Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Public'sTwin]

From the impressions given—that is, from the impressions given by ACC reports—wouldn't the small steps we're taking now be somewhat analogous to slowing down the 100mph runaway train to about 98mph before it goes off the rails?

The buildup and damage we've done has been so propagandized, and so heavily layed on us, that the apparently immediate threat we're facing appears to be stabbed at by the most marginal attempts at salvation. (Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% by 2020!)

OK—say we do cut down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions by then; by then, the Earth's population will have grown by approximately 27-60% and our raw output will have completely negated any attempts we've made.

My understatement is thus: It seems silly to make incremental rates of reduction to fight an exponential net output.

 

[homeforsummer]

From the impressions given—that is, from the impressions given by ACC reports—wouldn't the small steps we're taking now be somewhat analogous to slowing down the 100mph runaway train to about 98mph before it goes off the rails?

The buildup and damage we've done has been so propagandized, and so heavily layed on us, that the apparently immediate threat we're facing appears to be stabbed at by the most marginal attempts at salvation. (Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% by 2020!)

OK—say we do cut down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions by then; by then, the Earth's population will have grown by approximately 27-60% and our raw output will have completely negated any attempts we've made.

My understatement is thus: It seems silly to make incremental rates of reduction to fight an exponential net output.

Possibly so, and I can understand where you're coming from. Overpopulation will put massive demands on resources (the World population is expected to be 9bn by 2050), and I think there's a cruel irony that those dying in the greatest numbers (people starving to death or dying from disease in undeveloped countries) are those using by far the least energy, and also those who are most likely to be affected by developed nations' thirst for consumption.

Where did you get the 5% figure from? Is that a global figure? Or a USA figure? As far as I'm aware (though it's getting late, I'm getting tired and my will to search for a source has gone) the UK's own CO2 reduction target is significantly more than 5% - for some reason a figure of 30% in the next 20 years comes to mind (though as I said, I could be mistaken).

Ideally, it needs all the most consuming countries to attempt to commit to targets like this.

I subscribe to a science and tech magazine and the latest issue has interesting figures with regard to countries attempting to meet the Kyoto agreement targets. In Europe, Greece, Germany, Sweden and England are all well ahead of target. Much of Eastern Europe is doing well too, but many have no pre-1997 targets with which to compare. A number of countries, including France, Holland, Portugal and Croatia, are hitting the targets but only because they're investing in overseas carbon trading... which is essentially a load of bull and therefore cheating.

Austria, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Japan and Norway are all missing their targets, but then all of these countries contribute comparatively little in the first place.

Spain and Denmark are failing significantly to reduce their emissions. Canada and Scotland are failing spectacularly to meet the Kyoto agreement with regards to cutting emissions. USA isn't on the list as President Bush didn't sign the Kyoto agreement, though considering Canada's lack of effort I can't imagine the USA is doing a great deal either.

As far as total CO2 emissions goes - both China and the USA produce 1,600 million tonnes per annum. Western Europe manages 1,100 million. China has four times the population of the USA though, so each person produces a quarter of the CO2 per year that someone in the States does (1.2 tonnes compared to 5.3 tonnes). Each European produces 2.5 tonnes per year. This is a much better measure of the general consumption in each region.

There's an interesting figure about the dangers of increasing heat too. For most of us, it just means hotter summers. For a percentage of us, the rise in temperatures is very dangerous. According to the magazine, 40,000 Europeans were killed by the heatwave we had in 2003. Small changes in average temperatures cause big changes in the frequency of events such as heatwaves and hurricanes.

To me, that's enough of a reason to at least attempt to make changes whether at individual level or at national level. And at the end of the day, big changes can only happen with lots of little ones to help them along.

Credits: All figures quoted above from the December 2009 issue of Focus magazine.

 

[ItsHim]

If real, immediate and effective action were finally deemed to be necessary, it's clear. Long ago the genius inventor of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, had it figured that in this event, we seize all the world's gold, grind it into a fine powder, then launch it into the upper stratosphere. With the proper rocket science, it would form a protective golden sunshade around the entire globe, instantly dealing with insolation.

Oh, now that's proper science fiction. Well done, when science and technology were still something to look forward to.

Now I can't really get my head round this: all that might be necessary is to change our lifestyle just one tiny little bit. It's not: oh well, let's all climb back onto the trees.

So what I can't understand is why so many people are so afraid of change now, and seem so relaxed about change tomorrow. Why is "changing lifestyle today" more frightening than "climate change tomorrow"?

