Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

The simple answer (to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything) is: 42.




The more elaborate short answer, simple enough for even folks like Trump to understand (I hope, although there's a difference between understanding and acting in accordance with that 'knowledge'):
1. The moment we change, the effect will change. It may take a while to be measurable because these are slowdowns in an acceleration at first, and it depends on how much of a change is introduced into the system and how fast.

2. It will reduce warming immediately, hopefully to a level that Mother Earth can find somewhat of an equilibrium again. Even with the Paris agreements, the warming will not stop, but the aim is:
"Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change"
Skeptics (realists?) say that that goal is optimistic, and will not be reached by the current actions taken (2.5-3 °C may be more likely).

Without action, it will keep accelerating for quite a while.

3. The pledges and other associated costs are specified in the agreement to which you do not want a link.
However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more. And it will be harder and more costly when action is postponed.

4. When the temperature drops (not slows down increasing, but going down), the expansion of the water mass is reduced and thus the water volume is also reduced. It may take a while (50-100 years for the climate to reach a new equilibrium) for the atmospheric climate effects on water level to lead to a reduction.

Just to give you an idea of cost due to only waterlevel rise (we're not even calculating the much higher cost of droughts, food shortages, mass migration, war, etc.):
http://floods.wri.org/#/country/240/United%20States

And again, the longer we wait, the higher the cost.

Cheers,
Bart

  Bart,  There's no meat in your answer.  If you want to convince skeptics like me, fact and figures would go a long way.  "Taking a while for changes to occur",  "Paris accord will not reduce warming"  "However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more" (sound like a sales pitch.)  50-100 years wait mean our great great grandchildren.  There's no way to see the change sooner?  Then, really, how can we believe there will even be change that matters?

You see, there's been too much generalization by the advocates of global warming.  No one can give really specific costs and changes.  You can't expect people and government to spend billions and trillions of dollars with such generalizations.  When I was in business selling energy management systems in buildings, the owners wanted to know the ROI (Return on Investment).  They were generally looking for 3-5 years payback. I would do an analysis of cost vs. savings per year.   Ok, this is a little different.  But still.  Before you can expect people to spend their hard earned money, you have to provide facts and costs.  You didn't other than referring me to some 100 page glossy report that one would have to be a genius to get through.  You have to present your arguments simply. You didn't.  You just want me to believe you by making a statement like, "However, make no mistake that not acting will cost more"

[Ray]

You still do not (want to) understand it, do you?

I've explained to you again and again, Bart, that I have become a skeptic precisely because of my desire to understand the processes of climate change that were never mentioned, or were glossed over in the past by climate change alarmist scientists for the obvious reason, I suspect, that it would get people thinking for themselves.

In all of your responses in this thread and other threads, to my presentation of counter arguments which are also based upon the best available evidence, you have responded with illogical and/or  misleading statements, which is typical of the religion of AGW alarmism.

I'll just give just a few examples.

(1) When I mentioned that the IPCC in its latest report, the AR5, 2014, had conceded there was low confidence that extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes, had been increasing in intensity or frequency during the past century or so, you claimed you'd never heard of that, despite the fact you claimed to have possession of that latest report.

I didn't have possession of the report, but because I'm interested in the truth, I did a long search on the internet until I found the specific quotes in the Working Group 1 Summary, and the Technical Summary, which I posted on this forum.

What was your response? You claimed I'd misinterpreted the IPCC statements and that the low confidence was due to a lack of data and therefore didn't mean there was a low risk of extreme weather events increasing. In other words, despite the lack of evidence, you think it's reasonable to maintain an alarm about the risk, even though during the past century, and certainly the latter half of the last century, we have had the means to observe and record every extreme weather event in greater detail than ever before.

(2) I raised the issue of Ocean Acidification and expressed my initial puzzlement as to why the AGW scientists who informed the public of their concern about this matter during interviews, never mentioned what the current pH of the oceans and ocean surfaces is estimated to be, and by how much pH levels have fallen since the beginning of industrialization.

