Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Which simply means that the previous models, on which the panic and alarm are still based, were not so good.

They may have had wider ranges of possible outcomes, and those ranges are getting more narrow. Both were correct, but they are becoming more correct.

We are already witnessing scaling down of the magnitude of "catastrophic consequences," extending the time frame in which it might happen, and lowering the probability of it happening.

Are we? With the same inputs? Or do we have new/additional inputs that make the models more accurate, and changes in human behavior (e.g. acid rain due to reduced emissions, and the hole in the ozone layer shrinking due to the reduction of chlorofluorocarbons CFC's, the USA switching from coal to natural gas utilities power generation that starts reducing the Carbon emission growth, etc.) lead to different outcomes since the inputs to the models have changed?

You have to be more specific if we are to have a meaningful discussion, assuming that's what you want?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Which simply means that the previous models, on which the panic and alarm are still based, were not so good. We are already witnessing scaling down of the magnitude of "catastrophic consequences," extending the time frame in which it might happen, and lowering the probability of it happening.

One of the problems as I have alluded to is that while we have a causative correlation (how's that for a cool alliteration?) we don't know the exact time table or magnitude of any adverse event.  This uncertainty has a parallel in my field of drug safety.  When a new drug is approved for widespread use the full safety profile is not known.  Clinical trials are routinely done on only a few thousand patients.  When the drug is marketed the company monitors all reports adverse events.  Very rare events which might be dramatic such as organ failure might not show up for months or even a year or two depending on the frequency of the event.  Despite the best research during development, one never has all the answers.  ONe of the reasons that we do very large clinical trials on childhood vaccines is to find these rare events before the vaccine goes into the market and millions of kids get the vaccine.  If there is a rare side effect with a 1 in 10,000 chance of occurring, 30,000 patients are needed in the clinical trial to have a reliable chance of detecting it.

The issue regarding climate change is whether policy makers should take precautions now in order to avoid a catastrophic event at some point in the future (Bladerunner 2049!) or keep a watchful eye at the changes that are going on.  Some things are easier to remediate than others.  When it became apparent that old coal fired power plants were contributing to 'acid rain' that was having a severe ecological impact on lakes and forests in the eastern US, the technology was modified to markedly reduce the sulfur and nitrogen oxides.  The 'clean power plant' regulations were an attempt to do the same thing on CO2.

[RSL]

No question about it: the world is coming to an end because we're all exhaling too much. Stop breathing you guys!

[Ray]

Okay, let's dissect that statement. Why do you put hypothesis between quotes?

To highlight the term because in common language the terms hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably. In science there is a clear distinction which might be lost on people who have little understanding of the scientific method.

Why even call it a hypothesis, when the causes and the effects are demonstrable (and the heat-trapping properties of CO2 were known more than a century ago)? In science that's called an emerging truth, a probable outcome, when new evidence confirms cause and effect of earlier observations and repeated experiments give the same results.

The causes and effects on what precisely? The causes and effects of CO2 on increased plant growth, especially under water-stressed conditions, are not hypothetical. They can be demonstrated within a single growing season.

That CO2 is less transparent to the lower frequencies of heat radiated from the earth than it is to the incoming radiation from the sun can also be demonstrated. That's why CO2 is called a 'greenhouse' gas. Greenhouse gases are necessary for life to flourish. The total water vapour in the atmosphere has a far greater 'greenhouse' effect than the total CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere.

Why do you call CO2 a "clear, clean and odourless trace gas"? It's not 'clear' at all wavelengths, in particular not for near InfraRed radiation. Don't know what you mean by clear, it's not a scientific term unless you qualify what you mean. Why call it Odorless? Are you trying to suggest that it's harmless? Yes, it's a trace gas, and a very important one despite its low concentration in the troposphere.

I call it a clear, clean and odourless gas in order to make the distinction between CO2 and a pollutant. CO2 is clear to the eyesight, as opposed to the smog or haze that people sometimes see in cities. CO2 is also odourless, whereas certain pollutants such as Sulphur Dioxide have a very pungent or unpleasant odour. CO2 is also clean in the sense it has no adverse effects on human health, as a trace gas, as opposed to pollutants such as Hydrogen Chloride and Fluoride, various Sulphur and Nitrogen Oxides, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic and so on.

