Poll

Should I lock this thread?

Yes, Lock it!  It's a sesspit!
2 (40%)
No, I'm entralled in the "debate"!
1 (20%)
Whatever, I'm just here for the show.
2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Voting closed: March 07, 2016, 01:37:11 PM

Author Topic: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread  (Read 87490 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #100 on: January 21, 2016, 04:29:39 PM »
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

I suppose there'll still be people trying to argue the world hasn't warmed since 1998.

I get the fact that many skeptics believe climate change is down to natural variation and humans have minimal impact.

What is fundamentally missed is that natural variation occurs over thousands of years. We are seeing changes happen in decades...

That isn't always the case, however.  There are events recorded in the geological record of relatively rapid shifts in climate. These are generally assumed to be meteor impacts, but they might not all be so. We don't know enough yet.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #101 on: January 21, 2016, 04:47:45 PM »
There are plenty of climate changes in the geologic record that occur quickly that are not related to meteor impacts. For example, the younger dryas, many volcanic eruptions, and local effects like periodic catastrophic flooding of the Mediterranean off the top of my head. However, that these have occurred in the past does not really change the conclusion that humans adding CO2 (and related GHGs) can influence the climate and that the expected/observed changes include some significant downsides.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #102 on: January 21, 2016, 05:12:02 PM »

That isn't always the case, however.  There are events recorded in the geological record of relatively rapid shifts in climate. These are generally assumed to be meteor impacts, but they might not all be so. We don't know enough yet.

There are plenty of climate changes in the geologic record that occur quickly that are not related to meteor impacts. For example, the younger dryas, many volcanic eruptions, and local effects like periodic catastrophic flooding of the Mediterranean off the top of my head. However, that these have occurred in the past does not really change the conclusion that humans adding CO2 (and related GHGs) can influence the climate and that the expected/observed changes include some significant downsides.

THis gets at a point that I made up-thread and to which MoonShadow responded to, but I haven't commented on since.  There's an extensive record of climates changing very rapidly and then remaining there, both at regional scales and global scales.  Some of these have been meteor strikes like MoonShadow said, while others have come about for other reasons (see Glenstache's comments above).  All of these show alternate stable states; once climate shifts it can move into a new state where it will resist shifting back, often for thousands of years.  This much is evident in environmental records.

The argument that few of these shifts have been from anthropogenic resources is missing my point.  From the environment's perspective it doesn't matter whether this shift comes from volcanoes belching out greenhouse gasses or humans doing the same thing - the climate shifts, and it doesn't just shift back easily.  The changes can be massive, with sea-levels changing dozens of meters to areas the size of texas switching from highly productive to desert (and vice versa).  These shifts are almost associated with large extinction events and subsequent emergence of new species (speciation).

MoonShadow - I will give you credit for putting forth one reasonable idea in our debate, that cities are constantly being rebuilt and we might be better served simply gradually shifting those efforts towards relocating and raising everything.  I'll agree that we should at least consider doing such things going forward.  However, I disagree that this should be our only focus or even our core focus, and think that putting it forth as an 'either-or' choice is a false dichotomy.  We can make smarter choices about where we build and what we choose to fortify/relocate on a decades-long time scale, but we also must recognize that the best and overwhelming consensus shows that things will get a lot worse for a whole lot of people and we ought to take measures now to mitigate our impacts.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #103 on: January 21, 2016, 05:19:14 PM »
Quote from: MoonShadow
You have misunderstood.  A free market demand for research is valid, taxing others to pay for (often pie-in-the-sky) government research is (generally) not. Government funded research has netted mankind very little for the cost, but at least we got nuclear weapons & Tang.

And the interstate system,

Yes, but it was a military defense project. The benefit of such infrastructure to the public was a dramatic bonus, I will admit.

Quote
space travel,
Would have happened anyway, eventually. The primary reason we went to the moon when we did was political.
Quote
water purification,
Ah, no. The need to purify drinking water was recongnized since the Broad Street Pump incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

There were many projects to accomplish this, both public & private.  Some worked but were expensive at scale, others simply were not effective.  The very first case of continuous clorine purification of municipal water was in Phillidephia, using a patented machine called "The Clorinator", invented by Charles Wallace, a chemical engineer who definately did not work for a government research facility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_chlorination#History
Quote
Chlorine gas was first used on a continuing basis to disinfect the water supply at the Belmont filter plant, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by using a machine invented by Charles Frederick Wallace[citation needed] who dubbed it the Chlorinator. It was manufactured by the Wallace & Tiernan company beginning in 1913.

Quote
the internet,
The internet is only related to Arpnet, not the same thing.  The Internet that you use, and the only kind you have ever known, is entirely a privately designed & constructed network.  Sorry.

Quote
the national weather service, and nuclear magnetic resonance machines.
The NWS is a service, not an invention or discovery of science.  I can see it's value, just as I can see the value in the Forestry Service, or my local fire department.  As for the MRI, that was invented by one, particularly brilliant professor of chemistry.  Since he was employed by a publicly funded university, he was technically a government employee; so I'll grant you that one.  Sometimes even the government gets lucky.

Quote
You're right. Government research is useless!
I never said government research is useless, I said it wasn't remotely as cost effective as private research.  I'm not completely opposed to government funded scientific research, but I do think that there should be limits. Baying about an "impending" ecological crisis doesn't lead to rational limits.  Also, such government funded research should also be limited to areas of inquiry with no plausible near-term market payback, such as theoretical physics or Keynesian economic theory.
Quote

Look, the market is not 100% efficient. Many businesses profit by socializing its real expenses.
Yeah, like employee healthcare. I bet you still think Obamacare was pushed through to help working families.
Quote
Exxon Mobile's gasoline and diesel fuel is subsidized by every person suffering from asthma due to transportation emissions.
Which is more than reversed by the medical uses of the same petroleum that gasoline is refined from. Or the improvement in medical emergency survivability just from gasoline powered ambulatory services.  I see your unintended consequences, and raise you some intended ones.

Quote
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/friedricha564181.html#SuwAEiAhQPcKdJtT.99


Quote
Their profits are subsidized by the public dealing with fewer fish, damaged buildings, and coral reef destruction from acid rain.
Acid rain is another topic for another day, in another thread.  We are talking about climate change.  Try and focus.
Quote

One of the most important tenets of government is to protect the public from "smart for one, dumb for all" activities.
I'm pretty sure governments have never been founded on the principle of protecting the public from itself.  I damn well know that the US government was not.  Feel free to advocate for that constitutional amendment, but just because you can say it, does not make it so.

Quote
Quote from: Pooplips
Are you at all worried about the government encroaching on your personal liberty/freedom? You may think the above mentioned things have been for the benefit of humanity but has an entity ever decided that somthing you do, and fully understand the risks of, is not in your best interest or in the interest of humanity?

Sugary drinks over 16oz come to mind.

Of course this is a gradient. I'm not advocating for government controlling every aspect of your life, just as (I assume) you're not advocating for 100% deregulation. Balance is paramount.
Who advocated for deregulation?  I haven't.  I just don't want more regulation, I'd be happy with that.
Quote

No man is an island. A lot of behaviors (like drinking 16oz sodas) are actively harmful to society at large. Sometimes it is beneficial for government to interject.

