Skepticism about Climate Change

[Ray]

What I find more important then whether temperatures are rising, is if there are more benefits than less if the earth is warmer.   It's awfully conceited to believe that the climate was "perfect" 75 or 150 years ago in the 4 1/2 billion years history of the earth.  How can one make that narrow judgment?   After all, did anyone check with the dinosaurs?  

While one could argue that warming will cause issues for some, the media and politicians and global warming supporters push the idea that there aren't any benefits from warming.  Well, I'd like to remind them that where I grew up in the Bronx, NY, there was a thousand foot high glacier 12,000 years ago during the last Ice Age.  In fact, the entire North American landscape was covered in ice, snow and glaciers and nothing grew.   Today, we have the beautiful Hudson Valley, the Finger Lakes of NY, the 5 Great Lakes of the mid-west and all the fertile area in-between where millions of people, animals and plants now live successfully because it's been warming up.

Yes. And if it really is true that current and continuing rises in tiny amounts of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere are the main cause of the current warming, as opposed to their having only a small and insignificant effect, as many Geologists believe, then any future cooling effect, such as a repetition of another Little Ice Age, will be at least partially counter-balanced by the presence of slightly elevated levels of CO2.

The real issues are pollution from power plants and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, which affect human health to a measurable degree; the general contamination and degradation of the environment due to toxic chemicals, plastic waste, unregulated industrial processes, and so on, and agricultural practices which reduce the natural fertility of the soil, and reduce its carbon content and its biodiversity.

In parts of Indonesia, Myanmar and Northern Thailand, for example, local farmers and Hill Tribe people regularly burn off patches of forest prior to the wet season, in order to use the burnt ashes as fertilizer, and plant their crops for one or two seasons, after which the soil become infertile and the farmers then move on to burn down yet another patch of forest for the next season's crop.

The haze, with high levels of particulate carbon, becomes very troublesome during those periods and very bad for those who already suffer from some sort of lung condition. It also blows over to other countries. People in Singapore and Malaysia sometimes suffer the consequences of seasonal burn-off in Indonesia.
People in Japan suffer the consequences of air pollution blowing over their country from cities in China, and often feel the need to wear masks to protect themselves.

These are the issues which should be tackled. Instead of burning down more forests we need to increase the fertility and productivity of existing farmland, encourage changes to certain agricultural practices which damage the soil, build dams and long-distance water pipes to protect ourselves from natural droughts and floods, and/or ensure people's homes are built above the level of previous floods and can withstand the force of previous cyclones or hurricanes if they live in areas subject to such storms.

We should encourage reforestation because forests tend to seed clouds and cause rain, tend to be sustainable once they're established, are generally good for the planet, and good for the mental health of those who are obsessed about the catastrophic effects of CO2  , because new forests sequester large amounts of carbon as they develop and flourish.

I would also like to see more investigation into the possibility of Australia towing icebergs (wrapped in plastic) from the Antarctic, to irrigate its arid regions, south of Perth for example, or at least build long-distance water pipes to transport water to where it could be useful, from where it's too abundant and causes frequent flooding.

However, all these activities cost money, or the availability of affordable energy. At the most fundamental level, the prosperity of all mankind is dependent upon the true cost of energy, the efficiency with which we use that energy, and our capacity for innovation and adaption.

I'm very much in favour of alternative and sustainable forms of energy, such as solar power and hydro power, and the continuing research into such methods, and in particular continuing research into a lightweight, durable and affordable type of battery storage which doesn't rely upon scarce materials.

What I object to is the current political process of shifting attention from the real, known pollutants, and natural extreme weather events, that affect human health and cause loss of life, towards the very uncertain consequences of elevated levels of CO2 on climate.

I object to this demonization of CO2 because I foresee it will needlessly force up the price of energy, which it has already done in Australia, and cause those in power to make wrong decisions as a result of something which is scientifically uncertain being presented to them, by so-called experts, as relatively certain.

