Author Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)  (Read 368248 times)

Offline BFM

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Compulsive hyperbolic exaggerator
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #80 on: August 25, 2012, 04:33:11 am »
There comes a time when the converging evidence is so convincing, and so many studies using all of the known techniques at our disposal show the same thing, that a scientific consensus is reached. And this doesn't happen often. That consensus was reached a long, long time ago (maybe even the 80s). Every major scientific body that has anything to do with climate change agrees that human CO2 emissions have accelerated the rate of warming beyond natural temperature oscillations, and that the consequences will be dire. Today, you can take a look at any oil company and even they have an info page on their site expressing their concerns for climate change and what they're doing to address it. The 'debate' that is sometimes portrayed in the media ended in research institutions in the 1990s. We may as well debate whether or not the earth has gravity. But, please do not take my word for it.

This is a link to a 2004 review paper that appeared in Science, one of the best academic journals in the world, which rejects about 95% of manuscripts that it receives. In short, there is no bullshit in it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
This article is a clarification of the commonly misinterpreted view that there is a debate among scientists re: climate change. The article is a review of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers dating from 1993 to 2003, in other words a summary of the past decade of research (at the time). If you're not familiar with scientific literature, that is a staggering number of papers to review in a single paper. The article itself is only a page long, so you should read it, but here are a few quotes that make the point clear

Quote
...statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

Quote
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities

Quote
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

Of the 928 papers that were reviewed
Quote
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Finally, the paper ends with this message
Quote
there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 06:54:28 am by BFM »
If you are first you are first. If you are second you are nothing.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #81 on: August 26, 2012, 01:49:59 pm »
There comes a time when the converging evidence is so convincing, and so many studies using all of the known techniques at our disposal show the same thing, that a scientific consensus is reached. And this doesn't happen often.

Thanks for the reply (and the debate :) ).

First let me say (again!) what the vast majority of sceptics are sceptical about.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. This was the original phrase 10+ years ago. For PR reasons the warming alarmists changed the catch phrase to climate change - since temps have been flat for the last 14 years or so.

So, Global Warming? Certainly true - the planet has been warming for the last 150 years as we come out of the Little Ice Age. Anthropogenic ? Certainly true - humans have been putting CO2, a green house gas, into the atmosphere since the end of the 2nd World War.

Catastrophic - certainly not proven and very unlikely. The physics of CO2 are well known and accepted by both alarmists and sceptics alike - a doubling of CO2 will give a rise of ~ 1-1.2 deg C. Those computer models have a built in 3X-4X multiplier which inflates the temp rise to 3-4 deg C for a doubling.

There is no empirical evidence to show such a feebback parameter exists in nature. I'm not talking of computer modelling but real data - indeed quite the reverse.



The Global Circulation Models (GCMs) have certainly improved since Hansen did his run in 1988, more computer power has meant ever more detailed analysis and the Forcing coeficients have been refined. But at their heart the Feedback factor has hardly changed. It was 3X-4X then - it is 3X-4X now.

The model predicts a rise of 0.8(ish) deg C - reality shows 0.25(ish) deg C.

Without the Feedback there is no Alarm. A mild temp increase accompanied by an enriched atmosphere of extra CO2 to improve crop yields across the globe.

Just in case Bio objects to the use of UAH(satellite) in the comparison, the graph below shows the anomalies of UAH, RSS, Gisstemp and Hadcrut3 on the same graph.




CAGW can be summed up into just two areas. Feedbacks and Everything else. And Everything else isn't that important (albeit interesting).

It's on the basis of these models that politicians are making Catastrophic economic decisions.

No BFM. There's a lot to debate - and to be very sceptical about. 

   
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #82 on: August 26, 2012, 02:53:58 pm »
There is no empirical evidence to show such a feebback parameter exists in nature. I'm not talking of computer modelling but real data - indeed quite the reverse.

   

Rising water vapour levels and melting ice are examples of empirical evidence of positive feedbacks. It's not just the models that show a climate sensitivity of about 3ºC for CO2 doubling - paleoclimate analyses and direct observations following volcanic eruptions show similar figures. You simply cannot explain past climate change with a low climate sensitivity.

As for using Hansen's predictions, I've already pointed out to you that Hansen was looking at rising greenhouse gas levels mainly. Therefore you simply cannot compare his findings to observed temperatures, because you're comparing apples with oranges. You have to compare his predictions with temperatures where the influence of the sun, ENSO and volcanoes has been removed. When you do that, his models are more accurate. If you correct the models to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas forcing, which Hansen overestimated, the models do even better. And if you reduce the climate sensitivity parameter, his models are pretty much spot on.

But again, you can ignore models if you feel the need to - the findings on climate sensitivity remain the same though, because of direct observations following volcanic eruptions and of paleoclimate data. These all point in the same direction, which means that despite uncertainties, a climate sensitivity of about 3ºC is more likely than a climate sensitivity of about 1-1.2ºC.

I'd love to hear how you explain past climate change with such a low climate sensitivity - I'm not aware of any papers that can reproduce past changes with a low sensitivity or that have put forward alternative mechanisms to explain the extent of past change. Do you know of any such paper?

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #83 on: August 27, 2012, 07:27:49 pm »
Rising water vapour levels and melting ice are examples of empirical evidence of positive feedbacks.

Eh?

They're examples of rising temperatures.

Quote
I'd love to hear how you explain past climate change with such a low climate sensitivity - I'm not aware of any papers that can reproduce past changes with a low sensitivity or that have put forward alternative mechanisms to explain the extent of past change. Do you know of any such paper?

I think you've just made my case for me Bio.

I explain past climate changes from a major forcing which is completely missing from the IPCC models - namely the variable Magnetic activity of the Sun leading to cloud forcing.

The Maunder and Dalton Sunspot minima leading to the Little Ice Age for instance. Sunspot maxima leading to the Medieval, Roman and Holocene Optimum warm periods etc.


Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991.

Given that Anthropic CO2 forcing isn't available prior to the 2nd World War - how do you explain these past major climate changes.

 
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #84 on: August 27, 2012, 08:05:43 pm »
Eh?

They're examples of rising temperatures.

I think you've just made my case for me Bio.

I explain past climate changes from a major forcing which is completely missing from the IPCC models - namely the variable Magnetic activity of the Sun leading to cloud forcing.

The Maunder and Dalton Sunspot minima leading to the Little Ice Age for instance. Sunspot maxima leading to the Medieval, Roman and Holocene Optimum warm periods etc.

Given that Anthropic CO2 forcing isn't available prior to the 2nd World War - how do you explain these past major climate changes.

 

What I meant is this. Rising water vapour levels due to rising temperatures lead to further warming as water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. Melting ice increases the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to further warming. These are positive feedbacks as they amplify any initial warming. They're already being observed and they're part of the reason climate sensitivity is unlikely to be low.

As for your hypothesis, it's all very well but can you cite me one paper that supports it? I know the sun was involved in past climate change, but with the huge historical shifts in global temperatures, such as between glacial and interglacial periods, it simply cannot explain these changes on its own. As for the role of cosmic radiation, observations show that it can't be responsible for recent warming - the solar magnetic field has not changed markedly and there's no trend in cosmic ray flux (the flux has actually been lagging temperatures in the past few decades, and since 1990 the flux has increased, which the opposite of what should happen in a period of warming). So it's very unlikely it is behind recent warming. Also GCRs cannot explain other observations, such as stratospheric cooling and nights warming faster than days.

Past climate changes are fairly well understood and can be explained by using a combination of factors, including the position of land masses, atmospheric composition, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth's orbit, etc. For instance, the shift from glacials to interglacials is explained as follows: changes in the Milankovitch cycles initiates warming by changing the amount of seasonal energy reaching the Earth's surface. As a result, ice sheets and glaciers melt, causing further warming by absorbing more solar energy. Warming oceans release CO2, causing more warming and leading to more CO2 being released.

CO2 from human sources may not have caused previous climate change, but CO2 certainly was involved in those changes.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 08:15:20 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #85 on: August 27, 2012, 10:36:22 pm »
Really interesting debate, thanks to the main posters for putting the time into it.

Bear with me a moment, I want to make sure that I'm understanding this. Lfcderek seems to be saying that the 'catastrophic' warming predictions rely on feedbacks, which he doubts are occuring, at least not at the necessay levels. But, if I've understood the last couple of posts correctly, the magnitude of historical warming events can only be explained by factoring in feedbacks. So, surely there is a lot of historical evidence both for feedbacks occuring and having a significant effect on climate?

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2012, 10:40:57 am »
Really interesting debate, thanks to the main posters for putting the time into it.

Bear with me a moment, I want to make sure that I'm understanding this. Lfcderek seems to be saying that the 'catastrophic' warming predictions rely on feedbacks, which he doubts are occuring, at least not at the necessay levels. But, if I've understood the last couple of posts correctly, the magnitude of historical warming events can only be explained by factoring in feedbacks. So, surely there is a lot of historical evidence both for feedbacks occuring and having a significant effect on climate?

I think some feedbacks are fairly well documented. For example, the advance or retreat of ice during periods of cooling and warming, respectively, changes the Earth's albedo and causes further cooling or warming as well as changes in sea levels, which can be measured. Changes in ecosystems, from boreal forest to tundra for example, can also act as feedbacks. Ice core data gives us a good indication of atmospheric composition, such as the quantity of CO2, CH4 and aerosols, for example. Atmospheric greenhouse gases rise with rising temperatures and drop with falling temperatures. More recently, volcanic eruptions have confirmed the role of water vapour as a feedback, and the expected increase in water vapour levels with rising temperatures have been observed. The melting of ice and permafrost is releasing methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

There are uncertainties however, and that's where so-called sceptics try to capitalise. For instance, we don't quite know what happens to clouds in a changing climate. Clouds can either amplify or dampen warming depending on their type, location and altitude. Sceptics state that low-level clouds, i.e. those that cool, increase and therefore keep climate change to a minimum. The problem with this, of course, is that it becomes impossible to explain the shift between glacials and interglacials for example. It implies an as-yet unknown mechanism that overrides the cooling effect of low-level clouds. Similarly, there are uncertainties linked with aerosols. Generally, cooler climates are usually dustier. But the effect of aerosols depends on how much sunlight they absorb and their altitude. So it's not impossible that climate sensitivity is low, but it is unlikely. Most research finds a sensitivity of about 3ºC for CO2 doubling. Such research uses models and observations such as the 11-year sunspot cycle, volcanic eruptions and ocean heat content as well as comparing past periods with the late Holocene.

So it is the convergence of several pieces of evidence that lead to the statement that climate sensitivity is most likely about 3ºC. All known physical mechanisms are included in such calculations and they do a good job of explaining past changes. There is much more uncertainty with the claim that sensitivity is low.

Hope this makes sense :wave
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 01:44:09 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #87 on: August 28, 2012, 12:42:00 pm »
Hope this makes sense :wave

It really does. Thanks!

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #88 on: August 29, 2012, 12:56:15 pm »
Really interesting debate, thanks to the main posters for putting the time into it.

Bear with me a moment, I want to make sure that I'm understanding this. Lfcderek seems to be saying that the 'catastrophic' warming predictions rely on feedbacks, which he doubts are occuring, at least not at the necessay levels. But, if I've understood the last couple of posts correctly, the magnitude of historical warming events can only be explained by factoring in feedbacks. So, surely there is a lot of historical evidence both for feedbacks occuring and having a significant effect on climate?