I can see weather change with my own eyes. Freak weather you say? Coincidence? Maybe.

But I sure as hell don't want prolonged periods of 25° night temperature for the rest of my life. It's just completely wrong for my part of the world. I don't want midges in November. In the last 30 years my cellar was flooded by heavy rain twice. And twice again in the last three years. I had 37° peak temperature at noon, that's fricking absolutely totally wrong. Even weather reports have stopped calling hot summers "one of a kind in a hundred years" because every summer since 2001 was far too hot and the cool periods became shorter and shorter.

It may be all just coincidence. But just imagine it wasn't. I got a very good taste what climate change would mean if it was coming. And I, for one, am not prepared to take any chances.

If it's reasonable to assume human behaviour has an impact on climate change, then I'm prepared to change today if there is a chance of escaping any major changes in the future. See, I'm also frightened of change. But at least I'm prepared to do something against it.

 

[Famine]

I can see weather change with my own eyes.

It's just completely wrong for my part of the world.

I had 37° peak temperature at noon

The question you should be asking here is "For how long have I been gathering this local climate data?"

And the follow-up one should be "Is it rational to expect that the temperature in my region has never, should never and will never change for the entire lifespan of the planet?"

You say it's not normal, you say you've seen it change with your own eyes. This assumes that what you've observed over your life is normal and anything outside that is wrong. A guy from the 1850s would probably agree with you, though he'd been complaining of the heat since 1950. A guy from the 1350s would be wrapped up in a duffel coat wondering when this hellish ice-age will finish (the North Pole has ice. This might be "normal" from a human point of view, but it's quite unusual from the Earth's).


And this is the problem most people face.
* The climate of the Earth is noticeably changing. But it has done since the Earth formed.
* The current temperature and the rate at which it's rising seem unusual from an individual's lifespan - or even a human perspective - but both are nothing out of the ordinary for the planet.
* People make carbon dioxide (both actively and passively - by consuming natural resources which would act as carbon dioxide sinks) and atmospheric carbon dioxide seems to be related to temperature, but there's no proven causal link.
* We don't produce anywhere near as much carbon dioxide as the natural world does, but it only takes a teaspoonful of water to overflow an already-full container (tipping points).


Ultimately all we can say is that it's changing. It has always changed, but we might be causing some part of the change. There's evidence to say we are, there's evidence to say we aren't and both sides seem to be willing to over/understate the evidence accordingly.

And now we run into another problem - can we and should we change it?

Can we? Well, if the climate change is caused in any part by us, we've already proven that we can and by what degree. If it's our carbon dioxide that's doing it, no problem. Most people are willing to become a little more "energy efficient" because it saves them money, and punitive legislation isn't really necessary to expediate it. Even if it isn't caused by us in any way, we still can change the planet's temperature quite easily (if expensively) though it might be a little harder for the long-term.

Should we? Uh-oh.

One of the largest human contributors of carbon dioxide is... humans. To put it into perspective, if you and two friends all switch from a Hummer H2 to a Toyota Prius, I can offset the carbon dioxide you no longer put out by having a baby - and the baby lasts for 80 years (and doesn't cause all kinds of environmental mayhem to make and dispose of, but that's beside the point). In "Third World" countries, it's the norm to have giant families because many of them will die (this is pretty much the demographic definition of Third World), except Western charity and medicine now means many of them survive... One of the largest groups to be seriously affected by climate change is... humans. As hfs points out, making already dry and arid parts of the world even more dry and arid will lead to huge death tolls. Which will lead to a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide production. Irony? Certainly. Harsh? Definitely. Can one blame the desire to do good by "Westernising" the Third World for climate change? You decide. In either case, the more we try and stop climate change, the more people there will be and the more we have to try and stop it.

But of course that's just a human point of view. Climate change, whatever its roots, is a problem to us. The rest of nature couldn't care less - in fact warm periods in our planet's history have been characterised by rapid expansions of biodiversity (numbers of different species), until they were wiped out by an ice age or a giant, flaming ball of rock at a zillion miles an hour. And we're not in a warm period yet. Sure we might lose polar bears and penguins, but what about the new species that arise in their stead? What would the cost be to the rest of the planet be if we tried to keep it at an artificial 12 degrees Global Mean Temperature?


All we know right now is the the climate is changing a bit. We don't yet know why. We don't yet know if the consequences will be good, bad or a mix of both (change usually brings a mix of both) and it really depends what species you are and where you live as to which consequence is visited upon you. And lastly we don't know if we can change it or if we really ought to, lest it brings out a completely different mixed bag of consequences.


