Climate Change - Bad News

[freethinker44]

I thought Al Gore made it obvious in 2006, with all his graphs and pretty pictures.

Well, that's inconvenient.

 

[BSM1]

Let me recommend you just go the the library and pick up some copies of "Scientific American" which is a peer- reviewed publication, and look for yourself? Or check their website? I would say at least one out of every two issues has at least one article on climate change.

Can't name one, huh? With all this "consensus" the names should be household words.

 

[metis]

Can't name one, huh? With all this "consensus" the names should be household words.

You apparently didn't see them on the bottom of the page I linked you to.

 

[freethinker44]

You apparently didn't see them on the bottom of the page I linked you to.

:ignore: So not one then huh?

 

[metis]

:ignore: So not one then huh?

It's right there in the link in black and white, but one cannot see if they don't open their eyes.

 

[freethinker44]

It's right there in the link in black and white, but one cannot see if they don't open their eyes.

I'm pretty sure denying its existence is the same as not seeing it there.

Check-mate.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I post this for those more serious members who may have a real interest in the debate among climate scientists wrt this latest UN IPCC AR5 report to world governments. There are over six hundred comments on her post, most, if not all, from actual scientists who follow climate science. It will provide a good idea as to the feel of where the science stands from the pov of a good cross section of scientists from both sides of the debate, as opposed to partisan climate blogs and media who are mostly uncritically supportive of AGW.

Judith Curry, for those who don't know, is a highly regarded climate scientist who generally is not considered a skeptic, but does not fear calling it as she sees it...

IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis | Climate Etc.

IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis

by Judith Curry

Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

-snip-

The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.

 

[metis]

I'm pretty sure denying its existence is the same as not seeing it there.

Check-mate.

 

[metis]

I post this for those more serious members who may have a real interest in the debate among climate scientists wrt this latest UN IPCC AR5 report to world governments. There are over six hundred comments on her post, most, if not all, from actual scientists who follow climate science. It will provide a good idea as to the feel of where the science stands from the pov of a good cross section of scientists from both sides of the debate, as opposed to partisan climate blogs and media who are mostly uncritically supportive of AGW.

Judith Curry, for those who don't know, is a highly regarded climate scientist who generally is not considered a skeptic, but does not fear calling it as she sees it...

I appreciate you putting this out, along with your conclusion that there certainly are other voices out there who have done the research but soundly disagree with her. Also, note that she is mostly having trouble with some of the methodology but not necessarily with the consensus itself.

Global warming is not based on models but actually temperature measurements that have been accumulated for hundreds of years. To put it another way, we well know there's global warming occurring because these are based on actual measurements, so the only real question is to which extent is human activity involved?

We know with relative certainty that human activity is at least somewhat responsible since it has been known for over 200 years that there can be a "greenhouse effect" because of the nature of both C02 and methane, and we also know from actual measurements that there's been an increase in both over this time period.

For us to not begin to take action to counter this is very much like playing Russian roulette. Yes, there's the chance that the consensus could be wrong, but the damage that delay could cause could be catastrophic. Also, working on reducing global warming would have the added effect of reducing pollution, reducing our use of resources that cannot be replenished, reduce costs, etc.

 

[BSM1]

I appreciate you putting this out, along with your conclusion that there certainly are other voices out there who have done the research but soundly disagree with her. Also, note that she is mostly having trouble with some of the methodology but not necessarily with the consensus itself.

Global warming is not based on models but actually temperature measurements that have been accumulated for hundreds of years. To put it another way, we well know there's global warming occurring because these are based on actual measurements, so the only real question is to which extent is human activity involved?

We know with relative certainty that human activity is at least somewhat responsible since it has been known for over 200 years that there can be a "greenhouse effect" because of the nature of both C02 and methane, and we also know from actual measurements that there's been an increase in both over this time period.

For us to not begin to take action to counter this is very much like playing Russian roulette. Yes, there's the chance that the consensus could be wrong, but the damage that delay could cause could be catastrophic. Also, working on reducing global warming would have the added effect of reducing pollution, reducing our use of resources that cannot be replenished, reduce costs, etc.

The earth, even by IPCC measurements, has cooled over the last five years.

 

[Alceste]

Really, it's no more worth debating the reality of anthropogenic global warming with denialists than it is debating creationists. Climate change is a fact. The only productive discussions we can have about it are on what we're going to do about it, and how to adapt to a hotter world.

 

[BSM1]

Really, it's no more worth debating the reality of anthropogenic global warming with denialists than it is debating creationists. Climate change is a fact. The only productive discussions we can have about it are on what we're going to do about it, and how to adapt to a hotter world.