The real and actual pollutants from coal-fired power stations can be reduced to negligible levels using the latest technology, such as the Ultra-Supercritical power plants.

You'd have to start with a hypothesis. Any proper hypothesis should be falsifiable if the experiment is set up correctly. When the experiment turns out to support the hypothesis, we have an emerging truth. When all (independently repeated) experiments fail to prove the hypothesis wrong, the emerging truth can be called a fact (with a high probability).

And how would you set up experiments using accurate models of the Earth and its climate, with all its complexity, changing the levels of CO2 in the experiments to see what happens to the climate in your models, in 50 years time? It's not possible. The best we can do is rely upon inadequate and flawed computer models. The hypothesis must remain a hypothesis, for the present at least.

[pegelli]

No question about it: the world is coming to an end because we're all exhaling too much. Stop breathing you guys!

Great hypothesis Russ, do you have any references where I can find more background on it?

[Alan Klein]

We're covering the same ground that was covered in the last thread that went "poof". What's the point?

[RSL]

Good question, Alan. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no point. It's just an opportunity for people to blow off steam (in a very scientific-sounding manner). The world is not coming to an end. It's not even going to flip end for end because of ice melt in the Arctic and ice buildup in the Antarctic. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there's nothing unusual about our temperatures. In fact, they're lower than many earlier periods in the "planet's" history. CO2 makes plants grow and that's what lets us eat and stay alive. There's no real correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, and there's certainly no evidence of causation. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past, and have had a positive effect on growth and the general health of the earth. On top of all that we're still gradually recovering from the "little ice age that began in the 1700's. The "planet" has been warming at a rate of about .5C per century since then, and we're still in that trend.

The bottom line is that people talk a lot without knowing what they're talking about. But that's okay in The Coffee Corner. After all, if we're not out there shooting photographs we have to have something to do.

[Robert Roaldi]

Good question, Alan. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no point. It's just an opportunity for people to blow off steam (in a very scientific-sounding manner). The world is not coming to an end. It's not even going to flip end for end because of ice melt in the Arctic and ice buildup in the Antarctic. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there's nothing unusual about our temperatures. In fact, they're lower than many earlier periods in the "planet's" history. CO2 makes plants grow and that's what lets us eat and stay alive. There's no real correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, and there's certainly no evidence of causation. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past, and have had a positive effect on growth and the general health of the earth. On top of all that we're still gradually recovering from the "little ice age that began in the 1700's. The "planet" has been warming at a rate of about .5C per century since then, and we're still in that trend.

The bottom line is that people talk a lot without knowing what they're talking about. But that's okay in The Coffee Corner. After all, if we're not out there shooting photographs we have to have something to do.

You seem awfully sure of yourself in that we are not experiencing anything new. Yet this seemingly is in conflict with the talk I provided a link for in reply No. 38.

[Alan Klein]

You seem awfully sure of yourself in that we are not experiencing anything new. Yet this seemingly is in conflict with the talk I provided a link for in reply No. 38.

Why would I want to watch a 24 minute video that you linked to? You didn't explain what it was about, didn't tell me how long it was, etc.   You expect me to spend 24 minutes of my life watching something because you linked to it.   you're not that important.   At least have the courtesy to tell me something about it.  Sum up its point.  Then i can decide. 

[RSL]

You seem awfully sure of yourself in that we are not experiencing anything new. Yet this seemingly is in conflict with the talk I provided a link for in reply No. 38.

Hi Robert, Maybe you missed this part: "The bottom line is that people talk a lot without knowing what they're talking about."

[Rob C]

Why would I want to watch a 24 minute video that you linked to? You didn't explain what it was about, didn't tell me how long it was, etc.   You expect me to spend 24 minutes of my life watching something because you linked to it.   you're not that important.   At least have the courtesy to tell me something about it.  Sum up its point.  Then i can decide.

Now that is hotdamn rude.

Rob

[Robert Roaldi]

Why would I want to watch a 24 minute video that you linked to? You didn't explain what it was about, didn't tell me how long it was, etc.   You expect me to spend 24 minutes of my life watching something because you linked to it.   you're not that important.   At least have the courtesy to tell me something about it.  Sum up its point.  Then i can decide.

I never claimed to be important. (In any case, my reply was to RSL's post, but I take your point.)