That said, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a smidge high compared to historic maxima and it probably wouldn't do much harm to flick the light switch off and try to see how many mpg you can get out of the car - and it'll save you some money for beer (which is a carbon dioxide sink).

 

[niky]

+rep

-

While some "green" measures are worth it, from an economic point of view, others smack of hysteresis... or even... gasp... profiteering.

The question of whether we should try and change the climate is a big one... I've brought it up before, but "Fallen Angels" by Larry Niven takes a tongue-in-cheek poke at eco-politics by taking place in the middle of an Ice Age created by green reforms.

One city, Detroit, tries to stop the advancing glaciers by burning itself to the ground, creating a greenhouse effect in miniature.

It's outlandish, yes, but no more outlandish (and probably less so) than "The Day After Tomorrow".

-

Funny thing how every new disaster is blamed on "climate change". Our recent floods being one of them. The worst flooding in eighty years, yes... but one wonders... how bad was the climate back in the 20's when the highest recorded flooding occurred?

In "Third World" countries, it's the norm to have giant families because many of them will die (this is pretty much the demographic definition of Third World), except Western charity and medicine now means many of them survive... One of the largest groups to be seriously affected by climate change is... humans. As hfs points out, making already dry and arid parts of the world even more dry and arid will lead to huge death tolls. Which will lead to a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide production. Irony? Certainly. Harsh? Definitely. Can one blame the desire to do good by "Westernising" the Third World for climate change? You decide. In either case, the more we try and stop climate change, the more people there will be and the more we have to try and stop it.

[foil hat]Of course, that's what the Western Imperialist Population Control advocates want you to believe... down with Kissinger!

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html[/foil hat]

 

[Joey D]

One city, Detroit, tries to stop the advancing glaciers by burning itself to the ground, creating a greenhouse effect in miniature.

They should do that regardless if a glacier is coming or not.

 

[Sureboss]

Beer is a carbon dioxide sink? So, does that mean we shouldn't drink it, but have lots of pints just hanging around the country?

 

[Touring Mars]

Good post, Famine - and I generally agree with the main gist of what you are saying - that when it comes to potential intervention, we ought to be extremely careful what we wish for. That said, there are one or two points that I think require some clarification...

One of the largest human contributors of carbon dioxide is... humans. To put it into perspective, if you and two friends all switch from a Hummer H2 to a Toyota Prius, I can offset the carbon dioxide you no longer put out by having a baby - and the baby lasts for 80 years (and doesn't cause all kinds of environmental mayhem to make and dispose of, but that's beside the point). In "Third World" countries, it's the norm to have giant families because many of them will die (this is pretty much the demographic definition of Third World), except Western charity and medicine now means many of them survive... One of the largest groups to be seriously affected by climate change is... humans. As hfs points out, making already dry and arid parts of the world even more dry and arid will lead to huge death tolls. Which will lead to a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide production. Irony? Certainly. Harsh? Definitely. Can one blame the desire to do good by "Westernising" the Third World for climate change? You decide. In either case, the more we try and stop climate change, the more people there will be and the more we have to try and stop it.

It is important to point out at this juncture that the rise in CO2 levels attributable to human activity are mostly a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, and not as a direct result of there simply being more people about. Population per se is not the issue, it is the activity and output of the population, which depends on the relative affluence of that population. Even if it were possible to stabilise the world population at a fixed level, our net contribution to atmospheric CO2 would still vary in accordance with our fuel consumption - with increasingly affluent populations consuming more energy (and thus producing more GHG emissions) per head of population than previously. In other words, it is the production of more intense fossil fuel consumers that is the problem, not simply the production of more people.

As far as lowering our contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is concerned, it comes down to a net reduction in our total fossil fuel consumption, and not necessarily a reduction in population. A reduction in population is no guarantee that cumulative CO2 emissions would not continue to increase.

That said, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a smidge high compared to historic maxima

A slight understatement... nature has conspired to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to within the range of ~180-280 ppm for atleast the last half million years, and probably far longer. We are now at >380 ppm and the cause of this rise is accepted beyond all reasonable doubt as of human origin (specifically the result of our fossil fuel consumption). We also know that if it were not for mitigating natural processes, such as the absorption of CO2 by the oceans and other natural carbon sinks, this figure would be much higher.

