Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Brit999]

Legates et al. ... co-authored by Lord Monckton

Also, your point that taxes on CO2 emissions (like what for example?) could be better spent is totally vacuous...

OOOH, attack the man and not the science, and then you attack my post saying it is vacuous. The original paper was authored by a psychologist, does he have a more credibility than Lord Monckton?

And Yes. I am taxed on every unit of fuel I use calculated by how much CO2 it produces. Check your utility bills. I am taxed on the holiday I take every year to pay for the CO2 the flight produces. Some of my income tax goes to pay for research into global warming. Not so vacuous now is it?

And yes, every single penny I pay in those taxes would be better spent on hunger, malaria and fuel poverty. So what do you say? Money for research into something that might or might not happen within the next 100, 200 or 1000 years or money saving people right now?

 

[Touring Mars]

OOOH, attack the man and not the science

What science? Lord Monckton is a crank and his name doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as the word 'science'.

Some of my income tax goes to pay for research into global warming. Not so vacuous now is it?

And yes, every single penny I pay in those taxes would be better spent on hunger, malaria and fuel poverty. So what do you say? Money for research into something that might or might not happen within the next 100, 200 or 1000 years or money saving people right now?

You are presenting a false dilemma here - it is not the case that we should research one global issue and not another - climate research is profoundly important, and any steps taken to understand better the climate system (whether that has anything or nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change) are invaluable, and has an impact on all of these other issues in a very direct way. As such, I find your attitude to be extremely shortsighted to say the least.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand but is it me or does that graphic say

99.7% of papers did not say global warming was mostly manmade

0.5% of papers did say it was manmade

Which adds up to 100.2% =S

 

[Brit999]

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand but is it me or does that graphic say

99.7% of papers did not say global warming was mostly manmade

0.5% of papers did say it was manmade

Which adds up to 100.2% =S

The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.

I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.

Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.

In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% – and not 97.1% – had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.

I hope this explains it to you. If you read the paper it will become very clear.

What science? Lord Monckton is a crank and his name doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as the word 'science'.


You are presenting a false dilemma here - it is not the case that we should research one global issue and not another - climate research is profoundly important, and any steps taken to understand better the climate system (whether that has anything or nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change) are invaluable, and has an impact on all of these other issues in a very direct way. As such, I find your attitude to be extremely shortsighted to say the least.

Thank you for your reply. Name one person who has been affected by climate change and I will start to see your point. I will point you to the millions of graves in Africa of people who have died from the effects of the things I pointed out. You think we can do something about Human caused global warming please carry on.

You want to save lives right now send the money to people who are dieing right now.

Hunger? Nah, buy a new computer for the Met Office. Give NASA a new grant for research.

Otherwise we are letting people die. Today.

Edit: And you attacked Monckton again, not his science. Please explain why he is a crank by explaining why his SCIENCE is wrong.

 

[Touring Mars]

Again, you are presenting a false dilemma here.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that climate change and food poverty are two unconnected subjects - nothing could be further from the truth. Research on global climate and the possible/likely influence of human behaviour on it feeds back into a raft of massively important issues, including global food security. What effect do you think a 2 deg C global temperature increase will have on Africa's poor? The two things are not unconnected.

Anyway, you raise a strange but valid point - why fund moon shots and trips to comets when there are people starving? Why fund any research into anything when taxpayers money could be used to alleviated suffering in Sudan? Again, it's something of a false dilemma. Research funding produces the raw material (as well as the trained personnel) for innovation and scientific breakthroughs that, directly and indirectly, have raised life expectancy and living standards for billions.

Your argument is horribly simplictic and frankly a bit bizarre. It's also massively presumptious and just a tad arrogant - you are dismissing out of hand any and all possible benefits and scientific understanding from the entire subject of climate research because, in your opinion, we could be spending the money on other things, when in fact the truth is that there needs to be money to study and address all of these issues - not just the ones that make you feel better about yourself.

 

[Imari]

Why not skip the "propaganda" and go to the facts?

97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. But what do they know, they've probably been infiltrated by communists who put the best part of a decade into getting a PhD.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is very likely a result of human activity. There's a difference.

Ask most scientists for a statement of certainty on something like anthropogenic climate change and they'll shy away from giving a hard answer if they're any good at their job at all. They'll give you probabilities and estimates, and tell you what they think is the most likely answer, but any decent scientist knows that working with a complex system like the climate means that every result is statistical at best.