Not really Devon Red, the IPCC models need high - 3X - feedbacks because the only significant forcings in their table of forcings is Green House Gases, and in particular CO2.





The problem with the IPCC models is they are missing Forcings from clouds which are regulated by the Magnetic activity of the Sun.

They have to multiply what they've got by 3X because they are missing a major forcing. And, of course, prior to 1945 they've got nothing to multiply by 3X.

For major temp increases such as the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm - Period 3 times Nothing is still = Nothing.

Also temperature changes cut two ways. Things have become colder as well as hotter. When the sun is very quiet then clouds increase, reflect more sunlight and it gets cold here. In the 17th and 18th centuries the sun entered a deep minimum. The result? The earth plunged into what is known as the Little Ice Age.

The Sun's Magnetic Activity can explain past temperature increases and decreases – just CO2 and large feedbacks can't – simples.





Above is a graph of the Magnetic Sun v temps over most of the Holocene. The red line is a proxy for the Sun and the blue for temperature. The tight correlation is obvious.

Let me say again, CO2 increases will produce a temp rise - around 1 deg C for a doubling - not the 3-4 deg C that the IPCC (and the warming alarmists) would have you believe.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #89 on: August 29, 2012, 01:32:42 pm »

Not really Devon Red, the IPCC models need high - 3X - feedbacks because the only significant forcings in their table of forcings is Green House Gases, and in particular CO2.

The problem with the IPCC models is they are missing Forcings from clouds which are regulated by the Magnetic activity of the Sun.

They have to multiply what they've got by 3X because they are missing a major forcing. And, of course, prior to 1945 they've got nothing to multiply by 3X.

For major temp increases such as the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm - Period 3 times Nothing is still = Nothing.

Also temperature changes cut two ways. Things have become colder as well as hotter. When the sun is very quiet then clouds increase, reflect more sunlight and it gets cold here. In the 17th and 18th centuries the sun entered a deep minimum. The result? The earth plunged into what is known as the Little Ice Age.

The Sun's Magnetic Activity can explain past temperature increases and decreases – just CO2 and large feedbacks can't – simples.

Above is a graph of the Magnetic Sun v temps over most of the Holocene. The red line is a proxy for the Sun and the blue for temperature. The tight correlation is obvious.

Let me say again, CO2 increases will produce a temp rise - around 1 deg C for a doubling - not the 3-4 deg C that the IPCC (and the warming alarmists) would have you believe.


*sigh* I really despair of your constant cherry picking. A climate sensitivity of about 3ºC is not only found in models, it's found in observations looking at volcanic eruptions, the solar cycle and ocean heat content as well as paleoclimate data. Changes in ice cover, in atmospheric composition, in ecosystems, etc. following initial changes are the only way you can explain the extent of past climate change.

Then you choose an IPCC graph which looks at forcings from 1750 to 2005 and imply that these are somewhat used to look at historical climate change. They aren't - they are only used to explain recent climate change. Your image comes from here - I suggest your read the accompanying text so that you understand its context and see that it can't be used to support the point you're making.

The question you still haven't answered is this: how do you explain past shifts in global temperatures with such a low climate sensitivity? I mean quantitatively, i.e. not via a graph supposedly showing a correlation but through proper data analysis. Where are the papers that support your claim that it's down to the sun's magnetic activity?

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #90 on: August 29, 2012, 02:44:22 pm »
I've found the article from which this graph comes from.





You can find it here. It doesn't show what you claim at all. The article is interested in the solar influence on ice drift in the North Atlantic. It tells us absolutely nothing about global temperatures. The beryllium (Be) flux given in your graph is a proxy for either production rates of cosmogenic nuclides or a combination of production rates and ocean forcing, not temperature.


Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #91 on: August 29, 2012, 03:43:20 pm »
It really does. Thanks!

Oops, somehow missed that. Glad it made sense.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #92 on: August 29, 2012, 03:52:45 pm »
I've found the article from which this graph comes from.

It doesn't show what you claim at all. The article is interested in the solar influence on ice drift in the North Atlantic.


Deary my Bio - read the article.

Drift Ice debris is a temperature proxy.

Warmer temps --> more icebergs --> more debris in deep-sea sediment cores


The beryllium (Be) flux given in your graph is a proxy for either production rates of cosmogenic nuclides or a combination of production rates and ocean forcing, not temperature.


10Be doesn't exist naturally Bio. It's only method of production on Earth is via cosmic rays. Hence the author's use of the phrase "cosmogenic nuclides" i.e. nuclides produced cosmogenically i.e. by cosmic rays. Since cosmic rays hitting the earth are strongly moderated by the Sun's Magnetic activity it becomes a proxy for the Sun.

Hence the graph is one of the Sun's Activity v Temperature.

To quote the author's closing comments

"Our findings support the presumption that solar variability will continue to influence climate in the future, which up to now has been based on extrapolation of evidence from only the last 1000 years."

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #93 on: August 29, 2012, 04:59:09 pm »

Deary my Bio - read the article.

Drift Ice debris is a temperature proxy.

Warmer temps --> more icebergs --> more debris in deep-sea sediment cores



10Be doesn't exist naturally Bio. It's only method of production on Earth is via cosmic rays. Hence the author's use of the phrase "cosmogenic nuclides" i.e. nuclides produced cosmogenically i.e. by cosmic rays. Since cosmic rays hitting the earth are strongly moderated by the Sun's Magnetic activity it becomes a proxy for the Sun.

Hence the graph is one of the Sun's Activity v Temperature.

To quote the author's closing comments

"Our findings support the presumption that solar variability will continue to influence climate in the future, which up to now has been based on extrapolation of evidence from only the last 1000 years."



No, drift ice in the North Atlantic is not a proxy for global temperatures. All your graph shows is that in the North Atlantic, the sun has had an influence of drift ice during the Holocene. To extrapolate and state that it shows a link between solar activity and global temperatures is just wrong.

No one is saying that the sun doesn't influence the climate - that's a strawman. Of course it does, as it's our main source of energy. But this whole discussion started because you stated that climate sensitivity is low, and that the sun can somehow then explain past climate change. I've asked you time and again for some solid evidence but all I get is graphs from dodgy sources which show a vague, possible correlation. All I would like is one paper showing how the sun's magnetic field is responsible for all past climate change, since it seems this is what you are implying. This would require some coincidence, since every time a large shift was set in motion, the sun would have to respond in a way that amplified the initial change, whether warming or cooling, in order to overcome low sensitivity. Unless this is not what you mean, of course, and I'll happily be corrected.

So the sun plays a part in climate change, no one denies this. But it is unlikely to be behind recent change, which means it isn't always the main driver in climate change. This means that you have to look at all the factors involved in influencing the climate at any one time to draw a conclusion on which factors are playing a major role at a particular time. Stating that it's always the sun's magnetic field is pointless unless you can show conclusively that this is the case, and that's what I'm waiting for you to do. Showing a graph from a paper discussing the influence of the sun on drift ice during the Holocene is not good enough since it represents a small area during a very short geological time.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 05:40:49 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #94 on: August 29, 2012, 05:35:26 pm »

10Be doesn't exist naturally Bio. It's only method of production on Earth is via cosmic rays. Hence the author's use of the phrase "cosmogenic nuclides" i.e. nuclides produced cosmogenically i.e. by cosmic rays. Since cosmic rays hitting the earth are strongly moderated by the Sun's Magnetic activity it becomes a proxy for the Sun.

Hence the graph is one of the Sun's Activity v Temperature.


I know where 10Be comes from, but your conclusion is wrong because the solar activity is not the only influence on global temperatures. See recent decades or the period known as the faint young sun paradox for example. Knowledge of solar activity is not sufficient to draw any conclusions on global temperatures - you have to consider all the factors involved at any one time.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 05:38:56 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #95 on: August 29, 2012, 08:33:27 pm »
No, drift ice in the North Atlantic is not a proxy for global temperatures.


True, it's a proxy for temperatures in the North Atlantic.

Since Cosmic Rays have no particular attraction to the North Atlantic though (do you know different?) it seems not unreasonable (indeed common sense) that it's applicable Globally.

Common sense is allowed.

My premise is that a major forcing is missing from your table.

i.e. if   Total Forcing  =  αX + βY

where X = Forcing from CO2
and     Y = Forcing from Sun induced cloud cover

then if, erroneously, you miss out Y altogether (or hugely understate it) you will inevitably overstate α – the coefficient (feedback) of X.

I vaguely remember an article about this very subject which I'll try and find and then shamelessly plagiarise since I'm, clearly, not explaining myself very well.

Back again.

The article was by Alec Rawls

He was asked to provide an “Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5.

Here is the first paragraph of his submitted critique:

My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets mis-attributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.”


First the obligatory wiki quote
Omitted-variable bias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In statistics, omitted-variable bias (OVB) occurs when a model is created which incorrectly leaves out one or more important causal factors. The 'bias' is created when the model compensates for the missing factor by over- or underestimating one of the other factors.
More specifically, OVB is the bias that appears in the estimates of parameters in a regression analysis, when the assumed specification is incorrect, in that it omits an independent variable (possibly non-delineated) that should be in the model.

Back to Rawls

"For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)"


"The empirical evidence in favour of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (0.5 to 0.8 ) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.

The high degree of correlation also suggests that solar activity is the primary driver of global temperature on every time scale studied (which is pretty much every time scale but the Milankovitch cycle)."



"This does not rule out the possibility that CO2 also drives temperature, and in theory a doubling of CO2 should cause about a 1 degree increase in temperature before any feedback effects are accounted, but feedbacks could be negative (dampening rather than amplifying temperature forcings), so there no reason, just from what we know about the greenhouse mechanism, that CO2 has to be a significant player. The one thing we can say is that whatever the warming effect of CO2, it is not detectable in the raw CO2 vs. temperature data."

I would add over the Holocene as a whole as opposed to just the late 20th century.

"This is in glaring contrast to solar activity, which lights up like a neon sign in the raw data. Literally dozens of studies finding .5 to .8 degrees of correlation with temperature. So how is it that the IPCC’s current generation of general circulation models start with the assumption that CO2 has done 40 times as much to warm the planet as solar activity since 1750? This is the ratio of AR5′s radiative forcing estimates for variation in CO2 and variation in total solar effects between 1750 and 2010, as listed in [the table of RF estimates in the chapter on human and natural temperature forcing factors]. RF for CO2 is entered as ___ W/m^2 while RF for total solar effects is entered as ___ W/m^2. [I'm not going to quote the actual numbers, but yeah, the ratio is an astounding 40 to 1, up from 14 to 1 in AR4, which listed total solar forcing as 0.12 W/m^2, vs. 1.66 for CO2.]

The models aren’t using gigaflops of computing power to find that CO2 has that much larger a warming effect. The warming ratio is fixed at the outset. Garbage in, garbage out."

The “how” is very simple. The 40 times greater warming effect of CO2 is achieved by blatant omitted variable fraud. As I will fully document, all of the evidence for a strong solar magnetic driver of climate is simply left out of AR5".


He does indeed go on, at some considerable length, to fully document the evidence. I'll just quote some of citations.

Anyone who would like to read the whole article can get from here

http://errortheory.blogspot.co.uk/2012_02_01_archive.html

Bond et al. 2001, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science.

Excerpt from Bond: “Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output.”