It's always beneficial for government to interject.  That's why they do it, it's in their interests.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #104 on: January 21, 2016, 05:25:14 PM »
It's always beneficial for government to interject.  That's why they do it, it's in their interests.

In a democracy government isn't them.  As the government is an acting representative of the people, and serves at the whim of the people, the government is us.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #105 on: January 21, 2016, 05:31:45 PM »

MoonShadow - I will give you credit for putting forth one reasonable idea in our debate, that cities are constantly being rebuilt and we might be better served simply gradually shifting those efforts towards relocating and raising everything.  I'll agree that we should at least consider doing such things going forward.  However, I disagree that this should be our only focus or even our core focus, and think that putting it forth as an 'either-or' choice is a false dichotomy.

Again, not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. I presented that to highlight another option not considered.

Quote
We can make smarter choices about where we build and what we choose to fortify/relocate on a decades-long time scale, but we also must recognize that the best and overwhelming consensus shows that things will get a lot worse for a whole lot of people and we ought to take measures now to mitigate our impacts.

Consensus is not science, even if this statement was true.  The only consensus that can be referenced is an consensus upon the statement, "Human actions are a contributing factor to climate change".  But if you were to say, "human actions are a significant contributing factor to climate change" that same scientific consensus starts to fall apart. Switch 'significant' to 'majority' and your scientific consensus is barely even a majority.  There is a whole lot of room for a range in impacts within that consensus you cite, so I object to your last claim about what we 'ought' to do.  If the real scientists don't agree on what we 'ought' to do (and they don't), what makes you confident that you know better?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #106 on: January 21, 2016, 05:34:29 PM »
It's always beneficial for government to interject.  That's why they do it, it's in their interests.

In a democracy government isn't them.  As the government is an acting representative of the people, and serves at the whim of the people, the government is us.

That's great in theory, but it's bullshit in practice.  And the US is not, and never has been, a democracy.  You don't even vote for a president, it's an opinion poll; the electoral college votes for the president.  There really is a 1%, but it's a political class distinction, not an income distinction.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #107 on: January 21, 2016, 05:51:50 PM »

Consensus is not science, even if this statement was true.  The only consensus that can be referenced is an consensus upon the statement, "Human actions are a contributing factor to climate change".  But if you were to say, "human actions are a significant contributing factor to climate change" that same scientific consensus starts to fall apart. Switch 'significant' to 'majority' and your scientific consensus is barely even a majority.  There is a whole lot of room for a range in impacts within that consensus you cite, so I object to your last claim about what we 'ought' to do.  If the real scientists don't agree on what we 'ought' to do (and they don't), what makes you confident that you know better?
Up until now I"ve been willing to follow along nad discuss various scenarios about what we could/should/ought to do going forward.  If you're going to suggest that there isn't overwhelming support among the scientific community that our climate is changing and anthropogenic sources are at least partly to blame for these changes then I don't think anything could change your mind.  I've spent my entire adult life working in the sciences - perhaps you did not realize that when you said "the real scientists"  - so I will chalk that up to us being largely faceless strangers on the internet.
 

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #108 on: January 21, 2016, 07:33:11 PM »
I've spent my entire adult life working in the sciences - perhaps you did not realize that when you said "the real scientists"  - so I will chalk that up to us being largely faceless strangers on the internet.

Amusingly, you're not the first scientist to be wounded in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #109 on: January 21, 2016, 09:57:28 PM »

Consensus is not science, even if this statement was true.  The only consensus that can be referenced is an consensus upon the statement, "Human actions are a contributing factor to climate change".  But if you were to say, "human actions are a significant contributing factor to climate change" that same scientific consensus starts to fall apart. Switch 'significant' to 'majority' and your scientific consensus is barely even a majority.  There is a whole lot of room for a range in impacts within that consensus you cite, so I object to your last claim about what we 'ought' to do.  If the real scientists don't agree on what we 'ought' to do (and they don't), what makes you confident that you know better?
Up until now I"ve been willing to follow along nad discuss various scenarios about what we could/should/ought to do going forward. If you're going to suggest that there isn't overwhelming support among the scientific community that our climate is changing and anthropogenic sources are at least partly to blame for these changes then I don't think anything could change your mind.  I've spent my entire adult life working in the sciences - perhaps you did not realize that when you said "the real scientists"  - so I will chalk that up to us being largely faceless strangers on the internet.

That's not what I said, now is it.  If you are offended, perhaps you should think about why that may be. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with myself, since you are responding to something other than my words.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #110 on: January 21, 2016, 10:16:18 PM »
I've spent my entire adult life working in the sciences - perhaps you did not realize that when you said "the real scientists"  - so I will chalk that up to us being largely faceless strangers on the internet.

Amusingly, you're not the first scientist to be wounded in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum.

Seriously, I wouldn't have expected scientists to be so sensitive. It's not even like I've tried to attack his data collection methods.  All I've done, so far in this thread, is point out that there is a wide range of outcomes that can fit the data, there is a much wider range of choices about mitigation than has been advocated by most; and that his peers actually do have dissent amongst themselves about the likely long term consequences.  And then I have, not one, but two self-proclaimed climate scientists get upset because I don't accept their conclusions at face value.  A core value of scientific inquiry is skepticism!  I don't find it very amusing, myself.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #111 on: January 21, 2016, 11:04:26 PM »
Seriously, I wouldn't have expected scientists to be so sensitive. It's not even like I've tried to attack his data collection methods.  All I've done, so far in this thread, is point out that there is a wide range of outcomes that can fit the data, there is a much wider range of choices about mitigation than has been advocated by most; and that his peers actually do have dissent amongst themselves about the likely long term consequences.  And then I have, not one, but two self-proclaimed climate scientists get upset because I don't accept their conclusions at face value.  A core value of scientific inquiry is skepticism!  I don't find it very amusing, myself.
Surely you don't believe this do you?

You used the words "If the real scientists....." by choice and probably very deliberately.

It might not be the most cutting insult to throw out there but it is obviously meant to imply that the scientists commenting here are not "real scientists".

It obviously has nothing to do with you not accepting their conclusions.  It's got to do with you being intentionally insulting about the people.

You are right about one thing though, it is not very amusing.  You attempt at justification is even less so.

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Location: Midtown
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #112 on: January 22, 2016, 02:25:57 AM »
It does not matter to me whether it is or isn't a crisis. I don't care whether it's getting warmer or colder or just crazier. I don't dwell upon whose fault it is. I live as lightly as I can upon the earth because I think it's the right thing to do.

After reading everyone's comments, I think I agree most with @pbkmaine.

I plan to continue to try to live as simply and efficiently as possible, consuming as few of the world's nonrenewable resources as possible, even if climate change is not caused by humans and is completely irreversible.

My family and I live off grid. Our home is primarily powered by 4.3 kWs of solar panels. We grow/raise much of the food that we eat. My wife and I have planted over 1000 hardwood trees on our land over the past 20 years, and most of these trees are now over 100' tall. They're sucking carbon out of the atmosphere 24 hours/day/365 days/year.

Even if it turns out that humans aren't primarily responsible for climate change and there is no feasible mitigation that we can hope to succeed at, I still think it's a good idea to burn as little fossil fuel as possible and try to consume as little of the man-made crap that's sold as possible. I like clean air, clean water, blue skies, healthy people, healthy animals and healthy plants for us all to eat. Burning less fossil fuels keeps the planet cleaner, so even if the build up of carbon doesn't matter, I don't care. I don't like breathing smog; I like to see blue skies.

