# Climate Change (oh no not again)



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

*How many believe that climate change is the fault of mankind, if so how much of an impact have we made or are going to make ? Also, do you have any amusing anocdotes to share in terms in terms of this debate- refer below for my Aussie one. I get sunburnt another already - don't need anymore.............* 

Aussie Article refer (http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/ )

*Maybe because we are downunder! and think things are seen differently here (upside down lol)

So either our scientist have bad use of english (that's the first point) or our weather here has improved!! for the better "changed for good".*

If not and they are trying to say our weather can not be reversed back to pre climate change status- then why get worried!

*Article---------*
"Australian climate has shifted for good: scientists

Top climate scientists have endorsed a report that says the climate in Australia has already shifted. The peer reviewed assessment notes that in some cases the weather has "changed for good". The report is also warning that emergency services will need to rethink their strategies to cope with more intense and severe weather events."


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2012)

Climate change is Gods little way of letting you know you've outstayed your welcome, but sometimes you contribute to your un-welcoming. 

A bit like Meg Ryan on the Parkinson show


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ah Megan Ryan, never saw that one but I think I understand now! So is Hollywood responsible for climate change?


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2012)

Well Silicone based life forms are, so Hollywood do contribute considerably to this. Fact.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

If I didn't know history, I would be more inclined to an athropogenic climate change model. Unfortunately for that model, climate is not stable and does change without human help.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook (Feb 6, 2013)

drpraetorus said:


> If I didn't know history, I would be more inclined to an athropogenic climate change model. Unfortunately for that model, climate is not stable and does change without human help.


The fact that people die without other people chopping them up with a chainsaw doesn't make me less inclined to believe that murderers exist.

There is no mutual exclusivity between (1) the notion that the climate can change independently of what humans do, and (2) the notion that humans have an influence on the climate through their own activities.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

CyrilWashbrook said:


> The fact that people die without other people chopping them up with a chainsaw doesn't make me less inclined to believe that murderers exist.
> 
> There is no mutual exclusivity between (1) the notion that the climate can change independently of what humans do, and (2) the notion that humans have an influence on the climate through their own activities.


would you believe monkeys are responsible for climate change agent 86, or maybe it is KAOS............ You better get to work


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

No, I don't believe in man-induced climate change. It's just another scare, designed to stunt progress and to waste huge amounts of money for an insignificant result. Besides, even if it were true, climate change is not always bad, right?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Climate Change is not a designed scare but something that 98% of the worlds climate scientists agree is happening based on our best understanding and data. 
Climate change is a continual natural process, however, the influx of carbon is forcing warming at unprecedented speeds. Change isnt always bad, but it will be incredibly costly to adapt. Areas of high agricultural productivity will shift, there will be increased extreme weather, some parts will experience drought some parts higher rainfall.... None of these are particularly bad, but unfortunately human economies are stubborn and will find it hard to adapt.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Until my early retirement last year, I have worked 28 years for one of the largest oil multinationals in the world - and I can tell you that they took and take man-made climate change extremely seriously with large and costly programmes dedicated to CO2 abatement.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

All opinions are valid on this topic and are due to many factors and interests!


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, I don't believe in man-induced climate change. It's just another scare, designed to stunt progress and to waste huge amounts of money for an insignificant result. Besides, even if it were true, climate change is not always bad, right?


I feel obligated to respond.

Looking beyond the "believe" verb -- the question is really whether one either understands the scientific literature, concerning warming trends, or one has not read any literature, and thus cannot understand, or does not comprehend the phenomena -- so moving past this specious inquiry, I find it difficult for any layman/laywoman -- in regards to science, atmospheric/climate/geology/ecology -- to not only disregard the general consensus within the appropriate academic/scientific fields of study, but to also refute and "deny" this massive body of evidence.

This would be akin to the layman telling the doctor that his diagnosis is incorrect, or mapping out the surgery procedures, that the appellate lawyer's brief discounts and mistates some precedent, that the musician has played the wrong note.

Now, besides that layman fully schooled in the appropriate research and adept with the appropriate skills, why should any person discount the general consensus on the matter of climate change? Submitting that you've read and understand the research from those in the scientific field -- not in, for instance, law or policy -- that disagree with the majority consensus is a perfectly justifiable reason to be skeptical.

Otherwise, I have difficulty finding any merit in a debate that pits subjectivity against objectivity. The sides are incompatible, and there will never be consensus.

But seeing as this is where our country is at the moment, sure, why not continue that nonsensical stalemate?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Amusing news in the last few days. The shrinkage of arctic ice has for several years been laid to global warming. Now global warming is being blamed for the observed *increase* in Antarctic ice!

