Skepticism about Climate Change

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... You'd say that Correlation is not Causation...

Don't be ridiculous, Bart, I know you are better educated than that. This is not what I said. I said "correlation does not imply causation." It might, or it might not.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... he's just an ex-politician who has some American TV network standing....

Seriously!? Former Vice President of the Unites States and a presidential candidate (a few hanging chads away from being the president) and a Nobel Prize winner for peddling the alarmist theory, and book and movie author about it, is just "an ex-politician"?

[Alan Klein]

I would not use the words "leader" nor "major spokesman", you're giving him too much credit. He may be the go-to guy for head shots on TV news sound bite spots, but let's not overstate the importance of that exposure nor his ability to influence people. It's a big world, and he's just an ex-politician who has some American TV network standing. I have no idea if most people in Europe, say, or Asia, have a very good idea of who he is. He's not nobody, of course, but my point is that he is not central (or even particularly germane) to the current discussion. Whether or not he has as much influence as you think and whether or not he's a hypocrite has no bearing on the basic issues. None.

But your argument is annoying on another level. You seem to want to raise the bar quite high on what is expected of him before you'd be prepared to listen to him. What would he have to do to meet your criteria for believability? Should he give up ALL carbon footprint causing activities? Is that what is required of him? If he did that, never flew again, never rode in a car again, never flushed a toilet again, would you THEN be prepared to listen to what he has to say. It's a rhetorical question because of course you wouldn't. Calling attention to his supposed hypocrisies is a distraction.

Gore's a phoney and a hypocrite. He gives global warning science a bad name. Everytime I see him, I check to make sure my wallet is still in my back pocket.  Who'd believe this guy?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Don't be ridiculous, Bart, I know you are better educated than that. This is not what I said. I said "correlation does not imply causation." It might, or it might not.

Okay, let's dissect that a bit.

Ah, finally!

The correlation argument, of course. The above is the evidence that humans create additional CO2. Only that.

Okay, so you do accept that humans create additional CO2. Good, since there are many who don't even acknowledge that.

It is not evidenced that it causes climate change, nor it is evidence that it only has negative consequences.

Here you go again, nobody is saying that it only has negative consequences. But in the balance of things, it does have more negative ones than positive. Have I to suppose that you have a reason to contest that?

And as for as the evidence that it does not cause climate change, how do you figure that. We create more greenhouse gas than the atmosphere can cope with in such a short period, thus the CO2 concentration increases, therefore the global temperature rises and, as a result, more water vapour is introduced into the atmosphere, which further traps heat (and is amplifying CO2 heat absorption) and thus heats the atmosphere more and holds more precipitation, ready to fall when it saturates (triggered by condensation cores from airborne particles/pollution).

How do you figure that that doesn't affect the Climate? Higher temperatures, more precipitation, etc.

Correlation does not imply causation. The climate during its five billion of years changed much more dramatically, both cooling and warming, without any human interference.

Exactly, without human interference, because there were other drivers (e.g. differences in solar output reaching our planet). None of the prior drivers for climate change are present now. Solar activity has in effect been somewhat decreasing. So human activity apparently more than offset that reduction.

You are looking at 100 years of records (vs. five billion) and finding a correlation with something. That is called data mining and massaging, until you get something to correlate with your preconceptions.

Utter nonsense and you know it. Climate change, and we're talking about that aren't we(?), is a process that's commonly traced over a period of approx. a decade or more. The reason for that is that there are natural cycles, e.g. the solar sunspot activity (and intermittent el ninjo and el ninja, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.), that last approx. 11 years (or more). By using a moving average with that period, we can eliminate the autocorrelation caused by that cycle, and thus more accurately obtain the actual underlying trend. And that trend is rising, rapidly.

Statisticians have found and published a correlation between the length of mini-skirts and inflation in Britain. That at least is funny.

Source? And has that passed the process of peer-review? Was fashion a parameter (skirt length seems to follow it's own cycle)?
Or is this just one of your attempts to mock science in general (since it's not directly really Climate related), typical behavior for a science denier, not a skeptic.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Once again, you are either not reading what I wrote carefully, or you deliberately misinterpret it:

I said "It is not evidenced that it causes climate change"

And you interpret it as "How do you figure that that doesn't affect the Climate?"

Climate change may or may not be caused by the cycles that are ongoing for billions of years. We may or may not contribute to it. We might be amplifying it up to a point. Exactly how significant is our contribution remains to be seen. And whether it will be catastrophic (unlikely) or we will adapt (much more likely) or the positives outweigh the negatives, remains to be seen.

As that for the climate only the last ten years matter... that's really funny.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Once again, you are either not reading what I wrote carefully, or you deliberately misinterpret it:

I said "It is not evidenced that it causes climate change"

There are multiple causes for climate change, some add, some detract, but Climate change is currently mostly affected, or even caused (by the relative absence of others) by human behavior.

And you interpret it as "How do you figure that that doesn't affect the Climate?"

Yes, because your reasoning doesn't make sense.

Climate change may or may not be caused by the cycles that are ongoing for billions of years.

No, cycles do not cause it, but they do affect it.