Last time we were in China I don't think we saw the sky the entire 2 weeks we were there, only haze and smog. No stars at night and the sun was just a fuzzy disk behind the clouds during the daytime. It sucked! Actually, China was fascinating and beautiful. It was just the pollution that sucked.

It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

For those of you who live in the U.S., take a look around you at the way people are living. In case you're not sure, here's some breaking news: People don't drive around in giant pickup trucks and SUVs in most other countries in the world! The U.S. is an anomaly. In most other developed countries people drive around in much, much smaller, more fuel efficient cars than we do in the U.S.

In 2015 the most popular vehicle in the U.S. was Ford's F-Series pickups. Number 2 was Chevy Silverado pickup, and the number 3 best selling vehicle in the U.S. in 2015 was Dodge's Ram pickup truck. Some of the people who buy those trucks actually need them for the work that they do. Many, many people, however, do not need a pickup truck at all. They just think it looks cool, so they buy them to show off and impress their friends. Where I live many of the full-size pickup trucks I see driving around never haul anything heavier than a few surfboards or bicycles. It's a fucking joke.

It's ridiculous how wasteful we Americans are, and I think that's the low-hanging fruit as ARS likes to say. Why not just waste less? If we could all make a conscious effort to buy less useless shit, drive smaller cars, drive fewer miles, ride our bikes, plant some trees, grow some food, etc., the world would be a better, cleaner place for everyone to live. And as we all know, consuming less useless shit is one of the main things we can do to help us to save and invest enough money to retire early, which is why we're all here. If at the same time living simpler, less consumer oriented lives also had the effect of mitigating climate change, then great. If not, then that's okay too. At least we tried.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #113 on: January 22, 2016, 05:35:55 AM »
I've spent my entire adult life working in the sciences - perhaps you did not realize that when you said "the real scientists"  - so I will chalk that up to us being largely faceless strangers on the internet.

Amusingly, you're not the first scientist to be wounded in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum.

Seriously, I wouldn't have expected scientists to be so sensitive. It's not even like I've tried to attack his data collection methods.  All I've done, so far in this thread, is point out that there is a wide range of outcomes that can fit the data, there is a much wider range of choices about mitigation than has been advocated by most; and that his peers actually do have dissent amongst themselves about the likely long term consequences.  And then I have, not one, but two self-proclaimed climate scientists get upset because I don't accept their conclusions at face value.  A core value of scientific inquiry is skepticism!  I don't find it very amusing, myself.

I think you misunderstood my post.  I was merely letting you know that i too was a scientist, and i even said that I was going to chalk your statement up to being largely faceless strangers talking over the internet (in other words, you did not know). 
Yes, skepticism is healthy and necessary fort he scientific progress.  I'm objecting to your statement that there somehow isn't a consensus, and that "consensus isn't science".   I accepted your earlier statements that there could be many ways that we could approach this, but I disagree that those options haven't been discussed at length both in the scientific literature and among in the public sphere.  I'm speaking specifically of the ideas that infrastructure vulnerable to sea-level change should be gradually moved or armored as their useful lifecycle comes to an end and they need to be replaced.

Edit:  To be clear, the indignation of my last post was focused around the suggestion about there not being a consensus on climate change among scientists and the statement that consensus among scientists isn't driven by all the science.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 05:53:10 AM by nereo »

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #114 on: January 22, 2016, 06:18:19 AM »
Amusingly, you're not the first scientist to be wounded in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum.

Seriously, I wouldn't have expected scientists to be so sensitive.

I deliberately used the passive voice to try to avoid excessive feather-ruffling, but what I meant was that this is not the first time that you, MoonShadow, have wounded a scientist in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum (either by honestly underestimating, or by willfully dismissing, the professional bona fides of your counterparts in the conversation).

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #115 on: January 22, 2016, 07:54:48 AM »
It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

This is the type of flawed reasoning that drives people crazy...the incorrect assumption that anyone who doesn't buy into the warmist fear mongering only does so because they want to justify wasteful habits.

Did it ever cross your mind that many people can still believe in living with a low footprint without believing the fear mongering?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #116 on: January 22, 2016, 08:02:06 AM »
It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

This is the type of flawed reasoning that drives people crazy...the incorrect assumption that anyone who doesn't buy into the warmist fear mongering only does so because they want to justify wasteful habits.

Did it ever cross your mind that many people can still believe in living with a low footprint without believing the fear mongering?
Well, it's equally frustrating to see people suggest that there is no consensus, or accuse individual scientists of fear mongering or having a some secret agenda.  Every person that I work with deeply wishes that climate change wasn't actually happening, that there had been some colossal misunderstanding.  Unfortunately the data keeps piling up indicating that it is very real.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #117 on: January 22, 2016, 08:15:15 AM »
It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

This is the type of flawed reasoning that drives people crazy...the incorrect assumption that anyone who doesn't buy into the warmist fear mongering only does so because they want to justify wasteful habits.

Did it ever cross your mind that many people can still believe in living with a low footprint without believing the fear mongering?

Interesting.

After two previous posts where you didn't understand what the words you used meant (or were arguing in bad faith), we now have a couple uses of 'fear mongering' in your latest post.

Fear mongering - Fear mongering is the deliberate use of fear based tactics including exaggeration and continual repetition to alter the perception of the public in order to achieve a desired outcome.

So far, you have used exaggeration and continual repetition in an attempt to alter the perception of the public to achieve your desired outcome.  Who exactly is doing the fear mongering again?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #118 on: January 22, 2016, 08:38:00 AM »
It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

This is the type of flawed reasoning that drives people crazy...the incorrect assumption that anyone who doesn't buy into the warmist fear mongering only does so because they want to justify wasteful habits.

Did it ever cross your mind that many people can still believe in living with a low footprint without believing the fear mongering?

You are describing a scenario in which a person who is exceedingly environmentally consciously ignores warnings from a consensus of climatologists regarding dangers to land, ecosystems, increased species extinctions and humanity in general and instead sides with a few naysayers who are predominantly funded by fossil fuel business interests. While that scenario is indeed possible, it would display an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance.

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Location: Midtown
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #119 on: January 22, 2016, 10:36:53 AM »
It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

This is the type of flawed reasoning that drives people crazy...the incorrect assumption that anyone who doesn't buy into the warmist fear mongering only does so because they want to justify wasteful habits.

Did it ever cross your mind that many people can still believe in living with a low footprint without believing the fear mongering?

Sure, I didn't say that all people who try to cast doubt about climate change are doing so for selfish reasons. It does seem, however, that many of them are. This isn't flawed reasoning. It's just an observation.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #120 on: January 22, 2016, 10:45:04 AM »
It seems like most times when people try to argue that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, it's because they want an easy excuse to just continue on doing the same old, same old, burning their fossil fuels, and they want to feel good about themselves so they argue that the science isn't yet "settled" on climate change. To me it doesn't make much difference either way.

This is the type of flawed reasoning that drives people crazy...the incorrect assumption that anyone who doesn't buy into the warmist fear mongering only does so because they want to justify wasteful habits.

Did it ever cross your mind that many people can still believe in living with a low footprint without believing the fear mongering?

