Climate Change!

[steveo73]

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

for brute, it's not even the data. there probably is a lot of data supporting this, at least to a degree.

but to make the case for brute to become invested in climate change alarmism, the following needs to happen:

1)enough convincing, scientific data from unbiased studies is found (presumably this exists)
2)it must be packaged in a way that both conveys the information and seems reasonably trustworthy/verifiable (fail)
3)common questions/objections must be dealt with in informative, reasonable ways, no attacking the messenger (HUGE fail)
4)alternatives must be presented that seem to address the problems from 1) (fail)
5)the alternatives must not put unreasonable pain/cost on brute, and they must be clearly beneficial (HUGE fail)
6)it must be demonstrated how the alternative is better than what brute is already doing (fail)
7)the moral high ground cannot be claimed if asshole tactics are used at the same time to shame/defame/sink objective criticism "for the greater good" (HUGE fail)

in short, brute believes Climate Alarmism is probably scientifically true. but many/most of the proponents are being such assholes, so unreasonable, so unobjective, and their solutions so inane, that brute has no dog in this fight. fuck this planet, if those are the humans being saved, good riddance.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

I hear what you are stating and I feel similar but I have tried to find for instance point 1 and it's really hard. I can't tell that GW alarmist theories are correct or incorrect. I don't have the facts available to me. My criticisms of this theory years ago remain the same. The science is not clear cut. If it is show me the updated factual information.

[steveo73]

I will try and find some clear cut rational arguments but what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

When the train is coming, one should step off the tracks. CC is the train. The tracks are any low-elevation coastal residence. It is cheaper to move than to mitigate flooding.

Or do you not believe sea levels are rising?

Is it and how big is the effect. I live in Australia. The water levels appear to be exactly the same. It's definitely not at the point to be alarmed if you can't see it with your own eyes.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

I just watched this and it really seems clear still that there are more holes in the AGW theory than in a block of swiss cheese. It might be occurring but it's not 100% verifiable at this point or even close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

[theanimal]

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

I just watched this and it really seems clear still that there are more holes in the AGW theory than in a block of swiss cheese. It might be occurring but it's not 100% verifiable at this point or even close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

Nothing like watching a 6.5 yr old video featuring somebody paid by big oil to stay informed and up to date! Facts!

[steveo73]

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

I just watched this and it really seems clear still that there are more holes in the AGW theory than in a block of swiss cheese. It might be occurring but it's not 100% verifiable at this point or even close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

Nothing like watching a 6.5 yr old video featuring somebody paid by big oil to stay informed and up to date! Facts!

It was 2 people there and I'd be surprised if that long a time period makes a difference when it comes to climate change. Do you know that they are paid via big oil ? Do you have proof. I posted another video that was skeptical as well. Are they also paid by big oil ?

The issue to me is that the flaws within the theory should be answered. I think that is fair enough. The common approach appears to be not to answer the flaws in the theory.

[theanimal]

It was 2 people there and I'd be surprised if that long a time period makes a difference when it comes to climate change. Do you know that they are paid via big oil ? Do you have proof. I posted another video that was skeptical as well. Are they also paid by big oil ?

The issue to me is that the flaws within the theory should be answered. I think that is fair enough. The common approach appears to be not to answer the flaws in the theory.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-funding

This is a broken record. I'm out.

[BRUTE]

This is a broken record. I'm out.

the exact same thing said by the other side.

[ducknalddon]

The scientific method though exists and I consider that proof or at least poof enough for me. So you have a theory and it gets backed up by data.
[/quote/

Unfortunately we do not have multiple planets to experiment with and check the results. Modelling and extrapolation is the best we can do. However the science has been pretty accurate so far.

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

There is plenty of data to show temperatures have been increasing, in England we have been keeping records for several hundred years. We have been seeing sea ice melt, glacier melt and permafrost melt. There is plenty of data if you want to find it.

