Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Now I get it. All climate change is the weatherman's fault!   

What's Climate Change ??

US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails

QUOTE  Monday 7 August 2017 16.43 BST  "Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.

A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees farmers’ land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees around climate change.

A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace them. “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, staff are asked to use “resilience to weather extremes”.

The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with the term “reduce greenhouse gases” blacklisted in favor of “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. Meanwhile, “sequester carbon” is ruled out and replaced by “build soil organic matter”. [...]"


So there we have it,  George Orwell's 1984 'Newspeak' is put in motion by the new US administration. After the removal of links to research papers, mentions of the dangers of climate change have been removed from the websites of the White House and the Department of the Interior, while the EPA scrapped its entire online climate section in April. The race to the bottom is in progress.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who blames the weatherman.

[Alan Klein]

What's Climate Change ??

US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails

QUOTE  Monday 7 August 2017 16.43 BST  "Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.

A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees farmers’ land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees around climate change.

A missive from Bianca Moebius-Clune, director of soil health, lists terms that should be avoided by staff and those that should replace them. “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, staff are asked to use “resilience to weather extremes”.

The primary cause of human-driven climate change is also targeted, with the term “reduce greenhouse gases” blacklisted in favor of “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. Meanwhile, “sequester carbon” is ruled out and replaced by “build soil organic matter”. [...]"


So there we have it,  George Orwell's 1984 'Newspeak' is put in motion by the new US administration. After the removal of links to research papers, mentions of the dangers of climate change have been removed from the websites of the White House and the Department of the Interior, while the EPA scrapped its entire online climate section in April. The race to the bottom is in progress.

Cheers,
Bart

Why wasn't it George Orwells Newspeak 1984 when the Department of Agriculture pushed climate change during the Obama's administration?  After all, both administrations were just pushing their own beliefs about it and what their supporters want to hear from them.  In addition, Obama used climate change as an excuse to issue regulations across the board of American industry as part of his Socialist plan for the government to control America and American industry to serve the government and re-distribute wealth.  Trump has gone to work to eliminate the more drastic and hurtful ones.

[Ray]

Monday 7 August 2017 16.43 BST  "Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.

Sounds very reasonable to me, at least for those who are interested in the truth. It's localised weather events that people experience, not a statistical, averaging of changes in weather or temperature globally.

Regardless of CO2 influences, certain regions on the planet will always experience an increase in storms, or droughts, or floods, whilst other regions will experience a reduction of such extreme events.

It's not possible to attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event, in any particular locality, to climate change
For example, the following study shows that extreme weather events during a 5 decade period, from 1960 to 2010, have been decreasing in China.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42310?WT.feed_name=subjects_atmospheric-dynamics

"Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades."

[Alan Klein]

Sounds very reasonable to me, at least for those who are interested in the truth. It's localised weather events that people experience, not a statistical, averaging of changes in weather or temperature globally.

Regardless of CO2 influences, certain regions on the planet will always experience an increase in storms, or droughts, or floods, whilst other regions will experience a reduction of such extreme events.

It's not possible to attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event, in any particular locality, to climate change
For example, the following study shows that extreme weather events during a 5 decade period, from 1960 to 2010, have been decreasing in China.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42310?WT.feed_name=subjects_atmospheric-dynamics

"Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades."

It's scary when we have to depend on scientists in Communist China for the truth about the climate.  Damn monsoons! 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Sounds very reasonable to me, at least for those who are interested in the truth. It's localised weather events that people experience, not a statistical, averaging of changes in weather or temperature globally.

And thus conveniently downplaying that it is the rising average that causes the extremes. Also, extremes make it sound more like exceptions, doesn't it? Well, the extremes are going to do more harm than the average alone already does.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Mazda to increase gasoline engine efficiency 30%.  This is interesting as it would put additional pressure on electric vehicles. It will also lower pollution and decrease annual cost for fuel.  It will also lower the cost of other products that use oil since the price of oil will decrease because demand will go down.  Assuming CO2 is bad for the climate, it will reduce that too.  It's all good. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/08/mazda-gasoline-engine-brekathrough/549234001/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

US government’s grim climate summary draft gets unofficially published
Fate of congressionally mandated report uncertain in the face of Trump’s disbelief.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/us-government-scientists-finish-climate-study-will-it-be-published/

QUOTE "In 1990, during the presidency of the first George Bush, Congress passed the Global Change Research Act. Along with reorganizing government-funded climate research, the Act stipulates that, every four years, the federal agencies involved provide an update on the state of climate science.

