Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 72   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 213794 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #860 on: August 11, 2017, 04:00:30 pm »

The purpose of the report is the production of a: "report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts".

Be glad, now you can continue your contribution to ruining the planet for your offspring and others, and live a shorter life.

Cheers,
Bart
My contribution to ruining the planet is rather limited.  Unlike Al Gore, I don't fly on a private jet.  :)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #861 on: August 11, 2017, 04:32:53 pm »

My contribution to ruining the planet is rather limited.

That's what many people think, but many people together produce a lot of pollution.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #862 on: August 11, 2017, 06:11:19 pm »

That's what many people think, but many people together produce a lot of pollution.

Cheers,
Bart

I agree we should stop those people. 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #863 on: August 13, 2017, 07:52:59 pm »

The purpose of the report is the production of a: "report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts".

Bart,
Did you notice the following reference to uncertainties in that report?

Major uncertainties

"Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models."
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #864 on: August 14, 2017, 09:01:22 am »

Bart,
Did you notice the following reference to uncertainties in that report?

Major uncertainties

"Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models."


Yes, I've seen it, and what's more, I've understood what they are saying.

For instance, and I'll focus on one subject that you used/misinterpreted from the IPCC reports;
"Key Finding 2
The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world (very high confidence). These trends are consistent with expected physical responses to a warming climate. Climate model studies are also consistent with these trends, although models tend to underestimate the observed trends, especially for the increase in extreme precipitation events (very high confidence for temperature, high confidence for extreme precipitation). The frequency and intensity of extreme temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases (high confidence). Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world (high confidence)."

Then follows the sentence that explains some the difficulties you cherry-picked from the report.

"Observed and projected trends for some other types of extreme events, such as floods, droughts, and severe storms, have more variable regional characteristics."

Because of the more variable regional characteristics, it's harder to qualify it with high Confidense for a global environment. Also, because they are extremes, their frequency of occurrence is generally lower than that of other events, which has an effect of the statistical 'confidence level' (meaning that on a local basis they are too infrequent to have reliable statistics, with a high confidence level), hence the lower confidence levels that are given to the data sets. In contrast, the likelihood of these extreme events happening is "very likely" to increase.

That key finding, which you quoted out of context, is then further qualified as follows:
"Major uncertainties
Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models."

So, given the regional differences which reduces the confidence level of the dataset, it is indeed harder to predict the exact Magnitude of such events especially at a Global level. That's a very logical result and not hard to understand for those who understand the terminology that is used. Again, 'Confidence Levels' are about datasets and consensus, 'Likelihood' is about the probability of occurrence.

So while a Confidence level of a dataset may sometimes be lower (due to a more limited number, or the changing location, of observations), Likelihoods can be very or extremely high. That's almost statistics 101.

Another thing is that as instrumentation improves, it is found that the improved quality and frequency is usually fully in line with the trend from earlier observations, hence the higher Likelihood, despite the missing observations in the past (which lowered the confidence level of the earlier data-sets).

Sometimes better quality data leads to a discovery that leads to adjustments of prior data-sets, e.g. in the case of ocean temperatures measured too close to the exhausts of the ship, compared to actual water-temperatures measured with growing numbers of buoys.

Other remaining issues that affect confidence levels in data-sets are when local conditions are influenced by unwanted bias sources, e.g. expanding cities which create their own (heat-island) micro-climate, or when rising water levels start flooding observation posts near those water-bodies and the observation posts need to be relocated (which reduces the confidence level of the data).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #865 on: August 14, 2017, 09:25:47 am »

All you've confirmed with all those words is that doubt exists.   These same climate experts  predicted more hurricanes over the past few seasons.   They never occurred.  Of the ones that did occur,  those were also weaker than predicted.   

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #866 on: August 14, 2017, 10:45:21 am »

All you've confirmed with all those words is that doubt exists.   These same climate experts  predicted more hurricanes over the past few seasons.   They never occurred.  Of the ones that did occur,  those were also weaker than predicted.

