Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Ray]

I'm not really interested in name-calling, but how about "realists", also given the scientific consensus they base their opinions on?
 
Unless one denies plain scientific evidence ...

Cheers,
Bart

I have no argument with climate change realists. I consider myself to be a realist. A realist understands that climate is always changing and that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is never constant in any particular region during any period. Over intervals of just a few decades the frequency or intensity of a particular type of extreme weather event can fluctuate significantly.

There can be an upward trend over, say, a 20 year period, which can confirm in the minds of 'alarmists' (as opposed to realists  ) that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Then there can be a pause or a downward trend for a few years which tends to be dismissed by the alarmists and most news media, and is rarely mentioned because it's not attention-grabbing.

Australia is often described as the 'land of droughts and floods' (Oops! name-calling again    ).

The following research paper describes the history of flooding and droughts during the past 500 years in Australia and New Zealand, examining drought-sensitive tree-ring chronologies and corals.

What is revealing are the following comments from the researchers.

"Of the five most extreme single years of drought in the past 500 years (when averaged across all of eastern Australia), not one occurred after 1900.

In contrast, two of the five wettest years in our data took place after 1950 (2011 was the wettest year in the 513-year record). The 1700s were particularly dry with three of the five worst drought years, but also notably had the most prolonged wet period (1730-60)."

https://theconversation.com/500-years-of-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australias-climate-history-51573
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124002/pdf

Here's a link to some other research which uses Anarctic ice core data as proxy climate records for Eastern Australia, for the past 1,000 years.

http://acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-reveal-risks-for-water-supply/
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/1703/2016/hess-20-1703-2016.pdf

“The study showed that modern climate records, which are available for the past one hundred years at best, do not capture the full range of rainfall variability that has occurred,” Dr Tozer said.

“The wet and dry periods experienced since 1900 have been relatively mild when we look at the climate extremes of the past millennium.”

“Looking back over the past thousand years, we see that prolonged wet periods and droughts of five years or longer are a regular feature of the climate.”

“What this study shows is that existing water management plans likely underestimate the true risk of drought and flood due to the reliance on data and statistics obtained from only the relatively short instrumental period.”  

In other words, if we’ve underestimated natural climate change and the severity of past floods and droughts which are not associated with human CO2 emissions— then today's computer models have been overestimating the influence of CO2.

[Alan Goldhammer]

No, we have no way of knowing what the "trend" was in the 900's, but we do know that Leif was able to farm in areas that now are too icy, so we know that there must have been a "trend" in order to get the temperatures to that level -- unless you assume the temperature suddenly jumped over night.

And I'd certainly agree that it would be wise to wait and see -- to wait until this panic passes, as have many similar politically-driven panics in the past.

Russ, you are right about there being historical records about climate induced incidents.  My favorite is the Salem witchcraft hysteria which was more likely linked to ergot 'poisoning' from a very damp fall which caused fungal growth on the rye crop.  It certainly would be good if we had a longer trend of recorded temperatures than we have.

Climate chemistry is quite complex.  I remember back to my undergraduate days in the mid-1960s when I took a course in climate chemistry.  The case against chloro-fluorocarbon refrigerants was still some years away but the jury was already in regarding the interactions of ozone along with sulfur and nitrogen dioxides as regards to smog production.  Of course there was also the great London catastrophe in the early 1950s (and one earlier in Donora Pennsylvania) that were caused by peculiar weather coupled with coal burning for heat.

[Alan Goldhammer]

What is revealing are the following comments from the researchers.

"Of the five most extreme single years of drought in the past 500 years (when averaged across all of eastern Australia), not one occurred after 1900.

In contrast, two of the five wettest years in our data took place after 1950 (2011 was the wettest year in the 513-year record). The 1700s were particularly dry with three of the five worst drought years, but also notably had the most prolonged wet period (1730-60)."

https://theconversation.com/500-years-of-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australias-climate-history-51573
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124002/pdf

Thanks for posting these.  It's very interesting to read the reconstruction of the Australian climate history.  However, what we are seeing right now is endangerment of the coral reefs because of ocean acidification.  The general article that you link has this very interesting comment:

"You may have noticed that the Millennium Drought happened in a negative IPO phase. Our data show that there is a strong relationship between the phases of the IPO and drought - until around 1976. After that the relationship gets weaker. Why is a question for further research, but one possibility is human-caused climate change."

