Climate Change!

[jacob]

@brute - Hmmm... why do I care? Good question. I think it's mostly a combination of preserving these forums as a place on the internet where things are taken to great depth && "someone is wrong on the internet" => "Someone is uninformed on my forums". I don't care about people being uninformed elsewhere. I don't hang about climate websites or comment on climate science blogs. I don't do any kind of climate activism, neither one way nor the other. Presumably, the people who do this have an informed opinion except for those who just serve as useful idiots. I have read a handful of books about climate science, some of the seminal papers for historical background, and most of the AR5 report, but that's mainly because I want to have an informed opinion myself so I can take proper precautions, and with my particular physics background, it's been easy to read up, and kinda interesting too just from an intellectual standpoint.

As for why I weigh in here, it's this,

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed(*) opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.

... in particular, I don't think misinformation should stand unopposed if it's being promoted deliberately. At least not on my turf.

Analogously, like my political example with the crazy uncle. One can argue that national politics don't really matter much personally anyway (compared to steak) and therefore there's no incentive to learn even rudimentary civics. That's fair. However, without further insight one can not make the argument that national politics is irrelevant, period. Now, insofar one wants to have a useful rational debate about a given national policy issue, one should at least understand the basics about the issue. If the issue is "freedom of speech", the participants should at least go read the words composing the actual first amendment---that seems like a reasonable first step? But that rarely happens. Instead, everybody carries on like a bunch of crazy uncles based on some TV program they just watched trying to convince each other based on which channel the program appeared on and what they guess the Constitution might say because nobody can be bothered to look it up and read it. For climate science, I think one should at least understand the basic physical mechanism and the relevant physics so as not to base one's opinion on misinformed beliefs that contradict fundamental results in atomic physics or thermodynamics.

(*) I understand that subjects can be complicated and that people don't need to be an expert before having any opinion. However, I do think one's [strength of] opinion should be proportional to how informed one is. If one is more opinionated than informed (crazy uncle style), I think time is better spent getting informed than debating on an uninformed level. It's the reluctance to break that habit that creates Mt Stupid. If I don't know anything about something, I think my opinion has little weight and therefore I will not speculate, make claims, or have an opinion. That's good enough for most things. If I want to have an opinion, I will get informed. If getting informed requires too much effort, then I will look at who appears to be informed and go with the most informed as a proxy. If I can't tell the difference, then I will default to not having an opinion; otherwise I will learn enough to figure out how to evaluate those experts. This evaluation should not be based on who gets paid by who or who is the better speaker. I'm not hiring for the debate team. Most importantly, if I can't figure out who's the actual expert, it does not mean that the real answer is undecided or in the middle.

[Campitor]

@ Jacob

1) I skipped this one for now.
2) 10% closer = 265K; 10% farther = 239.7K; Albedo - 1% = 250.4K

I used a spreadsheet instead of a calculator using the formula T^4 = (Sun Luminosity in Watts x Albedo)/16π x (Earth Distance from Sun)^2 x Sigma.

[BRUTE]

If I don't know anything about something, I think my opinion has little weight and therefore I will not speculate, make claims, or have an opinion. That's good enough for most things. If I want to have an opinion, I will get informed.

this is pretty much also brute's position - and why brute doesn't have a strong opinion on AGW. he's not very informed, and he doesn't want to be. so he does not have a strong opinion. steak, on the other hand..

[Campitor]

@Brute

Hopefully AGW doesn't cause steak to go up in price.

In all seriousness some logical conclusions can be derived via natural observation that should help formulate SOME opinion without needing an advanced degree to understand it. I don't need to be fully versed in the laws of thermodynamics to understand fire is hot and an inordinate amount of it will be extremely uncomfortable or dangerous - especially if it's my couch we are talking about.

Global warming can be directly observed. Species that used to migrate or hibernate during winter no longer do so. Snowfall has increased in some areas but disappears quickly. Winters are shorter and warmer. Species that prefer warmer climates are now found further north every year.

Warmer earth means a more green earth but it also means certain climates will change and arid regions vs natural watersheds will swap or grow/shrink. It also means that disease carrying insects and rodents will increase in number and move further north which is happening today.