Must be your reading skills, but they state that the "Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales ...".

There is no doubt that extreme weather events are a result of an anthropogenic trend in climate change.

There is also no doubt that "The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world (very high confidence)". That means that there is lots of data /observations of these facts, as well as a consensus that this is a valid conclusion.

The only thing they say is that "some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of science does not permit detailed understanding."

And to refresh your mind, Climate Change is not the same as Weather Events. Climate is a trend in a large regional or global area on a multidecadal scale, where as Weather events are more local short term events. Some of these complex (infrequent) Weather events are not precisely predictable, not at the current state of science.

Sorry for the long posts, but you could also read it yourself in the even longer source document.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #867 on: August 14, 2017, 10:57:01 am »

... you could also read it yourself in the even longer source document.
Cheers,
Bart

HA!  Like that's ever going to happen.  The <insert usual suspects here> Read absolutely NOTHING unless it already agrees with their beliefs.
"My mind's made up.  Don't try to confuse me with facts."
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #868 on: August 14, 2017, 10:57:17 am »

But Bart, the same people who speak in this repott are the same people who guaranteed worse and more frequent hurricanes.   Guaranteed! 

So don't you see the difficulty in convincing people of long term changes?  There are too many"maybe's" and assumptions one your and their words.

Plus,  without indicating cost - benefit figures,  there's little
meaningful way to figure out what to do.  The report is must going to be used as"the sky is falling" political statement.   It will be ignored after one day of anti - Trump attacks.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #869 on: August 14, 2017, 11:24:53 am »

But Bart, the same people who speak in this report are the same people who guaranteed worse and more frequent hurricanes.   Guaranteed!

I'm not sure they are the same people, since you do not provide evidence for that. Anyway, the report has an outlook till 2100. So there's some time for them to be confirmed in their expectations. You may want to wait for that (wishing you a long life, I know), and then say that they were also correct about that aspect, and that you wished that you had listened to them when it was still possible to prevent some of the unwanted consequences.

Quote
So don't you see the difficulty in convincing people of long term changes?  There are too many"maybe's" and assumptions one your and their words.


That is a known psychological barrier, it's easier to do nothing than it is to take action. It is also easier to look for short term small rewards than it is to look for larger more distant longer term rewards. All shrinks know that. But even monkeys can learn to prefer greater postponed reward, so there is still hope.

Quote
Plus,  without indicating cost - benefit figures,  there's little
meaningful way to figure out what to do.  The report is must going to be used as"the sky is falling" political statement.   It will be ignored after one day of anti - Trump attacks.

This is not an 'economic guidelines for policy makers' report, it's a summary of the scientific consensus about climate change. The US Administration can, and will, do with it as it sees fit, and probably ignore it.

Companies, Individual States, and concerned citizens, will ignore the Central Government, because they will be suffering the consequences when the current Administration is out of office.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #870 on: August 14, 2017, 11:59:56 am »

I'm not sure they are the same people, since you do not provide evidence for that. Anyway, the report has an outlook till 2100. So there's some time for them to be confirmed in their expectations. You may want to wait for that (wishing you a long life, I know), and then say that they were also correct about that aspect, and that you wished that you had listened to them when it was still possible to prevent some of the unwanted consequences.
 

That is a known psychological barrier, it's easier to do nothing than it is to take action. It is also easier to look for short term small rewards than it is to look for larger more distant longer term rewards. All shrinks know that. But even monkeys can learn to prefer greater postponed reward, so there is still hope.

This is not an 'economic guidelines for policy makers' report, it's a summary of the scientific consensus about climate change. The US Administration can, and will, do with it as it sees fit, and probably ignore it.

Companies, Individual States, and concerned citizens, will ignore the Central Government, because they will be suffering the consequences when the current Administration is out of office.

