Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here's a nice additional summary of a series of 27 videos about 'Climate Change' (and the section of that which is referred to as 'Global Warming'):

video 28 - The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

It's a great series of videos, because the information is based on actual (verifiable) scientific studies, and debunks a lot of what goes round in the 'Blog-o-sphere'. The only drawback, besides that it requires some time to view, is that the earlier videos don't include the very latest observations and information. That matters, because things have worsened even more in the last few years (largely in line with the models).

However, the creator of those videos is still active and occasionally posts new stuff, still worthwhile to watch, like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE

The author 'Potholer54' has made other interesting contributions, and as a former science journalist with a degree in geology he tries to drill down to the source of information, rather than resort to parroting blogs that usually are rather biased.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Worth Pondering:  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/what-if-climate-scientists-are-guessing-wrong.html

[Farmer]

Indeed, Alan.

And, again, I can't understand why the US (as one example) wouldn't want to invest in technologies that free them from finite energy resources regardless of any other motivation.  There are other countries moving in that direction and their input costs for so many things will reduce and make them more competitive in the long run.

Even China is heading that way (whilst claiming the need for more head room on green house gases - something I think is a double fake while they really want to leapfrog to renewables as quickly as possible), and if they get there first, they will have a huge advantage.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Phil - China is the leading producer of solar panels in the world these days and is making a huge investment in wind power as well.  What's curious in the US is that some of the major states producing energy from renewable resources are some of the biggest oil and gas producers as well.  I think Texas has the largest acreage of wind farms in the US.  The investments are being made but too much crazy talk is being wasted on the plight of coal miners whose jobs will never come back.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Phil - China is the leading producer of solar panels in the world these days and is making a huge investment in wind power as well.  What's curious in the US is that some of the major states producing energy from renewable resources are some of the biggest oil and gas producers as well.  I think Texas has the largest acreage of wind farms in the US.  The investments are being made but too much crazy talk is being wasted on the plight of coal miners whose jobs will never come back.

Texas isn't full of right wing "Drill, baby drill" conservatives as you might think.

There's job creating solar panel manufacturing...

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/30/texas-only-solar-panel-manufacturer-ramps-producti/

Myself and other hill country residences are signing petitions to have bills presented at the Texas legislature to stop developers from releasing millions of gallons of treated sewage effluent over the Edward's Aquifer. Developers think the limestone rock formations will filter out all the pharmaceuticals so residences don't need to worry about their well water being contaminated while living out in the sticks far away from the protection of any water municipality.

Texas's real problem now is "Build,baby, build!" by people from out of state who aren't committed to the betterment of long standing communities.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And, again, I can't understand why the US (as one example) wouldn't want to invest in technologies that free them from finite energy resources regardless of any other motivation.

Follow the money. 5 out of the 10 largest companies (in revenue) in the world are oil and gas companies, one is an Electric utility company, and 2 are automotive companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

That's 80% are in energy-related (producing or consuming) businesses, where the steel producers also guzzle up lots of energy in automotive parts suppliers. Even while their revenues are dropping, they resist giving up (what may seem to them) easy money because they do not have to pay the real cost. R&D into (for them) uncharted waters is a short-term risk, which they and their shareholders prefer to ignore for as long as possible.

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Texas isn't full of right wing "Drill, baby drill" conservatives as you might think.

There's job creating solar panel manufacturing...

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/30/texas-only-solar-panel-manufacturer-ramps-producti/

Myself and other hill country residences are signing petitions to have bills presented at the Texas legislature to stop developers from releasing millions of gallons of treated sewage effluent over the Edward's Aquifer. Developers think the limestone rock formations will filter out all the pharmaceuticals so residences don't need to worry about their well water being contaminated while living out in the sticks far away from the protection of any water municipality.

Texas's real problem now is "Build,baby, build!" by people from out of state who aren't committed to the betterment of long standing communities.