[ducknalddon]

for brute, it's not even the data. there probably is a lot of data supporting this, at least to a degree.

but to make the case for brute to become invested in climate change alarmism, the following needs to happen:

1)enough convincing, scientific data from unbiased studies is found (presumably this exists)
2)it must be packaged in a way that both conveys the information and seems reasonably trustworthy/verifiable (fail)
3)common questions/objections must be dealt with in informative, reasonable ways, no attacking the messenger (HUGE fail)
4)alternatives must be presented that seem to address the problems from 1) (fail)
5)the alternatives must not put unreasonable pain/cost on brute, and they must be clearly beneficial (HUGE fail)
6)it must be demonstrated how the alternative is better than what brute is already doing (fail)
7)the moral high ground cannot be claimed if asshole tactics are used at the same time to shame/defame/sink objective criticism "for the greater good" (HUGE fail)

in short, brute believes Climate Alarmism is probably scientifically true. but many/most of the proponents are being such assholes, so unreasonable, so unobjective, and their solutions so inane, that brute has no dog in this fight. fuck this planet, if those are the humans being saved, good riddance.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

Most of the "asshole" tactics have come from the energy industries, people like the Koch brothers. They have deliberately tried to descredit the science, told us warming isn't happening then when it's obvious it is they have told us it isn't man made, no doubt they will ackowledge it is man made but tell us we can't fix it next.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

So you disagree with the science because it doesn't tally with your political views?

[steveo73]

The scientific method though exists and I consider that proof or at least poof enough for me. So you have a theory and it gets backed up by data.
[/quote/

Unfortunately we do not have multiple planets to experiment with and check the results. Modelling and extrapolation is the best we can do. However the science has been pretty accurate so far.

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

There is plenty of data to show temperatures have been increasing, in England we have been keeping records for several hundred years. We have been seeing sea ice melt, glacier melt and permafrost melt. There is plenty of data if you want to find it.

This isn't simple though. It'd be better to recognise the complexity and then start stating couching discussions based on the complexity of the issue.

It's not like this -> 100 mcg increase in C02 leads to 1 degree celsius increases in temperature.

The models work like this:-

100 mcg increase in C02 leads to a trivial increase in temperature but feedback effects multiply this effect. We don't understand these feedback effects well. Maybe the feedback effects make the resultant temperature increase less.

To confound the issue the data isn't clean. It simply isn't. The earth has been hotter and cooler with varying amounts of C02 in the atmosphere.

Taking the data over the last 200 years where it is available and it's not clear cut even then and drawing alarmist predictions is doing a disservice to people that believe in the theory. They are overselling it.

A classic example is the 97% of scientists believe in the theory. This study was basically fraudulent and completely unscientific but there are mountains of laypeople out there utilising this figure.

I'm not even doubting the issue outright. I'm stating what is required is for much less alarmist discussions and for calm rational discussions to take place. People go berserk when this is stated though.

I like this blog because she is a skeptic but in a scientific fashion:- https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/03/trut ... more-22564

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.

[BRUTE]

So you disagree with the science because it doesn't tally with your political views?

no. climate alarmists are shit at explaining their theory on fact basis alone, and being assholes doesn't help.

[Tyler9000]

I personally think that people who fixate on the science ad-nauseum miss the larger point and in the process lose their ability to actually make a difference.

Anthropogenic climate change is not self-evident. Even it's most ardent supporters are quick to point out that one cannot make judgments on its veracity based on tangible weather events that an ordinary layperson can detect, measure, and validate. So we must depend on the voices of experts to guide us.

But in that context all the best science in the world is useless if the messenger is not credible. And let's face it -- people have really screwed the pooch on this. Take Al Gore for example, who did absolutely nothing for the cause while second in command of the most powerful country in the free world, only to turn into uber-greenie once he formed a company to profit from climate alarmism. Ordinary people look at pictures of one of his several homes and do not trust him on this issue, and it has nothing to do with his party affiliation. And then there's DiCaprio who lectures people on the imminent danger to the planet from overconsumption only to be photographed regularly on his massive yacht full of supermodels. People are justifiably cynical by now, and every climate alarmist who tosses out obviously hyperbolic doomsday predictions only drives people further away. Once they start insulting people, verbally conflating skepticism with Holocaust "deniers", or threatening to legally or professionally punish anyone who questions the cause, they've completely lost. Being influential is about so much more than being right.

IMHO, things will turn the corner once people genuinely concerned about the climate 1) walk the walk, and 2) refocus from trying to change everybody else to trying to help them. Yes, that may mean accepting that some outcomes are inevitable and turning to mitigating the symptoms rather than the cause. And it may also require refocusing money and resources on tangible issues such as reducing water pollution and raising the standard of living in the third world that can measurably save lives today rather than hundreds of years from now. But at least at that point you'll be seen as the good guy worth trusting, and eventually people will come around to your advice. Trust is earned, not argued.

[Riggerjack]

So I started the GW thread, back in the day. And from the perspective of a denier. Not in doubt, but in denial. It's all faked.

Um, I had some bad information. I was wrong. CC is real, and there is no evidence that humans aren't contributing, or even that our influence is neutral.