[pcgpcg]

so-called experts

I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either. I need someone who IS an expert to rely on for good information. Ruling out the "so-called experts", who knows more about the climate and how it is affected by CO2 than they do? I'd like to know so I can form a rational opinion based on a critical analysis of best information available.

[Alan Klein]

I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either. I need someone who IS an expert to rely on for good information. Ruling out the "so-called experts", who knows more about the climate and how it is affected by CO2 than they do? I'd like to know so I can form a rational opinion based on a critical analysis of best information available.

I had a medical problem and went to three doctors all specialists in the field. Each suggested a different procedure to correct the problem.  Each said theirs was the best.  I finally selected one, and now wish that I had tried a different approach.

You can't listen to experts without discernment.  We all have our experiences and have been fooled by so-called experts in the past who guaranteed results that didn't turn out as we expected. 

[pcgpcg]

Doesn't answer my question.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Doesn't answer my question.

Well, you'd need a meta-expert to determine who actually is an expert and who is the so-called one

[pcgpcg]

Well there must be a lot of meta-experts out there because there are a lot of people deciding who is a so-called expert.

Here’s a fun little mental experiment:

If you make a rational decision based on critical analysis of what you perceive to be the best information available, and you conclude that human-caused climate change is significant and choose to act to minimize the ramifications of such, then you are faced with enacting regulations that are restrictive and costly.

Now, just for fun , let’s assume the opposite is true. In other words…
If human-cause climate change is significant, it will cost society nothing; but if human-caused climate change is NOT significant, we will need to enact costly regulations.

I wonder now, will anyone change their conclusion  re. the significance of human-caused climate change, and what caused them to change their mind?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I wonder now, will anyone change their conclusion  re. the significance of human-caused climate change, and what caused them to change their mind?

Hi,

You're absolutely correct, the issue is not the overwhelming amount of evidence that proves anthropogenic climate change, but it is a psychological barrier. It's much easier to do nothing now, than to invest in solutions that will cost much more in the future than they do now, and may then proof be insufficient because the tipping point has been crossed after all the time wasted.

It's the trade-off between the certainty of upfront cost (time/money/changing habits) versus an uncertain amount of much higher cost later. Easy choice if logic was the only driver, which proves that there is more to it than logic and knowledge from experts ...

I just acquired an interesting book, as recommended by a highly respected Meteorologist, that deals with the psychology surrounding the issue more than the issue of global warming itself.

It's titled: What we think about, when we try not to think about, global warming - by Per Espen Stoknes.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Think-About-Global-Warming/dp/1603585834

It has received excellent reviews, so I'm looking forward to reading it.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Well there must be a lot of meta-experts out there because there are a lot of people deciding who is a so-called expert.

Here’s a fun little mental experiment:

If you make a rational decision based on critical analysis of what you perceive to be the best information available, and you conclude that human-caused climate change is significant and choose to act to minimize the ramifications of such, then you are faced with enacting regulations that are restrictive and costly.

Now, just for fun , let’s assume the opposite is true. In other words…
If human-cause climate change is significant, it will cost society nothing; but if human-caused climate change is NOT significant, we will need to enact costly regulations.

I wonder now, will anyone change their conclusion  re. the significance of human-caused climate change, and what caused them to change their mind?

Paul  I'm not sure I understand your point.  All I know is that I don't want to spend money if I don't know for sure 1) whether change is occurring because of man or nature or if both how much by each 2) whether the changes that occur, if they occur, are actually detrimental or not and whether the money we spend to offset the change even if possible could not be better spent elsewhere for example on cancer research or food for staving people.

[pcgpcg]

My point is that there are two issues...
1) Is man causing a significant change to the climate?
2) If so, slowing down the change will be expensive.

Number two doesn't have any bearing on answering number one, yet I think many are allowing it to. If man-caused climate change would be good for us and not cost us anything, I doubt so many would be referring to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as "so-called experts".

