Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[attrayant]

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Those conclusions in agreement with the evidence are so often proved to be wrong in the future, as more evidence becomes available, and/or different interpretations are applied to the same evidence. Have you not read any history of science?

 

Ah, it's the 'science has been wrong in the past' chestnut that is so often misused to reject scientific consensus out of hand, without having to get your hands dirty doing any actual work.

 

The logic behind this argument is fallacious because it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science.  Discarded theories often aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or adjustments.

 

The ideas you've put forward are not an improvement to our current understanding, and are not broadly supported.  I did a quick search and could not locate even fringe scientists who back your ideas.  If there were any support for your ideas, you would have provided some research to back it up.  Simply putting forward some interesting hypothesis does not invalidate the mountains of evidence that already exists.

 

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem to have missed the point that an argument is not just an angry exchange of views, but also a reason, or set of reasons, in support of an idea or theory.

 

There was no discussion about 'what an argument is'; how has that suddenly become the point of this discussion?  Maybe that's what you'd like the point to be so that we can get bogged-down in terminology.

 

And why don't you just use the correct word?  Hypothesis.  Reasons don't support theories (if you're using the word correctly - which I can't be sure of considering the other vocabulary errors you've committed), evidence does.

 

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

All observable evidence has to be interpreted, without exception.

 

Exception: evidence is nearly always objective and not in need of "interpretation".  Evidence that's open to interpretation isn't evidence of anything, it's a clue that leads us to the objective evidence.  You're beginning to sound like creationist Ken Ham, who is famous for saying "it all depends on how you interpret the evidence" to justify his nutty young Earth/creation hypothesis.

 

It's pretty clear at this point you're just toying with the language and misusing terms (such as 'theory') to your advantage.  Can you find any peer-reviewed published research that supports your interesting hypotheses?  Does anyone at all agree with you?  You've got some ideas and a sort-of hypothesis.  I challenge you to support it with evidence.

 

What you SHOULD be doing, if you think you have any solid ground to stand on, is explain why the current evidence set does not adequately explain the observed phenomena and then present your own hypothesis that explains things at least as well or better that the current one.  Submit your research to the community and let the experts do the same to you.

 

Or you could just keep sitting in your arm chair coming up with 'interesting' hypotheses.

 

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If the subject is complex and uncertain, such as climate change,

 

While there are some uncertainties, the subject as a whole is not uncertain.  It's based on sound, well understood mechanisms that are not in question.  In saying this, you are making an emotional appeal to yet another fallacy: that since we don't know everything, we don't know anything. 

 

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

interpretations can, and do, vary wildly.

 

Ninety-seven percent.  That is not a wild variation by any stretch of the imagination.  That is the close to the same level of certainty we have that smoking causes lung and cardiovascular diseases.

 

But continue to float your interesting ideas, because they are at least entertaining.

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Ah, it's the 'science has been wrong in the past' chestnut that is so often misused to reject scientific consensus out of hand, without having to get your hands dirty doing any actual work.

The 'oh my god, we've got a new ice age coming' in the 70s to 'the world is burning up and the ice caps are melting' in the 90s isn't exactly 'fine tuning' the science IMHO.

 

As for 'scientific consensus', not really a done deal when 85% couldn't be bothered (or were too scared) to return the survey forms. (97% of people of the 15% who returned the forms agreed doesn't mean very much)

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The 'oh my god, we've got a new ice age coming' in the 70s to 'the world is burning up and the ice caps are melting' in the 90s isn't exactly 'fine tuning' the science IMHO.

 

I'd love to see the research papers those statements came from.  Would you cite them?  I'd be willing to bet they came from press releases and/or media talking heads rather than from actual researchers.

 

Here's what happens when we swallow whatever the alarming press release says:

 

 

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

I'd love to see the research papers those statements came from.  Would you cite them?  I'd be willing to bet they came from press releases and/or media talking heads rather than from actual researchers.

 

Let's face it, both ideas were from the same bunch of scientists, who have been busy rewriting their personal research history with the collusion of the media, governments are research institutes they worked for. A bit like today's Germans, that never had any parents/grandparents/uncles who were Nazis.

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Ah, it's the 'science has been wrong in the past' chestnut that is so often misused to reject scientific consensus out of hand, without having to get your hands dirty doing any actual work.