Hard for the layman to swallow this, although the explanations seem reasonable enough. But it's no wonder that Mr. Everyman is not anxious to make the sacrifices that avoiding global warming (so we are told) require.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

The temperatures in the Roman period were warmer than they are now, then there was the early medieval (500 AD) cooling. Nasty times. Starvation and mass movements of people. Things warmed up around 900. Populations grow and Norsemen spread out from overpopulated Skandanavia looking for loot and land. The historical myth is that Greenland was named that as a way to lure colonists to a place that was not all that green. In fact it was quite green. Lush pasturelands fed large herds of viking sheep and cattle. Wine grapes were grown in southern England.



And then the bottom fell out of the climate tub.



Around 1300 the remps dropped around the world. Europe became cold and wet. Greenland became unlivable. People in central Asia were on the move looking for better lands and they carried bubonic plague with them. In the Americas, other peoples were on the move. From a place in the U.S. southwest the Mexica moved to Tenochtitlan. Because they came from a place called Aztlan, the residents called the Aztecs. 

For while, conditions stabilized. Temps did not rise but they didn't get worse, for a while. Then came the Little Ice Age. The Thames started to freeze over. Canals in Amsterdam as well. Glaciers world wide increased. The storms that destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588 were arctic storms brewed by the Little Ice Age. In the American Revolution, Washington crossed a Delaware river choked with ice flows. The water between Statten Island and the Jersey shore froze. We finally got out of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800's. 

Temps have bee rising since then. However, we are still not at the levels of 2000 years ago. Oddly enough, global temps have not risen in the past 10 years or so. Local temps have shown some spikes but global averages have not. 

Because of history I am skeptical of antropogenic climate change. 

In my experience, scientists tend to be ignorant or dismissive of history. They also make assumptions that are based solely on anecdotal evidence or personal experience. One assumption that has been challanged and found wanting is the idea that the Sun is a stable and constant star. It has been shown that this is not true. Solar energy output is variable. Varieable and relatively unpredictable. The other assumption, totally anecdotal is that climate is normally stable. If you base this on your own life time or even on the weather records going back as far as they go, maybe 150 years, it would seem that the climate has been stable. This is infact an anomaly. Not just for the past 2000 years, but for the past 100,000 years and beyond. The end of the last Ice Age was period of warming that took about 20 years. The desertification of the Sahara took less time. 



The past is the key to the present and future. Explain why the climate changed so much in the past and you will have a good handle on why we are warming now.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I used to be rather surprised that people without scientific expertise would _strongly_ question scientific results or theories. Almost everyone blindly believes 99% of all science (gravitation, electromagnetic theory, viruses, atoms, etc.), but somehow a small percentage of science is distrusted. The "hot topics" are areas where the science conflicts with a strongly held belief. Other than particle physicists, people don't care whether the graviton has spin 2 or what the mass of the Higgs is. But people strongly care if regulations create a drag on the economy. Money is real and people enjoy being able to drive whatever car they wish however far they wish to drive. On the other hand general circulation models, corrections to time series temperature data, and forcing functions are poorly understood, misrepresented, and seemingly _unreal_.

If scientists tell parents that their daughter will die soon without a highly technical medical procedure they do not understand, few parents would forgo the procedure. And in the US parents can be criminally liable for refusing medical treatment for their children. But if scientists tell society that in the far future (50-100 years) people will likely suffer greatly without significant present changes to our energy use, many people simply dismiss the warning.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I work on issues related to climate science and have followed the science reading technical reports, talking to climate scientists, and exploring skeptical views. Overall, I am rather worried that the public warnings are actually conservative (i.e. climate change is worse than predicted).



KenOC said:


> Amusing news in the last few days. The shrinkage of arctic ice has for several years been laid to global warming. Now global warming is being blamed for the observed *increase* in Antarctic ice!


Antarctic ice is actually shrinking significantly due to the West Antarctic Ice sheet melting, but the thickness is increasing. This increase in thickness is a prediction of climate change and is a trivial result of the effect of increased temperatures on the specific humidity of air. Another in a long line of science results that seem to violate common sense.



drpraetorus said:


> In my experience, scientists tend to be ignorant or dismissive of history. They also make assumptions that are based solely on anecdotal evidence or personal experience. One assumption that has been challanged and found wanting is the idea that the Sun is a stable and constant star. It has been shown that this is not true. Solar energy output is variable. Varieable and relatively unpredictable. The other assumption, totally anecdotal is that climate is normally stable.


Scientists in historical fields such as climate change, geology, and evolution pay enormous attention to historical data. Without it their fields would not exist. I personally have never met a scientist who _was not_ strongly dismissive of anecdotal evidence. Both astronomers and I knew of the sun's variation long before climate change was ever postulated. Climate scientists knew that climate was not stable over long periods. Without that knowledge the theory would make no sense and no one would believe it now.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

@drpraetorus - The notion about the Warm Medieval Period, or that it was as significally as warm as the 20th century appears to be incorrect.

This paper -
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Hughes_was the a MWP_1994.pdf


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

What about the Little Ice Age that occurred? during the Middle Ages....


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Ah Megan Ryan, never saw that one but I think I understand now! So is Hollywood responsible for climate change?