Neff et al. 2001, “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago,” Nature.

Finding from Neff: Correlation coefficients of .55 and .60.

Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop.

Excerpt from Usoskin: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.”

Shaviv and Veizer, 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today.

Excerpt from Shaviv: “We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF [Cosmic Ray Flux] variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy.” [Not strictly due to solar activity, but implicating the GCR, or CRF, that solar activity modulates.]


Plenty of anti-CO2 alarmists know about this stuff. Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, for instance, in their 2007 paper: “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature” (Proc. R. Soc. A), began by documenting how “[a] number of studies have indicated that solar variations had an effect on preindustrial climate throughout the Holocene.” In support, they cited 17 papers: the Bond and Neff articles from above, plus:

Davis & Shafer 1992; Jirikowic et al. 1993; Davis 1994; vanGeel et al. 1998; Yu&Ito 1999; Hu et al. 2003; Sarnthein et al. 2003; Christla et al. 2004; Prasad et al. 2004; Wei & Wang 2004; Maasch et al. 2005; Mayewski et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005a; Bard & Frank 2006; and Polissar et al. 2006.

Some studies do examine correlations between solar activity proxies and direct temperature proxies, like the ratio of Oxygen18 to Oxygen16 in geologic samples. One such study (highlighted in Kirkby 2007) is Mangini et. al. 2005, “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.”

Excerpt from Mangini: “… a high correlation between δ18O in SPA 12 and D14C (r =0.61). The maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300). This correlation indicates that the variability of δ18O is driven by solar changes, in agreement with previous results on Holocene stalagmites from Oman, and from Central Germany.”

And that’s just old stuff. Here are four random recent papers.

Ogurtsov et al, 2010, “Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity,” JASTP.
Excerpt from Ogurtsov: “Statistical analysis of the carbon and oxygen stable isotope records reveals variations in the periods around 100, 11 and 3 years. A century scale connection between the 13C/12C record and solar activity is most evident.”

Di Rita, 2011, “A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy,” Quaternary International.
Excerpt from Di Rita: “The chronological correspondence between the ages of saltmarsh vegetation reductions and the minimum concentration values of 10Be in the GISP2 ice core supports the hypothesis that important fluctuations in the extent of the salt-marsh in the coastal Tavoliere plain are related to variations of solar activity.”

Raspopov et al, 2011, “Variations in climate parameters at time intervals from hundreds to tens of millions of years in the past and its relation to solar activity,” JASTP.
Excerpt from Raspopov: “Our analysis of 200-year climatic oscillations in modern times and also data of other researchers referred to above suggest that these climatic oscillations can be attributed to solar forcing. The results obtained in our study for climatic variations millions of years ago indicate, in our opinion, that the 200- year solar cycle exerted a strong influence on climate parameters at those time intervals as well.”

Tan et al, 2011, “Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force,” Clim. Past.
Excerpt from Tan: “Solar activity may be the dominant force that drove the same-phase variations of the temperature and precipitation in north central China.”

and on, and on, and on ….....

Enough references for you Bio?

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #96 on: August 29, 2012, 08:50:55 pm »
I appreciate the references, but all they tell us is that there's a link between climate and solar activity. No one is denying this. What I need is a paper which shows that solar activity is responsible for the bulk of past climate change. So for example, the temperature difference between glacials and interglacials is about 5ºC - this is generally explained by changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt initiating change. These changes are then amplified by ice advance or retreat, changes in ecosystems, changes in atmospheric composition, etc. You claim that the feedbacks have no impact and that instead solar activity can explain most of these changes in temperature - can you substantiate it with actual data?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 08:55:35 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #97 on: August 30, 2012, 04:00:03 am »
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/a-new-low-for-global-warming-sea-ice-retreats-to-furthest-point-on-record-8082395.html

A new low for global warming: Sea ice retreats to furthest point on record

Scientists warn that neither the cause nor the consequence of today’s new record retreat for Arctic sea ice should be ignored. But with drilling opportunities at stake, which interest will prevail? (Deggsie's dogma says that it will be the drilling interests - my money is on this too, even if the science is unarguably the other way)

The news that came yesterday should be, environmental campaigners said, a global wake-up call. The ice cap covering the top of the world is now smaller than it has been at any point since scientists started to measure it precisely from space.

Click here to see the the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice

Click here to see the 'Area of the Arctic covered by sea ice (at least 15%) during summer' graphic

Satellite data released last night show that the sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean has reached a record low, retreating further than it has done since detailed records began more than 30 years ago.

The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado said that the 2007 record was broken on Sunday with two or three weeks of the melt season still remaining, suggesting that this year's sea ice will retreat substantially further than at any time in the satellite era. The snow and ice centre said that the surface area of the Arctic Ocean covered by floating sea ice fell to 4.10 million square kilometres (1.58m square miles), which was 70,000 square kilometres below the previous record minimum of 4.17 square kilometres set in September 2007.

This means that since 1979, when satellite readings began, the six lowest sea-ice extents have all occurred in the past six years, from 2007 to 2012. The sea ice retreat was particularly rapid this August and may have been exacerbated by an intense storm over the Arctic region.

However, scientists believe that global warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the only plausible explanation for the continued loss of Arctic sea ice, which is one of the most visible consequences of man-made climate change.

"By itself, it's just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set. But in the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing," said Walt Meier, a sea-ice specialist at the snow and ice data centre.

"The Arctic used to be dominated by multi-year ice, or ice that stayed around for several years. Now it's becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer," Dr Meier said.

Mark Serreze, director of the data centre, said that the previous record set in 2007 occurred because of near-perfect summer weather for melting sea ice, with clear skies and intense sunshine dominating the region's weather.

"Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow," Professor Serreze said.

It is normal for sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean to ebb and flow with the seasons. It thickens and grows in the cold winter months and melts and retreats again in the summer, reaching a seasonal minimum each summer during early September.

However, since 1979 Arctic scientists have observed that the September minimum is significantly smaller in terms of surface area of the ocean covered by sea ice. This trend has accelerated in recent years. Computer models of how the sea ice would respond to global warming initially suggested that the region could be free of summer sea ice by the end of the century. Later models suggested this could occur as early as 2030 or even earlier, but none had predicted the rapidity of the observed loss of sea ice.

Sea ice is seen as important because of its disappearance could lead to other important changes to the Arctic environment. One immediate effect is the opening up of shipping lanes that could lead to new oil and gas explorations within the region, triggering political tensions as well as further releases of carbon dioxide from the mining and burning of fossil fuel.

The record minimum was announced just two days after the Royal Dutch Shell's drilling ship, the Noble Discoverer, took advantage of reduced sea ice and started sailing from Alaska to the Chukchi Sea, in anticipation of final US government approval for oil exploration in the region.

Scientists have already observed a link between disappearing sea ice and the release of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, from beneath the Arctic Ocean. Researchers flying over the melting sea ice reported last May that significant quantities of methane are being released from between the cracks in the ice.

"When we flew over completely solid sea ice, we didn't see anything in terms of methane. But when we flew over areas were the sea ice had melted, or where there were cracks in the ice, we saw the methane levels increase," said Eric Kort, of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

"We were surprised to see these enhanced methane levels at these high latitudes. Our observations really point to the ocean surface as the source, which is not what we had expected," he said.

Other scientists have observed huge plumes of methane being released from beneath the permafrost of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia. The Arctic is known to have huge stores of trapped methane in the form of gas hydrates, which some experts fear may be released if Arctic permafrost continues to melt.

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said that the latest data on how fast the sea ice is in retreat should be a warning to the world.

"Let's be clear about what today means – our planet is warming up at a rate that puts billions of people's future in jeopardy," Dr Sauven said.

"These figures are the effects of man-made global warming caused by our reliance on dirty fossil fuels," he said.


Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #98 on: August 30, 2012, 04:03:51 am »
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war

(notes, links and graphs at link) Cross post

Climate Science as Culture War

The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it’s about values, culture, and ideology.

In May 2009, a development officer at the University of Michigan asked me to meet with a potential donor—a former football player and now successful businessman who had an interest in environmental issues and business, my interdisciplinary area of expertise. The meeting began at 7 a.m., and while I was still nursing my first cup of coffee, the potential donor began the conversation with “I think the scientific review process is corrupt.” I asked what he thought of a university based on that system, and he said that he thought that the university was then corrupt, too. He went on to describe the science of climate change as a hoax, using all the familiar lines of attack—sunspots and solar flares, the unscientific and politically flawed consensus model, and the environmental benefits of carbon dioxide.

As we debated each point, he turned his attack on me, asking why I hated capitalism and why I wanted to destroy the economy by teaching environmental issues in a business school. Eventually, he asked if I knew why Earth Day was on April 22. I sighed as he explained, “Because it is Karl Marx’s birthday.” (I suspect he meant to say Vladimir Lenin, whose birthday is April 22, also Earth Day. This linkage has been made by some on the far right who believe that Earth Day is a communist plot, even though Lenin never promoted environmentalism and communism does not have a strong environmental legacy.)

I turned to the development officer and asked, “What’s our agenda here this morning?” The donor interrupted to say that he wanted to buy me a ticket to the Heartland Institute’s Fourth Annual Conference on Climate Change, the leading climate skeptics conference. I checked my calendar and, citing prior commitments, politely declined. The meeting soon ended.

I spent the morning trying to make sense of the encounter. At first, all I could see was a bait and switch; the donor had no interest in funding research in business and the environment, but instead wanted to criticize the effort. I dismissed him as an irrational zealot, but the meeting lingered in my mind. The more I thought about it, the more I began to see that he was speaking from a coherent and consistent worldview—one I did not agree with, but which was a coherent viewpoint nonetheless. Plus, he had come to evangelize me. The more I thought about it, the more I became eager to learn about where he was coming from, where I was coming from, and why our two worldviews clashed so strongly in the present social debate over climate science. Ironically, in his desire to challenge my research, he stimulated a new research stream, one that fit perfectly with my broader research agenda on social, institutional, and cultural change.
Scientific vs. Social Consensus

Today, there is no doubt that a scientific consensus exists on the issue of climate change. Scientists have documented that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are leading to a buildup in the atmosphere, which leads to a general warming of the global climate and an alteration in the statistical distribution of localized weather patterns over long periods of time. This assessment is endorsed by a large body of scientific agencies—including every one of the national scientific agencies of the G8 + 5 countries—and by the vast majority of climatologists. The majority of research articles published in refereed scientific journals also support this scientific assessment. Both the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science use the word “consensus” when describing the state of climate science.

And yet a social consensus on climate change does not exist. Surveys show that the American public’s belief in the science of climate change has mostly declined over the past five years, with large percentages of the population remaining skeptical of the science. Belief declined from 71 percent to 57 percent between April 2008 and October 2009, according to an October 2009 Pew Research Center poll; more recently, belief rose to 62 percent, according to a February 2012 report by the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change. Such a significant number of dissenters tells us that we do not have a set of socially accepted beliefs on climate change—beliefs that emerge, not from individual preferences, but from societal norms; beliefs that represent those on the political left, right, and center as well as those whose cultural identifications are urban, rural, religious, agnostic, young, old, ethnic, or racial.

Why is this so? Why do such large numbers of Americans reject the consensus of the scientific community? With upwards of two-thirds of Americans not clearly understanding science or the scientific process and fewer able to pass even a basic scientific literacy test, according to a 2009 California Academy of Sciences survey, we are left to wonder: How do people interpret and validate the opinions of the scientific community? The answers to this question can be found, not from the physical sciences, but from the social science disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and others.