The purpose of this entire thread was to provide scientific information, of which that video is an example. I thought that one quick glance at the title was informative enough, but I apologize. In future, I'll try to remember to give a short indication of the subject matter if it's not self-evident.

However, you did state in a post above that this thread was devolving into a replay of the previous dead thread. This is true for some of the posts, and I wonder what their point is. If people are not interested in the proposed discussion, then why bother trying to devalue the thread.

[Rob C]

It's the rôle of characters to replay and replay themselves until the curtain falls one last time.

None of us can escape; it's just our rôles that are different. Even in photographs, we all end up making our same image over and over again, try as we might to be fresh. Can't be done: we are stuck with ourselves. It's part of what gives us all our signatures.

My friend Walter said, many years ago, that the era of the Internet had become a massive disappointment in that freedom to speak and to express had withered almost before it began. Too true; conversation can hardly make two returns of serve before it falls under attack from one direction or another. Eventually, I suppose we all give up and take up gardening (golf is now verboten).

;-)

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The purpose of this entire thread was to provide scientific information, of which that video is an example. I thought that one quick glance at the title was informative enough, but I apologize. In future, I'll try to remember to give a short indication of the subject matter if it's not self-evident.

However, you did state in a post above that this thread was devolving into a replay of the previous dead thread. This is true for some of the posts, and I wonder what their point is. If people are not interested in the proposed discussion, then why bother trying to devalue the thread.

Indeed, the only thing repeating is the desire by some to not contribute to the thread's topic, and to complain it's not leading to anything new. Very strange attitude indeed. They do not even try to change that by introducing something new themselves ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Good question, Alan. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no point. It's just an opportunity for people to blow off steam (in a very scientific-sounding manner).

I can't agree with that, Russ. There are serious issues here. Every year there are people in some regions of the planet who die from some extreme weather event such as a flood or hurricane, and many more who lose their homes.

The geological and proxy records reveal that such events have occurred in the past with similar frequency and intensity, even though CO2 levels might have been lower in the recent past.

Creating a scare about the dangers of an increase in such extreme weather events as a result of humanity's CO2 emissions, and spending huge sums of money on the uncertain outcome of reducing CO2 emissions, whilst not adequately tackling or adapting to the real problems of floods, droughts and storms, by building more dams, and/or ensuring that homes are built above the level of previous floods, and/or that homes are built to withstand the forces of previous hurricanes or cyclones, and so on, not only seems like very poor decision-making to me, but is also unethical.

The result of this scare about CO2 is that the general public, encouraged by biased reporting in the media, seem to accept that every major weather event that results in severe damage to property and/or loss of life, is another example of the result of anthropogenic climate change due to our CO2 emissions, and that the problem can be fixed if we reduce our CO2 emissions.

It can't. The problem can only be fixed by paying attention the record of past extreme weather events, making the rational deduction that such weather events will be repeated in the future, regardless of minuscule changes in CO2 levels, and taking practical steps to protect ourselves as outlined above. We have the technology to do that.

That's my message, and I don't think it's a load of waffle.

[RSL]

I can't agree with that, Russ. There are serious issues here. Every year there are people in some regions of the planet who die from some extreme weather event such as a flood or hurricane, and many more who lose their homes.

So what else is new, Ray? When, exactly, do you think this wasn't going on?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Creating a scare about the dangers of an increase in such extreme weather events as a result of humanity's CO2 emissions, and spending huge sums of money on the uncertain outcome of reducing CO2 emissions,...

Creating the scare is a result of the prevailing anti-capitalist, anti-industrial society (unabomber, anyone?) sentiment prevailing on the left.

[Ray]

So what else is new, Ray? When, exactly, do you think this wasn't going on?

Russ,
It's as a result of my own inquiries into the issue that I now have some understanding of the history of previous climate changes and extreme weather events. I get the impression that many members of the public are not aware of these facts. Some college students in America even believe that our eyes project some type of beam onto what we see in order to illuminate it, just like the ancient Greeks believed. 

[Ray]

Creating the scare is a result of the prevailing anti-capitalist, anti-industrial society (unabomber, anyone?) sentiment prevailing on the left.

Or perhaps as a result of the capitalist sentiment in the alternative energy industries!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Or perhaps as a result of the capitalist sentiment in the alternative energy industries!!

Then they turned out to be pretty lousy capitalists, given the rate they are going bust. Throwing money into ideologically-pure projects is actually quite socialist.