Well, so much putrid films have been produced. All that bad smell surely must have some impact!.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I'm glad the climate's warming...if it is.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, I don't believe in man-induced climate change. It's just another scare, designed to stunt progress and to waste huge amounts of money for an insignificant result. Besides, even if it were true, climate change is not always bad, right?


Behold the glory of the right-wing mentality...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Behold the glory of the right-wing mentality...


I wonder if Climate Change is high on the Agenda in North Korea. I mean do they plant 10,000 acres of trees for every missile launch? Also, how many carbon credits do you need to let off a nuke!

Maybe we could start a list........


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I wonder if Climate Change is high on the Agenda in North Korea. I mean do they plant 10,000 acres of trees for every missile launch? Also, how many carbon credits do you need to let off a nuke!
> 
> Maybe we could start a list........


Certainly North Korea is not on my list of socialist countries. . That's just a very old fashioned dictatorship. I'm not even of the 'left-wing' if you want. I just don't like irrational discourses, either if they come from the extreme right-wing or from the extreme left-wing.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Certainly North Korea is not on my list of socialist countries. . That's just a very old fashioned dictatorship. I'm not even of the 'left-wing' if you want. I just don't like irrational discourses, either if they come from the extreme right-wing or from the extreme left-wing.


Do you mean "old fashioned dictatorship" with old world charm? or "extreme right-wing or from the extreme left-wing" to give a balance centre view point!

Maybe we could do a list of socialist countries, wouldn't be much of an A to Z thou........ but I guess the worm will turn!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Do you mean "old fashioned dictatorship" with old world charm?


Of course, , damn capitalists, they ruined my dream!. It's a sad history for me, _comrade_ Eddie.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I do hope they'll prepare a proper Environmental Impact Statement (with all the official approvals) before starting a nuclear war.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I do hope they'll prepare a proper Environmental Impact Statement (with all the official approvals) before starting a nuclear war.


Ah, now your talking EIS, shame if an endangered species was found in the impact zone for the nuke! (small frog of some sort or snake even!)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Of course, , damn capitalists, they ruined my dream!. It's a sad history for me, _comrade_ Eddie.


Yes _Comrade_ Aleazk, sad indeed! I dream of a world ruled by a dictator of benevolent disposition, who ensures that classical music lovers- especially those of the Avantegard species, are given the highest positons of authority and power and all existing politicans both past and present are banished (or gulliteended) by popular vote on reality TV..........


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2013)

I think that everytime they claim a consensus, the tables get turned. In the 1970s the fear was anthropogenic global cooling. Now it is warming. I am a scientist, though not in the same field. I can tell you that for any given hypothesis, there are numerous skeptics in the field. Even James Hansen has had to revise his thinking given the more than a decade of flat global temperatures we have seen, despite the fact that our global carbon output has not abated. I also know that so much of what is passed off as scientific fact in this debate is coming from politicians and celebrities who often know no more than you and I, or from the likes of Al Gore who has earned, and stands to earn a great deal more from the carbon credit industry.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2013)

Let's also not pretend, either, that, should global warming actually be true and heavily influenced by anthropogenic sources, that something as simple as driving smaller cars is going to solve our problems. We are an energy-driven world. We need energy, unless we want to return to pre-industrial revolution conditions. Where will we get the energy? Wind and solar? Unrealistic. Coal? Nuclear? Natural gas? Exactly which of these sources are we now allowed to use? When was the last nuclear reactor built in the United States? Natural gas is cleaner, but where exactly are we allowed to extract it? The same people protesting fossil fuels and their impact on the environment have also impeded our ability to use any other forms. Solar power is inefficient - it requires large expanses of land to set up solar farms, and there are only certain areas on this planet where you get sufficient sunshine to make it cost-effective, and you aren't going to generate power levels similar to what you get from fossil fuels. With as long as France has been using nuclear power, which provides up to 80% of their country's energy needs and leaves them with a surplus that they can sell to neighboring countries - the amount of waste they have generated fills a building exactly the size of one American football field. And yet we can't get approval for more of these in the United States. Wind power is a joke, because nobody wants windmills built in their backyards - especially the celebrities complaining about global warming. And the animal rights activists don't like how the windmills chop down birds. And again, you can't just put up a wind farm anywhere - you need areas where you get sufficient consistent strong winds. Then you lose a lot of energy transporting solar and wind-generated energy from the relatively sparsely-populated areas where they are, to where the population centers are.

We use fossil fuels because they are currently our best sources of energy. In terms of an energy source, they produce a relatively large amount. They are easily transported. Think about it - transmitting solar-generated energy from some desert location in the American Southwest to, say, Los Angeles, is going to result in a lot of energy loss as it is transported in cables. Take an equivalent amount of energy in fossil fuel form, and transport it in drums that same distance, and unless there was an accident or leakage, you end with the same amount of energy as you started with. The same goes for coal, etc. You can construct fossil fuel-driven energy plants much closer to population centers than you can with solar, wind, or hydroelectric power plants, and so you lose much less energy in transmission. And, at least here in the U.S., we are coming up with more efficient and cleaner methods every day. 