So there appears to be a recent anomaly in the linkage of the data.

[Rob C]

Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make. We are not magically pumping and disappearing exactly the same volume of it every year, and that already pumped isn't going anywhere else. Even a photographer gets that. Doesn't he? Consequently, everything else seems to be whitewash and denial for whatever reason such people might have. It's usually for the purposes of making big bucks, but that hardly accounts for the point of view of the individuals...

But then lemmings are nothing new, and are indeed currently very popular: we got Brexit already; some of the fancy-dress kilts are fingering their sporrans and doing their best too, and Catalonia seems hell-bent on cutting its own throat just as Corsica wonders how to do it better, so roll on madness, the new in-thing.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Phil,

Your argument is becoming silly (there, I called your argument a name, report me to the moderator). According to you, in the future, we can not possibly use terms like the left, the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.!?

Once again, which people did Ray call names? Not Alan, not Bart, not you. He put a label, quite justifiably, on a school of thought (though using the term "thought" is quite charitable in this case). Just as we put a label on a school of thought (charitably) known as liberalism. Or conservatism.

Besides, Ray did provide logical refutation, quite lengthy, in the same post, of the very inflammatory statement in the OP. Were Ray's post just a single sentence: "That's an example of 'alarmist' news" (which it indeed is), than maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, it is just an attempt at censorship. And you know what I think of censorship, white gloves or otherwise.

[Alan Klein]

Positive news about global warming.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

[Ray]

"You may have noticed that the Millennium Drought happened in a negative IPO phase. Our data show that there is a strong relationship between the phases of the IPO and drought - until around 1976. After that the relationship gets weaker. Why is a question for further research, but one possibility is human-caused climate change."

So there appears to be a recent anomaly in the linkage of the data.

True, Alan, but the data in the first research paper only goes back as far as 1500 AD, which is a date close to the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The anomaly, or the weaker relationship with the IPO phases, could be due the current, slight, global warming, whether or not such warming is caused by human emissions of CO2.

The second research paper I linked to, goes back a thousand years, close to the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period, and concludes that “The wet and dry periods experienced since 1900 have been relatively mild when we look at the climate extremes of the past millennium.”

There are many claims that the MWP was not a global event, but such claims are based upon a lack of evidence. Here is a research paper that uses reconstructions of tree ring data from the southern island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years, which supports the global occurrence of the MWP.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002GeoRL..29n..12C

From the abstract (which is all I can find).

"The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1,000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP."

As regards the alarming bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef recently, it appears to be recovering well, despite current CO2 levels (or perhaps because of them  ).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/coral-regeneration-raises-hopes-for-great-barrier-reef-recovery/9001518

"Optimism is rising among scientists that parts of the Great Barrier Reef that were severely bleached over the past two years are making a recovery.
The institute's Neil Cantin said they were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce."

[Alan Klein]

The problem with much of the data is that humans don't live long enough.  So what they see as a trend is just a perturbation. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

As regards the alarming bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef recently, it appears to be recovering well, despite current CO2 levels (or perhaps because of them  ).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/coral-regeneration-raises-hopes-for-great-barrier-reef-recovery/9001518

"Optimism is rising among scientists that parts of the Great Barrier Reef that were severely bleached over the past two years are making a recovery.
The institute's Neil Cantin said they were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce."

That is good news if the trend holds!!

[Farmer]

Phil,

Your argument is becoming silly (there, I called your argument a name, report me to the moderator). According to you, in the future, we can not possibly use terms like the left, the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.!?

That's part of the point, Slobo.  You can call my argument silly.  I would then invite you to show why.  You've done that, already, to some degree, so that gives me a basis on which to consider and respond.  No personal names needed.  No summary, ad hominem dismissal from either side.  So easy!

So, no, according to me there's no problem using political labels to discuss political issues where those labels are considered neutral and accurate.  You didn't, for example, use "Libtards" but instead said Liberals.  Now, I know many people use "liberal" as a dirty word, but inherently it's not.