To understand the processes by which a social consensus can emerge on climate change, we must understand that people’s opinions on this and other complex scientific issues are based on their prior ideological preferences, personal experience, and values—all of which are heavily influenced by their referent groups and their individual psychology. Physical scientists may set the parameters for understanding the technical aspects of the climate debate, but they do not have the final word on whether society accepts or even understands their conclusions. The constituency that is relevant in the social debate goes beyond scientific experts. And the processes by which this constituency understands and assesses the science of climate change go far beyond its technical merits. We must acknowledge that the debate over climate change, like almost all environmental issues, is a debate over culture, worldviews, and ideology.

This fact can be seen most vividly in the growing partisan divide over the issue. Political affiliation is one of the strongest correlates with individual uncertainty about climate change, not scientific knowledge.1 The percentage of conservatives and Republicans who believe that the effects of global warming have already begun declined from roughly 50 percent in 2001 to about 30 percent in 2010, while the corresponding percentage for liberals and Democrats increased from roughly 60 percent in 2001 to about 70 percent in 2010.2 (See “The Growing Partisan Divide over Climate Change,” below.)



Climate change has become enmeshed in the so-called culture wars. Acceptance of the scientific consensus is now seen as an alignment with liberal views consistent with other “cultural” issues that divide the country (abortion, gun control, health care, and evolution). This partisan divide on climate change was not the case in the 1990s. It is a recent phenomenon, following in the wake of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty that threatened the material interests of powerful economic and political interests, particularly members of the fossil fuel industry.3 The great danger of a protracted partisan divide is that the debate will take the form of what I call a “logic schism,” a breakdown in debate in which opposing sides are talking about completely different cultural issues.4

This article seeks to delve into the climate change debate through the lens of the social sciences. I take this approach not because the physical sciences have become less relevant, but because we need to understand the social and psychological processes by which people receive and understand the science of global warming. I explain the cultural dimensions of the climate debate as it is currently configured, outline three possible paths by which the debate can progress, and describe specific techniques that can drive that debate toward broader consensus. This goal is imperative, for without a broader consensus on climate change in the United States, Americans and people around the globe will be unable to formulate effective social, political, and economic solutions to the changing circumstances of our planet.
Cultural Processing of Climate Science

When analyzing complex scientific information, people are “boundedly rational,” to use Nobel Memorial Prize economist Herbert Simon’s phrase; we are “cognitive misers,” according to UCLA psychologist Susan Fiske and Princeton University psychologist Shelley Taylor, with limited cognitive ability to fully investigate every issue we face. People everywhere employ ideological filters that reflect their identity, worldview, and belief systems. These filters are strongly influenced by group values, and we generally endorse the position that most directly reinforces the connection we have with others in our referent group—what Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan refers to as “cultural cognition.” In so doing, we cement our connection with our cultural groups and strengthen our definition of self. This tendency is driven by an innate desire to maintain a consistency in beliefs by giving greater weight to evidence and arguments that support preexisting beliefs, and by expending disproportionate energy trying to refute views or arguments that are contrary to those beliefs. Instead of investigating a complex issue, we often simply learn what our referent group believes and seek to integrate those beliefs with our own views.

Over time, these ideological filters become increasingly stable and resistant to change through multiple reinforcing mechanisms. First, we’ll consider evidence when it is accepted or, ideally, presented by a knowledgeable source from our cultural community; and we’ll dismiss information that is advocated by sources that represent groups whose values we reject. Second, we will selectively choose information sources that support our ideological position. For example, frequent viewers of Fox News are more likely to say that the Earth’s temperature has not been rising, that any temperature increase is not due to human activities, and that addressing climate change would have deleterious effects on the economy.5 One might expect the converse to be true of National Public Radio listeners. The result of this cultural processing and group cohesion dynamics leads to two overriding conclusions about the climate change debate.

First, climate change is not a “pollution” issue. Although the US Supreme Court decided in 2007 that greenhouse gases were legally an air pollutant, in a cultural sense, they are something far different. The reduction of greenhouse gases is not the same as the reduction of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, or particulates. These forms of pollution are man-made, they are harmful, and they are the unintended waste products of industrial production. Ideally, we would like to eliminate their production through the mobilization of economic and technical resources. But the chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is both man-made and natural. It is not inherently harmful; it is a natural part of the natural systems; and we do not desire to eliminate its production. It is not a toxic waste or a strictly technical problem to be solved. Rather, it is an endemic part of our society and who we are. To a large degree, it is a highly desirable output, as it correlates with our standard of living. Greenhouse gas emissions rise with a rise in a nation’s wealth, something all people want. To reduce carbon dioxide requires an alteration in nearly every facet of the economy, and therefore nearly every facet of our culture. To recognize greenhouse gases as a problem requires us to change a great deal about how we view the world and ourselves within it. And that leads to the second distinction.

Climate change is an existential challenge to our contemporary worldviews. The cultural challenge of climate change is enormous and threefold, each facet leading to the next. The first facet is that we have to think of a formerly benign, even beneficial, material in a new way—as a relative, not absolute, hazard. Only in an imbalanced concentration does it become problematic. But to understand and accept this, we need to conceive of the global ecosystem in a new way.

This challenge leads us to the second facet: Not only do we have to change our view of the ecosystem, but we also have to change our view of our place within it. Have we as a species grown to such numbers, and has our technology grown to such power, that we can alter and manage the ecosystem on a planetary scale? This is an enormous cultural question that alters our worldviews. As a result, some see the question and subsequent answer as intellectual and spiritual hubris, but others see it as self-evident.

If we answer this question in the affirmative, the third facet challenges us to consider new and perhaps unprecedented forms of global ethics and governance to address it. Climate change is the ultimate “commons problem,” as ecologist Garrett Hardin defined it, where every individual has an incentive to emit greenhouse gases to improve her standard of living, but the costs of this activity are borne by all. Unfortunately, the distribution of costs in this global issue is asymmetrical, with vulnerable populations in poor countries bearing the larger burden. So we need to rethink our ethics to keep pace with our technological abilities. Does mowing the lawn or driving a fuel-inefficient car in Ann Arbor, Mich., have ethical implications for the people living in low-lying areas of Bangladesh? If you accept anthropogenic climate change, then the answer to this question is yes, and we must develop global institutions to reflect that recognition. This is an issue of global ethics and governance on a scale that we have never seen, affecting virtually every economic activity on the globe and requiring the most complicated and intrusive global agreement ever negotiated.

Taken together, these three facets of our existential challenge illustrate the magnitude of the cultural debate that climate change provokes. Climate change challenges us to examine previously unexamined beliefs and worldviews. It acts as a flash point (albeit a massive one) for deeper cultural and ideological conflicts that lie at the root of many of our environmental problems, and it includes differing conceptions of science, economics, religion, psychology, media, development, and governance. It is a proxy for “deeper conflicts over alternative visions of the future and competing centers of authority in society,” as University of East Anglia climatologist Mike Hulme underscores in Why We Disagree About Climate Change. And, as such, it provokes a violent debate among cultural communities on one side who perceive their values to be threatened by change, and cultural communities on the other side who perceive their values to be threatened by the status quo.
Three Ways Forward

If the public debate over climate change is no longer about greenhouse gases and climate models, but about values, worldviews, and ideology, what form will this clash of ideologies take? I see three possible forms.

The Optimistic Form is where people do not have to change their values at all. In other words, the easiest way to eliminate the common problems of climate change is to develop technological solutions that do not require major alterations to our values, worldviews, or behavior: carbon-free renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, geo-engineering, and others. Some see this as an unrealistic future. Others see it as the only way forward, because people become attached to their level of prosperity, feel entitled to keep it, and will not accept restraints or support government efforts to impose restraints.6 Government-led investment in alternative energy sources, therefore, becomes more acceptable than the enactment of regulations and taxes to reduce fossil fuel use.

The Pessimistic Form is where people fight to protect their values. This most dire outcome results in a logic schism, where opposing sides debate different issues, seek only information that supports their position and disconfirms the others’, and even go so far as to demonize the other. University of Colorado, Boulder, environmental scientist Roger Pielke in The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics describes the extreme of such schisms as “abortion politics,” where the two sides are debating completely different issues and “no amount of scientific information … can reconcile the different values.” Consider, for example, the recent decision by the Heartland Institute to post a billboard in Chicago comparing those who believe in climate change with the Unabomber. In reply, climate activist groups posted billboards attacking Heartland and its financial supporters. This attack-counterattack strategy is symptomatic of a broken public discourse over climate change.

The Consensus-Based Form involves a reasoned societal debate, focused on the full scope of technical and social dimensions of the problem and the feasibility and desirability of multiple solutions. It is this form to which scientists have the most to offer, playing the role of what Pielke calls the “honest broker”—a person who can “integrate scientific knowledge with stakeholder concerns to explore alternative possible courses of action.” Here, resolution is found through a focus on its underlying elements, moving away from positions (for example, climate change is or is not happening), and toward the underlying interests and values at play. How do we get there? Research in negotiation and dispute resolution can offer techniques for moving forward.
Techniques for a Consensus-Based Discussion

In seeking a social consensus on climate change, discussion must move beyond a strict focus on the technical aspects of the science to include its cultural underpinnings. Below are eight techniques for overcoming the ideological filters that underpin the social debate about climate change.

Know your audience | Any message on climate change must be framed in a way that fits with the cultural norms of the target audience. The 2011 study Climate Change in the American Mind segments the American public into six groups based on their views on climate change science. (See “Six Americas,” below.) On the two extremes are the climate change “alarmed” and “dismissive.” Consensus-based discussion is not likely open to these groups, as they are already employing logic schism tactics that are closed to debate or engagement. The polarity of these groups is well known: On the one side, climate change is a hoax, humans have no impact on the climate, and nothing is happening; on the other side, climate change is an imminent crisis that will devastate the Earth, and human activity explains all climate changes.



The challenge is to move the debate away from the loud minorities at the extremes and to engage the majority in the middle—the “concerned,” the “cautious,” the “disengaged,” and the “doubtful.” People in these groups are more open to consensus-based debate, and through direct engagement can be separated from the ideological extremes of their cultural community.

Ask the right scientific questions | For a consensus-based discussion, climate change science should be presented not as a binary yes or no question,7 but as a series of six questions. Some are scientific in nature, with associated levels of uncertainty and probability; others are matters of scientific judgment.