There is also so much hypocrisy in this field. The champions of global warming and our need are typically those wealthy individuals who don't face the everyday energy needs of the average citizen. They can afford $50,000+ hybrid cars, even though they more frequently prefer to travel around in limousines and private jets, to concerts all over the world where they generate tons more of carbon waste than the average citizen does in a year. They live in large, energy-wasting mansions, sometimes more than one, while lecturing us of our environmental obligations. Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio generate more carbon waste in one year than my family does in 10, and we don't even try to be particularly environmentally conscious.

Add to that the bad behavior of some of the leading scientists in the climate science debate - emails discussing how to suppress dissenting opinions, labeling opponents as "deniers" akin to Holocaust deniers, suppressing findings that don't agree with the accepted wisdom, conspiring to have journals refuse studies that don't toe the line. Is it any wonder that more and more people are skeptical of the "accepted knowledge?"


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Let's also not pretend, either, that, should global warming actually be true and heavily influenced by anthropogenic sources, that something as simple as driving smaller cars is going to solve our problems. We are an energy-driven world. We need energy, unless we want to return to pre-industrial revolution conditions. Where will we get the energy? Wind and solar? Unrealistic. Coal? Nuclear? Natural gas? Exactly which of these sources are we now allowed to use? When was the last nuclear reactor built in the United States? Natural gas is cleaner, but where exactly are we allowed to extract it? The same people protesting fossil fuels and their impact on the environment have also impeded our ability to use any other forms. Solar power is inefficient - it requires large expanses of land to set up solar farms, and there are only certain areas on this planet where you get sufficient sunshine to make it cost-effective, and you aren't going to generate power levels similar to what you get from fossil fuels. With as long as France has been using nuclear power, which provides up to 80% of their country's energy needs and leaves them with a surplus that they can sell to neighboring countries - the amount of waste they have generated fills a building exactly the size of one American football field. And yet we can't get approval for more of these in the United States. Wind power is a joke, because nobody wants windmills built in their backyards - especially the celebrities complaining about global warming. And the animal rights activists don't like how the windmills chop down birds. And again, you can't just put up a wind farm anywhere - you need areas where you get sufficient consistent strong winds. Then you lose a lot of energy transporting solar and wind-generated energy from the relatively sparsely-populated areas where they are, to where the population centers are.


Interesting points, I wrestle with these ideas myself.

I wonder if anyone will back me on this statement, but I believe that the "Energy Crisis" of our generation is a far greater danger than the "Environmental Crisis" in the short term. If we were to lose our sustainability _energy-wise_ before anything else, that will be a lot more destructive than can even be imagined. It would be a slow process, and no one knows or sure when oil will really begin to deplete. But millions of people will starve world-wide if we don't find ways of finding alternative fuel to sustain international and national trade (ships, trucks, trains, etc.). Many will also freeze to death or die from heat from not being able to power heating/cooling. Those people will be dead long before a hurricane or ice age wipes them out. One may say the Environmental Crisis is a great threat in the long term, but if we don't even think in the short term, there will _be _no long term when the Energy Crisis really rears its ugly head.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...I believe that the "Energy Crisis" of our generation is a far greater danger than the "Environmental Crisis" in the short term. If we were to lose our sustainability _energy-wise_ before anything else, that will be a lot more destructive than can even be imagined.


Or to be *really *scared, read about ocean acidification... 

By the way, when I was a wee tyke there were two billion people in the world. Now there are seven billion. That's seven billion largish mammals. Strike anybody as at all excessive?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Interesting points, I wrestle with these ideas myself.
> 
> I wonder if anyone will back me on this statement, but I believe that the "Energy Crisis" of our generation is a far greater danger than the "Environmental Crisis" in the short term. If we were to lose our sustainability _energy-wise_ before anything else, that will be a lot more destructive than can even be imagined. It would be a slow process, and no one knows or sure when oil will really begin to deplete. But millions of people will starve world-wide if we don't find ways of finding alternative fuel to sustain international and national trade (ships, trucks, trains, etc.). Many will also freeze to death or die from heat from not being able to power heating/cooling. Those people will be dead long before a hurricane or ice age wipes them out. One may say the Environmental Crisis is a great threat in the long term, but if we don't even think in the short term, there will _be _no long term when the Energy Crisis really rears its ugly head.


But there's a lot more to the environmental crisis than hurricanes. Warming leads to ocean acidification and coral bleaching which could lead to the collapse of marine ecosystems. At least hundreds of millions of people depend on the sea for their food and income.
As local climates change, species distributions will change. Many of these will be considered pests, for example there is an insect spreading north into California which may one day wipe out all wine production there, and other example can wipe out local agriculture. Collapse of local pollinator populations will have a similar effect.
This is not to mention the direct impacts of climate change on agriculture. The area of the US known as the Breadbasket may cease to exist as rainfall decreases... Where will your food come from then? Some areas will witness severe water shortages.
These are just a few of the consequence predicted to occur within this century!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Or to be *really *scared, read about ocean acidification...
> 
> By the way, when I was a wee tyke there were two billion people in the world. Now there are seven billion. That's seven billion largish mammals. Srike anybody as at all excessive?