 

[Famine]

It is important to point out at this juncture that the rise in CO2 levels attributable to human activity are mostly a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, and not as a direct result of there simply being more people about. Population per se is not the issue, it is the activity and output of the population, which depends on the relative affluence of that population. Even if it were possible to stabilise the world population at a fixed level, our net contribution to atmospheric CO2 would still vary in accordance with our fuel consumption - with increasingly affluent populations consuming more energy (and thus producing more GHG emissions) per head of population than previously. In other words, it is the production of more intense fossil fuel consumers that is the problem, not simply the production of more people.

Assuming that about one third of our population are children and two thirds are adults, you're looking at about 3.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year simply from people breathing (about 0.7 tons per adult and 0.3 per child). Wiki says 27 billion tons a year comes from "burning fossil fuels". So while "burning fossil fuels" is #1 on the list, people themselves are quite significant - a fagpacket calculation says they produce 13% as much CO2 as setting fire to old, dead trees, or almost as much as the entire European Union... Jam it together and you have 30.7 billion tons from humans (not including deforestation, since that's really a negative non-emission. Kinda).

The major "contributors" to the fossil fuel equation are all planning to cut emissions by 2020 - some by as much as 40% (some as little as 5%). Again some fagpacket calculations and a bit of memory as to what each country has pledged and you get about 25.8 billion tons in 2020. But in that time, again according to Wiki, population will be near enough 8 billion - breathing out 4.4 billion tons a year. Jam it together and you have 30.2 billion tons of from humans.

For all the pledging, you have achieved a 1.7% reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions. And, to provide balance, that's a 1.7% reduction of 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions - a 0.08% reduction of the total - since that's the human part...


Now that's not to say it's futile to try, but to illustrate that population might not be a significant factor in the total, but population growth itself is something of a hindrance to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide emission reduction.

A slight understatement... nature has conspired to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to within the range of ~180-280 ppm for atleast the last half million years, and probably far longer. We are now at >380 ppm and the cause of this rise is accepted beyond all reasonable doubt as of human origin (specifically the result of our fossil fuel consumption). We also know that if it were not for mitigating natural processes, such as the absorption of CO2 by the oceans and other natural carbon sinks, this figure would be much higher.

Indeed - but I missed off the word "recent" quite deliberately. Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher (5 times higher in the Jurassic; 20 times in the Cambrian), even during ice ages (more than double during the Carboniferous when, ironically, most of our fossil fuels were laid down thanks to glaciation). It's about 35% higher now than it was in the mid-19th century, and about 30% above a typical interglacial period, but nothing the planet hasn't seen before. Though it is probably more than at any point during the smart-monkey period.

 

[Touring Mars]

Assuming that about one third of our population are children and two thirds are adults, you're looking at about 3.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year simply from people breathing (about 0.7 tons per adult and 0.3 per child). Wiki says 27 billion tons a year comes from "burning fossil fuels". So while "burning fossil fuels" is #1 on the list, people themselves are quite significant - a fagpacket calculation says they produce 13% as much CO2 as setting fire to old, dead trees, or almost as much as the entire European Union... Jam it together and you have 30.7 billion tons from humans (not including deforestation, since that's really a negative non-emission. Kinda).

The major "contributors" to the fossil fuel equation are all planning to cut emissions by 2020 - some by as much as 40% (some as little as 5%). Again some fagpacket calculations and a bit of memory as to what each country has pledged and you get about 25.8 billion tons in 2020. But in that time, again according to Wiki, population will be near enough 8 billion - breathing out 4.4 billion tons a year. Jam it together and you have 30.2 billion tons of from humans.

For all the pledging, you have achieved a 1.7% reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions. And, to provide balance, that's a 1.7% reduction of 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions - a 0.08% reduction of the total - since that's the human part...


Now that's not to say it's futile to try, but to illustrate that population might not be a significant factor in the total, but population growth itself is something of a hindrance to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide emission reduction.

Despite the fact that human emissions appear small compared to "natural" emissions, the story is quite different when you consider the reason why the proportion of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere has risen dramatically in the last two centuries - the reasons being that human emissions have risen sharply while natural emissions have not, and that human activity (e.g land use change) has altered the efficiency of natural carbon sinks. In less than 200 years, human activity has added as much CO2 to the atmosphere (~100 ppm) as all 'natural' phenomena in the preceding 800,000 years (minimum) ever did. As such, although human emissions may appear insignificant compared to natural emissions at first glance, they are infact not insignificant, hence why we now possess an atmosphere unlike that ever experienced by our species before.

