Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

robindch

HansHolzel wrote: »

I was thinking of service industry. Tertiary sector, white collar. Academic.

HansHolzel wrote: »

i.e. the new Marxism

I'm not quite sure that I follow you.

Are you saying that there's so much money sloshing about in academic environmental sciences, that the 98% or so of environmental scientists worldwide who hold that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for it, have been corrupted to the point that anything they say can be ignored?

If so, where exactly is your evidence that this has happened? Who's paying for it?

HansHolzel

I'm not ignoring them at all, I'm just put off by too many wild claims as to what will happen.

Akrasia

You might think the claims are wild, but there are some climate scientists who think the IPCC is being too conservative and that the effects of climate change will actually be much worse

The greenhouse effect is trapping more solar energy. Not small quantities of energy, we're talking about massive amounts here, for every 1 degree. The amount of extra energy we are adding to the biosphere is is the equivillent of 2 Hiroshema bombs every second.

When this much energy is added to the environment, there will be consequences.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html

Duiske

Akrasia wrote: »

You might think the claims are wild, but there are some climate scientists who think the IPCC is being too conservative and that the effects of climate change will actually be much worse

And there are some climate scientists who believe the effects of climate change will be much less. So here we have two groups of climate scientists whose thoughts are out of step with those of the IPCC, yet only one of these groups is labeled with the slur Deniers. How does that work ?

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

You might think the claims are wild, but there are some climate scientists who think the IPCC is being too conservative and that the effects of climate change will actually be much worse

The greenhouse effect is trapping more solar energy. Not small quantities of energy, we're talking about massive amounts here, for every 1 degree. The amount of extra energy we are adding to the biosphere is is the equivillent of 2 Hiroshema bombs every second.

When this much energy is added to the environment, there will be consequences.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html

If the global warming lobby were serious about tackling AGW they would be looking for world population control, restriction on livestock farming & nuclear power. But they are motivated by other political agendas...

Solar vs CO2 vs Temp


Hiatus:


Hsn't the deep sea hit a hiatus aswell??

Akrasia

Duiske wrote: »

And there are some climate scientists who believe the effects of climate change will be much less. So here we have two groups of climate scientists whose thoughts are out of step with those of the IPCC, yet only one of these groups is labeled with the slur Deniers. How does that work ?

There is a massive difference between the scientists who accept the science but think the IPCC are being too conservative, and the politically motivated lobbiests who don't care about the science and are trying to discredit the scientists and muddy the debate sufficiently to delay action that hurts their political or financial interests

Akrasia

The 'Global warming lobby' are the scientific community who have presented the evidence for how dangerous global warming will be if we continue on as business as usual. It is up to the economic and political leaders to take the appropriate action required to mitigate the worse effects.

The first thing we need to do is reduce carbon emissions, how we do this is for policy makers to decide.

I personally think we need to invest much more public resources into zero carbon energy. It's expensive now, but a lot cheaper than dealing with the worst effects of global warming.

Macha

HansHolzel wrote: »

We are evidently at cross-purposes here and I'm not disputing what Macha has posted last about subsidies and lobbying. A Norwegian I know who's in the oil business says that if there's one thing those companies know better than finding and extracting oil it's how to make money.

Nonetheless I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't referring to renewable energy companies but to elements in academia and the media who have a vested interest in extremist climate projections. I'm talking about things like Al Gore's sea deluge and the University of East Anglia scandal.

I think I see your point but I don't think the media is actually making people aware of these projections. The role I see the media playing is in artificially perpetuating the debate on the issue. Take, for example, the fact that TheJournal.ie had a poll that asked readers believed in man-made climate change the day the world's climate scientists say they're 95% certain of this. What's next? A poll on if readers believe in the theory of gravity, that the earth goes around the sun, evolution vs creationism?

HansHolzel wrote: »

A rock from space probably has more potential to cramp our style than anything else, given recent hits in Arabia's Empty Quarter (1863), Tunguska (1908), Amazonia (1930) and that bang over Chelyabinsk last February.

Anyway, maybe it's all true and Madame de Pompadour was more right than she could have known. Après nous le déluge.

It's funny you should use that example because it's the narrative of The Observer's editorial on the issue today:

In his recent book Ten Billion, Stephen Emmott posed an intriguing question: what would happen if humanity discovered tomorrow that there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, one that would bring calamity on a precise date several decades in the future? An event like that could result in the eradication of a large chunk of life on Earth and would surely galvanise the planet, argued Emmott. Every scientist, engineer, university and business leader would be enlisted to find ways to deflect the errant asteroid and help our species survive. We might even succeed.

The idea is intriguing because humanity now finds itself facing just such a global catastrophe – except there is no specific date for our meeting with destiny and there is no asteroid. Nor is there any sign that we appear to be interested in trying to save ourselves or rescue our planet. The problem is that we face a threat that is manmade and insidious but which is every bit as dangerous as an asteroid impact – and that is global warming.

You know the scientists who makes the most public pleas for some sort of asteriod defence system? Neil deGrasse Tyson. He thinks action on climate change is needed. This is what he tweeted on Friday:

The shifting climate leaves us thinking of weather extremes that we survived rather than seasonal averages that we enjoyed.

Another way to look for evidence on this is to see what the people whose job it is to deal with risk management do on the issue. Take for example, Munich RE, not only an insurance company but a re-insurance company as well. They are the guys who can make massive losses as extreme weather events happen more often, etc. They are funnelling a huge amount of resources, research and money into better understanding the risks it represents to their business and how best to understand the issue:

http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/default.aspx

djpbarry

HansHolzel wrote: »

Nonetheless I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't referring to renewable energy companies but to elements in academia and the media who have a vested interest in extremist climate projections.

The idea that academics have any financial clout whatsoever never ceases to amuse. The EU recently agreed a figure of €70 billion for research funding, to spread over the next seven years. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil made a profit of $45 billion in 2012 alone.

djpbarry

Filibuster wrote: »

Solar activity peaked during the 50's (cycle 19) then again during the late 80/mid 90's (cycle 21/22). Solar activity is winding down and it will put a lid to the global warming hysteria:

Solar irradiance has only been directly measured since the 70’s?

Filibuster wrote: »

If the global warming lobby were serious about tackling AGW they would be looking for world population control, restriction on livestock farming & nuclear power.

I’ll agree with you on livestock farming, but good luck convincing the good people of Ireland (never mind the rest of the world) that beef is incredibly energy intensive to produce and should be perceived as a luxury item.

As for global population – red herring. The problem is not the number of people in the world. The problem is the lifestyle being lived by those at the top and to which everyone else is aspiring to.

And nuclear power? Has anyone yet shown that the world’s energy requirements can be met by nuclear power in a sustainable, affordable and environmentally sound manner? Nope.

Filibuster wrote: »

Solar vs CO2 vs Temp

Links to the sources of all these plots that you’re producing would be nice.

Duiske

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a massive difference between the scientists who accept the science but think the IPCC are being too conservative, and the politically motivated lobbiests who don't care about the science and are trying to discredit the scientists and muddy the debate sufficiently to delay action that hurts their political or financial interests

Here's the problem. The IPCC claims it reviews and assesses the most current scientific and technical information relevant to the understanding of climate change, and that this ensures an objective and complete assessment of the science. Yet you are saying that if a scientist thinks the IPCC may by underestimating the effects of climate change then that's fine, but if a scientist thinks they may be overestimating the effects, then they are a politically motivated science denier. So you have a choice here. You either have to label both groups with the obnoxious slur denier, or simply say they have opinions which differ from the science as assessed by the IPCC.

Akrasia

The vast majority of the people lobbying against the IPCC are not climate scientists.

I have no problem with scientists who are conducting climate research and getting published in reputable journals putting forth evidence that perhaps the climate sensitivity may be lower than the IPCC's estimates. Thats legitimate scientific dialogue.