In this particular case, we were entreated to make it apolitical.  So use of political terms, or inflammatory terms, and then using those terms as an excuse to dismiss an argument is contrary to the intended guidelines.  As a moderator, Ray should have recognised that and returned the discussion to one based on science and reason, with no inflammatory political name-calling.

I trust you can see the distinctions.

Once again, which people did Ray call names? Not Alan, not Bart, not you. He put a label, quite justifiably, on a school of thought (though using the term "thought" is quite charitable in this case). Just as we put a label on a school of thought (charitably) known as liberalism. Or conservatism.

And here's part of the issue.  You've just confirmed those labels are inflammatory through your qualification of "charitable", but you leave the label for yourself free from such things.  There's no need for it.  You can disagree with a philosophy all you like (and honestly, I doubt you are so politically one-dimensional that a simple label accurately describes you anyway), without using derogatory terms or without classing the very name of the philosophy as being derogatory.  That's a weak argument.  I look at that and have to consider whether anything else you're saying is worth reading.  History tells me it usually is, so I have an advantage, but if I were a new participant I may not have that advantage.

Besides, Ray did provide logical refutation, quite lengthy, in the same post, of the very inflammatory statement in the OP. Were Ray's post just a single sentence: "That's an example of 'alarmist' news" (which it indeed is), than maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, it is just an attempt at censorship. And you know what I think of censorship, white gloves or otherwise.

It's not censorship.  I didn't ask Ray to remove the post.  I asked him to abide by the guidelines, particularly as a moderator, and I've been pointing out that it's completely unnecessary for him to use such terms and names in order to be involved in this discussion.  Whilst I didn't rate his refutation quite as highly as you appear to, had it appeared without the inflammatory labelling, which was clearly designed to set an emotional expectation, then there would have been no issue.

You know that I am not shy about a robust discussion, and this can continue to be so, but what is the point in setting new guidelines and expectations when one of the appointed moderators simply ignores them and continues on as he always did?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ok, Phil, I am ready for a compromise. From now on, Ray et al should use:

“Some people (wink, wink) think...”

How about that? 😉

[Ray]

In this particular case, we were entreated to make it apolitical.  So use of political terms, or inflammatory terms, and then using those terms as an excuse to dismiss an argument is contrary to the intended guidelines.  As a moderator, Ray should have recognised that and returned the discussion to one based on science and reason, with no inflammatory political name-calling.

You seem to have entirely missed the point, Phil. The term 'alarmist' is not a derogatory or inflammatory term when used to describe a thought process, emotional state, or belief which appears to accurately fit the description of 'alarm'.

If you think the term 'climate change alarmist' is a mischaracterization of someone who is 'alarmed about climate change', then explain why. As Slobodan has tried to explain to you, I didn't describe you as an 'climate change alarmist'. For all I know, you might feel no alarm at all about the effects of rising CO2 levels. As a scientist you might be purely and theoretically interested in certain effects of rising CO2 levels in a completely neutral and dispassionate manner, with no feelings of alarm.

I think it is reasonable to suppose that there are many scientists working in particular disciplines related to climatology who are not alarmed at all about the possible catastrophic effects of rising CO2 levels, because they understand quite clearly in their own minds that there is no certainty about the issue.

However, I know from my own observations that alarm about some issue, whether snakes, spiders, the economy, the risk of cancer or heart disease, the risk of a future war, the future well-fare of our children in relation to a disastrous change in climate, and so on, is a very prevalent state of affairs. Alarm is alarm.

In a sense we are all alarmists, but not necessarily alarmist in relation to the same issues and not necessarily alarmed to the same degree. (Perhaps advanced Buddhist meditators are an exception    ).

I am also an alarmist. I'm alarmed about the failure of governments and administrations to put in place policies which address the real and more certain threat of repeated damage from extreme weather events, that they should know have occurred throughout the history of the region because they, as politicians, have access to all the available records of the Bureau of Meteorology and other government-funded organizations.

[Farmer]

Ok, Phil, I am ready for a compromise. From now on, Ray et al should use:

“Some people (wink, wink) think...”