Honestly, most of the statements like the one above are the result of journalists who don't understand the importance of precise scientific language misquoting scientists who understand the need for precise language very well.


You should also note that your "97% of scientists agree" link has a graphic at the top that skips the latest 15 years of data, which show that the trend of increasing temperature has not continued past 2000. Misleading at best. Recent trends have thrown significant doubt on the predictions of the past, hence the change from "global warming" to "climate change".

Anyway, you raise a strange but valid point - why fund moon shots and trips to comets when there are people starving? Why fund any research into anything when taxpayers money could be used to alleviated suffering in Sudan? Again, it's something of a false dilemma. Research funding produces the raw material (as well as the trained personnel) for innovation and scientific breakthroughs that, directly and indirectly, have raised life expectancy and living standards for billions.

Your argument is horribly simplictic and frankly a bit bizarre. It's also massively presumptious and just a tad arrogant - you are dismissing out of hand any and all possible benefits and scientific understanding from the entire subject of climate research because, in your opinion, we could be spending the money on other things, when in fact the truth is that there needs to be money to study and address all of these issues - not just the ones that make you feel better about yourself.

If we take the emotion out of all this, climate science does seem to get more than it's fair share of funding. If a scientist can find a way to make their research relevant to climate science, it's going to be a damn sight easier to find funding for it right now. That's just the way it is. There's always at least one field that's the media darling, and for the last 5+ years it's been climate change.

It's not that climate science isn't worth doing. It is. It's more that it's getting a disproportionate share of the funding were it judged purely on utility, and the policies that it's influencing are having some fairly anti-humanitarian effects on their own. Climate science is at 11 and it needs turning down to about a 7.

Maybe climate science will lead to some new breakthrough in the near future, but so could anything else and it would seem more fair to spread the money around rather than just fling it all at the climate scientists.

 

[Brit999]

Again, you are presenting a false dilemma here.



Your argument is horribly simplictic and frankly a bit bizarre. It's also massively presumptious and just a tad arrogant - you are dismissing out of hand any and all possible benefits and scientific understanding from the entire subject of climate research because, in your opinion, we could be spending the money on other things, when in fact the truth is that there needs to be money to study and address all of these issues - not just the ones that make you feel better about yourself.

Thanks. I am arrogant and global warming is real. You win. Lets allow all the people worldwide to die from hunger, malaria and fuel poverty.

I never said spend anything on research into anything! I said spend money on food and medicine. But you want to spend it on something else. Global warming research. Well please message me when 1 person has died from global warming. Then we can start the discussion again.

Edit: From the WHO: About 3.4 billion people – half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2012, there were about 207 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 135 million to 287 million) and an estimated 627 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 473 000 to 789 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by 42% globally since 2000 and by 49% in the WHO African Region.

• £5 is enough to buy, deliver and hang a mosquito net for a family in Africa, helping protect two people from malaria.
• £10 can transport 150 lifesaving nets to a community in rural Ghana; enough to protect 300 people.
• £50 can train a nurse in Botswana to diagnose malaria quickly and accurately saving lives
• £100 can recruit and train two local volunteers to be Malaria Agents; providing lifesaving malaria prevention information to their entire community.

What I dont want is 10,000 participants from 189 countries flying to a holiday resort to discuss a problem that might or might not happen in 50-100 years. And they discussed this over dinner with plenty of food and drink for everyone, in their well lit, air conditioned hotels. During the time of the conference how many people starved to death, or died from malaria, or had no energy to light or heat/cool their homes?

£25 is enough to get 25 children lifesaving malaria treatment. Care to hazard a guess at how much those 10,000 participants at the last IPCC conference spent?

 

[Touring Mars]

Your attempt to paint climate research science/scientists as the enemy of malaria research is utterly laughable.

Care to hazard a guess at how many international conferences there are on malaria every year? Bloody hypocrites!

I said spend money on food and medicine. But you want to spend it on something else

Do not misquote me and get your facts straight before saying something so stupid. This is what I actually said:

there needs to be money to study and address all of these issues

By address I mean 'do something about' and by study I mean 'research'. That includes spending money on aid, but aid is not the answer - it can only ever be a part of the solution.

 

[Brit999]

Your attempt to paint climate research science/scientists as the enemy of malaria research is utterly laughable.

Care to hazard a guess at how many international conferences there are on malaria every year? Bloody hypocrites!


Do not misquote me and get your facts straight before saying something so stupid. This is what I actually said:



By address I mean 'do something about' and by study I mean 'research'. That includes spending money on aid, but aid is not the answer - it can only ever be a part of the solution.