I do have a massive problem with 'commentators' working for the Daily Mail or the Telegraph who constantly print oil industry propaganda, undermining the scientists and misrepresenting the science to the public.

Macha

Akrasia wrote: »

The vast majority of the people lobbying against the IPCC are not climate scientists.

I have no problem with scientists who are conducting climate research and getting published in reputable journals putting forth evidence that perhaps the climate sensitivity may be lower than the IPCC's estimates. Thats legitimate scientific dialogue.

I do have a massive problem with 'commentators' working for the Daily Mail or the Telegraph who constantly print oil industry propaganda, undermining the scientists and misrepresenting the science to the public.

Yep, it's scientists vs sceptics on this one and some scientists in the UK are annoyed about the manner in which BBC coverage of the IPCC report seemed to put them on the same level:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics

On one programme, the sceptic, Bob Carter who is funded by the Heartland Institute, got more time than the climate scientists!

PercyBlakeney

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago. All the warming warned of has not happened, and the best the IPCC can do is guess (it has no evidence of any kind) that "all the warming has gone into the deep oceans". Guesswork is not science.

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.


There is now more than enough solid evidence to demonstrate to any neutral party that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over.

Macha

Dear God that post is brutal. Stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Provide some decent sources/evidence for your 'facts' please, at least the ones that aren't clearly opinions.

Akrasia

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago. All the warming warned of has not happened, and the best the IPCC can do is guess (it has no evidence of any kind) that "all the warming has gone into the deep oceans". Guesswork is not science.

Wrong, Scientists have been measuring the ocean temperatures and have measured that there is a heat transfer from the surface to the deep oceans.

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Source please, tell us exactly in the IPCC reports where 'all the scary scenarios' are downgraded?

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

Dr Richard Lindzen hasn't been a Lead Author since 2001

He is one of the few working climate scientists who does not agree with the IPCC's conclusions, but that's nothing new. Lindzen had an interesting theory that a warmer world would produce more Cirrus clouds which would allow a greater proportion of long wave radiation to escape from the atmosphere and this would act as a natural break on global warming. However, that theory has been discredited and Lindzen himself admits that his 2009 paper was embarassing and had some very silly errors in how the satelite data was interpreted.

But despite acknowledging that the data on which he was basing his theory was wrong, he still hasn't changed his position. He just seems to be looking for data to fit his hypothesis, not looking for a hypothesis to explain the data (which is what he should be doing)

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.

I guess you'll never be posting any links that are sourced from the Heritage foundation then? or the daily mail? or the Telegraph? or Wattsupwiththat?
or any of the other oil industry lobby groups?

There is now more than enough solid evidence to demonstrate to any neutral party that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over.

Meanwhile on the real world, the scientific community are now more certain than ever that global warming is real and we need to act to reduce carbon emissions or else we face ecological melt down

djpbarry

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago.

Hasn’t it? You’re saying that the increase in global temperature recorded over the last 15-20 years is outside the range predicted in earlier IPCC reports? Because the facts demonstrate otherwise:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Which scientists are these? A large factor in observed sea level rise is accelerated ice sheet melt. What happens to these ice sheets in the future is uncertain, for the simple reason that the mechanics are poorly understood. Nobody can state with any degree of certainty what will happen, but that does not mean there is no risk of collapse.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

So? Bertie Ahern told us that the Irish economy was grand and anyone who said otherwise should go kill themselves.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.

Well, you’ve posted several blatant mistruths on this thread. For example:

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility.

Except for all the scientific papers that demonstrate the planet is warming and mankind is largely responsible?

Duiske

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

djpbarry wrote: »

Which scientists are these? A large factor in observed sea level rise is accelerated ice sheet melt. What happens to these ice sheets in the future is uncertain, for the simple reason that the mechanics are poorly understood. Nobody can state with any degree of certainty what will happen, but that does not mean there is no risk of collapse.

