Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[Dragline]

Koonin was there when I was an undergrad. But I didn't progress that far in physics, so I never had him as a prof.

Feynman was on his last legs teaching an optional seminar called Phys-X, but still sitting around playing the bongos. I remember the day he died and we were swamped with reporters.

[steveo73]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgcyW-MqtY

Another alternative viewpoint.

[workathome]

I don't think this is going to help:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... el-Founder

[George the original one]

John Coleman is a weatherman with a journalism degree. No science research. He's been saying the same thing publicly since 2007. He left the American Meterological Society because he disagrees with its stance on climate change.

His statement that "Ice caps are not melting" is a provable fiction.

[jacob]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-2 ... in-eu.html

[Dragline]

The reality of a Northwest Passage is fascinating:

http://www.postbulletin.com/life/travel ... 54a59.html

I don't know why anyone who considers themselves a rational profit maximizer would doubt this. People who are interested in business certainly don't, unless they have a favorable monopoly.

[jacob]

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carb ... l-full.htm

"Current trajectories of fossil fuel emissions are tracking some of the most carbon intensive emission scenarios used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The current trajectory is tracking baseline scenarios in the latest family of IPCC scenarios that takes the planet's average temperature to about 3.2°C to 5.4°C above pre-industrial times by 2100."

In English: Actual reality (in 2014) turned out to be worse that the worst case scenario (called RCP8.5) IPCC made when they initially created the different scenarios in 2005. Things are going worse than the most pessimistic case imagined 10 years ago.

http://imgur.com/n70wCSF <- a bigger image

A table of consequences (see right side of table between 3 and 5)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... spm-2.html

Here they're discussed in greater detail for reference...
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-bes ... arios.html

[Tyler9000]

In English: Actual reality (in 2014) turned out to be worse that the worst case scenario (called RCP8.5) IPCC made when they initially created the different scenarios in 2005. Things are going worse than the most pessimistic case imagined 10 years ago.

http://imgur.com/n70wCSF <- a bigger image

How does one reconcile the fact that while fossil fuel usage is tracking worse than the most pessimistic case imagined, temperatures are tracking better than the most optimistic case? I find the focus on future "consequences" rather than measured results interesting but not surprising.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

And more recently:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/i ... nal-draft/

[steveo73]

"Current trajectories of fossil fuel emissions are tracking some of the most carbon intensive emission scenarios used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The current trajectory is tracking baseline scenarios in the latest family of IPCC scenarios that takes the planet's average temperature to about 3.2°C to 5.4°C above pre-industrial times by 2100."

The assumption still though is that fossil fuel emissions from human activity are causing the temperature of the earth to rise and this temperature rise will hurt the earth. If they aren't causing the temperatures to rise or the effect is considerably less than the common belief than it isn't a problem. If a temperature rise isn't as bad as what the common viewpoint considers it to be then again there isn't a problem.

In English: Actual reality (in 2014) turned out to be worse that the worst case scenario (called RCP8.5) IPCC made when they initially created the different scenarios in 2005. Things are going worse than the most pessimistic case imagined 10 years ago.

Just to clarify your position. It is based on your assumptions that fossil fuels cause the temperatures to rise and that the impact will be significant.

If you are right (maybe better put the scientific viewpoint that you believe in) then we are in big trouble. My opinion along with others opinions is that this viewpoint is wrong.

The proof will be in the results which at this point I think are not favoring the viewpoint that you believe in. You might be right but only time will tell.

[steveo73]

In English: Actual reality (in 2014) turned out to be worse that the worst case scenario (called RCP8.5) IPCC made when they initially created the different scenarios in 2005. Things are going worse than the most pessimistic case imagined 10 years ago.

http://imgur.com/n70wCSF <- a bigger image

How does one reconcile the fact that while fossil fuel usage is tracking worse than the most pessimistic case imagined, temperatures are tracking better than the most optimistic case? I find the focus on future "consequences" rather than measured results interesting but not surprising.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

This is why I said earlier that the answer to this question is thus far that rationally climate change must be considered fiction. The theories have been put forward however the practical results don't match the theories.

Can anyone seriously see the temperatures rising 5°C by 2100 ? It sounds crazy at this point.

[workathome]

This is very interesting. We have two totally opposing sides. One asserts that things are really, really bad, while the other asserts there's absolutely no problem at all.

I don't think Global Warming will be successfully addressed. I think the culmination problems are simply too far down the road (2-3 generations) and it the solutions run too much in the face of modern individualism.

[theanimal]

Just to clarify your position. It is based on your assumptions that fossil fuels cause the temperatures to rise and that the impact will be significant.

If you are right (maybe better put the scientific viewpoint that you believe in) then we are in big trouble. My opinion along with others opinions is that this viewpoint is wrong.