Who painted anyone as the enemy of malaria research? I said spend the money on treatment and prevention, not research!

I did not misquote you. Show me where I did and I will apologise.

So here it is again: Lets allow people worldwide to die from hunger, malaria and fuel poverty. Lets spend the money instead to "do something about" Global warming. (BTW there has been no global warming for close to 18 years. Even though CO2 emissions have increased during the same time, During the same time scale ~9,000,000 people have died from Malaria. I have not added the numbers who died from hunger.)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Who painted anyone as the enemy of malaria research? I said spend the money on treatment and prevention, not research!

Define your difference between "prevention" and "research", please? Remember to take into account that malaria is mutating.

So here it is again: Lets allow people worldwide to die from hunger, malaria and fuel poverty. Lets spend the money instead to "do something about" Global warming. (BTW there has been no global warming for close to 18 years. Even though CO2 emissions have increased during the same time)

Because of the cyclical hiatus. But net global warming still exists. So you're wrong, I'm afraid.

If we're playing the 9-million game then what's the overall population of earth over the next 1,000 years? Let's say the population is static at 6-billion (although it's peaking) and that we issue a 6th of our population every 20 years.

I can't even be bothered to add it up, your 9-million doesn't even make the list.

 

[Imari]

Because of the cyclical hiatus. But net global warming still exists. So you're wrong, I'm afraid.

If we're playing the 9-million game then what's the overall population of earth over the next 1,000 years? Let's say the population is static at 6-billion (although it's peaking) and that we issue a 6th of our population every 20 years.

I can't even be bothered to add it up, your 9-million doesn't even make the list.

The point of the hiatus is that to my knowledge it wasn't predicted before it happened*, at least not by the alarmist factions. All it's evidence of is the fact that the models being used to generate the cataclysmic predictions are not particularly accurate even in the short term.

*I'm sure that there's at least one model out there that did. But unless that model did so because it's a more accurate description of the climate system it doesn't really help. A million monkeys on a million typewriters and all that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The point of the hiatus is that to my knowledge it wasn't predicted before it happened*, at least not by the alarmist factions. All it's evidence of is the fact that the models being used to generate the cataclysmic predictions are not particularly accurate even in the short term.

That may be so, to be honest I'm not sure. That said we know that we're gathering data "as it happens" and that the size of the cycles mean that this is the first time we've been recording data at this point in any cycle.

It's beyond doubt that human-made carbon emmissions are having an additive effect regardless of the larger cycle, surely?

 

[Imari]

That may be so, to be honest I'm not sure. That said we know that we're gathering data "as it happens" and that the size of the cycles mean that this is the first time we've been recording data at this point in any cycle.

You mean that we have no idea whether these are cycles, or random variation, or something in between?

If it's the first time it's being recorded, it cannot be stated with certainty that it's a cycle. One would need at least three repetitions, and even that wouldn't be particularly statistically valid unless one had a pretty solid grasp on the underlying mechanism.

Tying it into sunspot and solar cycles would probably do that, but then that would shift the emphasis off carbon dioxide as a driver and back onto the sun. Which really should be the prime suspect anyway; ask any child why it's hot and they'll point to the big ball of fire in the sky. That's the null hypothesis, imo.

It's beyond doubt that human-made carbon emmissions are having an additive effect regardless of the larger cycle, surely?

It surely is. Adding things into a system causes changes in the system.

The scale of that effect is fairly relevant and open to debate though. If the effects of anthropogenic emissions happened to be 6 orders of magnitude below, say, solar effects, then there would be no point getting our panties in a bunch over.

You wouldn't worry about leaching a couple of parts per million of lead into the water supply if just downstream someone was pumping one part per thousand of cadmium in. Sure, the lead makes it worse, and you'd want to control it in the long term, but it's hardly cause for immediate alarm. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but I haven't seen a strong case made for eliminating other variables as additional causes.


Add into that the debate over whether carbon dioxide is a cause or an effect of warming, and it starts becoming very unclear indeed. It's possible that atmospheric CO2 is little more than an indicator dial on a fairly complex system that is controlled by other things entirely.