Although an increase in population will offset some of the effect of the proposed cuts in emissions by developed nations, this only makes the need for emission cuts more pressing. According to a recent analysis by the World Bank, the projected rise in human population is largely expected to occur within the "third world" demographic, i.e. the number of people on low incomes is expected to continue to rise, while the number of comfortable/wealthy people is not expected to rise significantly. Mid to high income populations, although numerically much smaller, are responsible for far more emissions than the low income population, even after you consider the rise in the low income population. So, there is still much that the developed world can do, even if it feels like running to stand still.

Indeed - but I missed off the word "recent" quite deliberately. Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher (5 times higher in the Jurassic; 20 times in the Cambrian), even during ice ages (more than double during the Carboniferous when, ironically, most of our fossil fuels were laid down thanks to glaciation). It's about 35% higher now than it was in the mid-19th century, and about 30% above a typical interglacial period, but nothing the planet hasn't seen before. Though it is probably more than at any point during the smart-monkey period.

Although the Earth's climate has been much warmer and much colder even at much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in the past, this doesn't mean that the current climate is insensitive to CO2. On the contrary, there is growing evidence that the climate is very sensitive to atmospheric CO2. Although it is important to put recent events in context/perspective, it is also important not to misinterpret the significance of past correlations, as well as to realise that our current situation is novel and that there is no exact replica in the historical record that we can point to for reference.

 

[homeforsummer]

That said, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a smidge high compared to historic maxima and it probably wouldn't do much harm to flick the light switch off and try to see how many mpg you can get out of the car - and it'll save you some money for beer (which is a carbon dioxide sink).

This is the nub of one of my views on it all - at the end of the day, whether you're doing it to "save the Planet, man" or not, is it not a good thing regardless to try and reduce personal energy consumption?

It's a pity that many people are too blinkered to do simple things like turn the lights off when you're not using them, or switch electronics off standby, or not drive like a tit in town when it won't get you anywhere quickly (or other things like not using as many plastic bags, not littering, not wasting food)... seemingly even the naturally selfish human being still can't make the link between saving in some unexciting areas so they have more money to burn in others.

Do I drive my MX5 economically most of the time so that when I do want to go for a blast, I'm still not spending a fortune on petrol? Of course I do. It makes fiscal sense, and if I'm doing my bit for reducing emissions, then even better.

 

[FoolKiller]

I disagree that the economy is in such a state that we are unable to to anything worthwhile. Apart from anything, much of the investment in environmental projects comes from private initiatives rather than government funding. Some of these companies may disappear of course, but others won't. We're not in a global financial meltdown, it's a recession, just like many other recessions that have come and gone before.

Tax incentives are government funding. When you have some countries defaulting on their debts it might not be the best time to be asking economies to take a further hits. Every economy has a tipping point, and no government has an endless supply of money to fund multiple things. If private initiatives take the brunt of the cost then their employees and customers will take a hit, and if the government takes the brunt through deficit spending then everyone takes the hit through future inflation.

And brushing off an expense to private initiatives as no big deal is shocking. Private initiatives are what make economies work, not governments. They are the ones that create wealth and grow economies while providing jobs. Nothing shocks me more than how people are so willing to say something is no big deal because the cost will be taken on by private companies. If the company you or someone close to you works for got stuck with some huge expense, because your political leaders made some promises to some other political leaders, and it meant layoffs or the company going under completely you wouldn't be so callous in talking about some of these companies disappearing like it is not a big deal. Companies disappearing = thousands of jobs disappearing.

I can see weather change with my own eyes. Freak weather you say? Coincidence? Maybe.

But I sure as hell don't want prolonged periods of 25° night temperature for the rest of my life. It's just completely wrong for my part of the world. I don't want midges in November. In the last 30 years my cellar was flooded by heavy rain twice. And twice again in the last three years. I had 37° peak temperature at noon, that's fricking absolutely totally wrong. Even weather reports have stopped calling hot summers "one of a kind in a hundred years" because every summer since 2001 was far too hot and the cool periods became shorter and shorter.

It may be all just coincidence. But just imagine it wasn't. I got a very good taste what climate change would mean if it was coming. And I, for one, am not prepared to take any chances.

And Texas has had multiple years of unusual snows. In fact, Dallas is getting it right now. By your rationale they are seeing climate cooling.

 

[Dotini]

I've lived in Seattle since the upside down year of 1961. It's never been colder than it is right now! Last winter was the most uncomfortable I've ever experienced. On the other hand we've had numerous thunderstorms with massive lightning in very recent years, something that was virtually unknown earlier. Even so, that just anecdotal weather.

