What Climate Wars Did To Science

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trouble-obamas-clean-power-plan

China is firing up coal burning power plants at a rate of 1 per week, I guess they didn't get the memo.

It's bad over there. Wherever I went, the coal smog was awful. Regardless of the global warming cause debate, that amount of toxins in the atmosphere cannot be good for anyone.

[Mr. Desmond]

Seems as if climate change is a bigger concern than ISIS ... and may have caused or will cause governments to fail. Iran is also troubled. So while their governments fiddle and their religious sects fume over Islam, Mother Nature burns ... them.

From today's NYT and Thomas Friedman:

Here’s my bet about the future of Sunni, Shiite, Arab, Turkish, Kurdish and Israeli relations: If they don’t end their long-running conflicts, Mother Nature is going to destroy them all long before they destroy one another. Let me point out a few news items you may have missed while debating the Iran nuclear deal.

On July 31, USA Today reported that in Bandar Mahshahr, Iran, a city adjacent to the Persian Gulf, t he heat index soared to 163 degrees “as a heat wave continued to bake the Middle East, already one of the hottest places on earth. ‘ That was one of the most incredible temperature observations I have ever seen, and it is one of the most extreme readings ever in the world,’ AccuWeather meteorologist Anthony Sagliani said in a statement.

“While the temperature was ‘only’ 115 degrees, the dew point was an unfathomable 90 degrees. ... The combination of heat and humidity, measured by the dew point, is what makes the heat index — or what the temperature actually feels like outside.”

Then we saw something we’ve not seen before: An Iraqi government was sacked over its failure to deliver air conditioning. Two weeks ago, the prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, abolished all three vice-presidential posts and the office of deputy prime minister and proposed sweeping anti-corruption reforms after weeks of street protests over the fact that the government could supply electricity for air-conditioning for only a few hours a day during weeks of 120-degree temperatures.

As The Times’s Anne Barnard reported on Aug. 1 , the heat issue in Iraq “has even eclipsed war with the Islamic State. The prime minister … declared a four-day weekend to keep people out of the sun … and ordered an end to one of the most coveted perks of government officials: round-the-clock power for their air-conditioners . …

“Several thousand people — workers, artists and intellectuals — demonstrated Friday evening … in the center of Baghdad, chanting and carrying signs about the lack of electricity and blaming corruption for it. … Some men stripped to their shorts and lay down in the street to sleep, a strong statement in a modest society. … The protest was unusual in that it did not appear to have been called for by any major political party.”

On Feb. 19, 2014, The Associated Press reported from Iran: “ The first cabinet decision made under Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, wasn’t about how to resolve his country’s nuclear dispute with world powers. It was about how to keep the nation’s largest lake from disappearing. Lake Oroumieh, one of the biggest saltwater lakes on earth, has shrunk more than 80 percent to . .. (nearly 400 square miles) in the past decade, mainly because of climate change, expanded irrigation for surrounding farms and the damming of rivers that feed the body of water, experts say.

“ ‘The lake is gone. My job is gone. My children are gone. Tourists, too,’ said Mozafar Cheraghi, 58, as he stood on a dusty platform that was once his bustling teahouse.”

They added, “A 2011 study from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found strong evidence that winter precipitation decline in the Mediterranean littoral and the Middle East from 1971 to 2010 was likely due to climate change, with the region experiencing nearly all of its driest winters since 1902 in the past 20 years.”

Finally they noted: “T he social contract between governments and their publics is being stressed by these extreme events, and that matters are only likely to get worse, given climate projections for many of these places. … Governments that are responsive to publics in the face of these stresses are likely to strengthen the social contract, while those who are unresponsive are likely to weaken i t. And for the most part, we’re seeing inadequate responses.”

Indeed, see Syria: Its revolution was preceded by the worst four-year drought in the country’s modern history, driving nearly a million farmers and herders off the land, into the cities where the government of Bashar al-Assad completely failed to help them, fueling the revolution.

