Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

How climate change makes hurricanes worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TCrGtTEQM


Quite a decent description of the physics and statistics involved. It's also correct (at 0m30s) about the lower confidence level due to lower quality historical data. I'll repeat for Ray, that confidence levels in science/statistics are a measure of data quality, it is not the same as likelihood.

The lack of useful historical data is somewhat compensated by simple physics, which also makes it very clear that precipitation amounts (if such a rare event takes place) will increase due to the warmer ocean, and that warmer air can take up more water before dumping it as precipitation. Therefore, hurricanes will become 'wetter' when they happen, even if they may be less frequent on a global scale.

It also shows at 1m16s that (despite a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones on a global level) and an expected increase of high-intensity storms (Category 4 and 5) on a global level, it is not yet possible to be as sure about the intensity at e.g. a North Atlantic regional level. But all regional models show larger amounts of precipitation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And now a contribution from Ray's special friend:

It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/28/climate-change-hurricane-harvey-more-deadly

We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change. But it was certainly worsened by it.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

The following is a link to some interesting research for those who are open to 'other-than-CO2' explanations for the current warming.

http://principia-scientific.org/discovery-of-additional-west-antarctic-volcanoes-furthers-natural-over-man-made-warming/

“The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can contribute significantly to natural variations. The overall theory contends that periods of active earth tectonics and volcanism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events. To describe this new theory, the term Plate Climatology is designated.

The theory was first formally introduced on October 7, 2014, after 10 years of research. In general, increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more faulting and volcanic activity, which leads to more heat and fluid release from these active geological features into both the oceans and atmosphere.

Altered heat and fluid input equate to climate change. This effect has been largely hidden from any scientific investigation because the heat and fluid release is primarily from two under explored/under monitored regions. First, Earth’s Deep Oceans which contain major geological features such as Divergent Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), Convergent Plate Boundaries (Subduction and Obduction Zones), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions.

The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter ocean temperatures, densities, and chemical compositions. The “Altered Oceans” then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Secondly, Earth’s Polar Ice Caps contain major geological features such as: Divergent (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions. The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter sub-ice sheet temperatures.

The altered sub-glacial ice sheets then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Many connections between geology and climate are explored and explained in this theory.”

[Alan Klein]

How climate change makes hurricanes worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TCrGtTEQM


Quite a decent description of the physics and statistics involved. It's also correct (at 0m30s) about the lower confidence level due to lower quality historical data. I'll repeat for Ray, that confidence levels in science/statistics are a measure of data quality, it is not the same as likelihood.

The lack of useful historical data is somewhat compensated by simple physics, which also makes it very clear that precipitation amounts (if such a rare event takes place) will increase due to the warmer ocean, and that warmer air can take up more water before dumping it as precipitation. Therefore, hurricanes will become 'wetter' when they happen, even if they may be less frequent on a global scale.

It also shows at 1m16s that (despite a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones on a global level) and an expected increase of high-intensity storms (Category 4 and 5) on a global level, it is not yet possible to be as sure about the intensity at e.g. a North Atlantic regional level. But all regional models show larger amounts of precipitation.

Cheers,
Bart

A few years ago, climatologists were predicting more storms.  That did not occur.  So now you're predicting less frequent storms but more precipitation in each storm.  The problem with people like me and Ray about your claims, is that you keep moving the goal posts. That weakens your arguments.  It makes it seem like you're guessing or at least don't have all the facts to make concrete assessments.  Yet, you want the world to spend trillions of dollars chasing after some goal that may have no point.

[Alan Klein]

The following is a link to some interesting research for those who are open to 'other-than-CO2' explanations for the current warming.

http://principia-scientific.org/discovery-of-additional-west-antarctic-volcanoes-furthers-natural-over-man-made-warming/

“The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can contribute significantly to natural variations. The overall theory contends that periods of active earth tectonics and volcanism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events. To describe this new theory, the term Plate Climatology is designated.

The theory was first formally introduced on October 7, 2014, after 10 years of research. In general, increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more faulting and volcanic activity, which leads to more heat and fluid release from these active geological features into both the oceans and atmosphere.

Altered heat and fluid input equate to climate change. This effect has been largely hidden from any scientific investigation because the heat and fluid release is primarily from two under explored/under monitored regions. First, Earth’s Deep Oceans which contain major geological features such as Divergent Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), Convergent Plate Boundaries (Subduction and Obduction Zones), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions.

The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter ocean temperatures, densities, and chemical compositions. The “Altered Oceans” then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Secondly, Earth’s Polar Ice Caps contain major geological features such as: Divergent (tectonic plate pull-apart boundaries), Transform Plate Boundaries (tectonic plate side sliding boundaries), and High Heat Flow Volcanic regions. The associated heat and fluid release from these geological features act to alter sub-ice sheet temperatures.

The altered sub-glacial ice sheets then influence or drive climate changes and climate-related events. Many connections between geology and climate are explored and explained in this theory.”

GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) This is why climate change models don't work.  They don't include all the data points.  There's so much going on that we don't know about.  we also are not providing the true effect of change focusing only on the negative.  Few researchers look at what positive things occur with warming.  It's politically a no-no.  So we get a biased view.  It also prevents us from spending money appropriately even if warming is happening due to CO2.  We may be focusing on spending in areas where less value comes from it because we're leaving out full research of all the effects. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) This is why climate change models don't work.  They don't include all the data points.  There's so much going on that we don't know about.  we also are not providing the true effect of change focusing only on the negative.  Few researchers look at what positive things occur with warming.  It's politically a no-no.  So we get a biased view.  It also prevents us from spending money appropriately even if warming is happening due to CO2.  We may be focusing on spending in areas where less value comes from it because we're leaving out full research of all the effects.

So then how many (fractional) degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit if you want, do these tectonic plate effects contribute to the Global warming trend (assuming they are not already partially accounted for)? You seem to know (believe?) that it is significant.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

So then how many (fractional) degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit if you want, do these tectonic plate effects contribute to the Global warming trend (assuming they are not already partially accounted for)? You seem to know (believe?) that it is significant.

Cheers,
Bart

Any missed data adds unreliability to the predictions.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Any missed data adds unreliability to the predictions.

Only if it is significant. But is it?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Only if it is significant. But is it?

Cheers,
Bart

You don't know what you don't know.  Until Einstein and Darwin came up with their theories, no one even considered these possibilities.  Now that they've been "discovered", everyone says, "Oh yeah, of course. Simple.  I figured it all along"  Well, with Darwin I do.  I still have trouble with Einstein's. 

[Ray]

Here's a long list of flooding events in the Houston area, going back to 1837.

http://www.wxresearch.com/almanac/houflood.html

"Ok, Houston, we've had a problem here."   

[Peter McLennan]

When presented with sweeping evidence in 2016 that Houston was a "sitting duck" for the next big hurricane, the former head of the Harris County Flood Control District dismissed the report, saying scientists "have an agenda" and that "their agenda to protect the environment overrides common sense."


More than a year ago, Houston officials were warned the city was a 'sitting duck' for the next hurricane, but the report went ignored.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/houston-flood-concrete-planning-1.4271740

[Ray]

I can sympathise with the problem. I've summarised the points mention in the article.

"Brody's research found that decades of unchecked development in and around Houston had left the water with nowhere to go.

Houston was founded on a swamp in the 1830s. The city is built low and flat along coastal bayous, and has always struggled with flooding.

But there was a natural buffer that kept the worst at bay: Prairie grasslands, which absorbed water in almost supernatural quantities. The problem is Houston has spent decades paving over those grasslands and building strip malls."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nicholas Kristof had a fine Op-Ed piece in the NY Times September 2:
We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?

It begins:

Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady — without addressing the risks of future terrorism.

That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change.

That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change skepticism more than 100 times, even suggesting that climate change is a Chinese hoax, and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s “misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change.

Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is making hurricanes worse.

and ends:

A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour, because they believed scientific predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?

And the commenter with the handle Socrates provided some relevant quotes from other well-known individuals:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
? Isaac Asimov

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
? Charles Darwin

“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.”
? Isaac Newton

“There is nothing in the record of the past two years when both Houses of Congress have been controlled by the Republican Party which can lead any person to believe that those promises will be fulfilled in the future. They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.”
? John F. Kennedy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And who is to say that Harvey has anything to do with the climate change? Storms happen.

I already posted about the diminishing frequency of extreme weather on page 42:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991577#msg991577

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And who is to say that Harvey has anything to do with the climate change? Storms happen.

I already posted about the diminishing frequency of extreme weather on page 42:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991577#msg991577

Sure, nobody denies that Weather (and amongst that Storms) happens all the time. But that's not the issue. The issue is that there can be an increase in storm intensity (due to warmer sea water) and there will be more precipitation involved with them (because warmer air can contain more water). And Harvey fits perfectly in that pattern.

The cost in human life, and material damage, and economic damage have to do with how humans anticipate on and prepare for those events. That's also influenced by people who do, or do not, take science seriously. Currently, the scientific predictions have not been taken seriously enough, and thus the cost of the aftermath is larger than the cost of prevention. Better infrastructure and regulations can mitigate the effects of heavy precipitation, but one also needs to address the uptrend of intensity by reducing emissions of CO2.

I'll again point to this pretty decent summary video:
https://youtu.be/_0TCrGtTEQM

Cheers,
Bart

[Peter McLennan]

And this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504454560&sr=8-1&keywords=idiot+america+how+stupidity+became+a+virtue+in+the+land+of+the+free

[Alan Klein]

Sure, nobody denies that Weather (and amongst that Storms) happens all the time. But that's not the issue. The issue is that there can be an increase in storm intensity (due to warmer sea water) and there will be more precipitation involved with them (because warmer air can contain more water). And Harvey fits perfectly in that pattern.

The cost in human life, and material damage, and economic damage have to do with how humans anticipate on and prepare for those events. That's also influenced by people who do, or do not, take science seriously. Currently, the scientific predictions have not been taken seriously enough, and thus the cost of the aftermath is larger than the cost of prevention. Better infrastructure and regulations can mitigate the effects of heavy precipitation, but one also needs to address the uptrend of intensity by reducing emissions of CO2.

