Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

OK, so I checked the Little Ice Age and found that population declined as I suspected.  What's interesting is a theory that it was a reduction in sun spots that may have caused it.  See article and chart.  What's even more interesting is that sunspot activity increases in the mid 1750's and continues to today getting larger.  So maybe most of the global warming since the industrial age has to do with the sun not CO2. 
https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

[Alan Klein]

Here's the chart of sunspots.  The Maunder Minimum is when the Little Ice Age occurred. 

[LesPalenik]

By the year 2047 the mean air temperature around the planet will shift completely out of the range seen in recent history. From that point on, even a cold year will be warmer than any warm year from 1860 to 2005 if nations continue to emit carbon dioxide the way they do now. And the new extreme temperatures—the new normal—will first occur not in the Arctic but in the tropics, where people, plants and wildlife are least equipped to adapt.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-climate-will-hurt/

also

People living in the tropics are likely to die more than seven years younger than those in other regions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9688146/People-who-live-in-tropics-more-likely-to-die-seven-years-earlier.html

It seems, that hot air is not that great.

[Alan Klein]

Les, the problem with that theory is that it is a theory.  It hasn't happened yet. It's only a theoretical projection. The fact is today that the temperature has been going up but so has the population. Mankind is being more and more successful. That's a fact not a theory.

Also, I never said that it wouldn't add stress in certain areas as the climate warms up. I indicated that in our Coral discussion. As it warms up some corals will die in hotter areas while coral reefs will expand in cooler areas that now warm up to support Coral. The same thing with human populations. While there may be additional stresses in some locations, the overall effect worldwide will be better for population expansion.  Moore arable farm land for greater food production.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well, when you say that a person's statement is moronic, well only a moron would make a moronic statement.  It's a little indelicate to use that word.  How about illogical or contradictory? 

Regarding global warming and population, someone previously made the statement that global warming could cause the collapse of the human population.  I was making the point that if the two were tied, then one could argue that since the population has been expanding exponentially since the industrial revolution, one could argue that warming is helping increase the population.  I wasn't saying it was my theory.

Okay.

However, in thinking about it now, it could well be that warming has helped the human race.  It's possible that the mini Ice Age of a few hundred years ago caused lots of stress on humans because of crop failures.  Population declined.  Once it warmed up again and stress ameliorated, the populations started to increase as food production was restored.  I have not done any research into this, but it seems logical.  Maybe someone else has some facts on this.

Have a look/listen to this video @ 8m15s where CO2 and crop-growth are mentioned (the rest of the video is also recommended):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31

I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.

Another factor is poverty. As studies have shown, the number of children that people 'produce' is highly correlated with income (and to a lesser extent with religious pressure to produce a larger flock of religious offspring). Lower incomes have more children, as an insurance for food and assistance at old age. Higher incomes can purchase such security and have less of a 'need' to secure that with offspring (and purchasing better quality healthcare helps to reduce child mortality).

So, improving the standards of living in the poorest developing countries is part of a multifaceted solution. This also means allowing those countries to develop their economies (Trump may not like that). That also shows why renewable energy sources are so important. Otherwise, those countries would only start to pollute more by burning fossil fuel.

Extending my point, if global warming continues to allow food production to increase as more land becomes arable, then population would expand even more.  Certainly if one was to check world food production, it has increased all through the latest warming trend.  Why would we think it would suddenly decline if warming continued?

Improved techniques and pesticides also improved crop yield, more than the rising CO2 levels would explain. Scientific studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

http://chartsbin.com/view/wwu

Heating the land so more of it becomes usable?  Have a look at that chart.  Higher water levels means less land - far more than is revealed by melting snow.  All land gets warmer, so "good" land becomes too hot and more land becomes desert at the same time a small amount of land becomes more usable.  It's a negative sum event, not a positive one.

Also, when sea levels rise less surface water is fresh water (because you lose more land than you gain and fresh water is held within the land boundaries, not the sea boundaries).

Also "the problem with that theory is that it is just a theory"?  Seriously, from someone who touts almost-random ideas as theories and then uses them as positions from which to argue?

By the way, gravity is "just a theory".  You really need to understand science before you attempt to use scientific terms, Alan (at the very least).