 

Really? I've never come across any serious person who is genuinely interested in a subject, rejecting a consensus 'out of hand', without applying reason and logic to the available evidence. I certainly don't.
As I mentioned before, I used to accept the alarm about rising CO2 levels and the potential harm it will cause with ocean acidification, rising sea levels and an increase in extreme weather events. Why wouldn't I? I had not investigated the matter for myself (at that time, many years ago) and knew very little about climate and its history and was relying upon news items and interviews of scientists on the media, as most people probably still do.

 

However, because of my general interest in science and my respect for the scientific methodology, I began later searching for the answers to questions that had arisen in my mind whilst listening to some of those interviews of scientists about the dangers of CO2 levels.

 

After checking various sources on the internet, including IPCC reports, data from various Bureaus of Meteorology, NASA satellite data, as well as qualified climatologists who have contrarian views, it became very apparent that the narrative about the dangers of rising CO2 levels was very biased and was presented in the media in a manner to produce the maximum alarm.

 

Any information which might cause the listener to question the justification for the alarm, was usually not provided.
For example, consider the alarm about ocean acidification. Most people with even a basic understanding of general science will understand the concept that CO2 dissolves in water to form a weak acid (Carbonic Acid), and most people will appreciate that acid can be harmful.

 

However, do most people know what the pH of the oceans currently is, and how much it has changed during the past couple of hundred years? There are many people interested in gardening and who are probably aware that changes in the soil pH can affect the growth of their roses, or fruit trees.
Why do the scientists who talk about the dangers of ocean acidification, during interviews on the media, never mention the current pH of the oceans, and how much it has changed during the past century or two, leaving the listener perhaps wondering if the oceans are already acidic, that is, have a pH of less than 7?

 

The answer, presumably, is because such information would not be alarming, and could actually undermine the alarm. The purpose of the interview was to cause alarm, not to educate the public. That's the problem.

 

And of course, another glaring example is the comparison of the conditions on Venus with the future conditions on the Earth if we don't reduce CO2 levels. When I fist heard this comparison during an interview with James Hansen on the radio, I thought, 'that's interesting', but why has no-one mentioned during the interview what the actual CO2 levels are on Venus? I had to search the internet to find out. 96.5%. Wow! What a comparison!

 

The logic behind this argument is fallacious because it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science.  Discarded theories often aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or adjustments.

 

I agree. In the interests of brevity I wrote, 'so often wrong', when I should have written, 'sometimes completely wrong, and so often, almost without exception, partially wrong, requiring modification of the theory.

 

Exception: evidence is nearly always objective and not in need of "interpretation".  Evidence that's open to interpretation isn't evidence of anything, it's a clue that leads us to the objective evidence.

 

 

You seem confused on this point. Everything is open to interpretation. To determine that the evidence is sound, requires an interpretation. To determine that the evidence confirms, or conforms with a particular theory, requires an interpretation. All data has to be interpreted.

 

Objectivity, subjectivity, biases, and so on, are conditions of the human observer. All the evidence we have about anything and everything is observed, experienced, and thought about, in the human mind.
Here's the etymology of the noun 'evidence', from Old French: "appearance from which inferences may be drawn".

[attrayant]

That's a great monologue.  Now what's your evidence and who backs you up?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 8:44 AM, webfact said:

HUMANITY HAS only about four years left to stabilise global temperatures and save the world from environmental catastrophe stemming from extreme climate change, scientists have warned. 

 

IF that is true, then we are doomed. The world's governments couldn't organise a piss up at a brewery in that time, and even then all they'd do is talk about it and issue a statement that they are taking it very seriously and hope to set up several working parties, followed by a group photo of them all shaking hands.

If they are actually doing anything, it's probably building a big space ship so they can all escape to another planet that they haven't told us about.

Seriously, any "scientist" that makes that sort of statement needs to be struck off, as it's impossible to forecast anything with that degree of certainty re weather/ climate.

 

Meanwhile back in the real world, all the true believers in CC should be abandoning all fossil fuelled or manufactured means of transportation and go back to living off the land, though it wouldn't actually do anything, as the rest of the world's population carries on driving fossil fuelled vehicles, flying in fossil fuelled aircraft, and using electricity generated by fossil fuel.