All the people in this region are playing with fire. While they’re fighting over who is caliph, who is the rightful heir to the Prophet Muhammad from the seventh century — Sunnis or Shiites — and to whom God really gave the holy land, Mother Nature is not sitting idle. She doesn’t do politics — only physics, biology and chemistry. And if they add up the wrong way, she will take them all down.

[phillyk]

http://www.sisal.unam.mx/labeco/LAB_ECOLOGIA/OF_files/heat%20sink%20led%20to%20global-warming%20slowdown.pdf

I've heard about the global warming hiatus and wanted to search about possible causes or what is really happening.  A quick summary of the above article (which is free to look at or can be purchased in full text at sciencemag.org) involves two different theories of why this hiatus is occurring.  Ocean surface temperatures should continue accelerating with the continuing radiative forcing, but they are not. So, some type of planetary sink must be taking in this excess heat/energy.  The first theory is that the slowdown is caused by increasing volcanic eruptions, a decrease in stratospheric water vapor, anthropogenic aerosols, or a low solar minimum or some combination of the above.  These authors used ocean surface temperatures and intermediate ocean depth temperatures around the globe to observe where heat was being absorbed or radiated through the latter 20th and early 21st centuries.  They concluded that this first theory isn't strong enough to cause such a slow down, as seen from their data.  The second theory, that they believe is the cause, is intermediate depth ocean sinks in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans taking in excess heat now that they haven't done in the last few decades.  I'm still trying to understand their reasoning, but it involves dense, saline water from tropical regions transporting water to the poles and sinking due to the fresher water from ice melt on the surface, or something like that.  They do acknowledge that this theory can not yet be proven until this hiatus inevitably "switches sign" and warming ensues.  But it seems to provide a reliable theory supported by accurate data.

I've read other articles also mentioning that this hiatus will only last a decade or two until this planetary sink is used up, regardless of what it is.  The fact still remains that there is a lot of heat is being released from many sources and sinks try to maintain the balance.  The ocean can store a high percentage of this heat, but it runs in cycles.  I'd like to remain optimistic about this slow down, but I'm pretty sure it won't last very long.

Edited November 15, 2015 by phillyk

[acerimusdux]

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

 I'd like to remain optimistic about this slow down, but I'm pretty sure it won't last very long.

Indeed, it appears it has already ended:

Quote

The first nine months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous records of 2010 and 2014 by 0.12°C (0.21°F). Seven months this year, including the past five, have been record warm for their respective months. January was the second warmest January on record and April third warmest.

link

That said, I thought the most common and accepted "hiatus" explanation was always that 1998 was a strong El-Nino year, and that the entire "hiatus" could be explained by that one single year outlier. Essentially, there has always been natural variability, and you can find numerous hiatuses of 10, 20, or even 30+ years in recent centuries, if you start measuring from around a peak year.

This for example from 2009:

Quote

In their recently published research paper2 entitled "Is the climate warming or cooling?", David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.

Quote

Between 1997 and 1998, there was an unusually strong El Niño, and this caused 1998 to be one of the hottest years on record (Figure 1). When Easterling and Wehner dropped the 1998 temperature spike from the data altogether, and zoomed in on the readings from 1999 to 2008, they saw a strong warming trend over this period. But when the 1998 measurement is included in the data, it looks as if there is no overall warming between 1998 and 2008 at all.

 

[Mr. Desmond]

All I can tell you is that Coca-Cola and Nike believe in climate change -- and they plan around it in sourcing raw materials and changing the materials they use.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html

The Department of Defense also believe in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html

Just saying ...

Quote

Today, after a decade of increasing damage to Coke’s balance sheet as global droughts dried up the water needed to produce its soda, the company has embraced the idea of climate change as an economically disruptive force.

“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”

Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.

Not exactly places brimming with liberals...

[saevel25]

Guys, there is a whole thread dedicated to global warming, http://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/83264-what-climate-wars-did-to-science/?do=findComment&comment=1109923

I don't think this thread, about general politics, is a place to specifically talk in details about a topic that has been discussed a ton about. ;) 

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Guys, there is a whole thread dedicated to global warming, http://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/83264-what-climate-wars-did-to-science/?do=findComment&comment=1109923

I don't think this thread, about general politics, is a place to specifically talk in details about a topic that has been discussed a ton about. ;) 

Thanks. I don't want to discuss it. Just post articles that are interesting and relevant. If I post an article, I will use that thread.