I'll again point to this pretty decent summary video:
https://youtu.be/_0TCrGtTEQM

Cheers,
Bart

I agree that warmer climate means more precipitation.  But only looking at hurricanes is a biased way to look at it.  As I've stated before, the media only looks at the negatives, never the positives. More precipitation means more water for irrigation.  Last year, here in NJ, most of the corn crop failed due to lack of rainfall.  More rainfall, would have provided better crops.  Also, in areas that previously could not support food production at all, we'll now be able to grow food. (The map at 2:32 show 40% more rain for NJ.  I spend less time watering my plants as well this year.) 

The biggest problems in Texas was that the hurricane did not move through as quickly as they usually do.  By the storm lingering, maybe double the rainfall occurred in the same areas then would have normally.  Also, this area is a flood plain that Texans have paved over with civilization.  There's no place for the water to go.  Of course, being Dutch, you're familiar with countries fighting nature way beyond what we should be doing.  Your dikes and levees to hold the ocean back is of legend.  But if you think about it, it is pretty insane when a lot of developed land in the Netherlands lies 5-10 feet below the ocean.  Talk about tempting fate.

Getting back to your video, I have a question,  At 1:30 they say the frequency of storms will go down while their intensity will go up.  Two issues.  A few years ago, these same scientists were saying that the frequency will go up.  What changed their minds?  Also, it seems counter intuitive to say the frequency goes down while intensity goes up since it's the warmth of the ocean the cause storms in the first place.  Their arguments seem screwy.  Their models in the north Atlantic say the range will be +200% to -100%, so their models are all crazy.  How can you have any faith in what they're saying and then spend trillions of dollars on inaccurate models?

Also, at 2:20 there's a map showing sea levels changes.  First of all the right numbers go from -8 to +8.  But they don't describe what these numbers mean. Is it per cent, inches, feet, centimeters, or what?  Also, what's confusing is how can the area around Virginia on America's East Coast within in a few hundred miles of each other have such different amounts Orange 4  Red 8.  Or in Hawaii varying 2 through 6?  Then there are areas in the world that are decreasing like Alaska and Northern California, Oregon and Washington states.  The graph is labelled Relative Sea Level Change but the voice portion talks about storm surges.  Which is it?  Badly and confusingly presented. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Getting back to your video, I have a question,  At 1:30 they say the frequency of storms will go down while their intensity will go up.  Two issues.  A few years ago, these same scientists were saying that the frequency will go up.  What changed their minds?

Hard to say without a link to where they're supposed to have said that. Lot's of websites/blogs get their facts and conclusions wrong, so I prefer to go to the source documents if they are available.

Also, it seems counter intuitive to say the frequency goes down while intensity goes up since it's the warmth of the ocean the cause storms in the first place.  Their arguments seem screwy.  Their models in the north Atlantic say the range will be +200% to -100%, so their models are all crazy.  How can you have any faith in what they're saying and then spend trillions of dollars on inaccurate models?

That goes to show that certain things need better data (and not reduced funding) before usable conclusions can be drawn on a more local/regional level. Then it might turn out that the global level also applied for this region. Inaction is not a solution, not a prudent one that is, especially given the cost of underestimating the consequences.

Also, at 2:20 there's a map showing sea levels changes.  First of all the right numbers go from -8 to +8.  But they don't describe what these numbers mean. Is it per cent, inches, feet, centimeters, or what?

A quick look at the NOAA website (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html) suggests that it is in millimeters/year. May not seem much, but it cumulates every year, it's a trend that adds to a couple of feet per century.

Also, what's confusing is how can the area around Virginia on America's East Coast within in a few hundred miles of each other have such different amounts Orange 4  Red 8.  Or in Hawaii varying 2 through 6?  Then there are areas in the world that are decreasing like Alaska and Northern California, Oregon and Washington states.  The graph is labelled Relative Sea Level Change but the voice portion talks about storm surges.  Which is it?  Badly and confusingly presented.

They are observations. I do not have enough information to explain the specific differences, but I also do not have any reason to doubt their observations. It would not have made the short video any clearer had they sidetracked into such differences.

Just a guess. Maybe it has to do with ocean currents, so one would have to look at the seafloor profile and strength of currents.

And there's more than just the water flooding in from the outside that causes issues, also add the precipitation water trying to flow out and things turn bad pretty fast. Rising sea-levels also create issues with salination of the coastal lands, even if dikes/levees are constructed, the water will seep in under those structures. I don't have enough information, but in addition, the land-mass may also be sinking a bit, as it often does when water is artificially being pumped out (that's why we carefully manage the amount we pump out in my country, not more than needed but just enough). And tectonic plate dynamics can have an effect.

In Houston, a huge amplifier of the challenges is caused by infrastructure and regulation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Interesting opinion about the benefits of global warming.  It's from a British perspective, but we like the Brits, don't we? 
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

[texshooter]

What more proof do you need?