I totally, after reading the studies, buy into CC.

That being said, I have almost no faith that it will in any way affect my life, directly. I may have higher insurance, taxes or other administrative effects. But I won't be seeing direct effects, on me.

Partly because I live in a CC sweet spot, (PNW) partly because I am already middle aged, with no kids, so short timeline, partly being on a ridge on an island. Partly, because I am aware of the changes that have happened in the last 10000 years, to keep this in perspective.

If you go back through the links Jacob provided in the GW thread, one of them, I *think* it was sceptical science, had hundred of studies, with a breakdown of the results, and commentary. Each study gets attacked and defended.

That is real science, and how it is done. Hypothesis, experiment, repeat. All the science supports the theory. If an accurate model is not ready yet, well look at how accurate weather reporting is and how much work goes into it. Feel free to hold your breath waiting on modelling. Me, I have done my research, and have no interest or worries.

Now, when you get into what should be done about it, that is politics, an entirely different subject.

[batbatmanne]

no. climate alarmists are shit at explaining their theory on fact basis alone, and being assholes doesn't help.

This just reaffirms that you are taking a political view on this and not a scientific one. "Climate alarmists" includes everybody that believes in the problems stemming from climate change for political reasons, appeals to scientific authority and climate scientists themselves. The only people that you should be listening to are the latter, and they make up a tiny fraction of the noise. Do you think that climate scientists are being assholes? Do you think that maybe part of the reason they might be shit at explaining their position is because they are better researchers than teachers? Or that you simply don't know enough to evaluate their claims?

Let's face it -- anthropogenic climate change is not self-evident. Even it's most ardent supporters are quick to point out that one cannot make judgments on its veracity based on tangible weather events that an ordinary layperson can detect, measure, and validate. So we must depend on the voices of experts to guide us.

I find this hard to believe when jacob, as well as other scientists, climate and not alike, have shown that basic facts about emissions spectra from CO2 implies that the greenhouse effect should happen and basic facts show us that we have been releasing a lot of it by combusting fossil fuels heavily over the last century. Why on earth is your standard of evidence that we can explain particular, highly complex weather events were themselves "caused" by global warming? The ordinary lay person can read statistics on CO2 output, global temperature averages and number of severe weather events. Granted, they may find it difficult to interpret this data reliably and be able to identify the relevant causal factors and biases, but who's fault is that? Relying on the voices of experts is not unusual in science, it is ordinary.

But in that context all the best science in the world is useless if the messenger is not credible. And let's face it -- people have really screwed the pooch on this. Take Al Gore for example, who did absolutely nothing for the cause while second in command of the most powerful country in the free world, only to turn into uber-greenie once he formed a company to profit from climate alarmism. Ordinary people look at pictures of one of his several homes and do not trust him on this issue, and it has nothing to do with his party affiliation. And then there's DiCaprio who lectures people on the imminent danger to the planet from overconsumption only to be photographed regularly on his massive yacht full of supermodels. People are justifiably cynical by now, and every climate alarmist who tosses out obviously hyperbolic doomsday predictions only drives people further away. Once they start insulting people, verbally conflating skepticism with Holocaust "deniers", or threatening to legally or professionally punish anyone who questions the cause, they've completely lost. Being influential is about so much more than being right.

That is a cogent criticism of liberal public relations, or something, sure, but why are you basing your beliefs about climate change off of what celebrities and politicians are saying? It is certainly clear that in the scientifically illiterate society that we live in this is a valid criticism of public relations, but the proper response to this isn't to pick the side that aligns with your other prior beliefs, it is to do real research on the matter. To the extent that you can understand it yourself, more power to you, but for most of us the biggest reason we should believe that anthropogenic climate change is something to worry about is the overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter. If you mean to suggest that the scientific consensus is flawed for some reason or another, the burden of proof is on deniers to show that, and they have done at least as horrible of a job on the public relations front.

[7Wannabe5]

I might suggest that anytime Riggerjack and I are close to agreement on a matter then you know the correct answer should fall within those boundaries.

I would also like to note for the record that my previous attempt on this thread at coming up with an explanation for climate change that could be understood by a 3rd grader was 68.94% scientifically incorrect. That is why I erased it. I fear that I am either going to have to hunker down and read a textbook on the topic of meteorology or just resign myself to trusting those with more expertise. It is much easier to sell research results on the open market when it is something like "Nanotechnology leads to laptop battery that could last 400 years. Yay, scientists!!!", rather than something that might lead to only rational behavior being something like going short on everything with no trust that contract will be fulfilled.