The proof will be in the results which at this point I think are not favoring the viewpoint that you believe in. You might be right but only time will tell.

Why does it matter if he's right or not?

There's a few scenarios that can happen. ( this may have been stated earlier in the thread)

We act and things end up in as bad as stated.
We act and nothing happens.
We don't act and things end up as bad as stated.
We don't act and nothing happens.

The prudent choice would be to act because in the worst case scenario, we worked to prevent/alleviate the pressures. The best case scenario? We act and we have a cleaner planet for it. If we don't act, we are faced with a 50% chance of being screwed. Statistically, the choice is simple. I don't understand why anyone would argue against cleaner air/water, healthier soil, greater wildlife populations etc.

It seems to me that the goal of people who argue against global warming is just to win an argument.

[jacob]

@Tyler9000 -

Short answer: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
(Note how your graph conspicuously ended its data in 2009 which was a low year before the graph turned up again? Now why is that? Probably not by accident, huh? Also note that while it---to its credit didn't start in 1998 which was a high year due to El Nino---started quite recently so as to hide the longer trend and no in e.g. 1950. This kind of skeptic manipulation is pretty old hat.)



Long answer: It's not as simple as throwing up a graph. This is because thermal energy aren't equitably distributed in the air, the top ocean and the deep ocean, and on the land and because the distribution changes as the dynamics change, the surface and shallow ocean temperatures can stagnate while the thermal energy goes elsewhere in an unmeasured or previously unmodelled manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ing-hiatus

[Tyler9000]

Meh -- deleted for another time. After a few edits, I realize I should just save my thought for later.

[jennypenny]

Ugh, I won't even look at anything from that skeptical science website anymore. I don't give a shit how accurate it is. WTF with the air quotes around skeptics and then comparing that with 'realists'? That immature, elitist attitude makes me walk the other direction.

There are plenty of websites that present the data without the snark. I've linked to a couple in this thread.

[steveo73]

Why does it matter if he's right or not?

Really. I honestly don't get this point. The facts are that these predictions are way off base so why do we even listen to them.

If you are pro-environment then state that and start taking positive steps forward in a rational fashion. For the record I want human beings to take care of the environment.

If you take a step back and view this as being about allocating resources optimally to have the greatest benefits for mankind as a whole does that help you clarify why this could be a greater issue than what you are stating here. What if GW is a load of palava ? How much resources are being wasted on a non issue ?

It seems to me that the goal of people who argue against global warming is just to win an argument.

You think ??? I don't see that at all. I honestly find this a really weak argument. I just want to see a rational factual based approach to this issue.

[jacob]

[steveo73]

This we can agree on. Its just that one side seems to think the facts support them when they don't. You could easily swap the 2 parties in that comic.

I'm having a laugh though.

MMM wrote an article on this the other day and it was interesting because the same arguments come up. Some people believe that the GW scientific proponents are definitely right whereas other people including scientist believe it is wrong.

Personally I just want to see a factual based approach occur but at this point I think that is really difficult.

[jacob]

@steveo73 - Nah, it's pretty obvious you're the one in the red shirt ;-P Whatever. We've already tried the fact based approach but you refused to proceed and in case you don't remember, just go back and reread this thread. I'm not really interested in spending hours covering the old ground of Physics101 again.

Personally, I'll just start making my plans based on the "worst case" scenario rather than the "business as usual" scenario, because science! Other people can do what they want, because their personal opinion!

[Dragline]

People who put their money where their mouth is look at the facts and invest accordingly:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... ge-n216816

People who don't put on red shirts and will watch the world pass them by. There's still time to join the flat earth society, though. Since you can find it on the internet, it must be true: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

This sounds familiar, don't you think:

"Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.

The Flat Earth Society has dedicated itself to starting science afresh from the ground up, to begin to see the world without bias and assumption. Experiment and experience has shown that the earth is decidedly flat. Time and time again through test, trial, and experiment, it has been shown that the earth is not a whirling globe of popular credulity, but an extended plane of times immaterial."

And here's the righteous crusade part that keeps them ever resolute in their convictions:

"Throughout the years it has become a duty of each Flat Earth Society member, to meet the common Round Earther in the open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; to declare that his reign of error and confusion is over; and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, he must shrink and disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom of science and philosophy to those awakening intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society have drawn the sword, and ere another generation has been educated and grown to maturity, will have forced the usurpers to abdicate. Like the decayed and crumbling trees of an ancient forest, rent and shattered by wind and storm, the hypothetical philosophies, which have hitherto cumbered the civilized world, are unable to resist the elements of experimental and logical criticism; and sooner or later must succumb to their assaults. The axe is uplifted for a final stroke - it is about to fall upon the primitive sphere of the earth, and the blow will surely “cut the cumberer down!”"