About twenty five years ago, I paddled the Guadalupe river near New Braunfels. The river started clean and cool from the Canyon lake, but there was so much run-off from the surrounding farms that the clarity and quality of that waterway deteriorated rapidly by each mile going downstream. Often the livestock farms are worse polluters than some industrial sites.

[Farmer]

Phil - China is the leading producer of solar panels in the world these days and is making a huge investment in wind power as well.  What's curious in the US is that some of the major states producing energy from renewable resources are some of the biggest oil and gas producers as well.  I think Texas has the largest acreage of wind farms in the US.  The investments are being made but too much crazy talk is being wasted on the plight of coal miners whose jobs will never come back.

China has already cancelled numerous coal burning power stations.  They will spend as little time as possible paying for their energy.  If Trump thinks that China has an "unfair" advantage in trade at the moment, wait until their input costs drop away to next to nothing!

Sure, investment is definitely being made elsewhere, but it's not unified and being driven as generational infrastructure change in the way I think that it should.  You don't even need to accept any level of climate change or environment concerns for this to stack up economically.  It's incredibly myopic by those who say the US (amongst others) can't afford to do it because others aren't doing it.  That's what happens when companies (and governments) chase short term goals for stock prices and votes respectively.

[Tim Lookingbill]

About twenty five years ago, I paddled the Guadalupe river near New Braunfels. The river started clean and cool from the Canyon lake, but there was so much run-off from the surrounding farms that the clarity and quality of that waterway deteriorated rapidly by each mile going downstream. Often the livestock farms are worse polluters than some industrial sites.

I agree with your assessment of the Guadalupe river water quality. Living in Kerrville far upstream beyond Canyon Lake 12 years ago the quality was and is just as bad. I refuse to swim or even wade in that river.

It's so bad that during low water levels due to droughts all surface debri now above water forms this horrible smelling yellowish white scale which gets real bad during high heat and humidity. When it rains it's like a sewer sauna.

When I dine at restaurants perched on a cliff overlooking the river in historic Gruene, Texas, I don't stroll down to the river during droughts unless I want to lose my appetite.

But at least it doesn't smell like crude oil.

[Alan Klein]

China's building nuclear big time but the environmentalists in America block it here.  Other NIMBY Not On My Back Yard people block it too.  Being a dictatorship,  China can do things others have problems doing.   I don't think we want to give up our freedoms and produce as China does.

Separately,  let free markets work.   We don't need the government to pick winners and losers.  Growing corn for methanol additives to gasoline for cars and the former oil depletion allowance are two examples of what happens with crony capitalism.

[Ray]

It's a great series of videos, because the information is based on actual (verifiable) scientific studies, and debunks a lot of what goes round in the 'Blog-o-sphere'. The only drawback, besides that it requires some time to view, is that the earlier videos don't include the very latest observations and information. That matters, because things have worsened even more in the last few years (largely in line with the models).

I guess these can't be the same, actual, verifiable scientific studies, Bart, that have caused the authors of latest IPCC report (2014) to admit in its Technical Summary that:

"There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness owing to a lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, and geographical inconsistencies in the trends."

And also admit that "There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions."

In other words, considering all of the gathered data, confidence is higher that droughts were worse during the past 1,000 years than they have been during the last century when CO2 levels began to rise.

Are these actual scientific studies you refer to also the ones which have been used in the latest IPCC report to indicate that:

"Confidence remains low for long term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities."

There are many thousands of scientific studies relating to climate science, Bart. As I posted some time ago, there are apparently over 700 peer reviewed scientific studies dealing with the issue of the Medieval Warm Period, indicating not only that it was a global phenomenon but was actually warmer than today, although it used to be claimed by many alarmist scientists such as Michael Mann that it was a localised event confined to the north west.

An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of many different disciplines, such astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.

I imagine not even climatologists have the time to read in detail all the papers in the numerous disciplines related to climatology. As a layperson one tends to  rely upon summaries of the studies, interviews of scientists by the media, reports from journalists, and comments by scientists on their own blog, and so on.