After doing my own research, I discovered why. There are many authoritative scientific sites, not just blogs, that state that pH levels are estimated to have fallen from approximately 8.2 to 8.1 since around the year 1750, a pH which is still considerably alkaline. That doesn't sound alarming, especially when one considers that the natural variability of the pH of the oceans, according to the season of the year, the location and depth of the ocean, is estimated to be about 0.3 pH. It's no wonder AGW scientists would not care to mention that, just as they were reluctant to mention that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event and possibly warmer than today's global climate.

What was your response, Bart? You claimed that a reduction of 0.1 in pH is much greater than I might think because the pH is a logarithmic scale, and that a reduction of 0.1pH is really a 30% increase in acidity, and that a pH of 7 is neutral.

That was another example of a misleading statement from you. Describing a change of 0.1pH as a 30% change is first an exaggeration, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US). It's actually 26%.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

Also, if you are going to describe pH changes in terms of percentages, don't you think you should mention that a change of pH from 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, is a whopping 900% reduction in alkalinity. A 26% change compared with a 900% change is even less alarming than a 0.1pH change compared with a 1pH change. Is that why you didn't mention it?

(3) Perhaps the most amazing and ridiculous example of your alarmism, Bart, was when I mentioned the undeniable facts that CO2 levels in terms of percentage of the atmosphere are very tiny, having risen from 0.028% to 0.04% of the atmosphere during the past couple of hundred years.

What was your response? It was to compare CO2 with the poison Strychnine. Really! Now that's what I'd call true alarmism. Bart, I award you first prize for the most unscientific and extreme example of alarmism I've seen on this forum.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/

World temperatures plummet???????????

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/globalT_1880-1920base.pdf

I'm not able to read the full article that Slobodan linked to without subscription, so I cannot comment on its source references.

However, about the author of that article, according to Wikipedia (emphasis is mine):
"Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos."

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

...
Instead of approving the proposals to build additional dams in the area, in order to take advantage of the huge water supply that would occur during the next flood, and protect the homes of residents from a future predicted flood due to natural causes, based on the historical record, the Queensland Government decided to build a number of rather expensive desalination plants on the coast.

The desalination plants were used very briefly because soon after their construction the El Nina rains arrived. In the build-up to the wet weather period, dams that were built for flood mitigation purposes years ago, were filled up to near the limit, on the understanding that droughts were predicted to be the norm, by climate alarmists like Tim Flannery.

When the rains continued, there was no dam reserve to hold the water, which therefore had to be released, which caused billions of dollars worth of damage to property, and uncountable loss of dollars in respect to loss of life.

I suspect that the total cost of the flood damage, plus the cost of subsidised water tanks, plus the cost of the desalination plants, was more than the cost of building new dams during the drought, which would have prevented the subsequent flood damage.

This is an example of 'climate change alarmism' having negative social and economic impacts.
Australia is a land of droughts and floods, and this is still the case despite rises in CO2 levels. That we don't build more dams to store the excess water in times of flood, to prevent damage to property and life, and provide more water in times of drought, is amazingly stupid.

Ray, you are absolutely right, that not building more dams and reservois is incredibly stupid and very costly.
It seems that more and more countries are getting exposed to major floods. Right now, over 1900 homes in Montreal along the St.Lawrence River were evacuated  and 1200 soldiers were called in to help with the rescue activities. Ontario, New Brunswick, and British Columbia on the West Coast have been also affected by flooding. 
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-quebec-and-across-canada-residents-face-rain-rising-rivers-andflooding/article34913687/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"What The Economist Didn’t Tell You about Greenland’s Ice"

https://www.cato.org/blog/what-economist-didnt-tell-you-about-greenlands-ice

Then, from the Telegraph article referenced in the previous post:

Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

And then something completely different:

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...However, about the author of that article...

You might have issues with the author of the article, but the data come from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).

[Alan Klein]

Should we spend the money saved on the Paris accord to help people with pre existing medical conditions?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You might have issues with the author of the article, but the data come from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).

"The data", of which I do not know if it was understood by the columnist. He doesn't seem to be a science reporter or a scientist himself, and he seems to be known for his views that contradict scientific consensus. I'd rather read the data/report myself to understand what it is that he misunderstood/misrepresented (as is often the case with these contrarians).