Cheers,
Bart
Companies won't suffer as I've said in past posts.  The free market will determine what course they will take.  That will make them more profitable and efficient because they won't be bound to higher costs.  Washington will not impede them with additional regulations that will make Chinese goods cost less as they continue to ignore Paris standards for the next 13 years as foolish Europeans have agreed too.

Individual states like California will continue what they do increasing standards as they have in the past. More companies will continue to flee that state to other states that encourage free enterprise with less regulations.  That's going to hurt Californians who will also continue to flee their state.

Individuals will run their lives in the most economic ways for them for the most part ignoring regulations that cost money.  Some, mainly the rich,  will spend more to assuage their egos in the eyes of their neighbors.  Others like Al Gore will continue to fly their own jets talking out of both sides of their mouth. 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #871 on: August 14, 2017, 09:19:23 pm »

That is a known psychological barrier, it's easier to do nothing than it is to take action. It is also easier to look for short term small rewards than it is to look for larger more distant longer term rewards. All shrinks know that. But even monkeys can learn to prefer greater postponed reward, so there is still hope.

It's far easier to demonize CO2 and develop a new industry of renewable energy sources, than tackle the real problem. It's a brilliant political ploy. Whenever there's an extreme weather event resulting in loss of property and lives, it can be blamed on rising CO2 levels rather than governmental incompetence in allowing the construction of properties in flood plains, or homes in cyclonic areas which have not been built to withstand the force of previous cyclones that are known to have occurred in the area.

The Urban Heat Island effect is another example. Most of the world's population live in cities and suburbs. Whenever there's a heat wave in a particular area there's a rise in the concerns about the health effects of the excessive heat and resulting loss of life. This is then blamed on rising CO2 levels. What is rarely mentioned, is that the UHI effect can raise temperatures in the city by as much as 5 degrees C higher than the temperature in the surrounding countryside.

As cities continue to expand, and wooded areas or farmland close to the cities are cleared for the construction of yet more dwellings and black-tarred roads, the UHI effect will increase. Reducing atmospheric CO2 levels will have little effect. In fact, encouraging the residents in such cities to cover their roofs with black or dark blue solar panels will contribute to the UHI effect, because, as we all know, black, and dark colors in general, absorb heat.

The real solution to the UHI effect is too difficult and too expensive. Blaming CO2 is much easier. The sorts of changes that need to be made to reduce the UHI effect are ensuring that all roofs, buildings, pavement and roads, and so on, are either white or at least a pale shade of color which reflects heat.

In addition, it would help if all roads were lined with trees, more nature parks created in the city centre, and certain large, flat roofs of buildings turned into gardens, where feasible.

Also, in order to protect the vulnerable from heat stress, a reliable source of affordable energy is required to meet the increased demand for electricity to drive air-conditioners. There have been some incidents in the recent past when the state of South Australia, which relies heavily upon wind farms and renewable energy, has failed to meet electricity demands during extreme weather events. This has resulted in a lot of political turmoil which still continues today.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #872 on: August 14, 2017, 09:44:04 pm »

...There have been some incidents in the recent past when the state of South Australia, which relies heavily upon wind farms and renewable energy, has failed to meet electricity demands during extreme weather events. This has resulted in a lot of political turmoil which still continues today.


Tesla,an American company,  is suppose to sell $100 million of storage batteries to help in those conditions.  I guess Tesla hasn't realized America pulled out of the Paris Accord.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #873 on: August 15, 2017, 10:26:43 am »

It's far easier to demonize CO2 and develop a new industry of renewable energy sources, than tackle the real problem.

What real problem? Humans?

And as for 'demonizing CO2', who is demonizing it? What scientists are saying is that human activities have significantly added to whatever natural causes have contributed to Global Warming.

As the final draft of the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) says, on the current page 12:
Quote
This report concludes that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

So, if you insist on using that term, it's 'demonizing' human influence. And of course it is not demonizing it either, it just points out cause and effect. That allows policy-makers to address the relevant causes if they deem the effects unwanted.