In 1982 I spent two months mountain climbing in Peru, living most of that time at 13,000'-18,000', and some up to 20,000'. I traveled numerous glaciers which reportedly are mightily shrunken today. The campesinos in the villages downstream will be sorely missing the annual melt water, as will the national hydro grid. That's many millions adversely affected in Peru alone.

In my opinion, we ARE in the midst of a global financial meltdown. Iceland is broke. So are Dubai, Greece, Spain, Ireland and East European countries too numerous to mention. Within a few short months or years, the UK and US may be broke, too. FoolKiller raises massively important concerns!

 

[Danoff]

One of the largest human contributors of carbon dioxide is... humans.

Ah, but if the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide, shouldn't the goal be to do it from whatever source is easiest? We assume that's humans, but maybe it's not. Maybe penguins are the largest respiratory CO2 contributor. Wouldn't it be easier to start killing off penguins than people?

That's why I eat beef. Cows emit lots of greenhouse gasses.

 

[Famine]

Ah, but if the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide, shouldn't the goal be to do it from whatever source is easiest? We assume that's humans, but maybe it's not. Maybe penguins are the largest respiratory CO2 contributor. Wouldn't it be easier to start killing off penguins than people?

That's why I eat beef. Cows emit lots of greenhouse gasses.

I thought it was whales and dolphins...

 

[Dotini]

Danoff is pleased to joke.

 

[Danoff]

i thought it was whales and dolphins...

F you whale!!!

 

[FoolKiller]

Ah, but if the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide, shouldn't the goal be to do it from whatever source is easiest? We assume that's humans, but maybe it's not. Maybe penguins are the largest respiratory CO2 contributor. Wouldn't it be easier to start killing off penguins than people?

That's why I eat beef. Cows emit lots of greenhouse gasses.

The big time environmental groups wouldn't know what to do with themselves if we found the only way to save the planet was to kill the animals.

For the rest of you: Barbecue at my house. Baby seal steaks are on the grill. Be sure to put the whale gravy on it. Fried penguin is inside by the stove. And if you want to eat light there are tuna-safe dolphin salad sandwiches in the refrigerator.


On a more serious note:
The Southern Avenger has a good piece today about the dangers of expert consensus.

 

[ItsHim]

And Texas has had multiple years of unusual snows. In fact, Dallas is getting it right now. By your rationale they are seeing climate cooling.

Not quite. My reasoning is that freak weather conditions, which can be observed by anyone, are an indication that in fact climate change (and global warming) is real. And it is not a contradiction that while some parts of the world are getting warmer, as a side effect other regions are getting freak weather which very well can be cooler.

Now, what's the point of me trying to "convince" the conspiration theory fans or general doubters by pointing out that peer-review magazines like Nature and Science don't do the "humans are not responsible for climate change" stuff?

By pointing out that no theory contradicting the well established fact that global warming is caused by the increase in greenhouse gases has made it in the journals because they don't live up to scientific standards?

That global warming has occurred in the known past, but the causes were dramatically different from today?

What really hits me is that on the one hand, some people are just more than willing to believe in science as long as their trusted sat-nav shows the shortest way to the next fast food restaurant. Look at it! Relativity at work! Einstein was right! And so were all the other scientists who followed in his foot-steps who set out to prove his theories.

Now, on the other hand, when it comes to climate change, the whole mechanism that brought us sat-nav is all of a sudden failing. It's all a big mistake, a miss-understanding, they are inventing things!

Yeah, right.

 

[Famine]

What really hits me is that on the one hand, some people are just more than willing to believe in science as long as their trusted sat-nav shows the shortest way to the next fast food restaurant. Look at it! Relativity at work! Einstein was right! And so were all the other scientists who followed in his foot-steps who set out to prove his theories.

Now, on the other hand, when it comes to climate change, the whole mechanism that brought us sat-nav is all of a sudden failing. It's all a big mistake, a miss-understanding, they are inventing things!

Yeah, right.

I don't have a sat-nav and am a scientist.

 

[Touring Mars]

On a more serious note:

If that video is supposed to be a "serious" contribution to this debate, then we're in serious trouble. I've tried my best to keep this debate about the science and/or the economics, but if you insist on politicizing it, then don't expect not to receive criticism.

The idea that the govmint was wrong about Iraq and now the govmint is wrong about climate change is just too silly to be taken seriously. The quote from Michael Mann in this video provides an excellent example of the folly of quoting out of context. Given that the quote in question was in reference to the behaviour of a climate skeptic and not Mann himself (and at the very least, this guy has no evidence to the contrary), it is clearly a deliberate attempt to discredit Mann as some kind of conspiratorial wackjob with the sole intention of supporting this guy's flawed central thesis - that "expert consensus" can't be trusted.