[phillyk]

The whole article is http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-080125499--election.html

Thought this was interesting but not unexpected.

[Mr. Desmond]

Since an international Climate Conference is heating up, why not an update?

The NY Times has a simple Q&A on climate change. Here are 2 of the 12 questions in plain language.

Quote

 

Short Answers to Hard Questions

8. Q: Are the predictions reliable?

A: They’re not perfect, but they’re grounded in solid science.

The idea that Earth is sensitive to greenhouse gases is confirmed by many lines of scientific evidence. For instance, the basic physics suggesting that an increase of carbon dioxide traps more heat was discovered in the 19th century, and has been verified in thousands of laboratory experiments. 

Climate science does contain uncertainties, of course. The biggest is the degree to which global warming sets off feedback loops, such as a melting of sea ice that will darken the surface and cause more heat to be absorbed, melting more ice, and so forth. It is not clear exactly how much the feedbacks will intensify the warming; some of them could even partially offset it. This uncertainty means that computer forecasts can give only a range of future climate possibilities, not absolute predictions. 

But even if those computer forecasts did not exist, a huge amount of evidence suggests that scientists have the basic story right. The most important evidence comes from the study of past climate conditions, a field known as paleoclimate research. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. A hundred miles inland from today’s East Coast, seashells can be dug from ancient beaches that are three million years old. These past conditions are not a perfect guide to the future, either, because humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the air far faster than nature has ever done.

9. Q Why do people question climate change?

Hint: ideology.

Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject to free-market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.

This ideological position has been propped up by money from fossil-fuel interests, which have paid to create organizations, fund conferences and the like. The scientific arguments made by these groups usually involve cherry-picking data, such as focusing on short-term blips in the temperature record or in sea ice, while ignoring the long-term trends.

The most extreme version of climate denialism is to claim that scientists are engaged in a worldwide hoax to fool the public so that the government can gain greater control over people’s lives. As the arguments have become more strained, many oil and coal companies have begun to distance themselves publicly from climate denialism, but some are still helping to finance the campaigns of politicians who espouse such views.

 

See the remainder:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

[rkim291968]

This picture illustrates people who don't believe in climate change issues:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/metalgear/images/7/7f/Hear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140110032442

[RandallT]

5 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

9. Q Why do people question climate change?

Hint: ideology.

Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject to free-market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.

This ideological position has been propped up by money from fossil-fuel interests, which have paid to create organizations, fund conferences and the like. The scientific arguments made by these groups usually involve cherry-picking data, such as focusing on short-term blips in the temperature record or in sea ice, while ignoring the long-term trends.

The most extreme version of climate denialism is to claim that scientists are engaged in a worldwide hoax to fool the public so that the government can gain greater control over people’s lives. As the arguments have become more strained, many oil and coal companies have begun to distance themselves publicly from climate denialism, but some are still helping to finance the campaigns of politicians who espouse such views.

 

11 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

This picture illustrates people who don't believe in climate change issues:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/metalgear/images/7/7f/Hear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140110032442

Let me put forth an alternative proposition and please take it in a spirit of inquisitiveness, not ideological spin:

I thought the answer to that #9 question above would be:

1. Very few people question "climate change." Climate change has always happened. Frankly, it's a dumb question that is intended to mock the "other side." It attempts to make them look foolish, and you should look foolish if you deny that climate is changing. 

Let me say again (has been said many times on the thread): the serious scientific challenge to the supposed consensus opinion is not that climate change is occurring or not, it is that the human component is not yet leading us to imminent peril. It is incumbent upon those who think that high CO2 will destroy our planet to prove it. Thus far, that proof is full of holes, and I think someone is actually blind, deaf, and dumb if you don't at least question it. Look for alternative data and charts and think "hmmm, how does this get explained?"...."what are the arguments against this?" Some examples below.