The problem is in deciding which points of view that are presented, appear more reasonable and believable, based upon the data that is also presented, and/or not presented as the case may be.

My views on climate are based on my natural curiosity about the subject. I'm concerned with facts. I don't like to be misled.
For example, if a climate scientist gives a talk on ocean acidification and doesn't even bother to mention what the current estimated pH of the oceans is and how much it is estimated to have fallen during the past couple of centuries, then he is clearly leaving many listeners in the position of not even knowing the most basic fact of whether the oceans are currently acidic, or alkaline, or approximately neutral.

I would not consider such a person to be a reliable source of information on ocean acidification.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Two (sceptical) articles:

1. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/censorship-threatens-truth-climate

Patrick Michaels, a member of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has accused the climate establishment of trying to manufacture a consensus in peer-reviewed academic journals by censoring or squeezing out dissenters. He should know, he is a victim.

IPCC scientists, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, are not unanimous on climate change. A few like Patrick Michaels and John Christy say fears of global warming are greatly exaggerated. The climate establishment dismisses most dissenters as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. It cannot so easily dismiss Michaels or Christy, who are distinguished members of the Nobel Prize-winning team.

2. THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Abrupt Climate Change

What scientific evidence do we have that abrupt climate change has happened before?

[Farmer]

Separately,  let free markets work.   We don't need the government to pick winners and losers.  Growing corn for methanol additives to gasoline for cars and the former oil depletion allowance are two examples of what happens with crony capitalism.

Except it's not free.  Oil and coal have so much political support that it's not a level playing field for other options.

[Ray]

Two (sceptical) articles:

1. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/censorship-threatens-truth-climate

2. THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Abrupt Climate Change

What scientific evidence do we have that abrupt climate change has happened before?

Fascinating articles, Slobodan. Thanks for that. I'm guessing that the reason the IPCC in its latest report has toned down the alarmism about the increasing severity of extreme weather events that have been predicted in the past to result from CO2 increases, is because so many very qualified scientists, who are also qualified in the relevant scientific disciplines, have strongly objected to such projections on the grounds they are not based on sound evidence.

In Australia we had a very severe drought from 2001 to 2009.  In Queensland where I live, the dam levels became so low that the Queensland Government imposed water restrictions. No watering of the garden or washing of the car with a hose was allowed. The government even subsidised the installation of water tanks to collect rainfall from the roofs of urban dwellings. If you had a water tank installed, you could then safely water your garden without risk of prosecution, provided you had a notice on your gate, "Water Tank in Use".

When I had a house built on my property in 2009-10, I was dismayed at the new regulations that required me to have an electric pump attached to a water tank that would automatically start whenever the toilet was flushed, and also provide all the cold water to my washing machine.
7 years later I'm into my second pump which is also beginning to 'misbehave'. The cost of the pump and the replacements, added to the cost of the water tanks, is far greater than the value of the water saved in terms of the cost of the alternative town water supply, which I'm also connecterd to.

I'm now considering whether I should pay a plumber a thousand dollars or so to reconnect my toilet and washing machine to the town water supply. I would rather spend that thousand dollars on a Nikon D7200. 

Such regulations that applied 7 years ago no longer apply because since that time there has been plentiful rain on the East Coast where I'm located.
The reason I'm relating this story is because of my perception of a vast bungling by the politicians in the Queensland government who were influenced by the advice of 'climate change alarmists' such as Tim Flannery.

Tim Flannery is a mammologist, paleontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist. He was also the Chief Commissioner of the Federal Government funded Climate Commission at the time. He was sacked in September 2013.

Tim Flannery's advice was that CO2-induced climate change would increase extreme weather events and that the then-current drought in Australia would be a more common and more prolonged event into the future.

Instead of approving the proposals to build additional dams in the area, in order to take advantage of the huge water supply that would occur during the next flood, and protect the homes of residents from a future predicted flood due to natural causes, based on the historical record, the Queensland Government decided to build a number of rather expensive desalination plants on the coast.