[Alan Klein]

Okay.

Have a look/listen to this video @ 8m15s where CO2 and crop-growth are mentioned (the rest of the video is also recommended):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31

I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.

Another factor is poverty. As studies have shown, the number of children that people 'produce' is highly correlated with income (and to a lesser extent with religious pressure to produce a larger flock of religious offspring). Lower incomes have more children, as an insurance for food and assistance at old age. Higher incomes can purchase such security and have less of a 'need' to secure that with offspring (and purchasing better quality healthcare helps to reduce child mortality).

So, improving the standards of living in the poorest developing countries is part of a multifaceted solution. This also means allowing those countries to develop their economies (Trump may not like that). That also shows why renewable energy sources are so important. Otherwise, those countries would only start to pollute more by burning fossil fuel.

Improved techniques and pesticides also improved crop yield, more than the rising CO2 levels would explain. Scientific studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,  I agree that many of the advances you mentioned have helped population growth and provided for healthier peoples.  But I believe the main catalyst for expanding populations has been farming itself.  Without it there would be no cities and we'd still be hunter-gathers. 

Regarding your point that studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains, how come the figures refute that.  Overall world production has increased.  Sure there may be local droughts.  But they're apparently being offset by more production in other areas.  It's my coral example again. 

I just found this article on how warming could double Canada's population as land opens to farming and other uses.  Meanwhile areas in the US will be stressed.  There's my coral theory again.
http://www.cantechletter.com/2016/10/global-warming-mean-huge-population-boom-canada-says-columnist/

Here's an article that would please Ray.  That CO2 is greening the planet.  In 30 years, the planet has gotten greener by 14%.  But the climate change supporters won't talk of this as it hurts their theory about more C02 hurting us.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,  I agree that many of the advances you mentioned have helped population growth and provided for healthier peoples.  But I believe the main catalyst for expanding populations has been farming itself.  Without it there would be no cities and we'd still be hunter-gathers.

Urbanization has been going on for a long long time (at least 2 millennia), as has settling and raising cattle instead of roaming and hunting for meat.

Regarding your point that studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains, how come the figures refute that.  Overall world production has increased.

Yes, but more due to improved technology and more resistent crops and pesticides than to a relatively small increase in temperature.

Sure there may be local droughts.  But they're apparently being offset by more production in other areas.  It's my coral example again.

It's more about higher yields at the same locations than shifting zones of growth. Besides, a shift of a zone will not expand the yield, it just relocates (if local circumstances are favorable, e.g. clean water, fertile ground, and the right insects for pollination).

The analogy of your coral theory remains flawed because not all coral will find the same shallow depth banks that allows them to grow from symbiosis with micro-algae that need a specific light spectrum and amount of light for photosynthesis. Sunlight nearer to the poles has a lower altitude and thus a lower energy. Besides, ocean acidification (from excess CO2) will hamper the calcium 'skeleton' deposits that build reefs. Corals will have worse conditions for healthy growth, so relocation is not a zero sum game.

I just found this article on how warming could double Canada's population as land opens to farming and other uses.  Meanwhile areas in the US will be stressed.  There's my coral theory again.
http://www.cantechletter.com/2016/10/global-warming-mean-huge-population-boom-canada-says-columnist/

From the article: "McGarvey says that with a low birth rate, the population boom would almost exclusively come from immigration"

Again, not growth but relocation.

Here's an article that would please Ray.  That CO2 is greening the planet.  In 30 years, the planet has gotten greener by 14%.  But the climate change supporters won't talk of this as it hurts their theory about more C02 hurting us.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/

Hard to comment on without access to the article they are referencing, but the abstract of the original article mentions:
"We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States."

So, their models show an upward greening (LAI, or Leaf Area Index) trend in the tropics from CO2. Not really a surprise, since CO2 is already used for that purpose in greenhouses, but much more finely tuned to maximize crop yield. I'm not going to spend $32 to get the full article, but I wonder if they also model the reduced evaporative cooling from plants in higher CO2 conditions, leading to even more warming. I also have no idea how the paper was received among peer reviewers.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Urbanization has been going on for a long long time (at least 2 millennia), as has settling and raising cattle instead of roaming and hunting for meat.