I'm assuming what he is referring to is something that has been doing the rounds on blogs over the weekend. Even though I'd be described as a skeptic, (or worse, by some) I have to admit the skeptic bloggers are barking up the wrong tree with this one. The IPCC do in fact state in chapter 12, with high confidence, that the disintegration of either the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice sheets is highly unlikely. The problem is that in chapter 12 the IPCC look at potential scenarios of abrupt change within this century. So they are correct. No scientist has ever said the ice sheets would collapse within such a short time frame.
They also discuss other potential abrupt scenarios. Atlantic MOC collapse, catastrophic clathrate methane release, tropical forest dieback, etc. Again, because all these would take longer than a century to occur they are described in this chapter as being unlikely to occur. So if you look at Chapter 12 as asking "Assuming "W" is happening, how likely is it that "X,Y,Z" will occur within this century ?", then the IPCC are correct. The one that bucks the trend is Arctic sea ice. They state it as Likely (with Medium Confidence) that the Arctic Ocean becomes nearly ice-free in September before mid-century. But it should be added that this is under the high forcing scenario.

Akrasia

People often underestimate just how powerful the Climate Change Deniers are.

One of the main groups that support the Climate Denial industry are the Heritage Foundation who have been very heavily shaping government policy in the US and have also been involved with the Heartland Institute's 'Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change' (co-sponsoring the event in 2012)

They have been instrumental in keeping the few climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC to the front of the debate thereby maintaining the illusion that the reality of and/or potential danger from climate change is still hotly debated by the scientific community

Well, the Heritage Foundation have a sub-group called 'Heritage Action for America' and this is one of the main instigators of the current government shut down in the U.S.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101089459

They and other 'conservative groups', almost all of them active in the climate change misinformation campaign, had been planning this as a method of opposing 'ObamaCare' (which they oppose on ideological grounds) and their public defence of this position is that if 'Obama Care' goes through, Government debt will increase and this will lead to a risk of 'economic meltdown'

Basically, we have the leaders of a fringe extremist political movement who, on the basis of their fringe economic and political beliefs, are able to mount extremely effective campaigns that have shut down the worlds most powerful government and is holding it to ransom with the threat that it could force America into a default on it's national debt with global economic consequences.

This is the stuff of wingnut conspiracy theories, except in America, with the tea party and wealth concentrations at such unprecedented levels, tiny groups of very wealthy and very ideologically driven people are able to have a massive influence on any debate that they participate in.

It is ludicrous that some of the climate 'sceptics' on the internet think that it is government money that is distorting this debate. It absolutely is not, the governments funds research, private interests fund lobby groups and the lobby groups are extremely effective at, you've guessed it, Lobbying and Public Relations campaigns.

AngryHippie

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago. All the warming warned of has not happened, and the best the IPCC can do is guess (it has no evidence of any kind) that "all the warming has gone into the deep oceans". Guesswork is not science.

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.


There is now more than enough solid evidence to demonstrate to any neutral party that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over.

You sir, are a buffoon. That is all

Macha

AngryHippie wrote: »

You sir, are a buffoon. That is all

[mod]OK, let's keep the criticism to the post, not the poster. [/mod]

PercyBlakeney

Akrasia wrote: »

People often underestimate just how powerful the Climate Change Deniers are.

I dont know which "people" you are talking about. This is about facts and not personalities.

For example, one poster here claims that all the heat has gone into the deep oceans and thats why we have not seen the rise in temperatures predicted.

However, that is to mislead as one guess is that maybe thats what has happend. But guesses are not facts, they are guesses, and to claim a guess is fact merely exposes the prejudices of those who do that.

It may well be the man's activites are in part responsible for a little global warming. However as CO2 levels continue to rise more or less as predicted, the warming associated with the rise of CO2 has not. Thats a problem.

In what is a very polarised debate, its telling that those who "believe" in global warming call those who question "deniers", trying to label them with the same word used for holocaust deniers.

djpbarry

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

It may well be the man's activites are in part responsible for a little global warming. However as CO2 levels continue to rise more or less as predicted, the warming associated with the rise of CO2 has not.