Is the DMI referring to Arctic temperatures instead of global temperatures? Well, possibly not due to what they publish about Greenland (which is what the DMI usually studies, instead of global temperature):
https://www.dmi.dk/en/klima/klimaet-frem-til-i-dag/groenland/
" Over the past 130 years, temperatures in Greenland have shown a slight upward trend. Seen in a shorter time perspective, and apart from the warm decades of the 1930’s and 1940’s, temperatures have been decreasing. This trend is primarily observed on the west coast that not until recent years started showing an increasing trend.

On the east coast, a rising trend has been seen since the mid 1970’s. Current temperature level is now among the highest in the series. 2001-2010 was the warmest decade among all series. In 2010, record high annual temperatures were observed several places across Greenland"

So if Greenland temperatures have been rising, then temperatures elsewhere need to have dropped even more to "Plummet" global temperatures...., and the global data doesn't show that (see my linked chart earlier). So what has the author been smoking reading ...?????? Inquiring minds want to know.

Or maybe he was referring to this older misread dataset (also not global temperature):
https://skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic-basic.htm
Do note that there are also more in depth analyses (besides Basic, there are Intermediate and Advanced levels of explanation) on that same page.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

First they came to take away our oil.  Then they came to take away our meat. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/dining/obama-climate-food-milan.html?_r=0

[LesPalenik]

First they came to take away our oil.  Then they came to take away our meat. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/dining/obama-climate-food-milan.html?_r=0

If they indeed took away the meat, we should thank and pay them for that good deed. That would get rid of the obesity and plenty of other diseases. It would be healthier for the environment, too.

[Alan Klein]

If they indeed took away the meat, we should thank and pay them for that good deed. That would get rid of the obesity and plenty of other diseases. It would be healthier for the environment, too.

It's carbs not meat.  Please read the latest studies. 

[LesPalenik]

Actually, I read both kinds, the outdated anti-carbs, and also the latest plant-based studies.

I quoted these doctors/authors before, but if you want to find out for yourself, you can google:
Caldwell Esselstyn (or his son Rip), Colin Campbell (or his son Thomas), Dean Ornish, John McDougal, Neil Barnard, Joel Fuhrman, Michael Greger.

Effective not only for heart diseases, diabetes, and cancer, but also for other ailments, including the bones.
https://www.amazon.ca/Building-Bone-Vitality-Revolutionary-Osteoporosis-Without/dp/0071600191

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It's carbs not meat.  Please read the latest studies.

Hi Alan,

You've mentioned it before (even suggesting that fat can be consumed in huge quantities with no ill effects), but I'd suggest to not trust that advice from your doctor blindly. Carbs, in moderation, are not harmful at all.

Red meat on the other hand, and the way it's prepared, does raise a significant number of questions:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315449.php
That article also has a number of references on which it's based.

And the impact on our climate is significant, and producing meat is relatively inefficient as far as nutritional value per unit surface area is concerned (not to mention the Methane and Phosphor production). But I'm a proponent of a mixed food intake, moderate amounts of red meat, poultry, and fish, and mostly vegetables and a few slices of wholemeal bread (which can be very nutritious, if moderate amounts of salt are used, and has lots of fibers). Replacing the addition of salt with herbs is also very helpful for our health.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Hi Alan,

You've mentioned it before (even suggesting that fat can be consumed in huge quantities with no ill effects), but I'd suggest to not trust that advice from your doctor blindly. Carbs, in moderation, are not harmful at all.

Red meat on the other hand, and the way it's prepared, does raise a significant number of questions:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315449.php
That article also has a number of references on which it's based.

And the impact on our climate is significant, and producing meat is relatively inefficient as far as nutritional value per unit surface area is concerned (not to mention the Methane and Phosphor production). But I'm a proponent of a mixed food intake, moderate amounts of red meat, poultry, and fish, and mostly vegetables and a few slices of wholemeal bread (which can be very nutritious, if moderate amounts of salt are used, and has lots of fibers). Replacing the addition of salt with herbs is also very helpful for our health.

Cheers,
Bart

A bit off topic, but I remember a report years ago on a cholesterol study that compared cholesterol levels in people who ate grass-fed beef vs grain-fed beef vs grass-fed bison (I think it was bison, not 100% sure anymore). I don't remember all the details nor where I read it, but I did retain that the cholesterol accumulation of people who ate grass-fed beef was no different that those who ate the other (lean) meat. The conclusion was that perhaps the fattening up of cattle in feedlots by giving them grain might have deleterious effects in humans.