However, it is known that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, and that an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere (e.g. from the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation/land-management, and urbanization) is contributing to an extremely rapid (in climatological and geological terms) increase in global temperatures. Of the Greenhouse gasses, CO2 has longer lasting effects than some other (more potent) Greenhouse gasses and aerosols, so it will take longer to slow down or reverse the trend, unless we soon stop adding increasing amounts.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #874 on: August 15, 2017, 10:24:53 pm »

What real problem? Humans?

There's a huge psychological problem resulting from the ways that modern humans have organised their lifestyles. Life in general, without human intervention, is in a continual state of adaption to its natural surroundings. Climate is always changing. As one particular region becomes warmer, or colder, or drier, or wetter, or whatever, animals will tend to migrate to where conditions are more favourable. If a fish finds itself swimming in waters that are too cold or too warm or too acidic, it will tend to swim to more suitable waters

Plants will also thrive or die according to the environmental conditions, or relocate to more favourable conditions through a process sometimes called 'long distance seed dispersion', whereby seeds can be transported in mud on the feet of vertebrates, pass unharmed through the digestive system of birds, or be carried long distances by wind.

http://www.amjbot.org/content/87/9/1217.full

It is also reasonable to suppose that our early, hunter-gatherer ancestors would have migrated out of Africa in search of greener pastures, just naturally following trails that became greener or more fertile as the climate gradually changed. There was nothing to hold them back.

The following link to recent research sheds more light on this.
https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/early-human-migration/

So what's changed? Humanity is now anchored in cities and farms. People are less free to roam. They are usually stuck in one place because of their attachment to property and possessions and their requirement for a regular job to buy yet more possessions.

It's understandable that, as climate changes, modern humanity in it's fixed abode, will tend to get very anxious about changes in weather patterns in their particular region, that might affect the prosperity and well-being of their children and grandchildren. Such anxiety might also be exaggerated as a result of our historical knowledge of previous civilizations that collapsed because of their inability to adapt to a changing climate.

But, don't worry! As a result of the marvelous development of modern science, we've been able to identify the cause of the current slight warming and offer a solution.
It's mostly due to the minuscule rises in atmospheric CO2 due to humanity's burning of fossil fuels. All we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels, and the climate will gradually return to a stable and benign state for all of humanity, as God has decreed.  :D

What a comforting story! I feel almost guilty in trying to debunk it.  ;)

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #875 on: August 23, 2017, 05:14:37 pm »

Ray:  Could you interpret this data that says warming is BS.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/100-of-us-warming-is-fake/

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #876 on: August 23, 2017, 10:58:31 pm »

Warmer or extreme temperatures are just one aspect of the global warming.
I just returned from a trip to Gaspe in Quebec, and saw with my own eyes many miles of coastline and building(s) erosion.

Quote
The area under study covers 3220 km of coastline and includes 16 regional county municipalities
(RCM) spread out between the Bas-Saint-Laurent, the Côte-Nord, the Gaspésie and the Îles-dela-Madeleine.
The results of the study indicate that 5426 buildings throughout the territory will
be exposed by 2065 if no adaptation measures are implemented and existing works are not
maintained, keeping a safety margin of at least 5 metres from the coastline. The value of these
buildings, in 2012 dollars, is $732 million. There are also 294 km of roads and 26 km of railways
that will be exposed by 2065, representing a value of $776 million. The potential economic loss
for the period between 2015 -2064, i.e. the next 50 years, is estimated at $1.5 billion.

https://www.ouranos.ca/publication-scientifique/RapportBernatchez2015_EN.pdf

7 min. video by CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/erosion-takes-toll-on-gaspé-coast-1.4010048

and that's just a coastline in one small part of Quebec
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #877 on: August 24, 2017, 12:18:38 am »

Warmer or extreme temperatures are just one aspect of the global warming.
I just returned from a trip to Gaspe in Quebec, and saw with my own eyes many miles of coastline and building(s) erosion.