Are you saying we need to breed ourselves into Minimees............? What a great idea.

Then airplanes, cars, ships, buildings etc could all be smaller and therefore reduce human impact!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I think that everytime they claim a consensus, the tables get turned. In the 1970s the fear was anthropogenic global cooling. Now it is warming.


During the 1970's the predominant view _in peer reviewed literature_ was global warning. Outside of research journals many stories discussed global cooling (see this review).



DrMike said:


> Even James Hansen has had to revise his thinking given the more than a decade of flat global temperatures we have seen, despite the fact that our global carbon output has not abated.


The flattening of measured temperatures over the past decade or so has been analyzed by a number of climate scientists. There is no clear answer to this issue, but several factors have been identified. Temperature forcings (factors that affect temperature) have played a role - solar radiation has decreased slightly, CO2 has increased more slowly than expected, aerosols have increased. Overall these forcings should decrease the rate of temperature rise but are not large enough to account for the flattening. Some scientists have pointed to El Nino and La Nina as the major contributor. During the past decade El Ninos (causing higher T) were prominent at the beginning of the decade while La Ninas were prominent toward the end. If we have a strong El Nino soon, we ought to see the highest temperatures over the past 100 years (see 1 and 2)



DrMike said:


> I also know that so much of what is passed off as scientific fact in this debate is coming from politicians and celebrities who often know no more than you and I, or from the likes of Al Gore who has earned, and stands to earn a great deal more from the carbon credit industry.


I agree completely with this. Anyone interested in understanding the _science_ of global warming should ignore _everything_ they hear on TV or read in non-technical sources. Unfortunately, that leaves most people unable to get any information at all.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Let's also not pretend, either, that, should global warming actually be true and heavily influenced by anthropogenic sources, that something as simple as driving smaller cars is going to solve our problems. ...


No, smaller cars would help, but researchers are not expecting everyone to drive mini cars. There is no silver bullet, and we know that many technologies will be required. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (known as 80 by 50). Most researchers believe this is technically doable but will require strong political incentives and regulation. I'm currently working on a project to understand scenarios to reach those goals in non light duty vehicle sectors (trucks, rail, marine vessels, aircraft, and off-road vehicles) by 2050. We expect fuel cells, natural gas, batteries, hydrogen, biomass, wind, solar, hybridization, and energy efficiency all to play major roles.

Wind and solar can play major roles even if they are generated in localized areas. Both energy sources can power electrolyzers to produce hydrogen which can be piped over large distances efficiently, as natural gas is today. Both wind and solar are capable of producing enormous amounts of energy in the US. I wouldn't call wind a joke. People might feel that large turbines are unsightly, but most people would rather see something unpleasant than have enormous numbers of people die due to emissions (roughly 400,000 people/yr die in China due to emitted pollutants).

I can give you every negative argument about every major fuel or power technology. The real question is what fuel/power technology combinations have the fewest negatives and the most positives. It's not enough to say that wind is unsightly or that fuel cells are currently too expensive. Business as usual scenarios have enormous expected negatives - most researchers I know view them as significantly worse than the newer technologies that promise enormous reductions in criteria pollutants and green house gases.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (known as 80 by 50). Most researchers believe this is technically doable but will require strong political incentives and regulation.


That is exactly the worst part about this global warming craze: more government regulation, politicians (who of course would not miss out on their own limousines and private jets*) telling people what kind of cars they should drive, how often they should fly, how much water they should spend. New taxes, consequently prices on things like airplane tickets, cars, fuel, rising. And of course it is the common man and the common man's business (like the trucking enterprise I work for, which uses huge gas-gobbling 18-wheelers) that will suffer the most.

And all that for the sake of some ephemeral purpose which may or may not be real, and even if the global warming was real, it may still happen for natural reasons, despite all the human efforts.

*I don't envy anyone his limousine and private jet, as long as their owners don't intrude on my decision as to what car to drive and whether I should turn the water off while brushing my teeth.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is exactly the worst part about this global warming craze: more government regulation,


The 80 by 50 is not government regulation. It is a rough consensus by climate scientists on what green house gas reductions are necessary to keep our climate from causing what the best available research shows to be conditions that will cause significant harm to humans.

I do feel strongly that unless government acts with incentives and regulation it is likely that the climate will change causing enormous harm to a large percentage of humans. The only differences I see between climate change regulation and laws prohibiting stealing, rape, and other crimes are:

1) Almost everyone _knows_ that those crimes adversely affect people. No one _knows_ that climate change will cause adverse effects. The best available research indicates a high probability of problems unless we act to lower green house gases. Rather than certainly we have high probability.