2. Why would scientists NOT question a scientific proposition, as science is all about questioning what we know- particularly one that is so critical as this. Probe the outer limits to get smarter. You'd think that would be well understood.  The science is NOT settled at all, and frankly, it is ridiculous to blindly accept conventional wisdom, particularly in a situation like the Earth's climate, which has too many variables to be certain about it.

Climate is cyclical with a zillion variables- not the least of which are the sun and our orbit around it (which shifts on about 20,000 yr cycle I believe). There was a Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period- without much human cause. I remember reading a book on the Magna Carta and they described the crops grown then in England as no longer being possible because it's so much colder now than it was then. 

Should we limit CO2? Sure. I'm all for that. But the Chicken Little panic by technocrats is a bit too much, and I look forward to their apologies when the disaster that they predict doesn't arrive. I would be blind, deaf, and dumb if I didn't at least question their motives. I'm a cynic about everybody and everything!

Here are some graphs that speak to me, for example. If any are flat out wrong, let me know!

https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line_updated2.pdf

On a grand scheme, scientists haven't proven to my satisfaction why, say 1000ppm, means destruction of our planet.  We've been up well over 1000ppm in the past. I've found some explanations on skepticalscience's site, but it had to do with the way the sun was putting out energy then compared to now. It's interesting but didn't full convince me. If someone understands their explanation better, let me know.

Also the planet has been much hotter and cooler than now (a range of 15c)- without human intervention. We are at fairly low temps and CO2 concentrations historically. In fact, I've read somewhere that CO2 in the 200's is possibly too low for a significant number of plants, but that with higher CO2, plant life will flourish. Crops more efficient, drought resistant, etc. I sure don't think of the Jurassic period as being difficult for sustaining life (2000+ppm CO2).

 

Sea level rise has mostly leveled off. I'm not aware of science saying that sea level rise is accelerating now (it's like 1-2mm per year, I believe). Same rate as 1800s. A big problem on the coasts is that the land is subsiding. That's a natural process as described here in the USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf). On the east coast, the land subsides by over 1mm per year, for example- roughly the same as the sea is rising. 

 

 

Below is a chart of temps over several thousand years, with some events listed.  There are periods of sharp rises and falls through time (today is on the right). Is our current state a crisis? Is it trending toward a crisis? I don't see it.  What about Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period? Were those catastrophes? Were they caused by humans? If not, you must admit that natural variability is significant, no?

 

I'm not a fan of polluting, but I'm not seeing the science prove to me that the current rate of CO2 increase will lead to a catastrophe. We should be good stewards of our planet, surely. But I do feel that the politicians who spout about how serious the issue is at this moment are mistaken, and even acting a bit foolishly. History will not judge them well, I think. We don't look too kindly on the fools who claimed global cooling, do we? Looking at the big picture in the graph immediately above, am I being the fool? Tell me if I am. Also tell me if that graph is incorrect.

Again, the source is: 

https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line_updated2.pdf

from this link too: 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years-2/ 

 

[Mr. Desmond]

2 hours ago, RandallT said:

It is incumbent upon those who think that high CO2 will destroy our planet to prove it.

I think the burden of proof is on those who want to impose pollution on the earth that they are not harming the planet. After all, should we not be conservative in our actions when we are discussing harming the planet? Are we not supposed to be good stewards of the planet? Or are we supposed to say, "we'll pollute until you prove it's harmful." I don't think so.

I think it is incumbent on those who are mining and using the earth's resources and polluting to prove they are doing little harm. It's called being conservative.

In other words,  the entity changing the condition of the planet by mining and using its resources for profit or other goals is responsible for providing proof that they are not harming the earth. After all, they are changing conditions. They are profiting either by money or lifestyle - they must use some of those profits to conserve the earth and protect future generations. It's called taking responsibility and accepting accountability.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[phillyk]

2 hours ago, RandallT said:

 

I'm not a fan of polluting, but I'm not seeing the science prove to me that the current rate of CO2 increase will lead to a catastrophe. We should be good stewards of our planet, surely. But I do feel that the politicians who spout about how serious the issue is at this moment are mistaken, and even acting a bit foolishly. History will not judge them well, I think. We don't look too kindly on the fools who claimed global cooling, do we? Looking at the big picture in the graph immediately above, am I being the fool? Tell me if I am. Also tell me if that graph is incorrect.

