Climate Change!

[7Wannabe5]

jacob said: I love how skepticalscience.com references peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals by actual scientists to back up their arguments and makes the effort to explain the science at several different levels of educational foundation from basic (layman) over intermediate (interested S(TEM)) to advanced (scientific experts).

I agree. However, my perspective is that there is a fine line between descriptive and prescriptive, and therein lies the problem. Scientific reality is never subservient to political reality. Scientific institutions and individuals may or may not be. It's like if you are in the passenger seat of a car which is being driven by somebody who is grouchy and has 40 lbs. more muscle mass than you, and it seems like they are lost, it might not be wise to say "Why are you always such an idiot? We are going to be late for the party because you didn't take the right turn at that intersection. Turn around and go back right now!!!" What works better is if you just relax and enjoy the scenery and let that person keep driving in the wrong direction for another couple miles until they finally pull over and say "F*ck. We are lost. Get that damn map out and figure out where we are, would you?" Then you give that person the factual piece of information they need, and you arrive at the party somewhat late, but not as late as if you had chosen to make the first comment, and it is more likely that you will get sex and presents. Of course, there are other situations where it is better to simply bail from the car as soon as possible...

[DSKla]

An aside: I am trying to find a table that outlines what kind of changes we could expect at each level if temperature rises by 2C, 3C, etc up to the maximum possible projection, for my own curiosity. I seem to remember Jacob posted something a while back but I can't find it. Does anyone have a link to that or any other source that gives step by step impacts by each degree?

[steveo73]

@steveo73 What are your specific criticisms of the sceptical science article ? When do you think the ice core data cited in the zero hedges article started - 1905 ? 2000 ? Why did the cited source of the graph - Richard Alley - apparently confirm to skeptical science in was 1855 ? I'm not being rehetorical, just interested in why you have concluded it's wrong.

Why not look at this chart. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 07_1.shtml

That site is run by John Cook who came up with the 97% fraud. Plenty of scientists do not believe in the unscientific (definitely not proven) alarmist palava that is sprouted for instance within this thread.

I want facts. From facts we can draw conclusions. All of these charts that skeptics and alarmists put out tend to suit their purposes. Compare the chart I linked to any alarmist chart.

At the moment the only politically correct and it's extreme line to take is that we are screwed. I don't think we are. There is definitely no proof that we are screwed.

[steveo73]

Scientific reality is never subservient to political reality. Scientific institutions and individuals may or may not be.

Exactly. We have a situation now where the politics are supposedly more important than the facts. This isn't just in politically motivated blogs ala Skeptical Science but also within the whole field. I posted a while back how people lost their jobs because they questioned the status quo.

The models are running hot. How much longer can this continue until there is an admittance that the models are not accurate. Science would state that we should be very clear on this. Unfortunately any extreme weather event is now labelled as being caused by AGW ? Where is the proof for this ?

I'll add a lot of people including scientists aren't even stating that GW is not occurring. People are just questioning how much is the fault of humans and what the consequences will be ? There is way way way too much confidence on the alarmist side that is not based upon a proven hypothesis.

[jacob]

@DSKla - The Mann book I mentioned has those tables.

[George the original one]

@DSKla -

For sea level rise, see interactive map http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#11/10.39 ... &pois=hide

There's also the NOAA version, limited to USA, at https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

Both feature a slider you set for sea level, then provide dates to reach selected sea level rise with confidence intervals for the various CO2/pollution levels. Note there is no correction for rising/sinking land masses (as I recall), so, for instance, Galveston Island in Texas is sinking about as fast as the sea level is rising.

Anyone that is in doubt of the rate of rising sea level should understand that its measurement is necessary for accurate tide prediction and had nothing to do with the "quest for global warming". There of course are other benefits to measuring sea level, such as land claims, land elevation surveys, and accurate storm surge predictions. That's why the records go back into the late 1800s with reasonable precision. The pre-space age method of survey data is still monitored, but the satellite measurements are more accurate and confirmed the trend. Both methods show the rate increased in the 1980s.

[DSKla]

Mann book moved atop my to-get list.

The sea level map is cool. Wish it let me raise sea level a little higher, but still an interesting tool. Aaaaaand I need to move.

[7Wannabe5]

steve73: Why not look at this chart.

Interesting, but irrelevant to the question of human time scale changes relevant to human survival/suffering. Also, if you read forward on the site in which the chart is embedded, it offers a pretty low-key confirmation in alignment with the science that is also confirmed on the skeptical science site. So, your point?

The funny thing is that although I do think the skeptical science site does a very good job of presenting the science in a way that is accurate, logically presented and not hand-waving dismissive, there was something about it that I was finding just a tiny bit off-putting. Now I am thinking that it maybe has something to do with the fact that John Cook is an evangelical Christian (according to Wikipedia.) I have always had a tendency towards adverse reaction when exposed to whiff of notion of Original Sin. Somebody ought to construct a website that starts out from the premise that human beings are the greatest, and I am the most important human of them all, and here is how I intend to survive and profit!!! from the fact that other human beings are denying the reality of global climate change. Okay, first I will head down to Miami and sell flood abatement mechanisms out of the back of a truck at jacked up prices to senior citizens...etc. etc. etc.

There is definitely no proof that we are screwed.

Oh, I think there is plenty of proof that some people (along with a variety of species lacking the forethought necessary to seek higher ground) are definitely going to be screwed five ways to Sunday, but no reason for any of US (wink, wink) to find ourselves in that contingent.

[jacob]

@7wb5 - If you don't like the tone of skepticalscience.com, you might like the tone of http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

[steveo73]

@stand@desk -

You just referenced an article that was originally posted on a libertarian blog and then cross-posted to another free-market blog. Aside from citing itself, the post mainly cites two other bloggers (Goddard (BS Geology + MS E.Eng) and Watts (never graduated) neither of whom have formal backgrounds in climate science) and both of whom have been associated with the Heartland Institute that ties back to Koch and Exxon.

You pretty much checked every single box I warned about in my post above. (Did you read it?) In particular, the part about trying to learn science101 by reading finance blogs. That's like trying to learn about nutrition by reading menus from fast food restaurants.

If you're really interested in this, please, for the love of God, go read a book on the subject (I suggested a couple above). It's the continual propagation of blog posts like this that causes so much frustration for informed readers and so much confusion for uninformed readers.

PS: No personal offense intended, but you were the OP on this thread, and at this point, I figure I have lifted my one corner of the square.

Jacob - the problem is that John Cook was a cartoonist. Should we therefore discount everything on the Skeptical science website. It's not personal but you have high standards for sites that disagree with your point of view but low standards if they concur.

[steveo73]

steve73: Why not look at this chart.

Interesting, but irrelevant to the question of human time scale changes relevant to human survival/suffering. Also, if you read forward on the site in which the chart is embedded, it offers a pretty low-key confirmation in alignment with the science that is also confirmed on the skeptical science site. So, your point?

I think you have to put it all into a big picture perspective. We don't know for sure if increasing CO2 is an issue. It's certainly been a lot higher in the past. The point though is that your baseline makes all the difference.

If I was presenting the facts I'd state the following:-

1. Here is a picture of what we know about CO2 over the history of the world. The way that we have derived this data is ... and these are the problems with the data.
2. Here is a picture of current CO2 in the atmosphere as a perspective since we started utilising fossil fuels. Explain the data again and be open and honest about it.
3. This is what we know about the impact of CO2 on the Earth's climate. Here are the problems with that data. This is highly complex and we do not have enough information to make significant calls about the impact to the Earth. Some people postulate that this will lead to this and some people state different points of views.

Then we can assess this over time.

The only issue that I can see with this approach is that in reality it's going to years and years and years before we have any firm idea if we are really impacting the planet to any degree of significance. If the alarmists somehow are proved to be right that could be a big problem.

[steveo73]

https://judithcurry.com/

This site is much more balanced and it's run by a climate expert. There are some skeptics on there but on the whole it's a balanced approach.

Interestingly there are some articles that she has written regarding Trump's approach. I think the days of people believing that trollop of this being a one sided debate are starting to end.

[George the original one]

@DSKla - NOAA also has the historic USA temperature & precipitation data online in nifty graphs. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-seri ... dyear=2016

From the tab about Background:
"Because these data are primarily intended for the study of climate variability and change, observations have been adjusted to account for the artificial effects introduced into the climate record by factors such as instrument changes, station relocation, observer practice changes and urbanization."

[jacob]

@DSKla - Here's a good overview: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/s ... es-map.pdf ... with the most likely emission sensitivity(*) and a continuous rise of 2ppm/year and baring any nonlinear methane or aerosol effects, we'll hit that in 46 years (not a precise number---it's the expected mean). Impacts will be roughly linear, e.g. we'll be halfway to this map in 20 years and probably beyond it in 60 years. Anyway ... it'll cover the tables for your lifespan.

The PNW wins again. North Americans should pay attention to items 2 and 7. For geopolitical impacts, see 2.

(*) As mentioned above, the probability curve is skewed. The Mann book will explain. There's a chance this could happen sooner whereas the chance that it happens later is pretty small.

[DSKla]

I'm guessing PNW could get crowded soon, since people would need to stay west of the mountains for rainfall? It doesn't seem like eastern WA/OR would be a good idea, especially if things are dryer and more fire-prone at 2C. Wouldn't people have to crowd into the coastal (but not too coastal) slivers?

[George the original one]

Crowded is relative. Seattle-Tacoma is definitely crowded, but still not on a level like the US east coast. Portland is crowded, but most of the bad effects are due to poor decisions by people on where to live, so there is massive commuting through corridors inadequate to support that level of commute (Vancouver to Beaverton/Hillsboro, Vancouver to Portland, Wilsonville to ???). The coastal slivers require more adaptation to rainy dreary winters than most people choose to cope with and the lack of employment possibilities means their growth is slower.

East of the Cascades, you should look at Spokane & Coeur d'Alene. Temperature trend and rainfall trend is pretty neutral, so wildfire danger won't increase from today except due to urbanization. The downside would be more extreme annual variations than west of the Cascades.

[enigmaT120]

I'm guessing PNW could get crowded soon, since people would need to stay west of the mountains for rainfall? It doesn't seem like eastern WA/OR would be a good idea, especially if things are dryer and more fire-prone at 2C. Wouldn't people have to crowd into the coastal (but not too coastal) slivers?

Don't come here people! It rains too much. And don't forget about our big earthquake that's due any day now.

[theanimal]

The American Meteorological Society came out with their report, Explaining Extreme Events from a Climatic Perspective, for 2015 today. https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/p ... rspective/

Abstract:

This fifth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2015) from a climate perspective continues to provide evidence that climate change is altering some extreme event risk. Without exception, all the heat-related events studied in this year’s report were found to have been made more intense or likely due to human-induced climate change, and this was discernible even for those events strongly influenced by the 2015 El Niño. Furthermore, many papers in this year’s report demonstrate that attribution science is capable of separating the effects of natural drivers including the strong 2015El Niño from the influences of long-term human-induced climate change.

Other event types investigated include cold winters, tropical cyclone activity, extreme sunshine in the United Kingdom, tidal flooding, precipitation, drought, reduced snowpack in the U.S. mountain west, arctic sea ice extent, and wildfires in Alaska. Two studies investigated extreme cold waves and monthly-mean cold conditions over eastern North America during 2015, and find these not to have been symptomatic of human-induced climate
change. Instead, they find the cold conditions were caused primarily by internally generated natural variability. One of these studies shows winters are becoming warmer, less variable, with no increase in daily temperature extremes over the eastern United States. Tropical cyclone activity was extreme in 2015 in the western North Pacific (WNP) as measured by accumulated cyclone energy (ACE). In this report, a study finds that human-caused climate change largely increased the odds of this extreme cyclone activity season. The 2015 Alaska fire season burned the second largest number of acres since records began in 1940. Investigators find that human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood of a fire season of this severity. Confidence in results and ability to quickly do an attribution analysis depend on the “three pillars” of
event attribution: the quality of the observational record, the ability of models to simulate the event, and our understanding of the physical processes that drive the event and how they are being impacted by climate change. A result that does not find a role for climate change may be because one or more of these three elements is insufficient to draw a clear conclusion. As these pillars are strengthened for different event types, confidence in the presence and absence of a climate change influence will increase.

This year researchers also link how changes in extreme event risk impact human health and discomfort during heat waves, specifically by looking as the role of climate change on the wet bulb globe temperature during a deadly heat wave in Egypt. This report reflects a growing interest within the attribution community to connect attribution science to societal impacts to inform risk management through “impact attribution.” Many will watch with great interest as this area evolves in the coming years.

[steveo73]

The American Meteorological Society came out with their report, Explaining Extreme Events from a Climatic Perspective, for 2015 today. https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/p ... rspective/

I think we can safely state that whole article is a load of palava. This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

[steveo73]

Here is a little video on the NOAA numbers as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UzrmaBqP3k

The scientist speaking there is one that I respect. She appears to have maintained her integrity.