things like that, I don't understand the long term predictive value. You would have to assume some sort of homeostasis of human activity and environmental activity it would seem for the models to have any chance of being accurate at all. At least that's how it seems to me. If that's not the case, I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why things like that don't matter. 

 

(PS- On many painkillers and meds at the moment post-surgery, so if I'm being dense on some of this, please forgive me. I'm a bit incapacitated and trying to follow a complex conversation. :) ) 

[Guest]

I just asked my dh this - he works for meteorological services so does a fair bit of weather stuff.  He's working on a paper at the moment in the basement and so gave me a rather laconic answer - "It's not the same at all."

 

 

When he finishes in the basement see if he will come explain to us. :) 

[hornblower]

I just want to ask - have any of you guys reading this thread actually read all the IPCC documents? 

Because many questions that are being asked are explained in quite a lot of detail there. A lot of detail. 

It's all free, all available online, all referenced to journals. 

I'm not saying it will convince you, but it would explain a lot of underlying premises - which of course you could then question but with more background information. 


I'll readily admit I have not slogged through all of the 5th Report. I did read pretty much all of 4th when it came out.

 

But at this point, I'm quite happy to let the subject matter experts (SMEs) handle this, to do the math, run the calculations. The science is one thing. The policy of 'what do we do about it' is another thing. And how it will affect economies, is yet another aspect. Those are all separate though linked issues but again, at some point I have to let the SMEs make the decisions. 

 

I don't need to know how to do the surgery I recently had either - I did do some research, asked some questions but at the end, I put my trust in the subject matter experts. 

 

While there has been good progress made on inquiry & intellectual curiousity and not just believing stuff because 'an authority said so', at the same time the world is too complicated & the body of knowledge is too big for one person to understand it all. We HAVE to rely on subject matter experts and have some trust in the knowledge of others.  Much of the anti intellectualism I'm seeing is rooted in what often veers into paranoia.  & as I said (I think in this thread?) it's not skepticism, it's often solipsism.  

We can't function if we don't have an element of trust in the scientists and engineers who build our world & keep it running. I don't inspect all the rivets on every plane I go on..... 

Edited December 16, 2016 by hornblower

[RegGuheert]

I'll readily admit I have not slogged through all of the 5th Report. I did read pretty much all of 4th when it came out.

 

But at this point, I'm quite happy to let the subject matter experts (SMEs) handle this, to do the math, run the calculations. 

 

So you are happy to accept what the experts wrote in AR5 about the possibility of what is discussed in the OP of this thread? Specifically, that the IPCC has HIGH CONFIDENCE that it is EXCEPTIONALLY UNLIKELY that either Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets will suffer near-complete disintegration at any time within the 21st century.

 

That would be a good start.

 

It's a bit hard for me to tell since you did not like the post I made in which I pointed this out to you previously.

[treestarfae]

No, I'm asking how they can predict anything out long range. Also, define "long term". I can understand if there were cyclical earth cycles on an obvious basis with no other factors coming into play, but when you throw in the variables of human interaction I don't understand how anything at all can be predictive. There seem to be too many variables that could change anything. Again, not even close to a climate scientist, but I things like a single volcanic eruption can cause mass chaos. Without being able to account for things like that, I don't understand the long term predictive value. You would have to assume some sort of homeostasis of human activity and environmental activity it would seem for the models to have any chance of being accurate at all. At least that's how it seems to me. If that's not the case, I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why things like that don't matter. 

 

(PS- On many painkillers and meds at the moment post-surgery, so if I'm being dense on some of this, please forgive me. I'm a bit incapacitated and trying to follow a complex conversation. :) ) 

 

Are you in the fuel industry, lol? All the info for our influence in warming is in that Nasa link. There is just the prediction based on our use and abuse of the planet that has already happened and will surely continue. There is no "model" and there does not need to be.

 

Yes, our planet does react to changes in biosphere, cryosphere and geosphere.

 

You are mentioning geospheric activity with a volcanic eruption putting light-reflecting particles in the atmosphere.

 

We as humans are killing our earth with fuel burning and tree loss.

 

You tell me how much the fuel industry is worth and why they would protect their interests?