For example, having steam in the radiator doesn't cause a car to overheat in and of itself, the car overheats for other reasons, which then causes steam in the radiator as a byproduct. Adding a little tea kettle that fed steam into the radiator (probably) wouldn't really do anything under normal conditions, because the system is designed to deal with heat and has feedbacks that bring it back to normal. The equilibrium would change abit and the whole car would run a little hotter, but unless something was seriously wrong with the car you still (probably) wouldn't actually overheat anything.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Add into that the debate over whether carbon dioxide is a cause or an effect of warming, and it starts becoming very unclear indeed. It's possible that atmospheric CO2 is little more than an indicator dial on a fairly complex system that is controlled by other things entirely.

But that's the cusp; we accept that we're having an overall warming effect and that this effect is unsustainable. How exactly our data falls in the long term will help us decide the answers to more questions but not having all the answers now doesn't detract from what we've already learned.

 

[Imari]

But that's the cusp; we accept that we're having an overall warming effect and that this effect is unsustainable. How exactly our data falls in the long term will help us decide the answers to more questions but not having all the answers now doesn't detract from what we've already learned.

It depends what you're labelling as "what we've already learned".

If you listen to the media, that would include that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the major drivers of climate change, and that if continued at current levels will cause catastrophic climate change in the near future.

I don't think we've learned that. Feel free to list the things that we've learned, if you like.


As far as the effect being unsustainable, obviously any increasing value is unsustainable in the long term, no matter how small the increment. That's a trivial statement.

The rather more interesting question, given that we're talking about a complex system, is whether the system is capable of self-regulating or whether it requires external intervention to prevent the system breaking down. And then if it is capable of self-regulating, how will it do so and what will the effects be.

Given the difficulty in modelling the climate as a holistic system, I doubt we have the knowledge to make sensible predictions about that either.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you listen to the media, that would include that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the major drivers of climate change, and that if continued at current levels will cause catastrophic climate change in the near future.

Which is true (I presume by Global Warming we're talking about the human effects beside any natural cycle). Those effects are surely damaging to the planetary environment... the counter about the larger cycle over which we have no control isn't really relevant to that; if life would be wiped out in 10,000 years the argument would seem to be "so we'll only last 400, big deal".

 

[Dotini]

Which is true (I presume by Global Warming we're talking about the human effects beside any natural cycle). Those effects are surely damaging to the planetary environment... the counter about the larger cycle over which we have no control isn't really relevant to that; if life would be wiped out in 10,000 years the argument would seem to be "so we'll only last 400, big deal".

Astonishing post! It would please me to take polite exception to every last word and idea. But since I eschew multi-quoting and argumentation, I won't do that.

Instead, I'll raise yet more confusion.
- Are humans the stewards of The Earth? Should we sacrifice our numbers (population and economy) to save the Planet?
- Or do the resources and animals exist to serve humanity? Perhaps it is meet that all resources and animals should be subsumed into a grosser humanity, blossoming into perhaps 700 billions of us covering every acre of the Planet?
- The French have an expression - apres moi le deluge - which means, "after me, the flood", or figuratively, "Who gives a rip what happens after we are gone?" The implication of this is that we should strive to enjoy ourselves and live for the day.
- Government is doing a great job of studying and mitigating climate change. Just ask us or the Chinese. Don't worry, but be prepared for both warming and cooling when it comes to paying your taxes.

 

[TVR27]

Science fiction is thriving; only today it’s all being written by global warming enthusiasts.

 

[TenEightyOne]

- Are humans the stewards of The Earth? Should we sacrifice our numbers (population and economy) to save the Planet?

Until we have a better option, of course we should. Otherwise we're sawing off the end of the branch we're sitting on.

- Or do the resources and animals exist to serve humanity? Perhaps it is meet that all resources and animals should be subsumed into a grosser humanity, blossoming into perhaps 700 billions of us covering every acre of the Planet?

Humans are just another shell for DNA, so by extension our over-type covers every acre of the planet in one form or another. That's all academic though if one considers that humans will (and should) act to preserve themselves and to keep the planet habitable. By extension that means supporting the wider ecosystems of our greater organism wherever possible but the preservation of humanity and its living-space should be paramount.

- The French have an expression - apres moi le deluge - which means, "after me, the flood", or figuratively, "Who gives a rip what happens after we are gone?" The implication of this is that we should strive to enjoy ourselves and live for the day.

Et ils disent aussi "abondance de bien ne nuit pas" et "aide-toi et le ciel t'aidera"... look after things you might need later, and help yourself and the sky will too.

- Government is doing a great job of studying and mitigating climate change. Just ask us or the Chinese. Don't worry, but be prepared for both warming and cooling when it comes to paying your taxes.