 

If I'm wrong, I guess it won't matter much though, as we'll all be dead.

[thaibeachlovers]

PS, we could do with a bit of global warming where I am as it's unseasonally cold.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Ah, it's the 'science has been wrong in the past' chestnut that is so often misused to reject scientific consensus out of hand, without having to get your hands dirty doing any actual work.

 

The logic behind this argument is fallacious because it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science.  Discarded theories often aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or adjustments.

 

The ideas you've put forward are not an improvement to our current understanding, and are not broadly supported.  I did a quick search and could not locate even fringe scientists who back your ideas.  If there were any support for your ideas, you would have provided some research to back it up.  Simply putting forward some interesting hypothesis does not invalidate the mountains of evidence that already exists.

 

 

There was no discussion about 'what an argument is'; how has that suddenly become the point of this discussion?  Maybe that's what you'd like the point to be so that we can get bogged-down in terminology.

 

And why don't you just use the correct word?  Hypothesis.  Reasons don't support theories (if you're using the word correctly - which I can't be sure of considering the other vocabulary errors you've committed), evidence does.

 

 

Exception: evidence is nearly always objective and not in need of "interpretation".  Evidence that's open to interpretation isn't evidence of anything, it's a clue that leads us to the objective evidence.  You're beginning to sound like creationist Ken Ham, who is famous for saying "it all depends on how you interpret the evidence" to justify his nutty young Earth/creation hypothesis.

 

It's pretty clear at this point you're just toying with the language and misusing terms (such as 'theory') to your advantage.  Can you find any peer-reviewed published research that supports your interesting hypotheses?  Does anyone at all agree with you?  You've got some ideas and a sort-of hypothesis.  I challenge you to support it with evidence.

 

What you SHOULD be doing, if you think you have any solid ground to stand on, is explain why the current evidence set does not adequately explain the observed phenomena and then present your own hypothesis that explains things at least as well or better that the current one.  Submit your research to the community and let the experts do the same to you.

 

Or you could just keep sitting in your arm chair coming up with 'interesting' hypotheses.

 

 

While there are some uncertainties, the subject as a whole is not uncertain.  It's based on sound, well understood mechanisms that are not in question.  In saying this, you are making an emotional appeal to yet another fallacy: that since we don't know everything, we don't know anything. 

 

 

Ninety-seven percent.  That is not a wild variation by any stretch of the imagination.  That is the close to the same level of certainty we have that smoking causes lung and cardiovascular diseases.

 

But continue to float your interesting ideas, because they are at least entertaining.

97% is erroneous. 97% of what? All scientists? That's certainly not true. 97% of climate scientists, or just the ones that are paid to find evidence of CC?

Every time someone says 97% etc it just brings their entire case into question. 

BTW, I'm sure you are aware that it was universally believed that the world was flat, that the sun rotated around the earth and that the world was created in 6 days. I think you will find that is not the case anymore. Something to do with science changing. As far as science is concerned now, they probably know as much as they did a thousand years ago, comparatively speaking. The climate is not a simple equation where one adds x amount of CO2 and y is the answer. Thousands if not millions of factors are working on the climate all the time.

By reducing science to "believe us or you are stupid", the pro CC clique are only turning the rest of us against the whole project.

 

I guess we'll find out in 4 years time which of us is right, because the only thing I know for sure is that the world's governments are going to do diddly squat as to anything that might lose them votes.

[mogandave]

The 97% is (apparently) not the percentage of Climatologists that agree on AGW, but rather the percentage of papers published that take a definitive position on AGW.

[BritManToo]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

97% is erroneous. 97% of what? All scientists? That's certainly not true. 97% of climate scientists, or just the ones that are paid to find evidence of CC?

The answer is 97% of the 15% of climate scientists that bothered to return the survey forms.

In effect 14% of climate scientists.

 

A surprisingly few considering the money to be had from supporting CC.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

PS, we could do with a bit of global warming where I am as it's unseasonally cold.

Nothing sucks more in this world than cold and snow. Its beautiful, enjoyable and fun, but like a woman with all those attributes, it ultimately sucks.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

The answer is 97% of the 15% of climate scientists that bothered to return the survey forms.  In effect 14% of climate scientists.