This would be all fine and dandy if you didn't dismiss the refutations, or addition of context, for the few technical points you have attempted to make. You have not provided a robust, defensible argument that is adequately supported that is adequate to dismiss or significantly alter the consensus on climate change. I recognize that you are making a didactic statement that consensus is not science, as used in the logical fallacy of argument to authority. I get that. However, when that consensus is, in fact, based on literally thousands of studies conducted by people who work very hard to find cracks and follow up on things that don't line up, you are being willfully disingenuous. It is not an argument to authority, it is a pile of information supported by data.

The most interesting point has been the concept of the relative cost of relocation/adaptation vs. the cost of mitigating carbon emissions. This has also delved into the role of government. The conflation of the two has led to much talking past each other (as promised in the thread title). There is a difference between which one has the most favorable cost-benefit ratio and how the best option should be implemented if we are to assume straw man endmembers. My take is that the bulk of the free market will not magically generate a long term solution that is equitable (with the exception of the insurance industry, which is on board and planning for what is to come). I think the market can, and will, provide some innovative solutions. I also believe that: 1) the market needs to be pushed in a direction to encourage that innovation, 2) that regulation can do this by creating a level playing field such that the organizations that are proactive are not financially penalized relative to their competitors, and 3) it allows us to be forward looking instead of reactive (as the market will be).

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #121 on: January 22, 2016, 10:51:11 AM »
Amusingly, you're not the first scientist to be wounded in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum.

Seriously, I wouldn't have expected scientists to be so sensitive.

I deliberately used the passive voice to try to avoid excessive feather-ruffling, but what I meant was that this is not the first time that you, MoonShadow, have wounded a scientist in this manner in a climate change thread on this forum (either by honestly underestimating, or by willfully dismissing, the professional bona fides of your counterparts in the conversation).

It could be just the Dunning-Kruger effect coming into play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I might interpret this post wrong, but to me it looks like MoonShadow thinks he has knowledge that climate scientists don't have or don't understand. It might be that I have been "lectured" by a lot of self proclaimed skeptics who think they have discovered something new, when it really is stuff they should have known before graduating junior high. Honestly, I know the school system has it's flaws. But how can anyone graduate without knowing we are in an interglacial periode, or that the reason the Vikings survived in Greenland was that the climate was warmer?


As for the video... Are you asking me to watch it because you think I have never actually heard the arguments against the dangers of climate change?

Nope. Proof enough you couldn't spend 4 minutes.

Omg, give me a break. I scrolled through it, but it isn't anything I haven't heard before. Believe me, I've spent a lot more than four minutes of my life reading articles on opposing views regarding climate change.

Is that so?  So you already knew that we are in an inter-glaciation period, but still in an ice age?  Did you know that the poles have been ice free 4 times that we know of, and none of them managed to sterilize the planet?  Did you know that the time of the Roman age was warmer than today, or that the Medieval Warm Period might have been also?  I'd find that impressive, since that would make you a very rare advocate.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #122 on: January 22, 2016, 11:22:25 AM »
You have not provided a robust, defensible argument that is adequately supported that is adequate to dismiss or significantly alter the consensus on climate change.

And no one has provided a robust, defensible argument that the world is in danger. All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

There used to be a consensus that stress caused ulcers that lasted for decades, and all it took was one person to prove that consensus false. One person made decades of consensus completely invalid. And, just like today, that person was vilified by people who claimed to know better.

Science does not work on consensus and never has. Consensus is for politics, not science. It doesn't matter if how many people agree, consensus is not proof. Facts are proof.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #123 on: January 22, 2016, 11:49:56 AM »
You have not provided a robust, defensible argument that is adequately supported that is adequate to dismiss or significantly alter the consensus on climate change.

And no one has provided a robust, defensible argument that the world is in danger. All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

There used to be a consensus that stress caused ulcers that lasted for decades, and all it took was one person to prove that consensus false. One person made decades of consensus completely invalid. And, just like today, that person was vilified by people who claimed to know better.

I think you are confusing scientific consensus with common wisdom. Common wisdom is not necessarily based on science. Scientific consensus by definition is. I seriously doubt the common wisdom regarding stress and ulcers was based upon upon even a fraction of the quantity of data that has been collected and analyzed in the scientific study of climate change over the last several decades.

Science does not work on consensus and never has. Consensus is for politics, not science. It doesn't matter if how many people agree, consensus is not proof. Facts are proof.

Absolutely correct. Science does not come from consensus, but consensus comes from science, which is exactly what has taken place over the years. And yes, consensus is for politics, which is why we ought to be able to come up with some reasonable policies seeing as we have consensus from the experts.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #124 on: January 22, 2016, 11:52:00 AM »
You have not provided a robust, defensible argument that is adequately supported that is adequate to dismiss or significantly alter the consensus on climate change.

And no one has provided a robust, defensible argument that the world is in danger. All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

There used to be a consensus that stress caused ulcers that lasted for decades, and all it took was one person to prove that consensus false. One person made decades of consensus completely invalid. And, just like today, that person was vilified by people who claimed to know better.

Science does not work on consensus and never has. Consensus is for politics, not science. It doesn't matter if how many people agree, consensus is not proof. Facts are proof.

Again, your argument is unsound. If, when presented with sound science you choose not to believe it there is nothing we can do other than suggest that you study up, or simply move on. Your point on science being overturned is well taken, and during my time as a research scientist I have seen, and been involved in, that process. But your argument basically boils down to "other scientific claims have been debunked, therefore it is only a matter of time until this one is, or could be." This is where that consensus comes in. No consensus by itself does not generate truth, but it is telling that that many people attacking a problem from that many angles come up with a largely consistent result lends credence. I am done discussing that topic, and am moving on unless something new and interesting actually comes up in this thread.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #125 on: January 22, 2016, 11:57:11 AM »
All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

It is not currently possible to see the future.  Computer projections based on our understanding of the climate are all that we have to predict what will happen.

You've already argued that you don't believe the current models.  You must therefore have some information that is not available to the scientific community.  So what models are you using to predict that nothing too damaging is going on?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 12:02:40 PM by GuitarStv »

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #126 on: January 22, 2016, 01:54:42 PM »
All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

It is not currently possible to see the future.  Computer projections based on our understanding of the climate are all that we have to predict what will happen.

You've already argued that you don't believe the current models.  You must therefore have some information that is not available to the scientific community.  So what models are you using to predict that nothing too damaging is going on?

Why do I need to prove anything? I'm not the one suggesting that society needs to spend trillions to fix something that "might" happen. Those who make the claims and demand money be spent are the ones with the burden of proof. One would think that this is blindingly obvious, but climate politics has abandoned all reason.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #127 on: January 22, 2016, 02:01:18 PM »
All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

It is not currently possible to see the future.  Computer projections based on our understanding of the climate are all that we have to predict what will happen.

You've already argued that you don't believe the current models.  You must therefore have some information that is not available to the scientific community.  So what models are you using to predict that nothing too damaging is going on?

Why do I need to prove anything? I'm not the one suggesting that society needs to spend trillions to fix something that "might" happen. Those who make the claims and demand money be spent are the ones with the burden of proof. One would think that this is blindingly obvious, but climate politics has abandoned all reason.
Perhaps because you continue to argue against the recommendations from an overwhelming majority or people who's very jobs are to study this.  The data, the models, the estimates are all there for anyone to see.  The burden of proof has been overwhelmingly met.  The main debates at this point focus on what actions are most cost effective, not whether climate change "might" happen.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #128 on: January 22, 2016, 02:45:35 PM »
Why do I need to prove anything?