We may or may not contribute to it. We might be amplifying it up to a point. Exactly how significant is our contribution remains to be seen.

Actually, it's pretty clear that it's the dominant source.

And whether it will be catastrophic (unlikely) or we will adapt (much more likely) or the positives outweigh the negatives, remains to be seen.

No, not really. The positives are outweighed by the negatives. Whether it will be catastrophic, depends on whether we take action (in time) or not.

As that for the climate only the last ten years matter... that's really funny.

I never said that, so I don't know what you are smoking, or inhaling (N2O seems to be popular).

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Do you know for certain that Al Gore is not donating to various charities?  He has set up a foundation to deal with climate change; what is wrong with that.  At least he is more transparent than Koch Industries who fund a myriad of organizations that advance a variety of conservative causes including those fighting climate change and clean coal.  How do you square that circle?

I think you missed my point, Alan. I'm not making the point that only climatologists, or groups supporting their claims, are biased and are pressured to conform to the goals and ethos of the organization they work for.

I'm claiming it is a normal tendency in all organizations, which is why democratic governments often set up independent  commissions to examine  major claims of corruption in a particular organization. It's not necessarily wise to allow the police department to investigate its own corruption, for example.

The leaked emails of the 'climategate' scandal give at least a hint of the biases at play.
Once one is aware of this normal tendency and one begins to look for the biases in the selection and/or presentation of the research, the biases should become more obvious.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The leaked emails of the 'climategate' scandal give at least a hint of the biases at play.

Are you seriously referring to this debunked argument?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
(Intermediate and advanced tab versions available on that page)

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

If you need the help of Ian Pilmer to prove a point, you've lost already. Not because of his contrarian's opinions, but because of the nonsense he puts in articles/books (scientific publications wouldn't pass the test of peer review).

If you think the effects on climate, of small changes of CO2 in the atmosphere, can be proven through the standard, rigorous processes of scientific experimentation and falsification, then perhaps you need to go back to school, Bart.

Plimer's books were not intended to be in the category of research papers for peer review, but were written in terms that the layperson could understand, in order to educate the general public who are often quite ignorant on basic issues to do with climate.

As mentioned before, some surveys on the public awareness of such issues concluded (presumably a few years ago) that about 20% of Australians didn't seem to think that climate was something that ever changed at all for any reason.

And no Slobodan, it's not ad hominem, he's an idiot, and he proves it by what he says/writes. In case you still doubt, https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm. Yes, that site dedicated a webpage on Plimer, because of the volume of nonsense he produces.

So, let's have a look at Ian Plimer's credentials. From wikipedia:

"Ian Plimer started as a tutor and senior tutor in Earth sciences at Macquarie University from 1968 to 1973. After finishing his Ph.D., he became a lecturer in geology at the W.S. and L.B. Robinson University College of the University of New South Wales at Broken Hill from 1974 to 1979.

Plimer then went to work for North Broken Hill Ltd. between 1979 and 1982, becoming chief research geologist. Due to his publication of a number of academic papers, he was offered a job as senior lecturer in economic geology at the University of New England in 1982.

After two years, he left to become a professor and head of geology at the University of Newcastle through 1991. Plimer later served as professor and head of geology of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne from 1991 to 2005. He was conferred as professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne in 2005, and is a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide."

Yet Bart claims this man is an idiot, and also claims that description of him is not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps Bart has found a new career, 'How to achieve a PhD and become a lecturer at various universities, despite being an idiot.' 

For those who are not familiar with the 'skepticalscience.com' site to which Bart refers, I should add that the title is misleading. It's not a site which supports the general skeptical nature of science. The site is all about skepticism of 'skepticism about catastrophic, human-induced climate change', or as their subtitle states,'Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.'

That sounds like a rather biased position to me. They seem to be implying 'the science is settled'. I tried posting on that site a few times, some years ago. After some of my posts had been censored for about the third time, as I recall, it became obvious to me that the site was fundamentally biased and could not tolerate any irrefutable evidence or opinion casting doubt on AGW alarmism, so I stopped posting.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I never said that...

This is what you said:

Climate change... is a process that's commonly traced over a period of approx. a decade or more.

[LesPalenik]

Warming effect makes the blue waters bluer and the green waters greener. The metabolic theory of ecology suggests that warming reduces lake phytoplankton biomass as basal metabolic costs increase.


Lake Erie with a significant algae bloom

Reconciling the opposing effects of warming on phytoplankton biomass in 188 large lakes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11167-3

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is what you said:

'Process' and 'Traced', are the operative words. It's a period used to calculate a trend, and it is a moving average.
I'm surprised that, apparently, you do not understand how trends are calculated, or maybe it's just a silly game of wordplay since you have no better arguments.

So for the slow ones, I'll spell it out for them, Climate change is following a trend which is calculated by using moving averages of multiple years, typically a decade or more (e.g. the approx. 11-year solar spot cycle). Different aspects of Climate Change follow cycles with a different length, so the chosen length of the averaging period depends on which cycle one is investigating.