    Are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing in the atmosphere? Yes. This is a scientific question, based on rigorous data and measurements of atmospheric chemistry and science.
    Does this increase lead to a general warming of the planet? Yes. This is also a scientific question; the chemical mechanics of the greenhouse effect and “negative radiative forcing” are well established.
    Has climate changed over the past century? Yes. Global temperature increases have been rigorously measured through multiple techniques and strongly supported by multiple scientific analyses.In fact, as Yale University economist William Nordhaus wrote in the March 12, 2012, New York Times, “The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings in climate science and statistics.”
    Are humans partially responsible for this increase? The answer to this question is a matter of scientific judgment. Increases in global mean temperatures have a very strong correlation with increases in man-made greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution. Although science cannot confirm causation, fingerprint analysis of multiple possible causes has been examined, and the only plausible explanation is that of human-induced temperature changes. Until a plausible alternative hypothesis is presented, this explanation prevails for the scientific community.
    Will the climate continue to change over the next century? Again, this question is a matter of scientific judgment. But given the answers to the previous four questions, it is reasonable to believe that continued increases in greenhouse gases will lead to continued changes in the climate.
    What will be the environmental and social impact of such change? This is the scientific question with the greatest uncertainty. The answer comprises a bell curve of possible outcomes and varying associated probabilities, from low to extreme impact. Uncertainty in this variation is due to limited current data on the Earth’s climate system, imperfect modeling of these physical processes, and the unpredictability of human actions that can both exasperate or moderate the climate shifts. These uncertainties make predictions difficult and are an area in which much debate can take place. And yet the physical impacts of climate change are already becoming visible in ways that are consistent with scientific modeling, particularly in Greenland, the Arctic, the Antarctic, and low-lying islands.

In asking these questions, a central consideration is whether people recognize the level of scientific consensus associated with each one. In fact, studies have shown that people’s support for climate policies and action are linked to their perceptions about scientific agreement. Still, the belief that “most scientists think global warming is happening” declined from 47 percent to 39 percent among Americans between 2008 and 2011.8

Move beyond data and models | Climate skepticism is not a knowledge deficit issue. Michigan State University sociologist Aaron McCright and Oklahoma State University sociologist Riley Dunlap have observed that increased education and self-reported understanding of climate science have been shown to correlate with lower concern among conservatives and Republicans and greater concern among liberals and Democrats. Research also has found that once people have made up their minds on the science of the climate issue, providing continued scientific evidence actually makes them more resolute in resisting conclusions that are at variance with their cultural beliefs.9 One needs to recognize that reasoning is suffused with emotion and people often use reasoning to reach a predetermined end that fits their cultural worldviews. When people hear about climate change, they may, for example, hear an implicit criticism that their lifestyle is the cause of the issue or that they are morally deficient for not recognizing it. But emotion can be a useful ally; it can create the abiding commitments needed to sustain action on the difficult issue of climate change. To do this, people must be convinced that something can be done to address it; that the challenge is not too great nor are its impacts preordained. The key to engaging people in a consensus-driven debate about climate change is to confront the emotionality of the issue and then address the deeper ideological values that may be threatened to create this emotionality.

Focus on broker frames | People interpret information by fitting it to preexisting narratives or issue categories that mesh with their worldview. Therefore information must be presented in a form that fits those templates, using carefully researched metaphors, allusions, and examples that trigger a new way of thinking about the personal relevance of climate change. To be effective, climate communicators must use the language of the cultural community they are engaging. For a business audience, for example, one must use business terminology, such as net present value, return on investment, increased consumer demand, and rising raw material costs.

More generally, one can seek possible broker frames that move away from a pessimistic appeal to fear and instead focus on optimistic appeals that trigger the emotionality of a desired future. In addressing climate change, we are asking who we strive to be as a people, and what kind of world we want to leave our children. To gain buy-in, one can stress American know-how and our capacity to innovate, focusing on activities already under way by cities, citizens, and businesses.10

This approach frames climate change mitigation as a gain rather than a loss to specific cultural groups. Research has shown that climate skepticism can be caused by a motivational tendency to defend the status quo based on the prior assumption that any change will be painful. But by encouraging people to regard pro-environmental change as patriotic and consistent with protecting the status quo, it can be framed as a continuation rather than a departure from the past.

Specific broker frames can be used that engage the interests of both sides of the debate. For example, when US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu referred in November 2010 to advances in renewable energy technology in China as the United States’ “Sputnik moment,” he was framing climate change as a common threat to US scientific and economic competitiveness. When Pope Benedict XVI linked the threat of climate change with threats to life and dignity on New Year’s Day 2010, he was painting it as an issue of religious morality. When CNA’s Military Advisory Board, a group of elite retired US military officers, called climate change a “threat multiplier” in its 2006 report, it was using a national security frame. When the Lancet Commission pronounced climate change to be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century in a 2009 article, the organization was using a quality of life frame. And when the Center for American Progress, a progressive Washington, D.C., think tank, connected climate change to the conservation ideals of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, they were framing the issue as consistent with Republican values.

One broker frame that deserves particular attention is the replacement of uncertainty or probability of climate change with the risk of climate change.11 People understand low probability, high consequence events and the need to address them. For example, they buy fire insurance for their homes even though the probability of a fire is low, because they understand that the financial consequence is too great. In the same way, climate change for some may be perceived as a low risk, high consequence event, so the prudent course of action is to obtain insurance in the form of both behavioral and technological change.

Recognize the power of language and terminology | Words have multiple meanings in different communities, and terms can trigger unintended reactions in a target audience. For example, one study has shown that Republicans were less likely to think that the phenomenon is real when it is referred to as “global warming” (44 percent) rather than “climate change” (60 percent), but Democrats were unaffected by the term (87 percent vs. 86 percent). So language matters: The partisan divide dropped from 43 percent under a “global warming” frame to 26 percent under a “climate change” frame.12

Other terms with multiple meanings include “climate denier,” which some use to refer to those who are not open to discussion on the issue, and others see as a thinly veiled and highly insulting reference to “Holocaust denier”; “uncertainty,” which is a scientific concept to convey variance or deviation from a specific value, but is interpreted by a lay audience to mean that scientists do not know the answer; and “consensus,” which is the process by which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forms its position, but leads some in the public to believe that climate science is a matter of “opinion” rather than data and modeling.

Overall, the challenge becomes one of framing complex scientific issues in a language that a lay and highly politicized audience can hear. This becomes increasingly challenging when we address some inherently nonintuitive and complex aspects of climate modeling that are hard to explain, such as the importance of feedback loops, time delays, accumulations, and nonlinearities in dynamic systems.13 Unless scientists can accurately convey the nature of climate modeling, others in the social debate will alter their claims to fit their cultural or cognitive perceptions or satisfy their political interests.

Employ climate brokers | People are more likely to feel open to consider evidence when a recognized member of their cultural community presents it.14 Certainly, statements by former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. James Inhofe evoke visceral responses from individuals on either side of the partisan divide. But individuals with credibility on both sides of the debate can act as what I call climate brokers. Because a majority of Republicans do not believe the science of climate change, whereas a majority of Democrats do, the most effective broker would come from the political right. Climate brokers can include representatives from business, the religious community, the entertainment industry, the military, talk show hosts, and politicians who can frame climate change in language that will engage the audience to whom they most directly connect. When people hear about the need to address climate change from their church, synagogue, mosque, or temple, for example, they w ill connect the issue to their moral values. When they hear it from their business leaders and investment managers, they will connect it to their economic interests. And when they hear it from their military leaders, they will connect it to their interest in a safe and secure nation.

Recognize multiple referent groups | The presentation of information can be designed in a fashion that recognizes that individuals are members of multiple referent groups. The underlying frames employed in one cultural community may be at variance with the values dominant within the communities engaged in climate change debate. For example, although some may reject the science of climate change by perceiving the scientific review process to be corrupt as part of one cultural community, they also may recognize the legitimacy of the scientific process as members of other cultural communities (such as users of the modern health care system). Although someone may see the costs of fossil fuel reductions as too great and potentially damaging to the economy as members of one community, they also may see the value in reducing dependence on foreign oil as members of another community who value strong national defense. This frame incongruence emerged in the 2011 US Republican primary as candidate Jon Huntsman warned that Republicans risk becoming the “antiscience party” if they continue to reject the science on climate change. What Huntsman alluded to is that most Americans actually do trust the scientific process, even if they don’t fully understand it. (A 2004 National Science Foundation report found that two thirds of Americans do not clearly understand the scientific process.)

Employ events as leverage for change | Studies have found that most Americans believe that climate change will affect geographically and temporally distant people and places. But studies also have shown that people are more likely to believe in the science when they have an experience with extreme weather phenomena. This has led climate communicators to link climate change to major events, such as Hurricane Katrina, or to more recent floods in the American Midwest and Asia, as well as to droughts in Texas and Africa, to hurricanes along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, and to snowstorms in Western states and New England. The cumulative body of weather evidence, reported by media outlets and linked to climate change, will increase the number of people who are concerned about the issue, see it as less uncertain, and feel more confident that we must take actions to mitigate its effects. For example, in explaining the recent increase in belief in climate change among Americans, the 2012 National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change noted that “about half of Americans now point to observations of temperature changes and weather as the main reasons they believe global warming is taking place.”15
Ending Climate Science Wars

Will we see a social consensus on climate change? If beliefs about the existence of global warming are becoming more ideologically entrenched and gaps between conservatives and liberals are widening, the solution space for resolving the issue will collapse and the debate will be based on power and coercion. In such a scenario, domination by the science-based forces looks less likely than domination by the forces of skepticism, because the former has to “prove” its case while the latter merely needs to cast doubt. But such a polarized outcome is not a predetermined outcome. And if it were to form, it can be reversed.

Is there a reason to be hopeful? When looking for reasons to be hopeful about a social consensus on climate change, I look to public opinion changes around cigarette smoking and cancer. For years, the scientific community recognized that the preponderance of epidemiological and mechanistic data pointed to a link between the habit and the disease. And for years, the public rejected that conclusion. But through a process of political, economic, social, and legal debate over values and beliefs, a social consensus emerged. The general public now accepts that cigarettes cause cancer and governments have set policy to address this. Interestingly, two powerful forces that many see as obstacles to a comparable social consensus on climate change were overcome in the cigarette debate.

The first obstacle is the powerful lobby of industrial forces that can resist a social and political consensus. In the case of the cigarette debate, powerful economic interests mounted a campaign to obfuscate the scientific evidence and to block a social and political consensus. Tobacco companies created their own pro-tobacco science, but eventually the public health community overcame pro-tobacco scientists.

The second obstacle to convincing a skeptical public is the lack of a definitive statement by the scientific community about the future implications of climate change. The 2007 IPCC report states that “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is very likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.” Some point to the word “likely” to argue that scientists still don’t know and action in unwarranted. But science is not designed to provide a definitive smoking gun. Remember that the 1964 surgeon general’s report about the dangers of smoking was equally conditional. And even today, we cannot state with scientific certainty that smoking causes lung cancer. Like the global climate, the human body is too complex a system for absolute certainty. We can explain epidemiologically why a person could get cancer from cigarette smoking and statistically how that person will likely get cancer, but, as the surgeon general report explains, “statistical methods cannot establish proof of a causal relationship in an association [between cigarette smoking and lung cancer]. The causal significance of an association is a matter of judgment, which goes beyond any statement of statistical probability.” Yet the general public now accepts this causal linkage.

What will get us there? Although climate brokers are needed from all areas of society—from business, religion, military, and politics—one field in particular needs to become more engaged: the academic scientist and particularly the social scientist. Too much of the debate is dominated by the physical sciences in defining the problem and by economics in defining the solutions. Both fields focus heavily on the rational and quantitative treatments of the issue and fail to capture the behavioral and cultural aspects that explain why people accept or reject scientific evidence, analysis, and conclusions. But science is never socially or politically inert, and scientists have a duty to recognize its effect on society and to communicate that effect to society. Social scientists can help in this endeavor.