Because you're the one making the extraordinary contrarian claims!

Failing to understand that basic principle of debate make you look dishonest and, frankly, stupid.

MOD NOTE: Forum Rule #1.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 12:01:06 AM by arebelspy »

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #129 on: January 22, 2016, 03:40:24 PM »
All we have are opinions, mostly based on computer projections that have a failure rate exceeding 98%.

It is not currently possible to see the future.  Computer projections based on our understanding of the climate are all that we have to predict what will happen.

You've already argued that you don't believe the current models.  You must therefore have some information that is not available to the scientific community.  So what models are you using to predict that nothing too damaging is going on?

Why do I need to prove anything? I'm not the one suggesting that society needs to spend trillions to fix something that "might" happen. Those who make the claims and demand money be spent are the ones with the burden of proof. One would think that this is blindingly obvious, but climate politics has abandoned all reason.
Perhaps because you continue to argue against the recommendations from an overwhelming majority or people who's very jobs are to study this.  The data, the models, the estimates are all there for anyone to see.  The burden of proof has been overwhelmingly met.  The main debates at this point focus on what actions are most cost effective, not whether climate change "might" happen.

Who is the really the denier here?  No one has proven anything. A computer projection is not proof, no matter how much you want it to be. You can deny that fact all day long, but it doesn't change the reality that there is NO proof.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #130 on: January 22, 2016, 03:47:31 PM »
Why do I need to prove anything?

Because you're the one making the extraordinary contrarian claims!

Failing to understand that basic principle of debate make you look dishonest and, frankly, stupid.

Who is really the stupid one here? I made NO claim whatsoever, I'm asking for proof of claims that others have made.

If you have to resort to insults instead of facts, then perhaps the stupidity and dishonesty is on your side.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #131 on: January 22, 2016, 04:42:10 PM »

Who is the really the denier here?  No one has proven anything. A computer projection is not proof, no matter how much you want it to be. You can deny that fact all day long, but it doesn't change the reality that there is NO proof.

In scientific terms, there is no such thing as "proof."  There is only evidence.  Perhaps this is a source of confusion.  Nothing can be proven, but evidence can support.   Models are projections based on data.  The better the input data, the more robust the model will be.  Models can be tested based on their predictions or by the robustness of fit.
In terms of both data and evidence indicating an increasingly changing climate; yes, there is overwhelming large amounts for both.


PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #132 on: January 22, 2016, 07:43:32 PM »
Quote from: music lover
Who is the really the denier here?  No one has proven anything. A computer projection is not proof, no matter how much you want it to be. You can deny that fact all day long, but it doesn't change the reality that there is NO proof.
Who is really the stupid one here? I made NO claim whatsoever, I'm asking for proof of claims that others have made.

If you have to resort to insults instead of facts, then perhaps the stupidity and dishonesty is on your side.
There is no need for name calling on either side.

However you do seem to be mistaking proof with evidence and that makes it seem you do not understand what you are discussing.

As mentioned by nereo, nothing can be considered proof from a physical sciences standpoint.  That is to say, nothing is ever considered "proven" beyond all possible doubt.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that is best explained by the theory of anthropogenic climate change.  Before you reiterate your claim that computer models are not evidence(or proof), there is a huge amount of observable, measurable, physical evidence.  This evidence is currently best explained by the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Now sure, maybe the theory is wrong and there are, whether you like to admit it or not, plenty of reputable scientists trying to poke holes in the theory.  So far no other theory has been devised that better explains the evidence.

So yes, at this point if someone comes along and says something along the lines of "you haven't proved it you all could be wrong" then it is incumbent upon them to give rational and robust reasons as to what is wrong with the theory that currently best explains the evidence and to give another theory that better explains the evidence.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 07:51:40 PM by PKFFW »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #133 on: January 22, 2016, 09:45:04 PM »
Seriously, I wouldn't have expected scientists to be so sensitive. It's not even like I've tried to attack his data collection methods.  All I've done, so far in this thread, is point out that there is a wide range of outcomes that can fit the data, there is a much wider range of choices about mitigation than has been advocated by most; and that his peers actually do have dissent amongst themselves about the likely long term consequences.  And then I have, not one, but two self-proclaimed climate scientists get upset because I don't accept their conclusions at face value.  A core value of scientific inquiry is skepticism!  I don't find it very amusing, myself.
Surely you don't believe this do you?

You used the words "If the real scientists....." by choice and probably very deliberately.

It might not be the most cutting insult to throw out there but it is obviously meant to imply that the scientists commenting here are not "real scientists".

It obviously has nothing to do with you not accepting their conclusions.  It's got to do with you being intentionally insulting about the people.

You are right about one thing though, it is not very amusing.  You attempt at justification is even less so.

No, of course not. By "real scientists" I was excluding the long list of political science majors who like to tell me about "the scientific consensus" and themselves contribute to the polling that implies such a one sided conclusion.  "Real science" is hard science; physics, geology, chemistry, etc.  You mean you didn't know that those scientists polled in that (in)famous consensus statistic included social scientists?  Because it did.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #134 on: January 22, 2016, 09:55:02 PM »
  I accepted your earlier statements that there could be many ways that we could approach this, but I disagree that those options haven't been discussed at length both in the scientific literature and among in the public sphere. I'm speaking specifically of the ideas that infrastructure vulnerable to sea-level change should be gradually moved or armored as their useful lifecycle comes to an end and they need to be replaced.
Please show me where that has seriously been discussed.
Quote

Edit:  To be clear, the indignation of my last post was focused around the suggestion about there not being a consensus on climate change among scientists

And I repeat, that's not what I said.  My point was, even though there is consensus on the question, "Is human action contributing to climate change?" there is much less support for the different question., "Is human action the primary cause of climate change?" I think that you know that the way the question is asked matters a great deal.
Quote
and the statement that consensus among scientists isn't driven by all the science.
And I didn't say that either.  I noted that consensus among scientists is not science, in the sense that consensus among scientific interpretations is not evidence.

If you insist on, deliberately I believe, misrepresenting my wording & positions, then I'm going to request you refrain from commenting.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #135 on: January 22, 2016, 10:02:22 PM »
My take is that the bulk of the free market will not magically generate a long term solution that is equitable (with the exception of the insurance industry, which is on board and planning for what is to come). I think the market can, and will, provide some innovative solutions. I also believe that: 1) the market needs to be pushed in a direction to encourage that innovation, 2) that regulation can do this by creating a level playing field such that the organizations that are proactive are not financially penalized relative to their competitors, and 3) it allows us to be forward looking instead of reactive (as the market will be).

And there it is.  Your belief system. That is what where this "talking past each other" stuff comes from.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #136 on: January 22, 2016, 10:40:37 PM »

I might interpret this post wrong, but to me it looks like MoonShadow thinks he has knowledge that climate scientists don't have or don't understand.