Cheers,
Bart

[32BT]

We create more greenhouse gas than the atmosphere can cope with in such a short period, thus the CO2 concentration increases, therefore the global temperature rises and, as a result, more water vapour is introduced into the atmosphere, which further traps heat (and is amplifying CO2 heat absorption) and thus heats the atmosphere more and holds more precipitation, ready to fall when it saturates (triggered by condensation cores from airborne particles/pollution).

Okay, so from a newslobby perspective, why do you go from a static state to a deathspiral?

Isn't it much more useful if science first tries to figure out how the dynamic balance has worked for the past million years or so and then tries to explain how that balance is disrupted if at all?

I remember a news article from about a decade ago. Some scientist predicted a new iceage for western europe due to global warming. He figured that the melting of the artic ice would cool the ocean temp locally which would make the warm gulfstream recede, which would obviously influence the temp in western europe.

I stored it under sensationalistic journalism since it depicted another one of those deathspirals, but then in also  thought it rather brilliant. He may have touched upon the dynamic balance rather well:
The ice melts cooling the ocean
Warm stream recedes
Cool down occurs
Ice grows again
Warm stream expands
Etc...

The warm stream is a fairly obvious large motor in the distribution of heat, and, as with all dynamic systems, is a net energy dissipator. One could theorize that all such streams (at that scale) should change behavior due to warming. Those rotations occur in all directions and layers of the biosphere including in the atmosphere where the vertical rotation of greenhouse gasses for example could increase in speed and size to dissipate and transfer the additional heat to space. This might affect the violence of lower weatherpatterns as well.

Saying that the atmosphere can't cope is obviously a rather dubious shortcut in saying that humanity in its current state can't cope. Because ultimately, all doomscenarios aren't about earth, but are about our lifestyle. And with that, these days, maybe that does make it about religion...

[Rob C]

For the remaining sceptics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l0xpkk0yaQ

;-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Exxon is changing its tune on climate change with action!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-methane/exxon-aims-to-curb-methane-emissions-from-shale-division-idUSKCN1C02AE

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Okay, so from a newslobby perspective, why do you go from a static state to a deathspiral?

Not sure what you mean, but it only becomes a 'death spiral' if we keep adding more CO2 than the natural equilibrium can cope with. When the forcing stops, a new equilibrium with only natural cycles will be formed. An additional aspect is that CO2 remains relatively long in the atmosphere (unlike a more potent greenhouse gas like water vapor), so it is the cumulative effect that adds to the issue. Even if we were to abruptly totally stop adding excess CO2 today, we'll still see a rise in temperature for many years before it starts to stabilize, and then going down due to absorption in the oceans until it reaches an equilibrium again.

Isn't it much more useful if science first tries to figure out how the dynamic balance has worked for the past million years or so and then tries to explain how that balance is disrupted if at all?

Better understanding always helps, and there is already an increasing level of knowledge about what changed the climate in the past. There were, for example, different causes that increased/reduced CO2 in the past, and different levels of solar radiation, so it's not simple to compare global temperatures over the ages due to multiple factors that reinforce each other being different. A practical difficulty is that measurements from the past may be less abundant and/or accurate. That's why the confidence level of past data not always allows making exact calculations that lead to better models. Also, the continents were in different positions, which caused different water (and atmospheric) patterns around the world.

To give you an idea, it wasn't until the 1960s that a scientist (C.D. Keeling) got the idea to measure the CO2 concentration in the air over a longer period. He discovered that it was rising fast, so he created a very accurate method of measuring it and started to continuously test it. So, because such accuracy was not available for the past, the calculation of cause and effect has become better (with lower Standard Deviation) since then, but not before that moment. Some advances have been made, but still with lower accuracy and at different/fewer locations. There are still issues, requiring recalibration of historic data, because previous test sites have become flooded or they eroded away, or are now becoming too much influenced by the micro-climate of expanding cities.

[...]
Saying that the atmosphere can't cope is obviously a rather dubious shortcut in saying that humanity in its current state can't cope. Because ultimately, all doomscenarios aren't about earth, but are about our lifestyle. And with that, these days, maybe that does make it about religion...

Sure, it's the unprecedented speed of the anthropogenic Climate Change that is causing issues for humanity. Without us, the world had been going on for a long time before, and it will go on after we're gone. But we tend to care more about our personal welfare, and prefer short-term benefit over longer-term benefits. Learning from our mistakes and changing our behavior will help mitigate the adverse effects we are creating ourselves.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When the only tool you have (e.g., CO2) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Alan Goldhammer]

When the only tool you have (e.g., CO2) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

But it's not just CO2.  there are other gasses that affect atmospheric chemistry that are products of industrialization.  I think what you are overlooking is whether attempts at remediation should be taken or that we should just let things play out.  That is the value choice in the light of the evidence.

[LesPalenik]

When the only tool you have (e.g., CO2) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Another useful tool in improving the air quality is the cow methane backpack. We'll need many more of them.



https://www.good.is/articles/backpack-collects-cow-farts

[LesPalenik]

Economic losses from severe storms, hurricanes, floods, drought and wildfires are projected to reach at least $360 billion a year in the next decade in America, about half of annual US growth, according to a report out Wednesday.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/climate-change-costs-us-economy-billions-report/