But the relative absence of the social sciences in the climate debate is driven by specific structural and institutional controls that channel research work away from empirical relevance. Social scientists limit involvement in such “outside” activities, because the underlying norms of what is considered legitimate and valuable research, as well as the overt incentives and reward structures within the academy, lead away from such endeavors. Tenure and promotion are based primarily on the publication of top-tier academic journal articles. This is the signal of merit and success. Any effort on any other endeavor is decidedly discouraged.

The role of the public intellectual has become an arcane and elusive option in today’s social sciences. Moreover, it is a difficult role to play. The academic rules are not clear and the public backlash can be uncomfortable; many of my colleagues and I are regular recipients of hostile e-mail messages and web-based attacks. But the lack of academic scientists in the public debate harms society by leaving out critical voices for informing and resolving the climate debate. There are signs, however, that this model of scholarly isolation is changing. Some leaders within the field have begun to call for more engagement within the public arena as a way to invigorate the discipline and underscore its investment in the defense of civil society. As members of society, all scientists have a responsibility to bring their expertise to the decision-making process. It is time for social scientists to accept this responsibility.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #99 on: August 30, 2012, 09:31:07 am »
It's "The Return of the (Cut & Paste) King".
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #100 on: August 30, 2012, 06:51:20 pm »

It's all bollocks. No-one knows what is going to happen and even if they did no-one could agree on what to do about it anyway.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #101 on: August 30, 2012, 08:09:53 pm »
It's all bollocks.

Why is it bollocks? What have you seen, studied, or researched that counters the consensus body of scientific research? Even Deggsie the denier dinosaur admits that climate change is definitely happening, that there is global warming, and that it is is caused (at least partially) by human factors. He'll argue the toss about the implications and the detail of causation but this he has stated for the record.

No-one knows what is going to happen and even if they did no-one could agree on what to do about it anyway.

We can predict and do so with a increasing degree of accuracy. Modelling techniques improve with information gathering and computing power. We know what will happen generally, and increasingly know what will happen locally.

There is much consensus as to what to do to fix it: But, the political and economic consequences are unpalatable to most people.

You fancy yourself as a bit of a football thinker - you write long enough posts about this and that, so clearly you are not shy of typing. Why don't you attempt to order your thoughts on the thread topic and state your position beyond

It's all bollocks.

 :wave

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #102 on: August 30, 2012, 09:01:49 pm »

We can predict and do so with a increasing degree of accuracy. Modelling techniques improve with information gathering and computing power. We know what will happen generally, and increasingly know what will happen locally.


Now this, Carlos, is bollocks.  :)

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #103 on: August 30, 2012, 09:40:43 pm »
Thankyou LFC Derek - I quite agree!

 
Why is it bollocks? What have you seen, studied, or researched that counters the consensus body of scientific research? Even Deggsie the denier dinosaur admits that climate change is definitely happening, that there is global warming, and that it is is caused (at least partially) by human factors. He'll argue the toss about the implications and the detail of causation but this he has stated for the record.

We can predict and do so with a increasing degree of accuracy. Modelling techniques improve with information gathering and computing power. We know what will happen generally, and increasingly know what will happen locally.

There is much consensus as to what to do to fix it: But, the political and economic consequences are unpalatable to most people.

You fancy yourself as a bit of a football thinker - you write long enough posts about this and that, so clearly you are not shy of typing. Why don't you attempt to order your thoughts on the thread topic and state your position beyond

 :wave

For some reason RojoLeon you seem to equate the quality of your postings with the quantity of your postings.

Why don't YOU attempt to order your thoughts into some succinct and cogent arguments rather than CNTRL-C/CNTRL-Ving lengthy article after lengthy article?

“I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to make it shorter.”  - George Bernard Shaw

Climate is a dynamic highly unstable system which is currently way beyond any modelling capabilities. Modelling "with increasing accuracy" is worthless as the model could be 90% right and give you a new ice age rather than a global desert. Weather (which is different) is another such system - or perhaps you'd like to tell me what the weather will be like 8 weeks from today?

So that takes care of the first part of my thesis - "It's all bollocks - no-one knows whats going to happen". Now for the second part:

As you acknowledge yourself"there is much consensus about what to do but the political and economic consequences are unpalatable" - in other words, there is NO practical consensus what to at all. It's like sacking Brendan Rodgers and hiring an 8 year old to manage the team - "It's easy - we buy Messi, Xavi, Iniesta for midfield and Falcao to bang 'em in up front. Sorted". Except it's not is it? Because despite the widespread consensus that it would be a good idea to buy the world's best players from everyone involved at the club "the political and economic consequences are unpalatable". So your answer is actually no answer.  Hence the second part of my thesis "even if they did [know what was going on] no-one could agree on what to do about it anyway." As you've conceeded.

And just a reminder - they DONT know what the consequences are likely to be in the long term because (see above) you can't accurately predict that. So it's all bollocks - as I helpfully pointed out to you in the first sentence of my original post.

So you see - posting pages and pages about the wonderful beauty of the Emperor's New Clothes doesn't do anything to cover up the nakedness of your argument.

:wave
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #104 on: August 30, 2012, 10:13:44 pm »
Now this, Carlos, is bollocks.  :)



Now I call this dishonesty. You're not interested in understanding what's happening, are you? You're a typical denier who will peddle any myth and stick your fingers in your ears shouting 'lalalala' when you don't like what you're told. Still, the laws of physics couldn't care less about the rubbish you peddle.

I'm still waiting for your one paper showing that the sun has been responsible for all past climate change. I won't hold my breath because I know there is no such paper, and I know you won't acknowledge you were wrong once again.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #105 on: August 30, 2012, 10:17:55 pm »

Climate is a dynamic highly unstable system which is currently way beyond any modelling capabilities. Modelling "with increasing accuracy" is worthless as the model could be 90% right and give you a new ice age rather than a global desert. Weather (which is different) is another such system - or perhaps you'd like to tell me what the weather will be like 8 weeks from today?


What about all the evidence that doesn't come from models? Should we also dismiss all of this because we can't be certain of everything?

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #106 on: August 30, 2012, 10:33:38 pm »
What about all the evidence that doesn't come from models? Should we also dismiss all of this because we can't be certain of everything?

Well surely it should be obvious that the more political and economic upheaval you're going to cause the more certain you need to be of the outcome?

Otherwise you're just shuffling the pack without any idea of whether you will end up with a better hand.

For example, more environmental laws in this country = more economic burden for our companies. More economic burden for our companies = decreased competititiveness. Decreased competitiveness = more business gets pushed across to India and China who seriously don't give a fuck. Chance of vibrant western economy finding a technological solution to deal with climate change recedes.

Hence - as i explained: it's all bollocks. Even if you knew what was going to happen (and you don't) no-one would be able to agree on what to do about it anyway.

Don't you get it? Asking for papers telling you the exact percentage of the sun's contribution to climate change is worthless. Even if it's 0.000001% that might be enough to tip the whole system wildly from one extreme to another so why are you wasting your time chasing it? We will NEVER know things to that degree of detail and even if we did we wil never have a predictive model we could plug the information into anyway.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #107 on: August 30, 2012, 10:55:58 pm »
Well surely it should be obvious that the more political and economic upheaval you're going to cause the more certain you need to be of the outcome?

Otherwise you're just shuffling the pack without any idea of whether you will end up with a better hand.

For example, more environmental laws in this country = more economic burden for our companies. More economic burden for our companies = decreased competititiveness. Decreased competitiveness = more business gets pushed across to India and China who seriously don't give a fuck. Chance of vibrant western economy finding a technological solution to deal with climate change recedes.

Hence - as i explained: it's all bollocks. Even if you knew what was going to happen (and you don't) no-one would be able to agree on what to do about it anyway.

Don't you get it? Asking for papers telling you the exact percentage of the sun's contribution to climate change is worthless. Even if it's 0.000001% that might be enough to tip the whole system wildly from one extreme to another so why are you wasting your time chasing it? We will NEVER know things to that degree of detail and even if we did we wil never have a predictive model we could plug the information into anyway.

Well why don't you give us some evidence that shows that the economy will crumble if we take action. The assessments that have been carried out show that the net economic impact of putting a price on carbon emissions will be minor because the extra revenue can be used to cut taxes elsewhere or to invest in projects. It won't just disappear in a black hole. Also it's time negative externalities were factored into the economy.

You don't understand - Derek is claiming that sensitivity is low and that the sun has been responsible for past climate change. I'm asking for some evidence, even though I know it doesn't exist. The thing with science is that unsubstantiated claims are worthless -  you're entitled to your opinions but not your facts. That is something he struggles with because he is driven by ideology, not reason. You evaluate evidence on its own merit, not according to whether it suits your world view.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #108 on: August 31, 2012, 10:48:26 am »
Thankyou LFC Derek - I quite agree!

 
For some reason RojoLeon you seem to equate the quality of your postings with the quantity of your postings.


So I'm not the only one to notice!

Quote
Climate is a dynamic highly unstable system which is currently way beyond any modelling capabilities. Modelling "with increasing accuracy" is worthless as the model could be 90% right and give you a new ice age rather than a global desert.

Things we know. Things we know we don't know. Things we don't know we don't know etc.

Quote
For example, more (economically unrealistic) environmental laws in this country = more economic burden for our companies. More economic burden for our companies = decreased competititiveness. Decreased competitiveness = more business gets pushed across to India and China who seriously don't give a fuck. Chance of vibrant western economy finding a technological solution to deal with climate change recedes.

Slight amendment but agree completely otherwise. With first Milliband, and now Hulme and Harvey insisting that we cover the country with Funny Farms, sorry Wind Farms, we happily embark on making our industries uncompetitive.


From Bio about the graph of Alarmist Prediction v measured reality.

Now I call this dishonesty. You're not interested in understanding what's happening, are you? You're a typical denier who will peddle any myth and stick your fingers in your ears shouting 'lalalala' when you don't like what you're told. Still, the laws of physics couldn't care less about the rubbish you peddle.

Dishonesty? Showing a graph of what the guru of 'Global Warming', James Hansen, predicted against what actually happened is dishonest? Strange reasoning.


Quote
I'm still waiting for your one paper showing that the sun has been responsible for all past climate change. I won't hold my breath because I know there is no such paper, and I know you won't acknowledge you were wrong once again.

You'll wait a long time since that is patently absurd. I'm arguing that the Sun's Magnetic activity is a major forcing factor - one of a number. Things we know ..... etc.

If your talking about some quantitative estimates of the GCR effects then Solheim et al has an estimate for cycle 24 - quantitative estimates are in their infancy since decent cloud cover data has only been around in the satellite era.

Well why don't you give us some evidence that shows that the economy will crumble if we take action.

Because he's stating the bleeding obvious. A recent report in the States put the subsidy cost of each 'Green Job' north of $300,000.

Quote
You don't understand (we're the only one that do) - Derek is claiming that sensitivity is low and that the sun has been responsible for past climate change. I'm asking for some evidence, even though I know it doesn't exist. The thing with science is that unsubstantiated claims are worthless -  you're entitled to your opinions but not your facts. That is something he struggles with because he is driven by ideology, not reason. You evaluate evidence on its own merit, not according to whether it suits your world view.

Need to break off - the dog's like a demented ferret wanting his walk. "I shall return".








"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #109 on: August 31, 2012, 11:00:43 am »
It's a shame that lfcderek keeps bringing up the same debunked arguments and out of context graphs which Bio has already clearly explained lack any context. It just makes his overall argument look ideological and dishonest.