Yes, but more due to improved technology and more resistent crops and pesticides than to a relatively small increase in temperature.

It's more about higher yields at the same locations than shifting zones of growth. Besides, a shift of a zone will not expand the yield, it just relocates (if local circumstances are favorable, e.g. clean water, fertile ground, and the right insects for pollination).

The analogy of your coral theory remains flawed because not all coral will find the same shallow depth banks that allows them to grow from symbiosis with micro-algae that need a specific light spectrum and amount of light for photosynthesis. Sunlight nearer to the poles has a lower altitude and thus a lower energy. Besides, ocean acidification (from excess CO2) will hamper the calcium 'skeleton' deposits that build reefs. Corals will have worse conditions for healthy growth, so relocation is not a zero sum game.

From the article: "McGarvey says that with a low birth rate, the population boom would almost exclusively come from immigration"

Again, not growth but relocation.

Hard to comment on without access to the article they are referencing, but the abstract of the original article mentions:
"We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States."

So, their models show an upward greening (LAI, or Leaf Area Index) trend in the tropics from CO2. Not really a surprise, since CO2 is already used for that purpose in greenhouses, but much more finely tuned to maximize crop yield. I'm not going to spend $32 to get the full article, but I wonder if they also model the reduced evaporative cooling from plants in higher CO2 conditions, leading to even more warming. I also have no idea how the paper was received among peer reviewers.

Cheers,
Bart

Yes there are going to be dislocations.  Some species will do better, others not so good.  But the main question is why are we assuming that the current climate is the optimal climate for the earth considering its 4+ billion year history.  It could be that as humans, we tend to think what's happening now is what it's suppose to be.  Well, 1-2 degrees higher may actually be better overall. 

What concerns me is that we mainly argue about whether global warming is happening and whether man is responsible for it.  People who support spending loads of money to "stop" it just assume the world will be worse.  It may actually be better overall despite dislocations.  I don't think we're spending enough time addressing the positive aspects of a warmer climate because it goes against political thought regarding it.  That's unfortunate.  That also adds to the suspicion that someone has the thumb on the scales because there's an appearance of game playing.  If there was more honest discussion of the positive results, more people might actually agree with the climate change supporters rather than acting defensively.  More honest and open exchange would occur rather than both sides digging their heels in.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes there are going to be dislocations.  Some species will do better, others not so good.  But the main question is why are we assuming that the current climate is the optimal climate for the earth considering its 4+ billion year history.

It's the optimal compromise after millions of years of evolution ... Nobody claims it cannot become better, but most climate scientists agree that Global warming is not that hoped for improvement.

What concerns me is that we mainly argue about whether global warming is happening and whether man is responsible for it.

And that is what surprises me most. Apparently, there are still people who doubt it. Any meaningful discussion becomes a waste of time if reality is denied.
Well addressed in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=29
and here a follow-up video with all the sources referred to in the above video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8WrE63__I&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=30

People who support spending loads of money to "stop" it just assume the world will be worse.

That's another concern. When experts in their various Scientific fields of Climate/Geology/Oceanography/etc. and relevant branches have reached a consensus that the positive feedback is knocking the system out of control, why do (by comparison) relatively poorly informed people deny that consensus?
Addressed in this video (link was already shared):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31
and here is the report mentioned in that video that explains that the net effect of warming is bad for crop yields:
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1090_foodproduction.pdf
which mentions in its abstract:
QUOTE: "When crop-yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue to feed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears
stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarization of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater
inequality (A1FI and A2)."

Pretending that things will not get worse, has a high "fingers in ears, shouting LALALALA I cannot hear you", or worse a Flat Earth theory, level.
Well addressed in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=28

It may actually be better overall despite dislocations.  I don't think we're spending enough time addressing the positive aspects of a warmer climate because it goes against political thought regarding it.  That's unfortunate.  That also adds to the suspicion that someone has the thumb on the scales because there's an appearance of game playing.