 

Wow fourteen percent compared to three percent.  That's certainly changes things, doesn't it?  Right.

 

Let's be fair, shall we?  Now do the same thing with the remaining three percent.  Send them all surveys and analyze 15% of the ones who respond.  In effect, four-tenths of a percent of climate scientists.  Now let's compare the relative size of the two groups:

 

 

 

Well would you look at that!

 

 

Quote

A surprisingly few considering the money to be had from supporting CC.

 

Yeah, how do you explain that?  If there really is a pot of gold at the end of the climate change research rainbow, then why is it "surprisingly few" scientists?  Your observation doesn't seem to support your hypothesis.

 

You may have noticed that climate researchers and related agencies have had their funding slashed under the current administration, and their very careers are at stake.  Yet they continue to hold firm to the evidence,  Why aren't they all changing their tune, and producing new studies that match the administration's narrative (that AGW is a hoax)?  I bet they'd suddenly have access to some deep pockets if they produced studies like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[balo]

If only scientists could focus more on the history of their research , lets say go back 2000 years only and have a look at the climate variations around the world.   

For instance , the old Viking saga written 1000 years ago could report on mild winters over a longer period. We know the 14th century was a mild one over some time . So there has been changes coming and going through history .  

Its my belief that what we see today is just another change combined with some human interference. 

 

[monkfish]

Yea and I don't believe the earth is round either if you walk far enough you will fall off the edge be careful.
One thing I think we all have to agree about is the burning too much fossil fuels isn't good so let's just cut down anyways.

 

[mogandave]

Yea and I don't believe the earth is round either if you walk far enough you will fall off the edge be careful.
One thing I think we all have to agree about is the burning too much fossil fuels isn't good so let's just cut down anyways.

 

You first. Turn off the AC & start walking!

[honu]

The U.S. Global Change Research Program just released a full report about what the impacts of global climate change will be:

 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

 

But this should mean nothing to those of you who think climate change isn't real.  It's all a hoax, right?  Like those crazy theories about lead or DDT.

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, honu said:

But this should mean nothing to those of you who think climate change isn't real.  It's all a hoax, right?  Like those crazy theories about lead or DDT.

Don't even need to read it.

Just more BS from the same people who published the last BS.

We've been doomed every 5 years since 1980, and yet we're still here and the doom is still 5 years in the future.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, honu said:

The U.S. Global Change Research Program just released a full report about what the impacts of global climate change will be:

 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

 

But this should mean nothing to those of you who think climate change isn't real. 

Absolutely true, with reference to your statement I've highlighted in bold. Those who think climate change is not real are total ignoramuses, regarding climate. The first thing that anyone who is interested in climate needs to know, is that climate is always changing, regardless of human activity. The historical record shows this clearly and definitely, without doubt.

 

The degree to which human activity is contributing to the current change in climate is not certain. However, the fact that climate is always changing, is certain.

 

Considering the frequent damage to property and infrastructure, caused by extreme weather events throughout the world, during the present time and during the past when CO2 levels were much lower, it's clear that protecting ourselves from such extreme events is not a priority.

 

Creating an alarm about CO2, and pretending that reductions in CO2 will solve the problems due to extreme weather events, is a political con, not supported by the science.

 

Where's the evidence for such a statement, you might ask? Refer to the Working Group 1 summary in the AR5 IPCC report, issued in 2013, which stated there is 'low confidence' that hurricanes, floods and droughts had been increasing on a global scale during the previous 50 years. The 'low confidence' is due to a lack of evidence. The Working Group 1 involves the physical sciences, and its summary is different to the political summaries of the IPCC, which are largely based on computer models and projections, designed with an exaggerated risk to encourage political action.

 

Refer to page 50 of the attached pdf.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

[honu]

15 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Don't even need to read it.

Just more BS from the same people who published the last BS.

We've been doomed every 5 years since 1980, and yet we're still here and the doom is still 5 years in the future.

 

The doom is scheduled for within the end of this century, but if you got killed in a wildfire or hurricane this year that seemed to come a little early.

 

Indians are actually dying more and more of record hot weather, but then those people are too far away to be concerned about.  For many that's no more relevant than a polar bear dying.