I don't really understand Carlos either. Scientists don't have crystal balls, and they never claimed to. Yes there are degrees of probability which need to be factored into the individual models, but taken as a totality, plus the other physical evidence, the overall picture shows a very high probability of man made climate change. The totality of the research also shows a very high probability of serious consequences. Yes it is extremely difficult to find any consensus on how to take action, but a lot of things are difficult, this doesn't make it any less important to try.

A lot of this fake scepticism is tied up with ideological fears about the economic and lifestyle consequences of greener policies. This shouldn't be a worry, a 'new green deal' coupled with carbon taxes linked to tax cuts on new green technologies could be just the kick-start that the economy needs. This isn't about taking away peoples cars or forcing anyone to knit their own compost toilet. It's about creating incentives for new technologies that will improve peoples lives and the enviroments that people live in, paid for by taxing and dis-incentivising outdated polluting technologies. Like Bio said, it's about time that business was forced to pay for their negative externalities, there is nothing radical about this, it's common sense on a small planet with limited resources. These actions are all necessary in an era of rising populations, Peak Oil on the horizon and massive biodiversity loss. Climate change is just one reason to push for green policies, but they would be necessary and beneficial whatever the climate outcome.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #110 on: August 31, 2012, 11:03:33 am »
I don't really understand Carlos either.

Its funny because you're all so obsessed with poring over graphs and charts predicting how the world works but its clear none of you actually have the first clue  :(
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #111 on: August 31, 2012, 11:12:14 am »
Its funny because you're all so obsessed with poring over graphs and charts predicting how the world works but its clear none of you actually have the first clue  :(

As expected, make a sarky comment without actually challenging the content of the argument. Straight out of the denier playbook.

EDIT: Anyway, I was being polite. I could have just said "Carlos is talking bollocks". The nihilistic view that nothing is 100% certain therefore nothing is 'true' leads us down a very dark path. If we are going to accept that then we might as well just climb back up into the trees. Or is evolution theory 'bollocks' as well? There are a lot of uncertainties in that. And lots of models.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 11:55:18 am by Devon Red »

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #112 on: August 31, 2012, 12:19:14 pm »


From Bio about the graph of Alarmist Prediction v measured reality.

Dishonesty? Showing a graph of what the guru of 'Global Warming', James Hansen, predicted against what actually happened is dishonest? Strange reasoning.


You'll wait a long time since that is patently absurd. I'm arguing that the Sun's Magnetic activity is a major forcing factor - one of a number. Things we know ..... etc.

If your talking about some quantitative estimates of the GCR effects then Solheim et al has an estimate for cycle 24 - quantitative estimates are in their infancy since decent cloud cover data has only been around in the satellite era.

Because he's stating the bleeding obvious. A recent report in the States put the subsidy cost of each 'Green Job' north of $300,000.

Need to break off - the dog's like a demented ferret wanting his walk. "I shall return".


Yes, Derek, dishonesty. Taking a graph and misrepresenting its findings when you've already been told that Hansen's work left out key processes as he was interested in the impacts of rising greenhouse levels mainly. Have you bothered reading Hansen's paper? Rhetorical question really, but at least you'd understand what he was testing. In the last paragraph of Section 6 Discussion of his paper, Hansen states (my emphasis):

Quote
In this section we summarize the principal assumptions upon which these results depend. In the subsection 6.5 we stress the need for global observations and the development of more realistic models

Then in Subsection 6.5 he says:

Quote
Major improvements are needed in our understanding of the climate system and our ability to predict climate change

His model didn't include some components of the climate system because the uncertainties were too great, and that's why you can't compare his findings to temperatures without removing the influence of factors that weren't included in his model. It's a caveat he was only too aware of and he knew that his model had to be improved. Which it has. Current models do a better job but it's still not possible to model short-term variability in global temperatures, and no one pretends that this is possible. But to suggest that this one model run somehow shows that you can't trust climate models misses the point completely. The science is not based on individual models, it's based on the integration of many model runs making different assumptions because it's impossible to predict with certainty the rate of changes in certain parameters. Yet models have managed to track temperature trends well (which is what they are built to do), they have also predicted phenomena and patterns of warming which have been subsequently verified, and they are successful at reproducing temperatures from the early 20th century. They have also managed to predict that during periods of hiatus, when surface temperatures remain stable, more warming goes into the deeper layers of the ocean. And this is what is being observed. Models are not perfect, no, but they are not useless either, and their findings are corroborated by observations.

So cherry picking one graph from 1988 is another example of dishonesty. Ignoring that the combination of models predict a rise of 0.20ºC per decade, while the observed rate is 0.19ºC, is convenient for you. Ignoring the fact that known variability will have considerable impacts on short-term global temperatures again is disingenuous, but it serves your purpose well.

Then show me the evidence to show that the sun's magnetic activity has had a major impact on past climate change. You dismiss the idea that feedbacks play a role at all, even though the evidence strongly suggests that they do, so I'm waiting for you to back up your claim with some actual data.

No he isn't. Several research papers show that the impact of measures will be less than 1% of GDP. And that these measures can help reduce the deficit in the process. Again you're focusing on one aspect and ignoring the whole picture.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #113 on: August 31, 2012, 12:53:12 pm »
A lot of this fake scepticism is tied up with ideological fears about the economic and lifestyle consequences of greener policies. This shouldn't be a worry, a 'new green deal' coupled with carbon taxes linked to tax cuts on new green technologies could be just the kick-start that the economy needs. This isn't about taking away peoples cars or forcing anyone to knit their own compost toilet. It's about creating incentives for new technologies that will improve peoples lives and the enviroments that people live in, paid for by taxing and dis-incentivising outdated polluting technologies. Like Bio said, it's about time that business was forced to pay for their negative externalities, there is nothing radical about this, it's common sense on a small planet with limited resources. These actions are all necessary in an era of rising populations, Peak Oil on the horizon and massive biodiversity loss. Climate change is just one reason to push for green policies, but they would be necessary and beneficial whatever the climate outcome.

And as usual the environmentalist brigade (the emphasis being on the mental) expect everyone to go along with them on the strength of the “because I say it is” argument.
Well the burden of proof is on you not me and that burden increases the more you sacrifices you expect everyone to make.
If you are saying we are all going to hell in a handcart – that’s fine – we can add you to the list of loons on RAWK, no harm done.
If you’re saying everyone has to donate five pounds to prevent the end of the world as you’ve calculated the date of rapture – well fair enough – I might post you a cheque.
But if you’re talking about making changes that will substantially affect jobs, growth, industry, technology and prosperity you are going to have to produce some convincing proof that the changes you want are really necessary – and you have to admit that is the only fair and, in fact, moral thing to do.
The businesses that pay for “their” negative externalities are the same ones that transport food to your door and clothe you and provide the computer that you spend most of the day clacking on.
They will be the first to adopt the policies to safeguard their future if there is a convincing argument for it. Your problem is that there ISN’T a convincing argument. At all. You can’t tell me what the weather is going to be like three weeks from now yet you want to restrict the economy based on your predictions about what is going to happen 20 years from now.
You call it “fake scepticism” when in fact you are peddling “fake environmentalism”. It’s the same lefty, anti-corporate, tree hugging sandal toting agenda dressed up with some inadequate science. There is an overwhelming amount of proof for the theory of evolution by natural selection but your brand of science is more akin to creationism since you selectively use and distort facts to mask the major limitations of the whole philosophy.

But I was being polite with you.
I could have simply asked you – according to your modelling, in what year will the Western World invent a new safe, cheap source of power that will solve the world’s energy needs?

I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #114 on: August 31, 2012, 12:58:17 pm »
..
Then in Subsection 6.5 he says:
/snip/

Ah but you haven't read paragraph 6.5.1.1 (subsection 7.2) where he specifically calls for even MORE models that arent fit for purpose - hopefully funded by a big shiny new grant so he can keep the wolf from the door.

It's really simple. If you have convincing evidence, people will be convinced.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #115 on: August 31, 2012, 12:59:58 pm »
Quote
A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change


No environmental issue is more polarizing than global climate change.  Many on the left fear increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases threaten an environmental apocalypse while many on the right believe anthropogenic global warming is much ado about nothing and, at worst, a hoax.  Both sides pretend as if the climate policy debate is, first and foremost, about science, rather than policy. This is not so. There is substantial uncertainty about the scope, scale, and consequences of anthropogenic warming, and will be for some time, but this is not sufficient justification for ignoring global warming or pretending that climate change is not a serious problem.

Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern.  I have worked on this issue for twenty years, including a decade at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I edited this book. I believe human activities have contributed to increases in greenhouse concentrations, and these increases can be expected to produce a gradual increase in global mean temperatures. While substantial uncertainties remain as to the precise consequences of this increase and consequent temperature rise, there is reason to believe many of the effects will be quite negative.  Even if some parts of the world were to benefit from a modest temperature increase -- due to, say, a lengthened growing season -- others will almost certainly lose.

Many so-called skeptics note that environmental activists and some climate scientists exaggerate the likely effects of anthropogenic warming, distorting scientific findings and overstating the extent to which contemporary events (hurricanes, etc.) may be linked to human activity to date.  But the excesses of climate activists and bad behavior by politically active scientists (and the IPCC) do not, and should not, discredit the underlying science, or justify excoriating those who reach a different conclusion.  Indeed, most skeptics within the scientific community readily accept the basic science.  They contest the more extreme climate projections, but accept the basic scientific claims. Take, for example, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute.  In one of his recent books, Climate of Extremes: The Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (co-authored with Robert Balling, another prominent "skeptic"), Michaels readily acknowledges that there is a warming trend and that human activity shares some of the blame.

The position espoused by Michaels, Balling and most (but not all) skeptics is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but it is more of a nuisance than a catastrophe.  Some even argue that the net effect of climate change on the world will be positive, due to increased growing seasons, less severe winters and the like.  Were I a utilitarian, and if I placed substantial faith in such cost-benefit studies, I might find these arguments convincing, but I'm not and I don't.  Even if these skeptics are correct that global warming will not be catastrophic and that the net effects in the near-to-medium term might be positive, there are still reasons to act.

Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the skeptics' assessment of the science is correct, global warming will produce effects that should be of concern.  Among other things, even a modest increase in global temperature can be expected to produce some degree of sea-level rise, with consequent negative effects on low-lying regions.  Michaels and Balling, for instance, have posited a "best guess" that sea levels will rise 5 to 11 inches over the next century.  Such an increase in sea levels is likely manageable in wealthy, developed nations, such as the United States.  Poorer nations in the developing world, however, will not be so able to adapt to such changes.  This is of particular concern because these effects will be most severe in those nations that are both least able to adapt and least responsible for contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

It is a well established principle in the Anglo-American legal tradition that one does not have the right to use one's own property in a manner that causes harm to one's neighbor.  There are common law cases gong back 400 years establishing this principle and international law has long embraced a similar norm.  As I argued at length in this paper, if we accept this principle, even non-catastrophic warming should be a serious concern, as even non-catastrophic warming will produce the sorts of consequences that have long been recognized as property rights violations, such as the flooding of the land of others.