The desalination plants were used very briefly because soon after their construction the El Nina rains arrived. In the build-up to the wet weather period, dams that were built for flood mitigation purposes years ago, were filled up to near the limit, on the understanding that droughts were predicted to be the norm, by climate alarmists like Tim Flannery.

When the rains continued, there was no dam reserve to hold the water, which therefore had to be released, which caused billions of dollars worth of damage to property, and uncountable loss of dollars in respect to loss of life.

I suspect that the total cost of the flood damage, plus the cost of subsidised water tanks, plus the cost of the desalination plants, was more than the cost of building new dams during the drought, which would have prevented the subsequent flood damage.

This is an example of 'climate change alarmism' having negative social and economic impacts.
Australia is a land of droughts and floods, and this is still the case despite rises in CO2 levels. That we don't build more dams to store the excess water in times of flood, to prevent damage to property and life, and provide more water in times of drought, is amazingly stupid.

[Robert Roaldi]

This 40 min podcast is an interview with Katherine Hayhoe wrt climate change from a CBC radio news and public affairs program: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/april-30-2017-the-sunday-edition-with-michael-enright-1.4087030/donald-trump-versus-the-climate-a-conversation-with-katharine-hayhoe-1.4087037

The content of the interview will not sway those who will not be swayed, and I am not including it for that reason, but there are a few interesting bits about the psychology of belief that don't often get heard. 

[Otto Phocus]

Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

I thought it was an interesting read.  As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.

Anyone else read it?

[Ray]

The content of the interview will not sway those who will not be swayed, and I am not including it for that reason, but there are a few interesting bits about the psychology of belief that don't often get heard.

I actually listened to that interview and was disappointed in the lack of science in the discussion. The arguments presented by Katherine Hayhoe seemed to me to contain the typical confusions and political bluster about the climate change issue, such as the failure to distinguish between the undeniable evidence that climate has always changed in the past and can reasonably be expected to change in the future, and the possible effects that rising CO2 levels might have in amplifying the current slight warming, and whether or not such warming will be harmful in general, accepting the fact there will always be winners and losers.

There was also confusion between the 'real' pollution from fossil fuels that affect our health, and CO2 which is a clean, odourless gas essential for all life. Failing to distinguish between these two types of emissions is a typical political strategy designed to appeal to the ignorant, and the unfortunate consequence of this is that new technologies which can provide 'clean coal', such as the Ultra-Supercritical power plants which also burn coal more efficiently, will not get off the ground and be developed, because they still emit that clean CO2.

Another rather contradictory, but revealing statement that Katherine made was the implication that some people reject the AGW hypothesis when they realize it's so expensive to fix. However this is a two-edged sword that is much sharper on the other side.

Fixing the problems due to the natural, extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and cyclones, is the most expensive task of all. It must be very convenient and comforting for people to believe that reducing CO2 levels will protect their inadequate housing structures from a future cyclone or flood. This is where the falsehood about the problems of CO2 lies.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

I thought it was an interesting read.  As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.

Anyone else read it?

Hi,

I haven't read it yet. From what I've read about him, he seems to be a smart guy. The only reservation I have is that he has a PhD in Political Science, which doesn't automatically make him the best qualified person to discuss Physics related branches of Science. But if he is really that smart, he'd probably have some interesting views on the subject of Climate Change, which seems to interest him enough to write about.

I'll add his publications to the long list of things to read.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

I thought it was an interesting read.  As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.

Anyone else read it?

After searching the internet for his book, it sounds interesting. Here's a summary.

"In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.

Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of limited resources. The Skeptical Environmentalist is a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by green activists and the media."

[Alan Goldhammer]

Has anyone read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

I thought it was an interesting read.  As a scientist, I appreciated his focusing on the data sources and how the data is collected and used.

Anyone else read it?

Yes, I've read it and also had the opportunity to meet him several years ago.  I'm not in agreement with everything he writes as he does skip over some stuff.  The difficulty as we seen on this forum is that confirmation bias is difficult to overcome.