 

You guys' bar-stools will be roughly as safe as they've been for the next 20 years, probably as long as the climate change deniers on this site have left to live, so in that limited sense you are right to reject it.  Some people tend to take a broader view of the world but in the end it doesn't make much difference. 

[BritManToo]

30 minutes ago, honu said:

the climate change deniers on this site have left to live,

I'm not a 'denier', climate changes, but I don't think it has anything to do with human activity, or humans can alter it in any significant way.

Destroying our industrial base, just reduces our ability as a race to survive climate change.

Let's use our industry to build something in space/moon/mars or sealed habitats of some sort so the climate of the world doesn't kill us all.

[kwilco]

Climate deniers like Brexiteers  (Take note, usually one and the same) seemed to have an irresistible urge to make a fool of themselves in public......but then they think that the moon landings were fake.

It just shows that flat-earther mentality "if I can't see it, it's not there"

 

.... I know who I'd sooner listen to...

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not a 'denier', climate changes, but I don't think it has anything to do with human activity, or humans can alter it in any significant way.

Destroying our industrial base, just reduces our ability as a race to survive climate change.

Let's use our industry to build something in space/moon/mars or sealed habitats of some sort so the climate of the world doesn't kill us all.

Then you are a denier....the point about climate change is it is this time man made.

 

[losworld]

much of this indirectly designed and paid for by Wall Street who stand to make billions possibly trillions from carbon trading... there is not enough scientific evidence to justify the Wall Street scheme at this point... you can't generalize about climate change based on very small amounts of data just as you can't forecast a month's weather by examining a weekend... 

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

 

Yes sure the same scientists .. glad to see somebody believes in generalizations. Maybe I should enroll in some dead-end project to get to bask in that glory too. Secondary fame, without inhaling.

[DrTuner]

Double

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

Yes sure the same scientists .. glad to see somebody believes in generalizations. Maybe I should enroll in some dead-end project to get to bask in that glory too. Secondary fame, without inhaling

Climate scientists are paper pushers too stupid to do real science.

The only thing they can make is money from false predictions.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Then you are a denier....the point about climate change is it is this time man made.

 

Do you mean that the natural processes of climate change have mysteriously stopped because mankind has now become in charge of the climate?

 

The last Little Ice Age began about 750 years ago. Do you believe we should still be in the Little Ice Age when the Thames in London sometimes completely froze during winter, and homeless people died en masse?

 

[attrayant]

You've played this card before, and now you're playing it again: you seem to think that since solar irradiance was the primary driver of past periods of climate change, that it must be the only thing that can be a driver of climate change.  That's simply not true.

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Do you mean that the natural processes of climate change have mysteriously stopped

 

 

Nope.  If man weren't here, the climate would not be changing as it is now.  Solar irradiance has been trending downward in the last half-century.  If you insist that the rise in average global temperature is natural, what's the driver?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

You've played this card before, and now you're playing it again: you seem to think that since solar irradiance was the primary driver of past periods of climate change, that it must be the only thing that can be a driver of climate change.  That's simply not true.

 

You seem to have misunderstood everything I've written. As I've mentioned before, the subject is enormously complex and chaotic. There are so many, many influences on climate that it is currently impossible to quantify the role of any one contributing factor, such as mankind's emissions of CO2.

 

I have no problem with the concept that mankind's activities in general are one of those contributing factors, but separating and accurately quantifying the contribution of each of the many factors, whether natural or manmade, is currently beyond the scope of science.

 

If you insist that the rise in average global temperature is natural, what's the driver?

 

Who knows! However, here's one study that suggests submarine volcanoes might be a major cause of the current warming.

 

"A new study shows that undersea volcanoes flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years -- and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses -- apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth's orbit, and to sea levels -- may help trigger natural climate swings."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205142921.htm

 

And here's a more recent study.

 

"The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an average of 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of water. Beneath the oceans a global system of mid-ocean ridges produces an estimated 75% of the annual output of magma. An estimated 0.7 cubic miles (3 cubic kilometers) of lava is erupted. The magma and lava create the edges of new oceanic plates and supply heat and chemicals to some of the Earth's most unusual and rare ecosystems.
If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans then there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes." 

 

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

 

Can you imagine the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility, of monitoring a million volcanoes on the sea floors?