2) Those crimes have a clear perpetrator and a clear victim, but the "perpetrators" of climate change are humanity collectively (some more than others, of course) and the victims are unknown (many not yet alive) at this time.

One wonderful side product of climate change mitigation is that the same technologies that reduce green house gases both reduce criteria pollutants (particulates, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons), which cause cancers, lung disease, and other adverse health effects, and increase energy security, a major concern for most countries.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> The 80 by 50 is not government regulation. It is a rough consensus by climate scientists on what green house gas reductions are necessary to keep our climate from causing what the best available research shows to be conditions that will cause significant harm to humans.
> 
> I do feel strongly that unless government acts with incentives and regulation it is likely that the climate will change causing enormous harm to a large percentage of humans. The only differences I see between climate change regulation and laws prohibiting stealing, rape, and other crimes are:
> 
> ...


I for one do not share these views and feel this is all scaremongering political correctness gone crazy to the extreme.

The climate has always changed and will continue to do so- We just need to live with it and move on.......


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I for one do not share these views and feel this is all scaremongering political correctness gone crazy to the extreme.


Well, I think you're probably wrong. But maybe it doesn't matter. I read an interview with a very senior climatologist recently who said, no point in doing anything. It's too late. Might as well bend over and... (no smiley here).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Well, I think you're probably wrong. But maybe it doesn't matter. I read an interview with a very senior climatologist recently who said, no point in doing anything. It's too late. Might as well bend over and... (no smiley here).


The thing is I dont believe we will ever know who is right and wrong with this one- it is just too complicated, maybe in 200 years the text books (or tablet thingies lol) will record what really happened.

Same difference - "We just need to live with it and move on....... "


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I for one do not share these views and feel this is all scaremongering political correctness gone crazy to the extreme.


I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by "these views", but I assume you mean the general consensus of climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists work like physicists, biologists, and other scientists. They work hard to collect data, construct theories or models, write papers in peer reviewed journals, attend conferences where they discuss their data and theories with many others doing similar work, and constantly test their theories in various ways. They tend not to talk to the public. They don't work hard to be politically correct or scare the public. They are more interested in getting reality right. Every climate scientist I know wishes that they are wrong because they fear the consequences of significant climate change.



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> The climate has always changed and will continue to do so- We just need to live with it and move on.......


The climate has always changed, and species have, of course, adapted to their environment. The problem is that humans would be exceedingly unhappy adapting to changes that have occurred in the past. During the Pliocene Era (about 3 million years ago), the sea level was roughly 25 m above the present level and temperatures about 3 degrees C above the present.

Bangladesh has an average elevation of under 8 m along with rivers that cover a significant fraction of the land. During the Pliocene, Bangladesh would have been mostly under water. The 160 million people living there probably would not want to adapt to those conditions. People in the US would likely be somewhat unhappy to see trillions of dollars of coastal real estate be lost to sea rise. Humans will survive any potential climate change, but I'd prefer attempting to keep the variation within "acceptable" limits rather than ignoring the work of the only group of people who have intensely studied the issue over the past 40 years.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> People in the US would likely be somewhat unhappy to see trillions of dollars of coastal real estate be lost to sea rise.


Some people see a problem, others an opportunity. For every mile of coastal real estate lost, a mile of new coastal real estate is created. What a massive investment opportunity! :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by "these views", but I assume you mean the general consensus of climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists work like physicists, biologists, and other scientists. They work hard to collect data, construct theories or models, write papers in peer reviewed journals, attend conferences where they discuss their data and theories with many others doing similar work, and constantly test their theories in various ways. They tend not to talk to the public. They don't work hard to be politically correct or scare the public. They are more interested in getting reality right. Every climate scientist I know wishes that they are wrong because they fear the consequences of significant climate change.
> 
> The climate has always changed, and species have, of course, adapted to their environment. The problem is that humans would be exceedingly unhappy adapting to changes that have occurred in the past. During the Pliocene Era (about 3 million years ago), the sea level was roughly 25 m above the present level and temperatures about 3 degrees C above the present.
> 
> Bangladesh has an average elevation of under 8 m along with rivers that cover a significant fraction of the land. During the Pliocene, Bangladesh would have been mostly under water. The 160 million people living there probably would not want to adapt to those conditions. People in the US would likely be somewhat unhappy to see trillions of dollars of coastal real estate be lost to sea rise. Humans will survive any potential climate change, but I'd prefer attempting to keep the variation within "acceptable" limits rather than ignoring the work of the only group of people who have intensely studied the issue over the past 40 years.


I actually am a civil engineer and work across many sectors with Water supply being the main one and Desalination my main area. But I find this debate out of control in terms of motherhood statements like "People in the US would likely be somewhat unhappy to see trillions of dollars of coastal real estate be lost to sea rise." - When will this happen, there has been scare mongering about this impending doom for years..............