It has been four years, and the next report's draft has been completed and has undergone scientific vetting.

The draft paints a grim picture of how the US is already dealing with a variety of issues related to climate change and how much worse most of those issues will get during the coming decades. And the report places the blame squarely on humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.

This message won't go over well with the administration of President Donald Trump, which has a number of members who are openly hostile to the scientific community's conclusions. As a result, a lot of people are worried that the report will never be formally published or its conclusions will be watered down by further edits. These are the fears that undoubtedly prompted someone to leak the draft to The New York Times. 
[...]"



I'm reading the final draft report as it is now, but I expect not much change in the coming 9 days (the official publication is due August 18th). It doesn't hold many surprises, it is a confirmation of what was already published in the IPPC reports, with somewhat more focus on the USA. I'd call it an alarming report that paints a grim outlook unless immediate and drastic action is taken.

Should there be a lot of changes in the report during the coming days, or if the report is not published at all, then that creates new credibility issues for the Trump Administration. A more likely scenario is that they will attempt to ignore the report.

Here's the link to the almost Final (but yet unofficial) report as published by the New York times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?

Not sure, although cost would depend on action taken, or not taken, and the timing of that action (it gets more expensive the longer action is postponed), and Climate scientists do not use crystal balls that tell about Economy. I'm only just past the start,  but have some 600 pages more to go, so who knows what will be addressed.

In the Introduction, they do mention that

The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, the three warmest years on record for the globe, and continued decline in arctic sea ice. These trends are expected to continue in the future over climate (multidecadal) timescales. Significant advances have also been made in our understanding of extreme weather events and how they relate to increasing global temperatures and associated climate changes. Since 1980, the cost of extreme events for the United States has exceeded $1.1 trillion, therefore better understanding of the frequency and severity of these events in the context of a changing climate is warranted.

They say it will get worse (and irreversible tipping points can be reached), so more expensive, but I do not know yet how detailed they will get when looking forward.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Well, I have to hand it to you to read 600 pages.   Keep your eye on cost/ benefits.   For example,  you said there was 1.1 trillion dollars in costs due to exttreme weather over 37 years.   So lets say we spend 100 billion dollars but only save 50 billion dollars in climate affect. It's those kind of Statistics I'd like to hear from the report if they have them in there.

Also, how much of the 1.1 trillion actually has to do with climate change effects? Most of that costs could just be from average storms that would have happened anyway.

[jtmiller]

I find the questions of cost noxious given the existential nature of the threat. I really don't care if you die rich if it cost my grandkids their lives.

Get real and get on with doing what we can to lessen the problem.

jim

[Alan Klein]

I find the questions of cost noxious given the existential nature of the threat. I really don't care if you die rich if it cost my grandkids their lives.

Get real and get on with doing what we can to lessen the problem.

jim

Well, that's the argument.  Just how existential is the problem?

Also regarding cost, I have to tell you that all things including safety are measured against cost.  Do you buy insurance from every insurance agent who knocks on your door?  And if you do have it, don't you limit it's payout based on cost?    Do you buy the more expensive cars with all the backup cameras and proximity sensors or do you skip some of those safety devices for a cheaper car?  Do you have a smoke detector in every room, or just in the hallways?  Well, the former would be safer.  But most people feel that just the hallways are enough.  Why?  Because they don't want to spend money for detectors in every room.  So, we all measure our safety against costs or we all would be broke. 

The same with climate change.  First, will we change it or just spend a lot of money and get nothing from our efforts.  Even if we do get benefits, will that money be better spent for cancer research that will help you now as well as your children in the future?   If climate money spent instead on heart disease research would eventually save your grandchild, would you reconsider your point?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well, that's the argument.  Just how existential is the problem?

Just read the Executive Summary on pages 12-37 of the linked report (page numbers may change a bit when additional edits are done).

Page 6-8 about Confidence Levels and Likelihood Levels + page 10 is IMHO essential if you want to understand what is written. Basically, Confidence Levels are about Data quality and Expert consensus, Likelihood or Probability are different statistical concepts. Lay persons not versed in Basic Statistics can get confused if they don't get the difference clear in their head before reading.

The issue of cost is mostly used by Climate Change Deniers to justify their own inaction.

Obviously, there is some logic to weighing cost alternatives, but not if the cost (e.g. of CO2 production) is not the real cost (to society). Coal, Oil, and Natural gas, is only relatively cheap because the real cost is not priced in. If a Carbon tax would be added, the transition to alternatives would have started long ago already, and the total cost would have already been lower with renewables (or at least with a more sustainable mix than today).

Cheers,
Bart

[Peter McLennan]

what effect it would have and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?

Exactly! Because that is, above all, the most important consideration.

[Alan Klein]

Just read the Executive Summary on pages 12-37 of the linked report (page numbers may change a bit when additional edits are done).

Page 6-8 about Confidence Levels and Likelihood Levels + page 10 is IMHO essential if you want to understand what is written. Basically, Confidence Levels are about Data quality and Expert consensus, Likelihood or Probability are different statistical concepts. Lay persons not versed in Basic Statistics can get confused if they don't get the difference clear in their head before reading.

The issue of cost is mostly used by Climate Change Deniers to justify their own inaction.

Obviously, there is some logic to weighing cost alternatives, but not if the cost (e.g. of CO2 production) is not the real cost (to society). Coal, Oil, and Natural gas, is only relatively cheap because the real cost is not priced in. If a Carbon tax would be added, the transition to alternatives would have started long ago already, and the total cost would have already been lower with renewables (or at least with a more sustainable mix than today).

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,  As I asked earlier, does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have, and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?  Unless the report provides exact figures of costs and benefits, how can anyone assess what to do, how much to spend, in what areas, etc?  Proceeding is going to cause major disruption to people's lives and companies.    It's not like we're being asked to buy a cup of coffee.  Before Congress approves legislation, there has to be an analysis of costs and benefits for that legislation.   

[Alan Klein]

Exactly! Because that is, above all, the most important consideration.

It's one of the data points required to make decisions.  If someone tries to sell you solar panels for your roof or an electric car, wouldn't you assess the cost/benefit of installing such a system before buying it?  Or do you just believe what someone tells you?  If the latter, I wouldn't want you making decisions about my money. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,  As I asked earlier, does the report provide cost to implement any reductions in global warming, what effect it would have, and the cost to the economy in jobs and wealth?

I've arrived at page 102 of 673.

According to the opening statement, which you can also read yourself:

As a key input into the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) oversaw the production of this special, stand-alone report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts.

This report is designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses. In accordance with this purpose, it does not include an assessment of literature on climate change mitigation, adaptation, economic valuation, or societal responses, nor does it include policy recommendations.

So, it's not the purpose of this report.

Unless the report provides exact figures of costs and benefits, how can anyone assess what to do, how much to spend, in what areas, etc?

That's up to (better informed than, it's a hoax) policy makers (not scientists), if and how they want to react to the observations and the calculated expectations that result from the observed trends.

As long as uninformed policy makers call the findings a hoax, or natural fluctuations, or claim that climate constantly changes, then those policy makers disqualify themselves (again).

Proceeding is going to cause major disruption to people's lives and companies.

Not nearly as much as doing nothing.

It's not like we're being asked to buy a cup of coffee.  Before Congress approves legislation, there has to be an analysis of costs and benefits for that legislation.

Isn't that their (Congres and Senate) job?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

600 pages and no economic analysis.   Oh well.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

600 pages and no economic analysis.   Oh well.

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