Quite literally the opposite.  That climate scientists don't have a complete understanding of our climate systems.  I'm suggesting that at this stage in the development of the science, this focus upon CO2 concentrations could be a boogyman.  The modern version of 'miasmia theory' prior to the sudden discovery of alternative disease vectors.  Could there be some post-grad out there with another climate model that fits the facts at least as well, that repeatedly hears, "You know nothing, John Snow?"  Of course there could, and odds are there probably is.  The history of science is not simply a story of steady improvements in measurements and theories, but often of some rare individual with a unique insight or perspective that completely disproves prior scientific consensus.  Everyone here was already born when the medical consensus was still that ulcers were caused by too much stress.  One thing that seems to be a common thread among advocates of drastic climate actions is an unshakable certainty of the accuracy of their theories; despite numerous examples of flawed data collection techniques, adjustment of data sets to correct the modeling to fit observed data collected later, or examples of political machinations against voices of dissent or alternative query.  And while I was the one who started this thread, because Jack wanted to debate a "lukewarmer", the focus here has been upon a person who has stated that he doesn't believe in any of it.  Why is that exactly?  I get attacked because of my choice of words, because a couple people willfully choose to be offended, yet I've not seen anyone actually present an argument as to why my middle ground position is untenable.  Come on, gentlemen!  Is this all you have?  As has been noted, there are actual climate scientists on this forum, and involved in this thread; show me why I'm wrong!  Please!  Show me how you know that a 4 degree average rise in temps cannot be a net gain for humanity.  Show me why a shift in wind patterns can't distribute rainfall more evenly.  Show me why this is a crisis worthy of the attention that it receives over childhood deaths due to mosquito borne illness and/or unsanitary drinking water.  Show me the data that proves my own faith in human adaptation is misplaced.  Show me the data that proves that Hubbert's Peak won't interrupt our carbon based energy infrastructure before atmospheric carbon levels cross the "point of no return".   And when you are done with all that, then show me how an international political treaty could possibly avert such a catastrophe?  I'm of the opinion that it can't be both ways, either we are already screwed or we are not; but I don't think even that simple data point can be determined.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #137 on: January 23, 2016, 07:56:51 AM »

I might interpret this post wrong, but to me it looks like MoonShadow thinks he has knowledge that climate scientists don't have or don't understand.

Quite literally the opposite.  That climate scientists don't have a complete understanding of our climate systems.  I'm suggesting that at this stage in the development of the science, this focus upon CO2 concentrations could be a boogyman.  The modern version of 'miasmia theory' prior to the sudden discovery of alternative disease vectors.  Could there be some post-grad out there with another climate model that fits the facts at least as well, that repeatedly hears, "You know nothing, John Snow?"  Of course there could, and odds are there probably is.  The history of science is not simply a story of steady improvements in measurements and theories, but often of some rare individual with a unique insight or perspective that completely disproves prior scientific consensus.  Everyone here was already born when the medical consensus was still that ulcers were caused by too much stress.  One thing that seems to be a common thread among advocates of drastic climate actions is an unshakable certainty of the accuracy of their theories; despite numerous examples of flawed data collection techniques, adjustment of data sets to correct the modeling to fit observed data collected later, or examples of political machinations against voices of dissent or alternative query.  And while I was the one who started this thread, because Jack wanted to debate a "lukewarmer", the focus here has been upon a person who has stated that he doesn't believe in any of it.  Why is that exactly?  I get attacked because of my choice of words, because a couple people willfully choose to be offended, yet I've not seen anyone actually present an argument as to why my middle ground position is untenable.  Come on, gentlemen!  Is this all you have?  As has been noted, there are actual climate scientists on this forum, and involved in this thread; show me why I'm wrong!  Please!  Show me how you know that a 4 degree average rise in temps cannot be a net gain for humanity.  Show me why a shift in wind patterns can't distribute rainfall more evenly.  Show me why this is a crisis worthy of the attention that it receives over childhood deaths due to mosquito borne illness and/or unsanitary drinking water.  Show me the data that proves my own faith in human adaptation is misplaced.  Show me the data that proves that Hubbert's Peak won't interrupt our carbon based energy infrastructure before atmospheric carbon levels cross the "point of no return".   And when you are done with all that, then show me how an international political treaty could possibly avert such a catastrophe?  I'm of the opinion that it can't be both ways, either we are already screwed or we are not; but I don't think even that simple data point can be determined.

MoonShadow - you appear to have two arguments here. 
1) "what if the best science is wrong about climate change"
2) "climate change could be a net gain for humanity"

Let's start with "What if the best science is wrong about climate change". You brought up the 'miasmia theory' and suggested that everyone may ahve just been led astray.  It's always a possibility that a few commonly accepted ideas are incorrect, and that's precisely why deductive science aims are always testing these assumptions.  Responding specifically to the miasmia theory - that is actually a really good example of science at work.   There was never any evidence for the idea that 'bad-air' caused illnesses.  People saw that others got sick, particularly when they shared the same enclosed spaces, and guessed that the air was the culprit.  That's when science stepped in and tried to find the actual mechanism.  Turns out air itself didn't cause illness, but that there were unseen organisms making us ill - which were named micro-biota.
That's how it works - you observe something, you come up with an idea for what might be causing it, and you test your conclusions.  This is exactly what has been going on with climate change for several decades.  People noticed a huge uptick in global temperatures and then the scientific community set out asking "what could be causing this" - and the scientific community has been looking at potential mechanisms for four decades.  The effects of various greenhouse gases on solar gain has been tested in the laboratory and correlated to historical records, an ever increasing array of measuremnts have been taken on dozens of physical parameters from the upper atmosphere to the deep ocean.

Getting back to climate change, my question to you is: how many years must climate change be studies before you are willing to take the conclusions seriously? We've now been studying climate change intensively for decades.  We've spent the last 30 years getting more and more accurate geolocial records using everything from ice and sediment cores to coralines and pollen deposits, and they are highly congruous.  2015 was the hottest year on record by a long shot, and the hottest 20 years over the last century have overwhelmingly occurred since 1970s.  We've observed a net loss of ice cover and a shift in species all over the planet. 

Regarding your second point: "how do we know this won't be a net gain for humanity" - you made some negative comments about social scientists earlier upthread, but if you are going to ask about the impact this could have on humanity than you need to take the comments that social scientists (and particularly anthropologists) seriously.  The overwhelming conclusion has been that it will be bad overall, and particularly bad for poorer countries.  It's been talked about in this thread.  The pope has been very vocal about it.  It was a major topic of the latest talks in Paris.  Historically, regional climate shifts have been disasterous for civilizations - I'd suggest reading Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond (another scientist).  There are also numerous models which demonstrate drastically things could change under different scenarios.  While you appear not to trust models very much, it should be noted that they can and have been back-tested with impressive results.  I've already stated that enacting policies where future infrastructure projects only be built away from high-risk zones (e.g. below sea-level and near the coast) is a sensible strategy.  But your continued arguement seems to be "maybe all of this is wrong" and you conclusion is that it's premature to act. 

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #138 on: January 23, 2016, 10:00:24 AM »
You know, I'm partly in agreement with MoonShadow here. 

We have all these climate scientists that claim they are in consensus.   But their consensus is along the lines of "We agree there's a problem."   If there's a good consensus, they should be able to express their climate models in non-obfuscatory language and make the source data available so that anyone with some computer and math skills can reproduce their results.

This isn't particle physics where you need hugely expensive equipment to run experiments.    So... does anyone know of a reproducible model we can try?   Or are we stuck with IPCC reports and hard to read academic papers?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #139 on: January 23, 2016, 10:09:23 AM »
Which part of which climate model are you having trouble understanding?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #140 on: January 23, 2016, 10:30:18 AM »

I might interpret this post wrong, but to me it looks like MoonShadow thinks he has knowledge that climate scientists don't have or don't understand.