In previous employes I was involved in southern Oz with areas of coast line where houses have been lost to the sea for years- (going back 30- 40 years), but this was due to changes in currents and bay flow dynamics at that one particular location. I no of no other area at least in Oz that has had this problem ( as this was not climate caused). in reminds me too much of the nuclear end of the world debate of the 60's and 70's.......... I tend to agreed with KenOC

I can attest that some areas of Oz have been drier in the last 15 years and built some desal plants (west Oz), the east coasts which also spend $bill's on desal promptly got half washed away with floods and does not want these plants anymore (ie Sydney, Brisbane etc)- any one want a cheap desal plant.....
If we wish to continue throwing money at issues for political reasons be my guest - keeps me employed!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's also fun to see the many news stories about communities threatened by "rising seas." In fact, any rise in sea level is almost imperceptible so far. These stories always turn out to be not about rising seas but sinking land, usually due to overpumping of groundwater. :lol:

Eddie will know about this...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> But I find this debate out of control in terms of motherhood statements like "People in the US would likely be somewhat unhappy to see trillions of dollars of coastal real estate be lost to sea rise." - When will this happen, there has been scare mongering about this impending doom for years..............


We might be misunderstanding each other. My quote was a simple response to your statement, "The climate has always changed and will continue to do so- We just need to live with it and move on." We know of climates in the past that would be unpleasant (or worse) for us. _Just because climate has been rather variable in the past_ is not a good reason to ignore possible mitigating actions for climate change in the future.



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> If we wish to continue throwing money at issues for political reasons be my guest - keeps me employed!


I definitely *don't* want us to throw money at *any* issues for purely political reasons. Climate change science has resulted in almost no regulations and very little serious action _expressly because of political reasons_. I want us to act _for scientific reasons_ as we did with other environmental issues such as ozone layer degradation and criteria pollutant emissions.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

it is a result of man and we have the knowledge to reduce it.

the past shows humans have solved problems and advanced so i reckon the same will happen with climate change.

if most of the people using the oil and driving the cars are dead they will have to revise their companies future and consider becoming more green.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> We might be misunderstanding each other. My quote was a simple response to your statement, "The climate has always changed and will continue to do so- We just need to live with it and move on." We know of climates in the past that would be unpleasant (or worse) for us. _Just because climate has been rather variable in the past_ is not a good reason to ignore possible mitigating actions for climate change in the future.
> 
> I definitely *don't* want us to throw money at *any* issues for purely political reasons. Climate change science has resulted in almost no regulations and very little serious action _expressly because of political reasons_. I want us to act _for scientific reasons_ as we did with other environmental issues such as ozone layer degradation and criteria pollutant emissions.


I would have to point out that I am assuming your are referring to the US ie no regulation. For the rest of the world this is not the case (and I would doubt that would hold for the US too). Just a few days ago the EU carbon price plummetted - A system set up to combet climate change. In Oz the climate debate has keep many a consultant busy inb work preparing plans for Sea level rise - been involved of some myself, I dont mind the work but is for political reasons! and usually not productive to the wider community...................


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I would have to point out that I am assuming your are referring to the US ie no regulation. For the rest of the world this is not the case (and I would doubt that would hold for the US too). Just a few days ago the EU carbon price plummetted - A system set up to combet climate change. In Oz the climate debate has keep many a consultant busy inb work preparing plans for Sea level rise - been involved of some myself, I dont mind the work but is for political reasons! and usually not productive to the wider community...................


Yes, you're right. The US has almost no regulation other than a Low Carbon Fuels Standard in the state of California which, by itself, would not make a very significant reduction in green house gases. I know much of the rest of the world has stricter regulations. Climate change is a very difficult issue because the results of regulation and climate change are both uncertain and potentially damaging.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Well, its official. There was climate change and it did lead to increased sea levels. It was in 1205 AD. See, they were right.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

We're ******
We could have acted at one stage, now it's too late
The best we can do is prepare for the worst


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

When I see bikinis or short shorts, I know the climate's changed.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)




----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Some caution needed.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic*

Doctor Richard Muller, PHD, an acclaimed physicist and member of the faculty of the University of California Berkeley, was a noted climate change skeptic. He was commissioned by the Koch Brothers to prepare a definative report concerning climate change. As a result, Dr. Muller has changed his mind.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

If the case is closed, why did none of the models of climate change predict the now 16-year old pause in warming, and why can scientists not explain why, despite continuing rises in global carbon emissions (what is done in Europe and America doesn't matter since India and China are ramping up emissions), there has been this 16-year pause in warming? I realize 16 years is pretty small in geographic terms, but I think that it goes to show how pitifully simple so many people have made this issue out to be - more carbon emissions = higher temperatures. No natural system is that simple.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Doctor Richard Muller, PHD, an acclaimed physicist and member of the faculty of the University of California Berkeley, was a noted climate change skeptic. He was commissioned by the Koch Brothers to prepare a definative report concerning climate change. As a result, Dr. Muller has changed his mind.
> 
> See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Muller was one of a relatively small number of skeptics. His conversion was touted much more highly than was warranted probably because he was a highly public skeptic and his work was partially funded by the Koch brothers. The RealClimate blog had a great article on the release of his work. Apparently Muller said, "the biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK." What's surprising is that any scientist would be surprised that a good analysis of publicly available data would agree with the careful work of 3 reputable groups who have studied the data over several decades.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> If the case is closed, why did none of the models of climate change predict the now 16-year old pause in warming, and why can scientists not explain why, despite continuing rises in global carbon emissions (what is done in Europe and America doesn't matter since India and China are ramping up emissions), there has been this 16-year pause in warming?