And have you looked at any of the research?

Science fiction is thriving; only today it’s all being written by global warming enthusiasts.

Silly claim, really. And is "enthusiast" the best way to describe the hundreds, thousands of scientists working in this very field?

What reason do you think they have for fabricating the effects of human pollution?

 

[Dotini]

...the effects of human pollution?

Pollution and its effects, such as radiation, microwaves, toxic pesticides and herbicides in food, soil and water, plastics and trash in the ocean - all that and more - are indeed an unwelcome embarrassment to humanity. Please do not speak of it. Rather speak of uplifting things, like free love, cars, democracy and human rights.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pollution and its effects, such as radiation, microwaves, toxic pesticides and herbicides in food, soil and water, plastics and trash in the ocean - all that and more - are indeed an unwelcome embarrassment to humanity. Please do not speak of it. Rather speak of uplifting things, like free love, cars, democracy and human rights.

You must be thinking of the Free Love, Cars, Democracy and Human Rights thread... this here's Global Warming Denial

 

[TVR27]

If you meet a women, start talking about global warming. It's a real icebreaker.

 

[Dotini]

You must be thinking of the Free Love, Cars, Democracy and Human Rights thread... this here's Global Warming Denial

I don't deny warming. I think its better than cooling, since we could grow more food.
I don't deny cooling. But it could kill ten times as many people, so perhaps cooling is better for The Planet in the long run.

What I do deny is that Mankind, especially the working man, is in charge of any of this. Those who utter pieties and nostrums serve merely as cover for economic interests. The Sun has the upper hand in what happens on Earth.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What I do deny is that Mankind, especially the working man, is in charge of any of this. Those who utter pieties and nostrums serve merely as cover for economic interests. The Sun has the upper hand in what happens on Earth.

So you don't believe that CO2 emissions (working man's or otherwise) are contributory? I'd agree that they're part of a wider cycle but that's not to say that we should continue as we are.

 

[TVR27]

 

[Dotini]

So you don't believe that CO2 emissions (working man's or otherwise) are contributory? I'd agree that they're part of a wider cycle but that's not to say that we should continue as we are.

Oh, I agree they're contributory. Sometimes about as important as pissing in the ocean.

But I do agree with you we should make some changes, particularly in the environmental pollution arena.

But before we make changes, we need to consider the impact on our economy, way of life, freedoms and such.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You didn't actually write anything... what was the point of the video, to show that Clarkson's a right-wing oaf? We mostly knew that. Otherwise you just reinforce the point that you seemed to be against only a few posts ago.

Oh, I agree they're contributory. Sometimes about as important as pissing in the ocean.

But I do agree with you we should make some changes, particularly in the environmental pollution arena.

But before we make changes, we need to consider the impact on our economy, way of life, freedoms and such.

But that's the thing, they aren't a drop (prewarmed) in the ocean. What freedoms will we have on a planet where the conditions for viable crop growth occur in areas as small as today's oil fields?

What way of life and economy will we have then? I'll be dead in 40 years at the most, much sooner if I party hard enough. There's nothing for me to give a crap about, I've been very close to death and it's an overwhelmingly pleasant experience (until you're alive again, then it hurts like hell), so why should I be bothered how the planet looks a hundred years from now?

Well, as altruistic as it sounds, I don't want a worse world for my children or for their children (and if they issue in turn they can sod off, I'm not made of money).

 

[Dotini]

But that's the thing, they aren't a drop (prewarmed) in the ocean. What freedoms will we have on a planet where the conditions for viable crop growth occur in areas as small as today's oil fields?

What way of life and economy will we have then? I'll be dead in 40 years at the most, much sooner if I party hard enough. There's nothing for me to give a crap about, I've been very close to death and it's an overwhelmingly pleasant experience (until you're alive again, then it hurts like hell), so why should I be bothered how the planet looks a hundred years from now?

Well, as altruistic as it sounds, I don't want a worse world for my children or for their children (and if they issue in turn they can sod off, I'm not made of money).

Your plaintive cries of existential pain and eco-sensitivity are clearly deeply felt and honestly expressed. I respect that, but respectfully offer that it could be all emotions and delusional thinking. Before we jump off the deep end, let's have a few more beers and another round of golf, okay?

 

[BobK]

What reason do you think they have for fabricating the effects of human pollution?

To line somebody's pockets, of course.

 

[DK]

To line somebody's pockets, of course.

Can't the same be said for the oil companies that fund climate change denial?