This guy cherry-picks the few instances where "science" (or atleast his interpretation of science anyway) was wrong, in a lame attempt to support his view. But the fact that this guy is rattling on about a book written in 1977 that in no way whatsoever represented the "scientific consensus" at the time (it wasn't even written by climate scientists) speaks volumes about his objectivity on this matter. The book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age) was apparently based on two CIA reports which themselves were criticised by the very scientist that they referenced. Nature reported on the book in 1977, and said:

The fact of the matter is, the state of climate science in 1977 meant that the reliability of claims about future climate change were extremely dubious to say the least, but that didn't stop the publication of books and news articles that would turn out to be incorrect (as is still the case today). But the existence of discredited books, or even discredited scientific papers, simply does not constitute evidence that current "expert consensus" is corrupt, and in no way supports his Luddite attitude.

The whole video is a poorly thought-out political moan-fest that does absolutely nothing for this debate at all, other than to demonstrate the absurdity and pointlessness of contributions of this sort.

 

[Danoff]

Now, on the other hand, when it comes to climate change, the whole mechanism that brought us sat-nav is all of a sudden failing. It's all a big mistake, a miss-understanding, they are inventing things!

You're equating relativity to global warming? Do you have any idea how much easier it has been for us to predict, test, validate, and prove relativity than it has been for global warming? Relativity is re-proven every day. There are measurements being taking as we speak that prove relativity is a valuable model for predicting natural motion.

Flash back to 1998 when 2010 was supposed to be the end of the world. We were supposed to have 12 years of warming, not 12 years of cooling. What kind of predictive model is that?

Now, let's take another potentially costly disaster. Let's pretend that an asteroid were headed for the earth and that relativity and gravitational motion was the model used to predict that it would get here. Would I be in favor of blowing trillions of dollars to save the planet? Yes. Would I still be in favor of it if the folks modeling the asteroid's trajectory were wrong for 12 years in a row? Not so much.


Edit: And that wouldn't mean they were wrong either. It just means I don't have a high degree of confidence until I see models that work consistently.

 

[FoolKiller]

Not quite. My reasoning is that freak weather conditions, which can be observed by anyone, are an indication that in fact climate change (and global warming) is real. And it is not a contradiction that while some parts of the world are getting warmer, as a side effect other regions are getting freak weather which very well can be cooler.

I was pointing out your error in reasoning, not saying your end assumption is wrong. You, in your area, have seen what is, in your relativly short lifetime, freak weather conditions. But the fact is that your region has very likely seen those same conditions before humans were putting stuff into the atmosphere. I am not saying that climate change doesn't happen, but I am saying that your individual circumstance cannot be scientifically linked to any form of climate change. In recent years my region has seen three years of drought followed by a huge wind storm, then an ice storm, and then snow storm last year (enough to bring a tree down in my driveway), and this past year we have had unusually cool summers and flooding. I have seen nearly every extreme my region can see, but I am not freaking out because in my 30 years I have seen it all before. I remember years when we had so much snow that we had to go to school until nearly July to make up the days. I remember flooding so bad that neighbors in the valley below my house had to come stay with us for two days. And I clearly remember heat so high that I collapsed in my driveway from heat exhaustion and my dad had to carry me into the house. Now, are you going to tell me that the extremes I see today, which I can recall from 20 years ago also, are all signs of climate change? Or is it just possible that these are regional extreme conditions that can occasionally happen?

The question for me isn't if climate change is happening. It had better be or we are all seriously screwed because it means there is a much bigger problem than pollution. The real question is if we can directly link human activity to climate change. The best we have is temporal correlation. That is not enough. There are studies looking into solar activity which also show similar temporal correlations. And if we are going to only assume this can be man-made change then we have to answer for why other time periods had similar changes with no men to be seen.

So please, don't accuse me of being some science doubter just because I question the method being used and ask that it be definitive. Einstein found ways to prove many of his theories.

Side note: I also do not use a sat nav. In fact, when my brother and I were leaving Gatlinburg (vacation town in Tennessee) at the same time I told him to take some back roads to avoid traffic jams on the way to the interstate and he told me his GPS' "smart routes" would take him the quickest way. I was in another state before he even got on the interstate. Gadgets are only as smart as the user.

 

[Touring Mars]

Flash back to 1998 when 2010 was supposed to be the end of the world. We were supposed to have 12 years of warming, not 12 years of cooling. What kind of predictive model is that?