[Alan Klein]

My point is that there are two issues...
1) Is man causing a significant change to the climate?
2) If so, slowing down the change will be expensive.

Number two doesn't have any bearing on answering number one, yet I think many are allowing it to. If man-caused climate change would be good for us and not cost us anything, I doubt so many would be referring to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as "so-called experts".

Back in early 2008, most economists and real estate experts were saying that the housing market would continue to go higher, that there was no chance it would retract.  There were a few people who thought otherwise, who saw the bubble.  But they were laughed at.  Well, we all know what happened.  The housing market collapsed and the economy went into a major recession.  So much for experts.

There often is a "band-wagon" effect, where everyone in the same choir sings to each other.  I was watching a shark program on TV a couple of days ago.  The head explorer who made the documentary at the end said that people have to take care of these sharks because they're becoming extinct.  What was interesting was he just spent an hour filming how white sharks in this one area increased their population ten fold over the last few years.  I'm sure he didn't realize that he was contradicting himself so ingrained are these shows, all of them, in making it seem like man is killing everything in nature.  There's no longer a balance.  Everything is "man is bad".  People want to see man as destroying nature and the environment.  It's become political almost religious.  So even "so-called" experts refuse to explain both sides.  Warming is bad.  CO2 is bad.  Period.  No one can imagine that warming and increased CO2 have benefits as well as a downside.  We only hear about the downside. 

[Ray]

I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing you aren't either. I need someone who IS an expert to rely on for good information. Ruling out the "so-called experts", who knows more about the climate and how it is affected by CO2 than they do? I'd like to know so I can form a rational opinion based on a critical analysis of best information available.

The science of Climatology is relatively new and includes 20 or more different disciplines. Scientists in different fields can use different standards, which makes comparisons between the results problematical.

I'm not setting myself up as an expert on climate, rather I'm just using my own nous, and my general understanding of the scientific methodology, to assess the rationality of certain claims of certainty about the effects of rising CO2 levels on climate. That's all anyone can do on any subject.

A good analogy, which Alan Klein mentioned, is the problem of differing opinions among medical specialists. One could argue that the 'general practitioner' is equivalent to the climatologist, and that all the numerous medical specialists, such anaesthetist, dermatologist, oncologist and a dozen types of paediatricians, and so on, are equivalent to the many disciplines related to climatology, such as meteorology, oceanography, geography, hydrology, geology, glaciology, plant ecology and vegetation history, to mention just a few.

Whilst human biology and the remedies for various ailments are very complex, just as the planet's climate is, modern medicine does have the advantage of being able to observe the results of certain medicines and procedures within relatively short time periods. If a new drug which has been approved, is later found to have harmful side effects which outweigh any benefits, it will be withdrawn.

Because of the complexity of the situation, there will probably be many drugs which are more beneficial for certain individuals, according to their genetics and lifestyle, and less beneficial for others, or even harmful to others. There are even differences of opinion about the net benefits of taking the humble aspirin on a regular basis, a medication which has been around for many decades.

Consider the planet, as a whole, to be an organism with comparable, or even greater complexity than the human organism. The task is to decide whether the addition of increased, tiny amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, is harmful or beneficial to the climate, from our perspective.

Let's consider the major obstacles. First, there is only one planet similar to the Earth, and that's the Earth. We can't create an accurate model of the Earth in a laboratory, in order to inject it with various amounts of CO2 to find out the effect on the planet's climate.

Secondly, there are much greater time spans involved in climate change before a trend becomes clear. Look at any detailed graph of past temperature estimates and you'll see significant swings up and down. There might be a clear trend upwards for 30 years, then a pause for another 30 years. If the trend were then downward for the next 30 years, after the pause, it would be clear there had been no over all trend for 90 years.

As a consequence of such difficulties, climatologists have to rely upon computer models, or projections.