[steveo73]

"Climate alarmists" includes everybody that believes in the problems stemming from climate change for political reasons, appeals to scientific authority and climate scientists themselves. The only people that you should be listening to are the latter, and they make up a tiny fraction of the noise.

Plenty of climate scientists don't believe in AGW. Plenty of intelligent scientists don't believe in AGW.

People like myself want to see factual data and then hear conclusions made by scientists or even just well educated people. Then we will make a call on what we believe.

Climate alarmists are everyone who are coming to doomsday conclusions when they don't have the data/facts to back up their predictions. They could be climate scientists. I don't trust these people.

[steveo73]

I find this hard to believe when jacob, as well as other scientists, climate and not alike, have shown that basic facts about emissions spectra from CO2 implies that the greenhouse effect should happen and basic facts show us that we have been releasing a lot of it by combusting fossil fuels heavily over the last century. Why on earth is your standard of evidence that we can explain particular, highly complex weather events were themselves "caused" by global warming? The ordinary lay person can read statistics on CO2 output, global temperature averages and number of severe weather events. Granted, they may find it difficult to interpret this data reliably and be able to identify the relevant causal factors and biases, but who's fault is that? Relying on the voices of experts is not unusual in science, it is ordinary.

It's not this simple and anyone telling you it is are not trustworthy people to listen to on this topic.

C02 is a greenhouse gas in that it traps radiation from the sun. I don't think many people dispute this. I also don't think that many people dispute the fact that there is a limit to how much of the sun's radiation is trapped by C02 and that this effect is pretty close to the saturation point right now. You can put a whole bunch more C02 into the atmosphere and it won't trap more radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhous ... Effect.svg

All the climate models rely on feedback mechanisms. We don't know the effect of these feedback mechanisms. They are complex.

Is there any proof that severe weather effects are due to GW ? I don't believe that this exists.

Experts also disagree with the alarmists out there.

The topic simply isn't as clear cut as what is being portrayed. The language and forcefulness utilised by various proponents of this theory are in my opinion simply reprehensible.

[George the original one]

I will try and find some clear cut rational arguments but what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

When the train is coming, one should step off the tracks. CC is the train. The tracks are any low-elevation coastal residence. It is cheaper to move than to mitigate flooding.

Or do you not believe sea levels are rising?

Is it and how big is the effect. I live in Australia. The water levels appear to be exactly the same. It's definitely not at the point to be alarmed if you can't see it with your own eyes.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

Since you don't trust other people's figures and you have a background suitable for doing the math on this, you can figure out how long it will take for sea levels to rise 1', 10', or more. Remember it is a non-linear function until all the global ice has melted.

Then expand your parochial thinking. Australia has historical ties to a bunch of low-lying, flat topography, populated islands in the Indian Ocean and closer. Might those people want to get off the CC tracks ahead of time? Where might those populations wish to move? Wouldn't Australia be one of those locations? What happens in Australia if there is a potential influx of non-white immigrants? Might there be conflict?

[steveo73]

When the train is coming, one should step off the tracks. CC is the train. The tracks are any low-elevation coastal residence. It is cheaper to move than to mitigate flooding.

Or do you not believe sea levels are rising?

Is it and how big is the effect. I live in Australia. The water levels appear to be exactly the same. It's definitely not at the point to be alarmed if you can't see it with your own eyes.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

Since you don't trust other people's figures and you have a background suitable for doing the math on this, you can figure out how long it will take for sea levels to rise 1', 10', or more. Remember it is a non-linear function until all the global ice has melted.

Then expand your parochial thinking. Australia has historical ties to a bunch of low-lying, flat topography, populated islands in the Indian Ocean and closer. Might those people want to get off the CC tracks ahead of time? Where might those populations wish to move? Wouldn't Australia be one of those locations? What happens in Australia if there is a potential influx of non-white immigrants? Might there be conflict?

There is no way that I could come up with the figures to do this. I don't think anyone knows if global ice will melt or how quickly it would melt. I consider that a doomsday scenario.

Australia has already had a tonne of non-white immigrants. I am white and in the past there have been jokes made that I am the token white person in the team.

[George the original one]

So in other words you're not qualified to make judgements about the scientific accuracy of CC.

[steveo73]

So in other words you're not qualified to make judgements about the scientific accuracy of CC.

I am qualified as much as the next person. This is part of the problem with CC debate.

You could discuss the points I'd making in a rational scientific fashion but instead it gets turned into an ad-hominem argument. This is the standard approach of GW alarmists.