Quite literally the opposite.  That climate scientists don't have a complete understanding of our climate systems.  I'm suggesting that at this stage in the development of the science, this focus upon CO2 concentrations could be a boogyman.  The modern version of 'miasmia theory' prior to the sudden discovery of alternative disease vectors.  Could there be some post-grad out there with another climate model that fits the facts at least as well, that repeatedly hears, "You know nothing, John Snow?"  Of course there could, and odds are there probably is.  The history of science is not simply a story of steady improvements in measurements and theories, but often of some rare individual with a unique insight or perspective that completely disproves prior scientific consensus.  Everyone here was already born when the medical consensus was still that ulcers were caused by too much stress.  One thing that seems to be a common thread among advocates of drastic climate actions is an unshakable certainty of the accuracy of their theories; despite numerous examples of flawed data collection techniques, adjustment of data sets to correct the modeling to fit observed data collected later, or examples of political machinations against voices of dissent or alternative query.  And while I was the one who started this thread, because Jack wanted to debate a "lukewarmer", the focus here has been upon a person who has stated that he doesn't believe in any of it.  Why is that exactly?  I get attacked because of my choice of words, because a couple people willfully choose to be offended, yet I've not seen anyone actually present an argument as to why my middle ground position is untenable.  Come on, gentlemen!  Is this all you have?  As has been noted, there are actual climate scientists on this forum, and involved in this thread; show me why I'm wrong!  Please!  Show me how you know that a 4 degree average rise in temps cannot be a net gain for humanity.  Show me why a shift in wind patterns can't distribute rainfall more evenly.  Show me why this is a crisis worthy of the attention that it receives over childhood deaths due to mosquito borne illness and/or unsanitary drinking water.  Show me the data that proves my own faith in human adaptation is misplaced.  Show me the data that proves that Hubbert's Peak won't interrupt our carbon based energy infrastructure before atmospheric carbon levels cross the "point of no return".   And when you are done with all that, then show me how an international political treaty could possibly avert such a catastrophe?  I'm of the opinion that it can't be both ways, either we are already screwed or we are not; but I don't think even that simple data point can be determined.

MoonShadow - you appear to have two arguments here. 
1) "what if the best science is wrong about climate change"
2) "climate change could be a net gain for humanity"

Let's start with "What if the best science is wrong about climate change". You brought up the 'miasmia theory' and suggested that everyone may ahve just been led astray.  It's always a possibility that a few commonly accepted ideas are incorrect, and that's precisely why deductive science aims are always testing these assumptions.  Responding specifically to the miasmia theory - that is actually a really good example of science at work.   There was never any evidence for the idea that 'bad-air' caused illnesses.  People saw that others got sick, particularly when they shared the same enclosed spaces, and guessed that the air was the culprit.  That's when science stepped in and tried to find the actual mechanism.  Turns out air itself didn't cause illness, but that there were unseen organisms making us ill - which were named micro-biota.
That's not how it went down. Miasma theory certainly did have evidence, doctors more than noted the person-air-person transmission vector, there were (and are) plenty of illnesses that transmitted way, such as influenza.  There was a great deal of resistance to germ theory, which already existed at the time of the Broad Street Pump incident.  And even a great deal of resistance to John Snow's theory after the Broad Street Pump incident, despite the fact that he was very complete with his research, data collection & conclusions.  John Snow invented the science of Epidemiology, almost single handedly, yet he died before miasma theory was replaced. All people get set in their ways, and even old men of science resist when young men tell them they have been doing their jobs wrong their entire lives.
Quote
That's how it works - you observe something, you come up with an idea for what might be causing it, and you test your conclusions.  This is exactly what has been going on with climate change for several decades.  People noticed a huge uptick in global temperatures and then the scientific community set out asking "what could be causing this" - and the scientific community has been looking at potential mechanisms for four decades.  The effects of various greenhouse gases on solar gain has been tested in the laboratory and correlated to historical records, an ever increasing array of measuremnts have been taken on dozens of physical parameters from the upper atmosphere to the deep ocean.
I don't share your faith, but that isn't my primary complaint anyway.  Once again, I'm a lukewarmer; I don't contest that the climate has been warming globally.

BTW, you can't really test a climate hypothesis.   There is no control & test to work with.  The best you can do is lab tests upon particular portions of the theory, but a lab test can never tell you if your hypothesis overlooks a variable, like a control can.  Lab testing can never disprove the possibility of an unknown variable, because proving a negative is logically impossible.
Quote
Getting back to climate change, my question to you is: how many years must climate change be studies before you are willing to take the conclusions seriously? We've now been studying climate change intensively for decades.  We've spent the last 30 years getting more and more accurate geolocial records using everything from ice and sediment cores to coralines and pollen deposits, and they are highly congruous.  2015 was the hottest year on record by a long shot, and the hottest 20 years over the last century have overwhelmingly occurred since 1970s.  We've observed a net loss of ice cover and a shift in species all over the planet.
 
That's all fine a good, but it doesn't even approach my prior arguments.  2015 is the hottest year on the human record.  Okay, but it's not remotely the hottest year in the geological record.  There is plenty of evidence that the Roman era was still warmer.  When wine grapes can grow again in Britian, then that "hottest year on record" argument might have merit.  The hottest year since 1870 could still be natural variation.
Quote

Regarding your second point: "how do we know this won't be a net gain for humanity" - you made some negative comments about social scientists earlier upthread, but if you are going to ask about the impact this could have on humanity than you need to take the comments that social scientists (and particularly anthropologists) seriously.
Not on their opinions regarding the accuracy of climate change theory.
Quote
The overwhelming conclusion has been that it will be bad overall, and particularly bad for poorer countries.  It's been talked about in this thread.  The pope has been very vocal about it.  It was a major topic of the latest talks in Paris.  Historically, regional climate shifts have been disasterous for civilizations - I'd suggest reading Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond (another scientist).
Of course regional climate shifts have been disasterous in the past, the Little Ice Ace was a likely contributing factor to the warfare, constant disease & ignorance of the Middle Ages.  Because when a climate gets colder, it becomes harder to grow crops, thus malnutrition becomes commonplace, which undermines the drive for education (since nearly everyone is too busy trying to eat to learn to read) and some societies resort to pillaging more prosperous areas to survive.  How does this show that a global increase of 4 degrees is bad, again?
Quote

  There are also numerous models which demonstrate drastically things could change under different scenarios.  While you appear not to trust models very much, it should be noted that they can and have been back-tested with impressive results.
Of course they have, that's why the original data has to be "adjusted" when the model fails to predict the next decade.  The root goal of science is to predict outcomes, without that predictive capacity, all science is useless, not just the climate models. The models are just a tool.
Quote
I've already stated that enacting policies where future infrastructure projects only be built away from high-risk zones (e.g. below sea-level and near the coast) is a sensible strategy.  But your continued arguement seems to be "maybe all of this is wrong" and you conclusion is that it's premature to act.

Yes, that's my premise.  Work against that.  You have not done so thus far.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #141 on: January 23, 2016, 11:19:49 AM »
When wine grapes can grow again in Britian, then that "hottest year on record" argument might have merit.