How about that? 😉

So long as I can reply with "Say no more..." :-)

[Farmer]

It's simple, Ray.  Because you then go on to dismiss their comments/research/findings/etc. because "they're alarmist".  That's an ad hominem.  Also, it's just your opinion.  It's not backed by any evidence, just you saying that because you don't believe the overwhelming evidence and body and opinion that anyone who does and who wants action soon is "alarmist".  Moreover, they would not describe themselves as such, and so it's inflammatory.

To take your suggestion that "we're all alarmists", as if to make the term acceptable, then what value is there in using it?  If every is the same, it doesn't provide any level of distinction.  Sorry, but I just don't believe you.  You used it for a reason - you believe (sincerely, I'm sure) that people who accept the weight of scientific opinion and evidence on the topic of anthropogenic climate change are wrong and you wish to paint them in a negative way so as to diminish their opinions and findings.

[Ray]

It's simple, Ray.  Because you then go on to dismiss their comments/research/findings/etc. because "they're alarmist". 

I'm not aware I have done that. Show me any comment I have made in which  I have dismissed any research based solely on the alarm factor. However, taking the alarm factor into consideration helps to explain, in my mind, certain false or exaggerated interpretations of certainty which do not conform with the best scientific practices as I understand them.

I always try to take into consideration all factors that I'm aware of, including psychological elements such as alarm and self interest. I use my nous. I've also explained more than once the fundamental basis of my position. I believe in the scientific method. I believe that certainty on any issue in science, or an acceptable degree of certainty for serious action to take place, must be based upon the application of the sound principles of the methodology of science.

These principles, as I understand them, consist of the ability to conduct repeated experiments under controlled conditions, in real time, or time when the results can be observed during a relatively short period within a human life.

In situations where the influencing factors are extremely numerous and complex, and when significant effects will take more than a lifetime to appear, the future outcome cannot be expressed with scientific certainty. Any high degree of certainty that is expressed about CAGW is not scientific. It's a matter of belief, and it is at least partially based upon emotional and biased factors.

That's an ad hominem.  Also, it's just your opinion.  It's not backed by any evidence, just you saying that because you don't believe the overwhelming evidence and body and opinion that anyone who does and who wants action soon is "alarmist".  Moreover, they would not describe themselves as such, and so it's inflammatory.

An opinion is an opinion whether based upon scientific research or not. A wrong opinion is still an opinion. All my views are based upon either personal direct evidence that I've experienced, or scientific research which makes sense to me. Did you not open the  links to the many research papers that I've posted, in this thread and the previous removed thread? I'm interested in the truth.

To take your suggestion that "we're all alarmists", as if to make the term acceptable, then what value is there in using it?

 
No value at all unless the term is linked to a specific, defined set of circumstances, issues, attitudes or thought processes. When I've used the term 'alarmist' in relation climate change, I'm referring to the condition of alarm about the potential catastrophic effects of climate change. I'm not referring to alarm about the possible presence of snakes in the grass.

I can see no rational reason to object to the use of the term 'alarm'. A state of alarm is a realty of the human condition. The capacity for alarm is probably necessary for human survival. I consider it a completely acceptable word. I have a fire alarm in my house. Don't you?

You used it for a reason - you believe (sincerely, I'm sure) that people who accept the weight of scientific opinion and evidence on the topic of anthropogenic climate change are wrong and you wish to paint them in a negative way so as to diminish their opinions and findings.

I think they are probably or likely or partially wrong because the 'overwhelming weight of evidence' that you keep mentioning is clearly not based upon the most sound and rigorous principles of the methodology of science which I've outlined.

This of course is not an ad hominem attack on the scientists in the field of climatology. It's not their fault that predictions of future climate scenarios based upon computer models, cannot be certain. It's not their fault that the enormous complexity of the influences on climate, and the long time scales involved, do not lend themselves to the rigorous processes of the scientific methodology at its most rigorous. Most of the scientists are probably doing their best in the circumstances. Okay?

[Ray]

Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make.