My rule of thumb with food is that if I make it from scratch ingredients, it's mostly ok. If it comes pre-packaged and prepared by some food services corporation, it's probably bad. I am sure that this is not 100% reliable, but it's probably as good as it's going to get. I believe that the real culprit is that, for some reason, we think food should be cheap and that people who work in the food industry should be paid minimum wage. Our culture gets a lot of things wrong, of course. Why we balk at more expensive apples while buying $60,000 3-ton pick-up trucks to drive to suburban malls is a puzzle to me.

Red meat is not a total diet villain, I don't believe. But maybe eating it in the quantities that most north americans do is not a good idea in the long run. A good steak tastes delicious, but maybe one or two per year is plenty. But we have tended to overindulge in most things. I see people drink large quantities of coffee (those mugs look like they hold a litre or more). I'd say it's better to drink water for hydration, and to drink small quantities of good coffee for the taste.

[LesPalenik]

It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems. Spreading this information to the masses is understandably not in the interest of meat, dairy, pharma, and food industry.

While some may argue or ignore the results of numerous studies on this subject, nobody can deny the additional harmful effects of pesticide concentration in questionable animal feed, growth hormons, antibiotics, and stress factors of the animals, whether it is farmed fish, poultry, cattle or pork.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems. Spreading this information to the masses is understandably not in the interest of meat, dairy, pharma, and food industry.

While some may argue or ignore the results of numerous studies on this subject, nobody can deny the additional harmful effects of pesticide concentration in questionable animal feed, growth hormons, antibiotics, and stress factors of the animals, whether it is farmed fish, poultry, cattle or pork.

Indeed. It's much like the excess CO2 addition to our atmosphere, it disrupts the natural equilibrium faster than can be accommodated for by the self-regulating mechanisms, and the detrimental effects can be irreversible if pushed too far for too long.

Moderation is key.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

So now they feel that high fat from dairy products are not bad for you.  That's what my heart doctor told me.  It's the carbs. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2017/05/09/full-fat-dairy-stuff----cheese-yogurt-and-so----isnt-bad-you-study-finds/101461372/

Anyway the two points related to climate change are these:
1.  Researchers are often wrong.  They keep changing their minds about foods and have about climate as well.   What's true yesterday is false today and may be true again tomorrow.  How can they keep getting fats and carbs so mixed up when it's fairly easy to set up a study?  Well, imagine the problems with climate where changes take forever and we don't know all the variables.

2.  The second point was how government will take away your meat because cows have an effect on the climate.  Just like with so many other things, we are turning our freedoms over to the government to let them decide how we should live.  First they take away the oil; then they take away your meat; then they take away your __________.  You fill in the blank. 

A funny story that happen with former NY Mayor Bloomberg.  A typical liberal who thinks he knows better then everyone else and will twist your arm to make sure you comply with his intellect was the issue with 16 ounce containers of soda drink like Pepsi and Coke.  He issue a declaration that stores could no longer sell any larger than that size under the theory that too much sugar is causing illness and fat people.  Of course, he's right.  But what he failed to realize is New Yorkers, as liberal as they are, don't like being told what to do.  There was a lawsuit and the mayor lost because he didn't have the authority to issue such a rule.  The point is, this is what happens when you give government power to "help" you.  You wind up like Venezuela. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems...

Wow! Then I must stop consuming it immediately. Or maybe I should ask first about that little weaseling word "excessive"?

[RSL]

It’s been scientifically proven that excessive animal protein, which includes dairy, meat, and eggs, causes artery plaques, bone loss, damages of liver and kidneys, cancer, and other problems. Spreading this information to the masses is understandably not in the interest of meat, dairy, pharma, and food industry.

This crap changes practically like the weather. First eggs were healthy, then it was proven -- settled science -- they were deadly, then it was discovered -- settled science -- they were healthy again. Fat was deadly -- settled science, then it was healthy -- settled science. This kind of horse hockey goes on and on and it's always "scientific." Eventually life ends. Get used to it.