I do believe that the vast majority of scientists who look at the time series surface and/or ocean temperature data, understand the yearly variation, and realize the need to do running means over several years would not believe there has been a 16 year pause in warming. Even a casual look at the data shows that 1998 was an outlier year (caused by an El Nino event). When this year is removed (or averaged over a several year period), the "pause" in warming looks much shorter than 16 years.

The real question is, "Given what is known about climate and present human activity, what is the most likely temperature trend over the next 30-100 years?"



DrMike said:


> I realize 16 years is pretty small in geographic terms, but I think that it goes to show how pitifully simple so many people have made this issue out to be - more carbon emissions = higher temperatures. No natural system is that simple.


Are you really surprised that non-scientists simplify scientific results or processes? I tell people interested in climate change to ignore _everything_ they read in papers, magazines, or hear on TV. It _may_ be correct, but it likely will have some to many inaccuracies.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Kontrapunctus said:


>


reminds me of that WMD in Iraq malarkey.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I can say from where I'm aitting I'm not going to be building any of Noahs boats anytime soon.

Crying wolf is never wise


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I do believe that the vast majority of scientists who look at the time series surface and/or ocean temperature data, understand the yearly variation, and realize the need to do running means over several years would not believe there has been a 16 year pause in warming. Even a casual look at the data shows that 1998 was an outlier year (caused by an El Nino event). When this year is removed (or averaged over a several year period), the "pause" in warming looks much shorter than 16 years.
> 
> The real question is, "Given what is known about climate and present human activity, what is the most likely temperature trend over the next 30-100 years?"
> 
> Are you really surprised that non-scientists simplify scientific results or processes? I tell people interested in climate change to ignore _everything_ they read in papers, magazines, or hear on TV. It _may_ be correct, but it likely will have some to many inaccuracies.


The problem is that they don't know enough about natural variability, which is something that Judith Curry at Georgia Tech is saying. She acknowledges the plateau, as does Phil Jones at East Anglia. A few years back, Jones said that he wouldn't be concerned about the plateau unless it stretched on for at least 15 years. Now he has changed his story, claiming that it would have to last at least 20 years before concern over the models needs to increase.

But the fact of the matter is we only have accurate temperatures since 1880. And since then, there has only been a net increase of 0.75 degrees. In 133 years, only 0.75 degrees. But scientists predict it may increase by another 5 DEGREES by the end of the century. In order for that to happen, it seems like a warming plateau of 16 years is very problematic. Compared to the last 133 years, 5 degrees in ~80 years seems like a breakneck pace, and doesn't allow for 16 years of downtime.

By the way - what do you think about Michael Mann running around fashioning himself a Nobel laureate, because some of his data was used by the IPCC, which received the Nobel in conjunction with Al Gore? The Nobel committee has stated that he is, in fact, not a laureate.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> The problem is that they don't know enough about natural variability, which is something that Judith Curry at Georgia Tech is saying. She acknowledges the plateau, as does Phil Jones at East Anglia. A few years back, Jones said that he wouldn't be concerned about the plateau unless it stretched on for at least 15 years. Now he has changed his story, claiming that it would have to last at least 20 years before concern over the models needs to increase.


Based on NASA's GISS data with running 5 year means, I would say the plateau is about 10 years long. Recent work indicates that the additional recent warming may be going into the deep oceans and La Nina conditions are keeping the surface temperatures from rising. Data for sea level rise shows continued rising perhaps even faster than in the past few decades. Based on basic physics thermodynamic principles and data for sea level rise, ice sheet melting, arctic sea ice loss, and paleoclimate sensitivity analysis, I'm still quite concerned about future climate change.



DrMike said:


> By the way - what do you think about Michael Mann running around fashioning himself a Nobel laureate, because some of his data was used by the IPCC, which received the Nobel in conjunction with Al Gore? The Nobel committee has stated that he is, in fact, not a laureate.


I've never quite known what to think about the IPCC award. I work with two people who were in a similar position to Mann. They contributed to the IPCC AR4 report. On an IPPC website page their names are listed as contributors, and that page has the Nobel Foundation logo with a statement that the IPCC received the award. I'm not sure what the thinking within the Nobel Committee was. I guess it's similar to the Red Cross awards where presumably the Foundation was honoring an Institution.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)




----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Food is Food in Lobster land, can imagine them being too fussy.

I detect an Aussie involvement here - the reporters accent dead giveaway, he might be happier talking about Prawns on the Barbie!


----------