That's another concern, especially in the USA: People's distrust in science, conspiracy theories. May have something to do with the quality of education or the influence of Hollywood productions. Of course, unverified blog posts are rampant and also do not help such a gullible public. Just because a blog post is referenced a lot by other blogs or lobbyists, does not mean it is more than a repetition of a falsehood, to begin with. That's exactly what the scientific method attempts to prevent. Credibility increases with ample peer review and exchange of counter expertise and lots of references to it by other valued scientific papers.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Bart I guess we'll just continue tho talk past each other.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart I guess we'll just continue tho talk past each other.

Yes, I suppose it's hard to argue scientific consensus with fake news.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Yeah.   You win.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yeah.   You win.

Discussions are not about winning, they are about exchanging information,  convincing, and I apparently failed despite the evidence.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Discussions are not about winning, they are about exchanging information,  convincing, and I apparently failed despite the evidence.

Cheers,
Bart

You might this Hidden Brain podcast interesting. (The MP3 download can be found on this page http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain but you need to scroll down the that page to find the entry. It doesn't seem possible to get a direct link to that individual podcast.)

[Alan Klein]

Discussions are not about winning, they are about exchanging information,  convincing, and I apparently failed despite the evidence.

Cheers,
Bart

Roaldi posted an interesting podcast link in the post after yours that I listened to for the first part.  Their point is that people discount "facts" and feed into emotion, which I agree with.  However, it's not that simple.  The listener to "facts" has to conclude that the so-called facts are really facts and not wrong or opinions or deliberate distortions or plain lies to get you to buy into something.  We are all faced with decisions like that. 

I had a medical issue a few years back that three different doctors proscribed different procedures.  Each of them assured me their procedure was the best.  Well, obviously two of them were wrong, maybe all three.  There may have been another way that I wasn't even aware of.  I was reading the other day that artificial sweeteners in soda may be worse for you them sugar.  So facts and science change as well.  Drug companies, accountants, salesmen, yes, even climate scientists have axes to grind.  The facts they provide may even be true but then they conveniently leave out other facts that offsets the first facts.  My example is the one that warming oceans kills coral reefs but then they don't tell you that those reefs would just move on to other areas that now have reached the proper warmer temperature.  So the net effect might be that warming could actually be better for reefs in general, just not your hometown reef.


Who goes through life believing what everyone tells them?  We all develop different levels of discernment. 

[Farmer]

My example is the one that warming oceans kills coral reefs but then they don't tell you that those reefs would just move on to other areas that now have reached the proper warmer temperature.

That's because that's not true.  The reefs have multiple requirements, not just temperature.

[Alan Klein]

There are many  colder locations in the sea that satisfy  the  other requirements for coral except temperature.   As global warming occurs,  then those locations will grow coral. That will be true for millions of other species.   

[Farmer]

There are many  colder locations in the sea that satisfy  the  other requirements for coral except temperature.

List some.  Also comment on the effect of changes in salinity and currents (particularly noting that current change will have a significant effect on temperatures), also consider those areas you mention with regard to their current (no pun intended) depth and proximity to land and to deep ocean, and also provide a time scale for this to occur (and compare to the time scale for reef death during the warming period).

[Alan Klein]

List some.  Also comment on the effect of changes in salinity and currents (particularly noting that current change will have a significant effect on temperatures), also consider those areas you mention with regard to their current (no pun intended) depth and proximity to land and to deep ocean, and also provide a time scale for this to occur (and compare to the time scale for reef death during the warming period).

Phil, that's a "gotcha" request, a straw man argument.  There are no lists or maps of places that I'm aware of that would show these things, only lists of existing reefs. 

Your implication that coral reefs will not spread to other areas is disproved by coral reef history.  Climate has changed during the entire history of the earth.  There have been hotter and colder periods than today.  Coral reefs have been around for hundreds of millions of years when temperatures as well as those other factors have changed.  Yet corals have survived.  Your argument that they'll disappear because of warming is disproved by history itself. 

Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, it has come and gone numerous times with the various ice ages.  So even in the same location, a particular reef system hadn't died out permanently.

Interestingly, a new 600 mile reef was just discovery in a most unusual place.  At the mouth of the Amazon River spreading out 3600 square miles off of South America.    And there are no maps yet of the extent of the reef which they believe might even link up with the Caribbean reef system.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/scientists-discover-a-new-coral-reef-at-the-amazons-mouth/479259/