Now, I ask all you climate-change alarmists, the following question. If a pharmaceutical company were to produce a drug which had not been tested on either animals or humans, using only computer models and chemicals in laboratories, would you accept the advice of the scientists involved, who expressed high confidence that their computer models were accurate, and take the drug? 

[Farmer]

Now, I ask all you climate-change alarmists, the following question. If a pharmaceutical company were to produce a drug which had not been tested on either animals or humans, using only computer models and chemicals in laboratories, would you accept the advice of the scientists involved, who expressed high confidence that their computer models were accurate, and take the drug? 

If a scientist told you that you could put men on the moon, but they hadn't actually done it, would you accept that advice?

Just because you can create an analogy doesn't make it useful or anything like equivalent.

[Alan Klein]

If a scientist told you that you could put men on the moon, but they hadn't actually done it, would you accept that advice?

Just because you can create an analogy doesn't make it useful or anything like equivalent.

Well, many people still believe the entire filming of the landing was done in a back lot in Hollywood and is a total hoax.   But, I saw it on TV and was cheering all the way through.  One of man's great achievements. 

I think though the point Ray was making is that climate change moves so slowly on a geologic scale, we'll all be dead before we can be sure of anything, one way or the other.  But the moon landing from the time President Kennedy challenged Americans to land on the moon "in this decade" until we actually did it was in fact less than ten years.   So we would know pretty quickly if we could do it whether believed we could or not.  That's about the same time knowing if new medicine is effective or dangerous. Not so with climate change. 

[Ray]

If a scientist told you that you could put men on the moon, but they hadn't actually done it, would you accept that advice?

Absolutely not. No-one in their right mind would accept that advice, unless the evidence that it is possible, were convincing.

As you should know, long before the Americans landed the first man on the moon, there had been three or four decades of modern rocket development, beginning with the Germans in the 1930's and 40's.

The Russians were the first to launch a rocket that orbited the earth, in 1957. In their next rocket to outer space, they put a living creature on board, a dog named Laika which survived for 7 days before it ran out of oxygen.

From Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_and_apes_in_space

"Before humans went into space, several other animals were launched into space, including numerous other primates, so that scientists could investigate the biological effects of space travel. The United States launched flights containing primate cargo primarily between 1948-1961 with one flight in 1969 and one in 1985. France launched two monkey-carrying flights in 1967. The Soviet Union and Russia launched monkeys between 1983 and 1996. Most primates were anesthetized before lift-off. Overall thirty-two monkeys flew in the space program; none flew more than once. Numerous back-up monkeys also went through the programs but never flew. Monkeys and apes from several species were used, including rhesus monkeys, cynomolgus monkeys, squirrel monkeys, pig-tailed macaques, and chimpanzees."

Just because you can create an analogy doesn't make it useful or anything like equivalent.

Very true, and your analogy is an excellent example of this. I presume you mentioned it in order to counter or negate my own analogy, but you seem to have reinforced it instead. 

The general process of drug development is to try its effects on animals first, whether mice, rats or monkeys, and then do controlled experiments on humans if nothing dangerous has been revealed in the animal experiments.

That's very similar to the process of landing men on the moon. But even in spite of such rigorous experiments, there have been some fatal disasters. The Apollo 11 mission was almost a disaster.

[Farmer]

That's very similar to the process of landing men on the moon. But even in spite of such rigorous experiments, there have been some fatal disasters. The Apollo 11 mission was almost a disaster.

You probably mean Apollo 13.  And, yeah, nah.  There is overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of people who are actually even vaguely qualified to comment that climate change is real, it's man made, and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.  Pulling out isolated cases of rebuttal from the fringe doesn't count.  You and Alan love your false equivalences, don't you?  You babble on about your scientific approach but you completely ignore the fundamental weight of evidence and cherry pick your results instead.  You're not a scientists, you're a sophist.