You're saying the Earth has not warmed in line with predictions?

PercyBlakeney

djpbarry wrote: »

You're saying the Earth has not warmed in line with predictions?

That depends on which predictions you want to use. I am not looking here to play a game and try to catch you out (which your post appears to want to do).

It seems to me you are on one "side" and any evidence to the contrary you want to either dismiss or rubbish, and any evidence which you see is on your "side" you want to believe. I've read many of your previous posts and I hope you don't mind that thats the impression.

I hope I am big enough not to play those sorts of games, and open enough to look at evidence itself, and not just bits of evidence which might back up our position, and block out all or any evidence which may make us feel uncomfortable.

It's a complex issue, and also the science is not explaining how something works (like a battery) but is attempting to predict what will happen. Explainaing how a battery works is relatively easy, but to convince someone what is going to happen in 50 years time requires trust, and unfortunately those who are trying to convince the rest of us have the additional problem that they have in the past abused that trust and overstated their case based on flimsy or non existent "evidence".

Then the next question is even if the climate does increase a little, will that be, on balance, better or worse.

So, for example, the polar ice caps have not "warmed" as were predicted, for example.

Grudaire

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

So, for example, the polar ice caps have not "warmed" as were predicted, for example.

Have not warmed, or have not warmed as predicted?


Because I'm pretty sure they haven't gotten colder :pac:

PercyBlakeney

Cliste wrote: »

Have not warmed, or have not warmed as predicted?


Because I'm pretty sure they haven't gotten colder :pac:

"I'm pretty sure" is not an argument. How sure are you as to whether the ice is greater or lesser this year than last year, on both poles?

Turtwig

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

"I'm pretty sure" is not an argument. How sure are you as to whether the ice is greater or lesser this year than last year, on both poles?

Not that confident. My guess is that ice grew in the Antarctic and grew in the Arctic. From last years levels because Arctic see Ice levels were very low last year even when taking into account the current trend of ice reduction.

djpbarry

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

That depends on which predictions you want to use. I am not looking here to play a game and try to catch you out (which your post appears to want to do).

It seems to me you are on one "side" and any evidence to the contrary you want to either dismiss or rubbish, and any evidence which you see is on your "side" you want to believe. I've read many of your previous posts and I hope you don't mind that thats the impression.

I hope I am big enough not to play those sorts of games, and open enough to look at evidence itself, and not just bits of evidence which might back up our position, and block out all or any evidence which may make us feel uncomfortable.

It's a complex issue, and also the science is not explaining how something works (like a battery) but is attempting to predict what will happen. Explainaing how a battery works is relatively easy, but to convince someone what is going to happen in 50 years time requires trust, and unfortunately those who are trying to convince the rest of us have the additional problem that they have in the past abused that trust and overstated their case based on flimsy or non existent "evidence".

Then the next question is even if the climate does increase a little, will that be, on balance, better or worse.

So, for example, the polar ice caps have not "warmed" as were predicted, for example.

That’s a remarkably long-winded way of not answering a simple question.

The Earth has warmed. The degree of warming is within the range predicted.

You want to argue otherwise?

PercyBlakeney

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a remarkably long-winded way of not answering a simple question.

The Earth has warmed. The degree of warming is within the range predicted.

You want to argue otherwise?

Unfortunately it's not always possible to answer in an unqualified way. If you are just looking for someone to play along and answer "yes" and "no" to your questions, then you'll have to find someone who thinks that is possible. I don't always think its possible to answer in an unqualified way like that, and most answers are more complicated than just a simple "yes" or "no"

PercyBlakeney

Jernal wrote: »

Not that confident. My guess is that ice grew in the Antarctic and grew in the Arctic. From last years levels because Arctic see Ice levels were very low last year even when taking into account the current trend of ice reduction.

Sure, you may well be right. That implies over a longer time than one year that the sea ice can definitely be said to be receding. My understanding is that the sea ice is unpredictable insofar as it recedes then grown back from year to year and has not shown a definite trend to be generally receding over the last 50 years.