Nope. "We were supposed to have 12 years of warming" is completely untrue. Global warming theory specifically does not predict a linear year-upon-year warming, but the persistence of a long term warming trend, which at times will inevitably be masked by short term variability. "12 years of cooling" is another statement that is simply not congruous with the evidence. As a matter of fact, the decade 2000-2009 was warmer than any decade on record, despite the fact that no single year in this period was warmer than 1998...

 

[FoolKiller]

If that video is supposed to be a "serious" contribution to this debate, then we're in serious trouble. I've tried my best to keep this debate about the science and/or the economics, but if you insist on politicizing it, then don't expect not to receive criticism.

The idea that the govmint was wrong about Iraq and now the govmint is wrong about climate change is just too silly to be taken seriously.

Did you just comment on my use of the word serious, and then go on to make fun of a regional accent? Classy.

As you seemed to have missed the part where he said, "And it [global warming] may be different. Only time will tell." I am assuming you missed that his point was not to discredit the idea of climate change but to say that making policy based on scientific consensus, when there is still more to be done, is dangerous. The point is (and I know you already disagree him on this too) to say that government intervention is the incorrect course at this time. As he said in closing, "It is curious that for every crisis a massive and expansive government corrective is always the proposed solution."

his Luddite attitude.

I often find it intersting how Luddite went from referring to those opposed to labor saving techniques and free market systems to defining those who support those systems and want to stop government interference from getting in the way. But this isn't a linguistics discussion.

 

[Touring Mars]

Did you just comment on my use of the word serious, and then go on to make fun of a regional accent? Classy.

It was meant as a humorous criticism of anti-government conspiracy theorists in general, but yes, it was a bit below the belt for which I apologize. However I stick by my criticism of your assessment that posting that garbage was a serious contribution to the discussion.

As you seemed to have missed the part where he said, "And it [global warming] may be different. Only time will tell." I am assuming you missed that his point was not to discredit the idea of climate change but to say that making policy based on scientific consensus, when there is still more to be done, is dangerous. The point is (and I know you already disagree him on this too) to say that government intervention is the incorrect course at this time. As he said in closing, "It is curious that for every crisis a massive and expansive government corrective is always the proposed solution."

If it's merely a question of questioning government's role in the issue, then why does he trot out a series of cherry-picked 'science controversies' rather than sticking to the point? He doesn't even get his facts right, let alone use any actual facts that support his case. That he mentions in passing that his skepticism of climate science might be misplaced is somewhat belittled by the fact that he cites discredited information as a justifiable reason to be skeptical of government policy while neglecting to mention what the actual scientific community thought of the ideas at the time. As such, consider me extremely skeptical of the idea that part of the point of his rant was to enlighted debate on climate science.

If we are going to only assume this can be man-made change then we have to answer for why other time periods had similar changes with no men to be seen.

No offense, but you can't have read much of this thread if you can still make a comment like this. Almost every part of the sentence is flawed. It is not assumed that the current warming trend is solely due to human activity. The portion of warming that has been attributed to human activity is not "assumed" at all, but inferred from the available evidence (despite what you might have read or seen on YouTube, climate science is not a faith-based enterprise.) Whether or not similar episodes of climate change have occurred without our influence doesn't mean that our influence on the current warming trend cannot be delineated. If anything, it's hard to see how our influence cannot have had the warming influence it is supposed to have had.

 

[Danoff]

Nope. "We were supposed to have 12 years of warming" is completely untrue. Global warming theory specifically does not predict a linear year-upon-year warming, but the persistence of a long term warming trend, which at times will inevitably be masked by short term variability. "12 years of cooling" is another statement that is simply not congruous with the evidence. As a matter of fact, the decade 2000-2009 was warmer than any decade on record, despite the fact that no single year in this period was warmer than 1998...

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Famine]

Fly-by posting from me here:

Hole in ozone layer has protected Antarctica from Global Warming... until now! Wait, what?

 

[Sureboss]

The fact of the matter is, the state of climate science in 1977 meant that the reliability of claims about future climate change were extremely dubious to say the least, but that didn't stop the publication of books and news articles that would turn out to be incorrect (as is still the case today). But the existence of discredited books, or even discredited scientific papers, simply does not constitute evidence that current "expert consensus" is corrupt, and in no way supports his Luddite attitude.

The whole video is a poorly thought-out political moan-fest that does absolutely nothing for this debate at all, other than to demonstrate the absurdity and pointlessness of contributions of this sort.

But aren't we using the data from that period now as evidence?

 

[Touring Mars]

The data yes, the analysis no.