https://www.ouranos.ca/publication-scientifique/RapportBernatchez2015_EN.pdf

7 min. video by CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/erosion-takes-toll-on-gaspé-coast-1.4010048

and that's just a coastline in one small part of Quebec

Coastlines have always been eroded.  That's normal process.  Of course, people stupidly build next to the beaches, ocean, lakes and rivers because it's prettier and more desirable. They even pay more for the opportunity to be flooded.  A few years ago, we were looking to move to the Long Island Shore in Oceanside.  Then I looked at the FEMA flood maps and told my wife to forget about it.    They rated the areas in the town  A,B, C or D, one worse then the other depending how close you are to the ocean.  You have to buy special subsidized flood insurance from the federal government.  Why is the government encouraging people to move into flood areas? 

I live in New Jersey twenty miles inland of the Ocean so I won't have a problem,.  But I went to the Jersey shore that was hit by Hurricane Sandy.  It's pretty much all fixed up again.  Some people put their homes back on stilts. Others moved everything up stairs keep just the garages on the ground level.  Others seem to have fixed up with no changes just waiting for disaster to happen again.  Property values I believe have gone up.  People just want to live in these areas.  But the point is, wild storms will happen anyway.  Things get eroded by normal processes. 

I did watch the 7 minute clip.  Only once was climate change mentioned.  But no one made any factual relation between the erosion of the coast and any global warming.  It seems they're getting rough storms.  But so what?  That doesn't mean it's related to climate change.  Also, they did say that a lot of the damage is actually being caused by the sea walls installed by man to protect from erosion was actually causing the erosion.  Apparently, the walls cause the waves to break down harder on the rebound washing away the beach that would have slowed down the normal erosion process.  One woman admits that she really has to move their restaurant back away from the coast.  Why is it so close to begin with?  Within yards.  In any case, there was nothing really pointing to global warming causing the damage.  Frankly, people just don't understand that everyone once in a while, regardless of their plans, major weather events are going to happen that will cause major damage especially if you insist on building in those areas.  Move inland where I live. 

PS: I didn't have time to read the pdf.  But what does it say of erosion caused by so called global warming vs. that which would have happened anyway?

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #878 on: August 24, 2017, 12:26:50 am »

Oh I forgot to mention.  After I decided to not move to Oceanside, Sandy hit.  We had friends i Oceanside who had major flood damage.  Entire first floors had to be re-done.  Some homes got wiped out.  Government paid for flood insurance paid for the repairs.  Of course, they're just sitting there waiting for the next Sandy. I'm really glad we move to inland New Jersey.  Of course, who knows what might happen here.  Maybe an earthquake, God forbid.  We lost power for about a minute last night.  That never happened when i lived in Queens NYC.  Although we did have a microburst there that knocked down all the trees.  You can't win! Nature's always messing with us.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #879 on: August 24, 2017, 01:06:44 am »

You are right, Alan, the coasts have been eroded and houses were flooded before. However, with the raising sea levels and more extreme weather, it seems that the storms are getting more destructive. And it's one thing to be flooded and something entirely different to lose the ground below and around your property.

Just last week, I stood on that beach in Perce that was shown in the video. The restaurant gone, and so was the land. They were still working on the coast restoration bringing huge boulders, blocks of concrete and large chunks of road pavement. The coast erosion is visible on most of their coastlines, but the most dramatic view was on the northeastern side of Gaspe that gets the most pounding during the winter storms. There was a stretch of road, still being repaired, where they restored the inside lane closer to the mountain side and the outside lane was still closed and missing huge chunks of pavement.

I was lucky to have perfect weather during my trip, sunny and warm, and in that weather the Gaspe Peninsula is beautiful to explore and photograph. Attached is a shot from the southern part of Route 132 showing the eroded coastline. The houses in that picture seem already to be close to the cliff edge. I wonder how long before that coast crumbles and everything falls down.  One day, this picture may turn out as a historic record showing the buildings which stood there in 2017.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 01:59:19 am by LesPalenik »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 72   Go Up