But, Al, they are no longer saying the world is warming. They are now saying the climate is changing (what ever in the world that means). What gives?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Because they have come to realise that the term 'warming' is misleading. Climate change is more complicated than just the temperature increasing uniformly over the world; the effects of temperature changes on water salinity for example can alter the ocean currents, resulting in weather changes that could make some places cooler while heating up other places; the climate also becomes more variable etc. We used to call it global warming, but that phrase implies a situation which is a major simplification of what climate change is now understood to be.

Of course there is also the practical purposes behind the changes in terminology, having a situation where there is climate change occurring but you have someone saying 'okay but this year was cooler than last year', it becomes difficult to educate people about weather cycles and how they factor into the climate change, thus moving away from the warming terminology allows you to point to the increase in natural disasters for example and general trends as opposed to simply looking at the temperature gauge and having obstinate resistance to the idea of climate change based on a single variable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

1) I think they are being complacent.

They're concerned with climate. Methane isn't the biggest concern. co2 is.

The report said 18% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by livestock production

Again, this doesn't matter. The last IPCC report was 2007 and is available for free for you to check out if you want to understand what they think about the dangers of methane relative to co2 and the sources for atmospheric GHG concentrations.

Whichever way you look at it it is way more than all forms of transport combined.

It isn't.

2) I don't know what point you're trying to argue there

The scientific evidence behind propaganda. Everybody knows the risks and is so certain of whatever position they have, yet virtually no one reads the literature (including policy makers and scientific writers).

3) Not according to my retired farmer friend in Texas who told me things were much down and with an increased risk of corn 'ear mould'.

I looked at thousands upon thousands of acres of corn this summer and talked to a specialist who is
1) not retired
&
2) a technical advisor to the farmers (my uncle works for CropQuest).

Crops are hostage to the weather

And a great deal more.

Weather fluctuations can spell disaster for crop harvests.

True.

Most people have become totally detached from the notion of Mother Earth and the connectivity of all life upon it.

It's all connected, yes. Mostly through competition and death. "Survival of the fittest" isn't the only evolutionary mechanism, but it's perhaps the major one.

 

[Alceste]

But, Al, they are no longer saying the world is warming. They are now saying the climate is changing (what ever in the world that means). What gives?

The climate is changing AND the average global temperature is on a long term warming trend. Both terms are accurate, but climate change is preferred by most climatologists because the world is full of total idiots who think an uncharacteristically cool winter in their hometown means the GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature is not actually increasing, or that in order for the global average temperature to be increasing as a long term trend, every single year must always be hotter on average than the last.

Glad I could help.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let me recommend you just go the the library and pick up some copies of "Scientific American" which is a peer- reviewed publication

Peer-reviewed? They just report peer-reviewed science. Why would they need a peer-review?

I would say at least one out of every two issues has at least one article on climate change.

Google scholar is your friend. If you don't have access to SpringerLink, Academic Search Complete, APS, ScienceDirect, AAAS, Nature, etc,. then arvix and various other hosts for academic works can be searched via google scholar.

 

[Riverwolf]

Can't name one, huh? With all this "consensus" the names should be household words.

Why? The only household names of scientists still alive I know of are Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Niel Tyson, and Bill Nye.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why? The only household names of scientists still alive I know of are Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Niel Tyson, and Bill Nye.

Batman is a scientist.
I have proof....
[youtube]-2y0euGMhiM[/youtube]
batman.wmv - YouTube

 

[illykitty]

Sadly, in the UK I don't think Solar Panels would be effective. However, there's got to be some potential for small wind turbines/wind farms.

Electric cars is an interesting idea, but don't they put significant strain on the environment too, like the batteries etc?

Have you seen how well Iceland have harnessed their own Geothermal hot-spots? Sadly though, I'm unsure as to whether or not the UK has any of these hot-spots...

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in sustainable living, and becoming more independent, but I'm unsure as how to effectively and realistically do it.

Would there be potential of wave power? I don't know much about it but... There's plenty of coastline here though!

 

[BSM1]

The climate is changing AND the average global temperature is on a long term warming trend. Both terms are accurate, but climate change is preferred by most climatologists because the world is full of total idiots who think an uncharacteristically cool winter in their hometown means the GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature is not actually increasing, or that in order for the global average temperature to be increasing as a long term trend, every single year must always be hotter on average than the last.

Glad I could help.

Are you referring to the one-half of one degree of earthly warming that has been recorded over the last 100 years? Or are you privileged to other data that the scientific community cannot access?