Rob,

Shit can be a very useful fertilizer. If you consider CO2 to be shit, you might be interested to learn that all humans breathe out lots of shit. Carbon dioxide is a waste product, so the body exhales it in order to get rid of it. Compared to the low levels of about 0.04 percent in inspired air, exhaled air contains a hundred times more CO2, at 4 percent content.

Did you know that? The air we breathe out, with every breath, contains a hundred times more CO2 than the air we breathe in.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that causing the extinction of the human race, or all mammals, would solve any problems. That would be ridiculous. 

This process of exhaling CO2 as a waste product is a natural part of a natural cycle. Plants take in CO2 as an essential ingredient. We consume the plants, then exhale CO2 as a waste product in order to return it to the plants. Aren't we magnanimous! 

Human-constructed coal-fired power plants also consume the remains of dead trees (turned into coal over millions of years), and release CO2 into the atmosphere so that more trees in the present time can flourish, due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
Aren't we wonderful! It's all a natural process.

However, toxic emissions due to inadequate emission controls, that affect human health; plastic bags, and other toxic waste products from our industrialization, are separate issues which should be addressed.

[Farmer]

Ray - I understand.  No matter what, you will never change your opinion that everything you say and do is correct.  You won't abide by any consideration for guidelines put down by others and you will insist that your minority view is correct in the face of any amount of evidence (on any topic).

All you're prepared to do is to keep on insisting you are entirely right.  You have no capacity for moderation let alone being a moderator of a discussion.

Good luck.

[LesPalenik]

Requirements for a competent moderator:

• Has the user contributed regularly over a period of time? Are they knowledgeable?
• Do they have good grammar, spelling and syntax skills?
• Does the user have the right personality? Are they even tempered, likable, and fair minded?
• Do they have the time to commit to being a moderator?

In my view, both Alan and Ray pass this test with flying colours.

[Ray]

Requirements for a competent moderator:

• Has the user contributed regularly over a period of time? Are they knowledgeable?
• Do they have good grammar, spelling and syntax skills?
• Does the user have the right personality? Are they even tempered, likable, and fair minded?
• Do they have the time to commit to being a moderator?

In my view, both Alan and Ray pass this test with flying colours.

Thanks for your support, Les.

[Ray]

Ray - I understand.  No matter what, you will never change your opinion that everything you say and do is correct.  You won't abide by any consideration for guidelines put down by others and you will insist that your minority view is correct in the face of any amount of evidence (on any topic).

All you're prepared to do is to keep on insisting you are entirely right.  You have no capacity for moderation let alone being a moderator of a discussion.

Good luck.

That may be your opinion, Phil, and you have a right to it, but it doesn't accord with the facts about myself that I am aware of. I frequently change my opinion on all sorts of subjects, according to the new, or better, or more convincing, or more reliable evidence that I come across. I mentioned in the previous thread on this topic that I used to accept the alarm generated about the effects of human emissions of CO2, about 15 to 20 years ago, and I was puzzled that more positive action was not being taken by governments to reduce the potential threats of rising CO2 levels.

I remember having conversations with friends and raising issues such as 'Why doesn't the Australian government make funds available to develop electric cars, and have a moratorium on the production of petrol-driven cars?'

I remember being impressed when listening to interviews of famous scientists such as James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia Hypothesis, who then, 20 or 15 years ago, expressed great concern about the consequences of rising CO2 levels.

Of course, in those days I didn't have much general knowledge about climate issues. It wasn't a subject I had investigated. I was aware of broad issues and major events, such as the existence of the last Ice Age about 20,000 years ago, and the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago, and I was aware that the climate in England during the time of Shakespeare was cooler than the present. (From Sonnet 18,  "Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May". Seems a bit late in the season for buds to appear. They usually begin to appear in March.    )

As a result of my genuine concern about the issue, and general curiosity, I began searching the internet for answers to questions which were never raised in the media or during interviews with famous scientists.

I discovered a new world of non-alarmist interpretations and interesting information on the history of past climate events, which seemed very relevant to me. So I changed my mind.

I was also surprised to discover just a few years ago, well after I had changed my mind, that James Lovelock had also changed his mind about the threats of rising CO2 levels. Here's an interview of Lovelock in the pro-AGW newspaper, the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over

"What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”

Good luck to you too, Phil.