I'm not sure where Brute lives or in what latitude. But I hope you never get bitten by the Lone-Star tick. It can potentially make you allergic to red meat:

• http://acaai.org/allergies/types/food-a ... at-allergy
• https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/maps/lone_star_tick.html

[vezkor]

@jacob

Thank you very much for caring enough to write all of that out. I read every word and followed along with the science and a calculator. If you didn't care: we wouldn't have the blog, the forums, or the book. I, for one, am very glad you care.

I've had to backspace and delete at least a dozen posts that could have been reported for "flaming" thanks to threads like this. Each time it's been out of respect for this peculiar ecosystem. I'm mortified that others have the audacity to take bullshit, lies, fiction, misleading and incorrect information and present it as "fact" on this forum. It seems, to me, if they do this knowingly it would be very disrespectful. If they do this unknowingly, they should stop talking and start listening so they can get informed.

[Campitor]

I echo Vezkor's statement (well stated too). I'm glad Jacob took the time to write up his essay. I don't know any nuclear astrophysicists or respected climatologists. And the amount of disinformation is so large it's hard finding accurate reading material without a guide to point you to the correct sources so I was very happy when Jacob spoke up and provided data/reading material. I don't know Jacob but I have read his BIO and followed along when he takes the time to explain science/finance/economics which I've actually taken the time to corroborate by other respected 3rd parties (mostly in regards to the formulas he posts if I haven't encountered them). I respect Jacob's credentials and I listen when he speaks science - In all honesty I was surprised it took him this long to aim his science bazooka at Steveo and enlighten the rest of us.

[Gilberto de Piento]

so why does jacob want to save the planet?

I know this question was for Jacob but I'd like to give one of my reasons too. In rock climbing there is a concept known as "stealing from the future." When a route is just a little too hard for anyone to climb we don't chip the rock or add holds to make it easier. Instead, we leave it alone so that some stronger climber in the future can climb it.

It's not a perfect analogy but I feel like this about preserving resources and protecting the environment. The current lifestyle choices of many people (and they are choices as everyone on this forum should know) are going to cause irreparable damage to our one possible home so that the people can own more plastic trinkets from China and drive oversized cars everywhere.

I don't want to use up the planet just so I can have some shit I don't really need and cost some future person the opportunity for a good life, whether it be hiking on glaciers in Glacier National Park or being able to cross country ski in the midwest or everyday basics that require a good environment. I know not everyone sees the value in nature but I do and I want it to be around in the best form possible for future people who might love it too.

It's not even asking that much really. I'm not asking that we all live in one room huts and subsistence farm and never leave our village. Just giving up some plastic junk and cut back on the driving and invest in technology that makes sense would help a lot. In many ways the changes actually improve quality of life. Local vegetables taste better. Living closer to work shortens a commute that no one likes anyway. Replacing old windows gives someone a job and makes your house more comfortable.

[steveo73]

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/ ... y-2017.pdf

There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate
sensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC.
Nevertheless, these lower values of climate sensitivity are not accounted for in IPCC
climate model projections of temperature at the end of the 21st century or in estimates
of the impact on temperatures of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The IPCC
climate model projections focus on the response of the climate to different scenarios
of emissions. The 21st century climate model projections do not include:
• a range of scenarios for volcanic eruptions (the models assume that the volcanic
activity will be comparable to the 20th century, which had much lower volcanic
activity than the 19th century
∗ Working Group I is the scientific assessment.
16
• a possible scenario of solar cooling, analogous to the solar minimum being predicted
by Russian scientists
• the possibility that climate sensitivity is a factor of two lower than that simulated
by most climate models
• realistic simulations of the phasing and amplitude of decadal- to century-scale
natural internal variability
The climate modelling community has been focused on the response of the climate
to increased human caused emissions, and the policy community accepts (either explicitly
or implicitly) the results of the 21st century GCM simulations as actual predictions.
Hence we don’t have a good understanding of the relative climate impacts of
the above or their potential impacts on the evolution of the 21st century climate.

[ducknalddon]

@steveo The front page of that document is like a who's who of climate change deniers in the UK.