My argument is that the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change.  It is a well recognized principle of common law that if company A is flooding the land of person B, it is irrelevant whether company A generates lots of economic prosperity for the local community (including B).  A's action would still violate B's property rights, and B would be entitled to relief of some sort.  By the same token, if the land of a farmer in Bangladesh is flooded, due in measurable and provable part to human-induced climate change, why would he be any less entitled to redress than a farmer who has his land flooded by his neighbor's land-use changes? Property rights should not be sacrificed as part of some utilitarian calculus.  Libertarians readily accept this principle when government planners violate property rights in the name of economic development (see e.g., Kelo v. New London).  Yet they seem to abandon their commitment to property rights when it comes to global warming.

I readily recognize that there is, as yet, no international mechanism that adjudicate warming-based disputes, and I am quite sympathetic to those who believe any international entity capable of adjudicating such disputes would do more harm than good, but this does not negate the principle that global warming is, as best we can tell, likely to cause harms that should be addressed.  The question is how to do it.

Accepting that global warming is a serious problem does not require the embrace of federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as currently undertaken by the EPA.  I have been quite critical of these efforts, which I believe are based on a misinterpretation of the Act by the Supreme Court.  CAA regulation will be extremely costly but will not produce emission reductions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.  The pork-laden cap-and-trade legislation passed by the House of Representatives would not be much better.  What then should we do?

If the effects of global warming are to be mitigated, it is necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a reasonable level.  The emission reductions necessary for this to be achieved are enormous, and far beyond the capability of existing technologies.  Just to reach a reasonable intermediate target the U.S. would have to reduce its emissions to levels not seen in 100 years, and reduce per capita emissions to levels not seen since Reconstruction.  And even this would not be enough, for if equivalent emission reductions are not made elsewhere, it would all be for naught.  As I explain in the first part of this paper, dramatic technological innovation is necessary to address the threat of climate change.

As Roger Pielke Jr. persuasively argues in his book The Climate Fix, nations will not decarbonize their economies until it is relatively cheap and easy to do so.  Therefore, those who are concerned about climate change, as I am, should be pursuing policies that will make it cheaper and easier to adopt low-carbon technologies.  What should these policies be?  I've suggested several.


First, the federal government should support technology inducement prizes to encourage the development of commercially viable low-carbon technologies.  For reasons I explain in this paper, such prizes are likely to yield better results at lower cost than traditional government R&D funding or regulatory mandates that seek to spur innovation.

Second, the federal government should seek to identify and reduce barriers to the development and deployment of alternative technologies.  Whatever the economic merits of the Cape Wind project, it is ridiculous that it could take over a decade for a project such as this to go through the state and federal permitting processes.  This sort of regulatory environment discourages private investment in these technologies.

Third, I believe the United States should adopt a revenue-neutral carbon tax, much like that suggested by NASA's James Hansen.  Specifically, the federal government should impose a price on carbon that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis.  This would, in effect, shift the incidence of federal taxes away from income and labor and onto energy consumption and offset some of the potential regressivity of a carbon tax.  For conservatives who have long supported shifting from an income tax to a sales or consumption tax, and oppose increasing the federal tax burden, this should be a no brainer.  If fully rebated, there is no need to worry about whether the government will put the resulting revenues to good use, but the tax would provide a significant incentive to reduce carbon energy use.  Further, a carbon tax would be more transparent and less vulnerable to rent-seeking and special interest mischief than equivalent cap-and-trade schemes and would also be easier to account for within the global trading system.  All this means a revenue-neutral carbon tax could be easier to enact than cap-and-trade.  And as for a broader theoretical justification, if the global atmosphere is a global commons owned by us all, why should not those who use this commons to dispose of their carbon emissions pay a user fee to compensate those who are affected.

Fourth and finally, it is important to recognize that some degree of warming is already hard-wired into the system.  This means that some degree of adaptation will be necessary.  Yet as above, recognizing the reality of global warming need not justify increased federal control over the private economy.  There are many market-oriented steps that can, and should, be taken to increase the country's ability to adapt to climate change including, as I've argued here and here, increased reliance upon water markets, particularly in the western United States where the effects of climate change on water supplies are likely to be most severe.

I recognize that a relatively brief post like this is unlikely to convince many people who have set positions on climate change.  I can already anticipate a comment thread filled with charges and counter-charges over the science.  But I hope this post has helped illustrate that the embrace of limited government principles need not entail the denial of environmental claims and that a concern for environmental protection need not lead to an ever increasing mound of prescriptive regulation.  And for those who wish to explore these arguments in further detail, there's lots more in the links I've provided throughout this post.

Not that this will put an end to the unsubstantiated claims that measures to combat CO2 emissions will be substantially negative of course.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #116 on: August 31, 2012, 01:03:03 pm »
Ah but you haven't read paragraph 6.5.1.1 (subsection 7.2) where he specifically calls for even MORE models that arent fit for purpose - hopefully funded by a big shiny new grant so he can keep the wolf from the door.

It's really simple. If you have convincing evidence, people will be convinced.

No, it's not that simple. You've got to factor in strong vested interests who have a long history of denial so that people who are ideologically aligned with them can just parrot rubbish on the internet and pretend that they know more than the experts in their fields.

The tobacco industry, CFC manufacturers and others must be looking on with envy.

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #117 on: August 31, 2012, 01:26:35 pm »
Carlos, its difficult to engage with you on this because while I'm standing in one corner trying to have a reasoned discussion you're standing in the opposite corner beating seven shades of shit out of a straw man of your own invention.

If I was going to counter on your level then I would just come up with my own caricature of gas-guzzling, money-grabbing, head-in-the-sand, right-wing, Ayn Rand devotees who obsess over cherry-picked graphs from out of date sources while overlooking 99% of the evidence. Doesn't really get us anywhere does it.

Lets look at it another way. Say you had been told by the world's foremost medical experts that you have a serious liver problem and that your liver will fail in 6-12 months unless you immediately stop drinking alochol. The experts don't know the exact extent of the damage to the liver, or exactly how much more tolerance your liver has for further drinking. The best estimate of these experts, based on the totality of evidence, is that the only safe course of action is to immediately stop drinking. This is a fairly major lifestyle change, but I'm sure that in most cases reasonable people would make the necessary changes.

We are addicted to fossil fuels. We don't know exactly how much more we can consume before catastrophic climate change takes place, but we do know that there is a level of tolerance above which there is a significant danger of catastrophic consequences. The problem is, we are not prepared to make the necessary lifestyle changes on a global level as we would on a personal level when faced with the same degrees of risk.

On top of that, the climate change issue is only one risk associated with fossil fuels. We know that Peak Oil will occur, we just don't know exactly when, maybe next year, maybe 10 years, maybe 50 years. Uncertainty isn't an excuse for inaction. The same goes for population increases, food shortages, biodiversity loss etc. We know these issues are real and pressing concerns, but we can't tell you the exact date on which catastrophies will occur, and if that's your idea of 'burden of proof' then you have placed yourself beyond any reasonable discussion or scientific understanding.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 01:28:17 pm by Devon Red »

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #118 on: August 31, 2012, 01:51:04 pm »
Quote
Quote
A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change
No environmental issue ....

... I've provided throughout this post.

We have a 'Cut and Paste' Queen to reign with our King.

And as usual the environmentalist brigade (the emphasis being on the mental) expect everyone to go along with them on the strength of the “because I say it is” argument.
Well the burden of proof is on you not me and that burden increases the more you sacrifices you expect everyone to make.
If you are saying we are all going to hell in a handcart – that’s fine – we can add you to the list of loons on RAWK, no harm done.
If you’re saying everyone has to donate five pounds to prevent the end of the world as you’ve calculated the date of rapture – well fair enough – I might post you a cheque.
But if you’re talking about making changes that will substantially affect jobs, growth, industry, technology and prosperity you are going to have to produce some convincing proof that the changes you want are really necessary – and you have to admit that is the only fair and, in fact, moral thing to do.


Here we get to the nub.

The loony environmental fringe that grew up in the seventies (kicked off by The Limits of Growth was it?) could safely be ignored and allowed to live at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. Along came 'Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming' and provided a 'big stick' to get their warped view of a future adopted. Hence their willful refusal to believe the evidence of their own eyes and their own intelligence and this almost psychotic deference to 'Authority'.

This is not ignorance. Whatever my views of them are, Bio and Rojo are clearly intelligent and well educated. Their stance is clearly politically motivated. I've enjoyed these posts because it's prompted me to dig deeper into the science - which is where my interest lies.

The internet really is a wonderful development. I've recently found myself downloading the original data (NOAA and Argo) and seeing for myself what's true, what's exaggerated, and what's plain lies.

I'll do a post later on to briefly sum up my argument re a 'Missing Variable Bias' and try and ask one simple question of Bio - hope she can give an honest answer on the basis of her own education, intelligence and 'Common Sense'.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #119 on: August 31, 2012, 02:07:26 pm »
Carlos, its difficult to engage with you on this because while I'm standing in one corner trying to have a reasoned discussion you're standing in the opposite corner beating seven shades of shit out of a straw man of your own invention.

If I was going to counter on your level then I would just come up with my own caricature of gas-guzzling, money-grabbing, head-in-the-sand, right-wing, Ayn Rand devotees who obsess over cherry-picked graphs from out of date sources while overlooking 99% of the evidence. Doesn't really get us anywhere does it.

Lets look at it another way. Say you had been told by the world's foremost medical experts that you have a serious liver problem and that your liver will fail in 6-12 months unless you immediately stop drinking alochol. The experts don't know the exact extent of the damage to the liver, or exactly how much more tolerance your liver has for further drinking. The best estimate of these experts, based on the totality of evidence, is that the only safe course of action is to immediately stop drinking. This is a fairly major lifestyle change, but I'm sure that in most cases reasonable people would make the necessary changes.

We are addicted to fossil fuels. We don't know exactly how much more we can consume before catastrophic climate change takes place, but we do know that there is a level of tolerance above which there is a significant danger of catastrophic consequences. The problem is, we are not prepared to make the necessary lifestyle changes on a global level as we would on a personal level when faced with the same degrees of risk.

On top of that, the climate change issue is only one risk associated with fossil fuels. We know that Peak Oil will occur, we just don't know exactly when, maybe next year, maybe 10 years, maybe 50 years. Uncertainty isn't an excuse for inaction. The same goes for population increases, food shortages, biodiversity loss etc. We know these issues are real and pressing concerns, but we can't tell you the exact date on which catastrophies will occur, and if that's your idea of 'burden of proof' then you have placed yourself beyond any reasonable discussion or scientific understanding.

Yep but if a gypsy was to turn up at your door and wave some crystals over your head before informing you that you had to stop drinking or you would die of liver failure would you? Im sure she could produce plenty of evidence about other people who had drunk too much and died following her prediction but you wouldnt do it because you wouldnt trust her enough to do it.

If you can model what is going to happen with the weather exactly a month from now I might have some confidence in your model. If you could tell me a year from you could have enough evidence to convince industry round the world to change.

But you can't because the science is nowhere near close to doing that. You know that. I know that. so putting more burdens on industry is directly harmful.

But imagine you COULD predict to the nth degree what what happen - you would then have to deciede what to do about it. In simple terms if you make everyone more energy efficient you make it cheaper to live. That encourages population growth.

BUt really none of that matters. Its just dressing up the lefty agenda in another guise to push it down people's throats. You mock people for questiooing the scientists yet feel free to dictate how poepl should run their businesses and what effect green taxes will have on them.

I suppose its a questin of balance - feel free to give up what you want but before you can expect other people to do the same you need a convincing argument.

Currently you're nowhere near.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention