Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

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

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

I was lucky to have perfect weather during my trip, sunny and warm, and in that weather the Gaspe Peninsula is beautiful to explore and photograph. Attached is a shot from the southern part of Route 132 showing the eroded coastline. The houses in that picture seem already to be close to the cliff edge. I wonder how long before that coast crumbles and everything falls down.  One day, this picture may turn out as a historic record showing the buildings which stood there in 2017.

Nice warm lighting.  Nice shot.  It's too bad what's happening all over.  People build in dangerous places.  But it is heartbreaking to see people lose their homes and businesses.  My sister lived in southern Florida.  When she enclosed her back area and made a sunroom, she had to add hurricane shutters that can close over the windows to protect her home.  When a storm came through one year, it actually damaged the shutters and cost her around $1500 to repair.  She was one of the lucky ones.  When she passed away, her son sold her home in one day.  One day!  No one cares about hurricanes and floods apparently.  You can't blame global warming.  People are nuts!

[Ray]

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

Alan,
The whole issue is far too complex for a mere mortal such as myself to accurately interpret data which has been influenced by so many, many variables.

I have a property in the countryside where I grow a few types of tropical fruit which are very sensitive to frost. Before I planted these frost-intolerant trees, I enquired locally about the likelihood of frost occurring during the height of the winter.

In the local village, about 1 km away from my property (as the crow flies), I got reports of occasional frost during winters in certain years, but no reports of frost from my immediate neighbours.
The reason, which seems plausible to me, is that the local village is a few metres lower in altitude, about 50-75 metres lower than my property. Cold air falls and warm air rises.

Imagine how different the results could be from two temperature gauges situated just 1 km apart and with a difference of 50 or 75 metres in altitude.
Because weather stations and/or temperature gauges are not evenly spaced across the land and the oceans, and are relatively small in number, it's impossible to get even a remotely credible and accurate average temperature of the planet's surface (in tenths of a degree), never mind the atmosphere.

The RAW data always has to be adjusted using algorithms and computer models, and the results are therefore suspect, just like a photoshopped image might be suspect if it were supposed to be a forensic or documentary image.

The following article attempts to shed light on the problem.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Changing_Temperature_Data.pdf

"This paper considers the records for Bourke and Amberley and the methodology employed by the Bureau in compiling the annual statistics from such temperature series. We will also consider how NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) homogenizes data from Amberley in the development of its annual global mean temperature.

Homogenization refers to a process of changing the actual temperature records using mathematical algorithms."

On the issue of coastal erosion, there are many coastal cities, and islands, around the world that are gradually sinking, for a multitude of reasons. This sinking effect is often confused with rising sea levels.

Bangkok has been one of my favourite cities for photography, because of my association with the place in my early twenties, although it's now very uncomfortably congested and not so appealing.

If one can believe the following report, Bangkok is in serious trouble due to a continuous and gradual sinking of the city which is far more significant than the rate of sea level rise. It might be sinking at 5 times the rate of rising sea levels. Of course the rising sea levels exacerbate the problem, but slowing the rate of rising sea levels by reducing CO2 emissions (if that's even possible) is certainly not going to fix the problem.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/asia-s-future-cities-can-bangkok-turn-back-the-rising-tide-and-s-7612754

Here's an image from the report which demonstrates the problem, for those who can't be bothered to read the article. 

[Alan Klein]

The Mississippi Delta is sinking too but not because of a rise in the ocean that they claim today. 40 years ago I remember seeing a show that indicated how the levees are preventing the silt from the Mississippi River to be distributed. So basically what's happening is that the land is being washed away so an appearance of the level of waters is going up when it's actually the level of the land it's going down. Of course it's convenient to blame global warming and sea rise for the problem.

[Alan Klein]

It looks like California is going to provide $3 billion in credits if you purchase an electric car.  Tesla just got a windfall as did the Chevy Bolt.

What's interesting is: "The Financial Times recently reported that BCA Research, an independent investment research firm, estimated that, excluding subsidies, the cost of an electric car right now is $16,000 more than an equivalent internal combustion engine car." 

also: "The base price of a Bolt EV is $36,620 while the price of a base Civic is $18,740. Take off $7,500 for the federal government’s EV subsidy and, by Chadima’s estimation, the state would contribute $10,380 to the purchase."  That would bring the price of a Bolt down to a Civic equivalent car. 

The point is that without rebates, electrics are so much more expensive to get the same features you'd get in a gasoline engine car for half the price.  The batteries are just so expensive. 

Well, good luck to California. I think they're wasting their money.  This is government picking winners and losers.  Note that Tesla is also in California so they'll get a good chunk of the money.  I wonder if anyone in the legislature is getting paid off?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-subsidies-20170828-htmlstory.html

[Robert Roaldi]

Disaster planning, long article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-katrina-lessons-louisiana-215543.

[Ray]

It looks like California is going to provide $3 billion in credits if you purchase an electric car. 

I can't help wondering if that $3 billion dollars might be more usefully spent on pure research to develop a more affordable and more durable type of battery.

Battery cost, performance and durability are the main stumbling blocks to the success of the electric car.

[Ray]

Disaster planning, long article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-katrina-lessons-louisiana-215543.

It is indeed a long article. A part of the problem seems to be that people tend to kid themselves that such extreme events, such as the recent and still current hurricane Harvey, are one-off events that are unlikely to ever occur again. Therefore, once the damage has been cleaned up and houses and roads rebuilt, life and circumstances tend to return to normal and the inhabitants are just as vulnerable to the effects of the next storm, and perhaps even more vulnerable if the urban population has expanded in the meantime.

Of course, this type of situation creates a fertile ground for AGW alarmism. If it's too difficult and expensive to fix the problem through major construction work, new building regulations, and intelligent planning, then blaming the severity of the storm on mankind's CO2 emissions motivates the drive towards renewable energy whilst also creating the comforting illusion that the politicians are tackling the root cause of the problem to ensure that the next storm will not be as severe.

[Alan Klein]

I can't help wondering if that $3 billion dollars might be more usefully spent on pure research to develop a more affordable and more durable type of battery.

Battery cost, performance and durability are the main stumbling blocks to the success of the electric car.

Well Tesla is also the major manufacturer of it's own batteries that it also will sell to others.  So in a sense, California rebates are subsidizing new battery design.  Interesting, Tesla is furnishing your country Australia with the largest battery in the world.
http://www.popsci.com/tesla-building-worlds-biggest-battery-how-it-will-work

[Alan Klein]

I see the electric car being the future if they can get battery costs down which will probably happen.  Most people only care about the car and it's ability to transport.  No one cares that gasoline is required to propel it or electric unless you own stock in Exxon.  I'd give it 20-30 years at the most before most cars are electric.  That will be good for the environment.  How much reduction in CO2 and pollution, I don't know?

[LesPalenik]

In Cuba, a good chunk of local transportation is still handled by horses, donkeys and oxen. Much cheaper than gasoline or electric cars - both in acquisition and maintenance costs.
They don't use gas, but they emit a lot of it.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It is indeed a long article. A part of the problem seems to be that people tend to kid themselves that such extreme events, such as the recent and still current hurricane Harvey, are one-off events that are unlikely to ever occur again. Therefore, once the damage has been cleaned up and houses and roads rebuilt, life and circumstances tend to return to normal and the inhabitants are just as vulnerable to the effects of the next storm, and perhaps even more vulnerable if the urban population has expanded in the meantime.

Of course, this type of situation creates a fertile ground for AGW alarmism. If it's too difficult and expensive to fix the problem through major construction work, new building regulations, and intelligent planning, then blaming the severity of the storm on mankind's CO2 emissions motivates the drive towards renewable energy whilst also creating the comforting illusion that the politicians are tackling the root cause of the problem to ensure that the next storm will not be as severe.

Nonsense. Only Global Warming Deniers like yourself, mistake Weather events with Climate.

Flood control is about other issues, and governments can play an important (infrastructure) role in mitigating the potentially adverse effects, and of course reducing CO2 and other emissions and Land management that reduce Global Warming will also help some in the long run (higher average air temperatures also means there can be more moisture in the air, and thus more precipitation).

The money potentially spent on building walls is better spent on protecting the people already in the USA. Of course, Trump's intended/planned expiration of the Flood Insurance Program will not help the affected people. Preventative measures could also reduce the need for paying out insurances and prevent loss of property and productivity.

But hey, what does Trump care? He promised to build a symbolic wall. He didn't promise to protect the people against losing their homes.

Hurricane Harvey may add to debt woes of U.S. flood insurance program
https://www.reuters.com/article/storm-harvey-flood-insurance-idUSL2N1LB13O

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Nonsense. Only Global Warming Deniers like yourself, mistake Weather events with Climate.

Bart,
How can anyone believe what you write when you make such a blatantly and obviously untrue statement like that.

Blaming an increase of extreme weather events on CO2 emissions has been the mantra in the media for many decades. Every time there has been a severe hurricane, drought, or flood, the media, and scientists interviewed on the media, have associated human-induced climate change with such events, and have expressed confidence that such extreme events will become more severe and more frequent in the future as a result of a change in climate due to our CO2 emissions.

Why would anyone be concerned about climate change if there's no change in weather?

My main message in this thread has been that such extreme weather events have been occurring periodically for hundreds and thousands of years, and that we're not going to stop that happening by reducing CO2 emissions.

Did I waste my time pointing out to you that the most recent IPCC report, the AR5, concluded that there is 'low confidence' that floods, droughts and hurricanes have increased in severity during the past 60 years or so?

Of course, there's always a probability that a particular location will experience a record extreme weather event (the worst since records began in that specific area), but that's due to chance. Weather is chaotic.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,
How can anyone believe what you write when you make such a blatantly and obviously untrue statement like that.

Blaming an increase of extreme weather events on CO2 emissions has been the mantra in the media for many decades. Every time there has been a severe hurricane, drought, or flood, the media, and scientists interviewed on the media, have associated human-induced climate change with such events, and have expressed confidence that such extreme events will become more severe and more frequent in the future as a result of a change in climate due to our CO2 emissions.

Why would anyone be concerned about climate change if there's no change in weather?

Hurricane Harvey is a weather event. Tornadoes happen every year in the USA, and Harvey reduced to the level of a tropical storm upon landfall. The amount of rainfall that's following these tornadoes will probably become gradually larger as the global temperature increases (because temperature also increases over the Gulf of Mexico).

My main message in this thread has been that such extreme weather events have been occurring periodically for hundreds and thousands of years, and that we're not going to stop that happening by reducing CO2 emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions will slow down Global Warming, and that, in turn, will slow down the trend of increasing amounts of precipitation in some places and droughts in others. In the mean time, cities like Houston should take preventative measures rather than wasting billions, each time it happens, of dollars on partially avoidable damage and losses. The city's infrastructure and surroundings (swamps) lack adequate water-buffer capacity, and the sewer system is under-dimensioned. Correcting that will cost money, but it's a fraction of what repeated repairs and losses will cost.

Cheers,
Bart

[sgilbert]

It seems to me that people discussing this issue almost always fail to consider an issue I think is central:  who has the burden of proof?  People who oppose taking action to lower emissions always claim that climate change hasn't been proven.  Why is it that the burden has to be on those who say that something needs to be done?  If they're wrong, some things may cost more.  If the other side is wrong, we may face catastrophic events in the coming years.  If coal and oil companies and their friends have their way, there will never be enough evidence to mandate change. 

[Peter McLennan]

Blaming an increase of extreme weather events on CO2 emissions has been the mantra in the media for many decades.

Yes.  Ever since the scientists made them aware of it.

[Ray]

Yes.  Ever since the scientists made them aware of it.

No. Ever since certain scientists, in combination with political finance and media support, got on the bandwagon and realised that no-one could prove them wrong because climate and weather is too complex and chaotic for any certainty.

[Ray]

Reducing CO2 emissions will slow down Global Warming, and that, in turn, will slow down the trend of increasing amounts of precipitation in some places and droughts in others.

Why would we want to do that? Increased CO2 in combination with increased precipitation increases plant growth. It's a great asset for humanity. We should exploit it to the full.

Of course, increased precipitation is not uniform across the planet. However, with abundant resources of cheap energy and sensible planning, we should be able to transport water from where it's 'more than plentiful' to where it's scarce.

China knows how to do this. 

http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0612/c90000-9227228.html

[Tim Lookingbill]

Since "certain scientists" have made us aware of CO2 emissions affecting weather I wonder why it took so long for certain Scottish scientists to find 91 volcanoes under Antarctica?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica/

Wonder if they can find the same amount at the opposite ice caps? Maybe that's what's causing them to melt.

[Peter McLennan]

No. Ever since certain scientists, in combination with political finance and media support, got on the bandwagon and realised that no-one could prove them wrong because climate and weather is too complex and chaotic for any certainty.

OFFS

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Since "certain scientists" have made us aware of CO2 emissions affecting weather I wonder why it took so long for certain Scottish scientists to find 91 volcanoes under Antarctica?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica/

Wonder if they can find the same amount at the opposite ice caps? Maybe that's what's causing them to melt.

While more research would be required to show if they are even active (and what effect it could have at that depth), this is what the original research paper says:

Thirdly, it serves to highlight the wide spread of subglacial volcanism beneath the WAIS, which may impact upon its response to external forcing through affecting coupling of the ice to its bed, and may have implications for future volcanic activity as ice cover thins.

and

We do not consider it likely that volcanism has played a significant role in triggering the current retreat, for which there is compelling evidence that the forcing has initiated from the margins (Turner et al. 2017), but we do propose that subglacial volcanism has the potential to in fluence future rates of retreat by (1) producing enhanced basal melting that could impact upon basal ice motion and (2) providing edifices that may act to pin retreat.

So it might increase(?) volcanic activity if the ice sheet gets thinner (which it is doing right now), and possibly either create a runaway situation or slow it down.

Cheers,
Bart