Well, that's one it doesn't even take a scientist to deal with, just the tiniest bit of googling -

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

I particularly like this news, which has Taittinger Champagne buying 69 hectares of land in England to produce English sparkling wine -

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #142 on: January 23, 2016, 11:25:24 AM »
When wine grapes can grow again in Britian, then that "hottest year on record" argument might have merit.

Well, that's one it doesn't even take a scientist to deal with, just the tiniest bit of googling -

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

I particularly like this news, which has Taittinger Champagne buying 69 hectares of land in England to produce English sparkling wine -

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

I guess I deserved that.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #143 on: January 23, 2016, 11:52:14 AM »

Quote
I've already stated that enacting policies where future infrastructure projects only be built away from high-risk zones (e.g. below sea-level and near the coast) is a sensible strategy.  But your continued arguement seems to be "maybe all of this is wrong" and you conclusion is that it's premature to act.

Yes, that's my premise.  Work against that.  You have not done so thus far.

I cannot make heads or tails of your premise here.  What you seem to be saying is that you don't believe any of the predictions about what the human costs of global climate change will be put forward from everyone from the Pope to NOAA to the WHO, but you want some random strangers on the internet to somehow do so? 
This seems impossibly circular. 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #144 on: January 23, 2016, 12:01:40 PM »
You know, I'm partly in agreement with MoonShadow here. 

We have all these climate scientists that claim they are in consensus.   But their consensus is along the lines of "We agree there's a problem."   If there's a good consensus, they should be able to express their climate models in non-obfuscatory language and make the source data available so that anyone with some computer and math skills can reproduce their results.

This isn't particle physics where you need hugely expensive equipment to run experiments.    So... does anyone know of a reproducible model we can try?   Or are we stuck with IPCC reports and hard to read academic papers?

I think this is worth responding to as it relates to how a layperson can come to understand climate science.

Part of the problem with climate change science communication is that it is a very complicated topic incorporating a broad array of lines of evidence. The computers used for research-level climate modeling are far beyond what desktop computers can do.  (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/powerful-replacement-works-climate-modeling-computer-36217955). I am not personally aware of any home computer models for people to tinker with. I think a SIM City type computer game/model would be a pretty neat thing to have. What does it take to get a climate like Venus, like Mars, like Earth in the Cretaceous vs today?

That said, there are a number of reports that attempt to distill the research into digestible summaries that aren't so jargon-rich. Here's an example from my home state of Washington from 2009. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/files/waccia/wacciaexecsummary.pdf

I think a layperson can become pretty well educated and knowledgeable on the subject if they avoid clickbait headlines (which go to both the far alarmist and non-alarmist extremes) and remain both open minded and skeptical of sources. Honestly, a thread on the internet of people arguing points is not a good way to get educated on the science because the information is often presented without the supporting context.

There are often two endmember types of discussions/articles on the science of climate change science. The first says, "Here is an observation or concept and here is how it feeds into our broader understanding of the climate." This may point out a negative, a benefit, or a trend that should be studied further because it doesn't quite fit our exiting understanding. The second says, "Here is a single observation/process and how it shows that climate change is [the end of the world] [not a problem]." Be vary wary of the second type of argument.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2016, 12:05:33 PM »
Quote
Which part of which climate model are you having trouble understanding?

I'm looking for one with open access which we can dig into.   Alot of them are behind paywalls.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2016, 12:14:18 PM »

Quote
I've already stated that enacting policies where future infrastructure projects only be built away from high-risk zones (e.g. below sea-level and near the coast) is a sensible strategy.  But your continued arguement seems to be "maybe all of this is wrong" and you conclusion is that it's premature to act.

Yes, that's my premise.  Work against that.  You have not done so thus far.

Perhaps, but I'm not the one who called for this debate, either.  Jack did.  If you wish to argue in his place, that is your objective.
I cannot make heads or tails of your premise here.  What you seem to be saying is that you don't believe any of the predictions about what the human costs of global climate change will be put forward from everyone from the Pope to NOAA to the WHO, but you want some random strangers on the internet to somehow do so? 
This seems impossibly circular.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #147 on: January 23, 2016, 12:28:11 PM »
Well, my desktops have 1-2 TFLOPS in the GPU...  Now that's not the same as the 5 PFLOPS in the super computers, but it's still a great deal of compute power.

I think that paper from U Washington is too high level.  It's giving us results, but not enough info to even think about reproducing them.

I've found this one, which appears to be open access.  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1  Let's see if my argument holds any water. 
In the abstract the authors say: 
Quote
Based on research showing that in the case of a strong aerosol forcing, this forcing establishes itself early in
the historical record, a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol
forcing on the early (pre-1950) part of the instrumental record.  This model, which contains terms representing
both aerosol–radiation and aerosol–cloud interactions, well represents the known time history of aerosol
radiative forcing as well as the effect of the natural state on the strength of aerosol forcing. Model parameters,
randomly drawn to represent uncertainty in understanding, demonstrate that a forcing more negative
than 21.0Wm22 is implausible, as it implies that none of the approximately 0.3-K temperature rise between
1850 and 1950 can be attributed to Northern Hemisphere forcing. The individual terms of the model are
interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding to
provide further support for the less negative (21.0Wm22) lower bound. These findings suggest that aerosol
radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.

The term forcing in climate change seems to come from math - where a forcing function that appears in a differential equation is a function which is only a function of time, not the other variables.
So that abstract is saying that they are interested in studying the effect of some aerosol data on the pre-1950 part of the instrumental record.  I think.

Their model contains terms covering both the interactions of aerosols with radiation (presumably this is heat transfer from the sun and back into space) and with aerosol-cloud interactions.

Then the abstract suggests that they randomly select model parameters (because they don't have good data as to what the parameters should be) to establish a bound on the size of the forcing function to -1.0 W/sq metre.

From that, they conclude something about the temperature rise from 1850 to 1950.

So...  where do we start?   Guitar Steve, do you agree with my interpretation of the abstract?




nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2016, 12:29:36 PM »

Perhaps, but I'm not the one who called for this debate, either.  Jack did.  If you wish to argue in his place, that is your objective.


but..but..but...  you are the OP of this thread!   

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2016, 12:35:19 PM »
I think this is worth responding to as it relates to how a layperson can come to understand climate science.

Part of the problem with climate change science communication is that it is a very complicated topic incorporating a broad array of lines of evidence. The computers used for research-level climate modeling are far beyond what desktop computers can do.  (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/powerful-replacement-works-climate-modeling-computer-36217955). I am not personally aware of any home computer models for people to tinker with. I think a SIM City type computer game/model would be a pretty neat thing to have. What does it take to get a climate like Venus, like Mars, like Earth in the Cretaceous vs today?

Computer models are not evidence, no matter how often you make that claim.

Quote
That said, there are a number of reports that attempt to distill the research into digestible summaries that aren't so jargon-rich. Here's an example from my home state of Washington from 2009. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/files/waccia/wacciaexecsummary.pdf

The very first thing in that report is the IPCC claim of a 5.9 degree rise in temperature by 2080. However, all the IPCC computer projections have been proven wrong so far. The report isn't based on fact, it's based on unproven assumptions.

It appears that no one has any evidence the planet is in trouble....if there was we'd have heard about it by now. All we hear are "based on computer projections", yet none of them have been right yet. Climate politics is not climate science.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!