Kennedy propelled the US to the moon in May '61.  There was no hard experiential data to say it could be done.  Orbit doesn't tell you what's beyond or the effects of the velocities needed to get to the moon, or the likely ability to actually land on and escape from the moon again.  That's why it was a perfect counter to show how inept the previously touted analogy was.  The science did the work and provided the basis from hypothesis to theory to practice.  Climate change has already moved into the practice stage, too.  You're just living in denial.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Gulf of Mexico dead zone is largest on record
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-is-largest-on-record/

QUOTE  "Every summer for the last three decades, researchers have cruised the northern Gulf of Mexico during July to study the extent of hypoxia, or low oxygen levels. This summer, they found the largest area ever on record: 22,720 square kilometers, about the size of New Jersey.

This year's "dead zone," where oxygen levels are so low they threaten fish and other small aquatic life, is about 50 percent larger than normal. The average size of the dead zone over the last 31 years has been 14,037 square kilometers, according to Nancy Rabalais, a researcher at Louisiana State University who has long studied the issue. The dead zone was likely even larger than what the scientists found, but there was insufficient time on board the ship to measure its entire extent.

Based upon the hypoxia report released this week, this year's large dead zone was driven primarily by high nitrogen loads from the Mississippi River, due to heavy use of fertilizers in the midwestern United States. In some locations conditions were especially extreme. "A notable feature of this year’s distribution of low oxygen is the mostly continuous band of extremely low oxygen concentrations alongshore at the nearshore edge of the zone," the report states. "Values there were very often less than 0.5 milligrams per liter and close to 0 milligrams per liter." "

And an example of coral trouble in the same region a year before:

What is killing the Gulf of Mexico’s majestic coral reefs?
http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/gulf-of-mexico-coral-reefs/

QUOTE  "[...] So what was the culprit? One possible partial explanation for the die-off may lie in this year’s weather patterns. This summer was the hottest on record; the water temperature was 87 degrees at depth when the die-off was detected. That’s 3 degrees above 84, the twenty-year average on that date and in that spot.

This past summer was also a wet one, and the runoff from the Trinity and Brazos rivers could have dumped pollutants into the Gulf and lowered the salinity. Using various data-gathering devices, A&M’s Steve DiMarco noted “uncharacteristically low salinities” in the Gulf a month before the die-off. That’s likely not a coincidence; corals need relatively salty water to thrive.

DiMarco also suspects that during the summer there was an upwelling event, a phenomenon in which water rises from below to replace surface waters that have been pushed away, typically by the wind. That would have cut off oxygen at the bottom of the reef, which would have placed further stress on it.

Sarah Davies, a coral biologist at the University of North Carolina who shipped out on the Manta in August, believes that these sorts of events would create favorable conditions for bacteria or other microorganisms, which could have then taken advantage of the reef’s vulnerable state. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Davies says of her visit to the reef. “I’ve shown photos to people and they’re like, ‘Holy crap, what happened?’ ”

Hickerson thinks that DiMarco and Davies are essentially on the right track. She suspects it wasn’t a single cause but a series of unfortunate events that killed off the reef. She is, inevitably, put in mind of the plight of her native country’s Great Barrier Reef, which she says was a casualty of “years of insults thrown at it. It’s like a one-two punch. For reefs declining worldwide it’s not just one thing that kills them. I’m not sure we’ll ever have a definite answer about what happened here.” [...]"

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

What do fertilizer runoffs used for farming causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico have to do with climate change?  Your Claims that pollutants are probably killing corals also has nothing to do with the climate.   Claims like that convince deniers that people are trying to fool them about global warming. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  There is overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of people who are actually even vaguely qualified to comment that climate change is real, it's man made, and it's out of cycle with the natural changes...

There is no way you could know that, let alone prove (the last two thirds of the statement). How do I know that? Because the claim comes from the same loony-left factory as other myths, like gender wage "gap." Once you realize how low-IQ that kind of thinking is, you start to doubt everything else they peddle, even if potentially true.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What do fertilizer runoffs used for farming causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico have to do with climate change?

It's explained in the article. Where do you think e.g. the Mississippi gets its water from?

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

You probably mean Apollo 13. 

I wrote, 'the Apollo 11 mission was almost a disaster'. Here's a detailed story of the many alarming events.
https://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html

Kennedy propelled the US to the moon in May '61. There was no hard experiential data to say it could be done.

Of course there was. The Russians had already landed an unmanned rocket on the moon in September 1959, confirming that the Moon had no appreciable magnetic field, and no evidence of radiation belts that might harm people.

There is overwhelming evidence from the vast majority of people who are actually even vaguely qualified to comment that climate change is real, it's man made, and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.

The evidence might overwhelm you, but it doesn't overwhelm me because I'm rational and sensible and have an understanding of the distinction between the 'hard' sciences and the 'soft' sciences, and the importance of experimentation and falsifiability in the scientific process before a degree of certainty can be reached.

Let's look rationally at the above statements you've made, and unveil the deception and misleading nonsense.
(1) Climate change is real.
Of course climate change is real. The climate is always changing. There is nothing that is not in a continuous state of change in this universe, but not everything changes at the same rate of course. Protons and Electrons are claimed to be remarkably stable. 

(2) Climate change is man made.
It's likely to be at least partially man made. It would be rather odd if 7 billion people with their massive construction of cities, suburbs, roads, and their replacement of huge areas of forests with agricultural fields, did not have at least some effect on the climate.
The question is, to what extent are the miniscule increases in CO2 levels contributing to such change. Possibly very little.

(3) ..and it's out of cycle with the natural changes.
You should inform the scientists who contributed to the Working Group 1 section of the latest AR5 IPCC report. They found little evidence that storms, floods and droughts had been increasing during the past 60 years or so. The Working Group 1 section is based on the physical sciences. However, the over all summary of the AR5 includes computer projections and statements to appeal to politicians.
I presume by 'out of cycle with natural changes', you mean an increase in extreme weather events, globally.

Pulling out isolated cases of rebuttal from the fringe doesn't count.

Are you including the 700 or more peer-reviewed papers that provide evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event? Is that what you call 'isolated cases of rebuttal from the fringe'?

You don't seem to have read much on the history of science. Don't you realise that the progression of science has been dependent on certain individuals going against the mainstream and risking vilification in their pursuit of truth?
I'll give you just a few examples, but there are many.

Copernicus delayed the publication of his theory of heliocentrism for 30 years, titled,  "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies," because he feared vilification. When Galileo later confirmed the theory using a telescope, he was threatened with horrible torture unless he recanted. It wasn't just the Catholic Church that objected to the theory that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but many other fellow, 'so-called' scientists. How could such a great man as Aristotle be wrong?

Charles Darwin delayed the publication of his work on Origin of Species for 20 years. There are many theories for the cause of the delay, and it's unscientific to attribute just one cause, such as a fear of vilification, but that was probably a part of the cause for the delay.

When Alfred Wegener presented his Continental Drift hypothesis in January 1912, it was met with skepticism from geologists who viewed Wegener as an outsider, and were resistant to change. The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, which was written in "a dogmatic style that often results from German translations", was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. The opponents argued, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents to "simply plough through".
Wegener attracted vitriolic attacks and name-calling from the geologist expert community, and his theory wasn't accepted till the 1960's, long after his death.

James Lovelock in modern times came up with the Gaia theory, that the Earth and its natural cycles can be thought of like a living organism. The theory helped to explain some of the more unusual features of planet Earth, such as why the atmosphere isn't mostly carbon dioxide, and why the oceans aren't more salty. But initially the Gaia theory was ignored, and then later ridiculed by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould. Then later it began to be accepted as climate alarmism grew.

Interestingly, James Lovelock used to be a strong advocate for the alarmist case about CO2-induced climate change. I recall listening to some of his interviews many years ago.

However, he now claims he has grown up since those days, and has changed his views.

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.”
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, 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 (presumably temperature), and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”