 

This article is a good read for how we can measure human emission.
http://skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

The basics is that fossil fuel emissions have a different isotope ratio of carbon (C13/C12) in CO2 than naturally made CO2 (volcanoes etc.).  This ratio is lower over cities and more industrial areas while it is higher over areas with little human presence or industry.   Look at the graphs they provide as well.

Yes, as you have pointed out the levels of CO2 and temperatures have been higher and lower in the past, but they usually change over the course of thousands of years, not hundreds.  This can hurt a lot of life on Earth as they may not be able to adapt as fast as their habitats are changing; think of some populations of polar bear or coral reefs around the world, just to name a couple.

Edited November 30, 2015 by phillyk

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I think the burden of proof is on those who want to impose pollution on the earth that they are not harming the planet. After all, should we not be conservative in our actions when we are discussing harming the planet? Are we not supposed to be good stewards of the planet? Or are we supposed to say, "we'll pollute until you prove it's harmful." I don't think so.

I think it is incumbent on those who are mining and using the earth's resources and polluting to prove they are doing little harm. It's called being conservative.

In other words,  the entity changing the condition of the planet by mining and using its resources for profit or other goals is responsible for providing proof that they are not harming the earth. After all, they are changing conditions. They are profiting either by money or lifestyle - they must use some of those profits to conserve the earth and protect future generations. It's called taking responsibility and accepting accountability.

These are excellent points. It was the same with smoking. It took decades to show that second hand smoke was harmful (there are still deniers) and to force smokers into the position of preventing their habit from affecting those who don't want it. 

Regardless of whether you believe humans caused climate change, I cannot see any valid point to allow pollution to continue at current levels. We know what it is doing to the human body. Businesses are using money to drive their side of the argument. What I don't understand is why they don't see the money making opportunity to the other side of the argument.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

Regardless of whether you believe humans caused climate change, I cannot see any valid point to allow pollution to continue at current levels. We know what it is doing to the human body. Businesses are using money to drive their side of the argument. What I don't understand is why they don't see the money making opportunity to the other side of the argument.

I put it as just not having common sense. Those situations where you rather argue the unwise choice because you are politically opposed to the other side. 

[newtogolf]

19 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I put it as just not having common sense. Those situations where you rather argue the unwise choice because you are politically opposed to the other side.

I do agree politics factors into the equation but that's because those pushing the climate change paranoia have already suggested cap and trade as well as a carbon tax on individuals.  Seems too convenient that in a time when our government runs up a $30T deficit they find a new way to tax us for our own good.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

I do agree politics factors into the equation but that's because those pushing the climate change paranoia have already suggested cap and trade as well as a carbon tax on individuals.  Seems too convenient that in a time when our government runs up a $30T deficit they find a new way to tax us for our own good.

I don't have a particular stance on Climate Change. Climate changes all the time. Actually cap and trade makes sense. Carbon Tax is stupid. I am not a fan of using taxation as a way to regulate. 

Still, I don't get the people who want a massive deregulation on pollution. I want to ask them if they would like a pipe connecting a coal plan to their home? If not then why do they think allowing that anywhere on the planet is a good thing? If they support deregulation they should want that pollution right where they live. Maybe they are OK as long as its not near them. 



 

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I don't have a particular stance on Climate Change. Climate changes all the time. Actually cap and trade makes sense. Carbon Tax is stupid. I am not a fan of using taxation as a way to regulate. 

Still, I don't get the people who want a massive deregulation on pollution. I want to ask them if they would like a pipe connecting a coal plan to their home? If not then why do they think allowing that anywhere on the planet is a good thing? If they support deregulation they should want that pollution right where they live. Maybe they are OK as long as its not near them. 



 

I agree, pollution overall is a bad thing and as we make advances in alternative power technology we should strive to eliminate pollution as much as possible.  Unfortunately we're not there, coal is still driving the majority of power plants, and world wide there are more coal and oil power plants being built than eliminated.

Pushing a carbon tax on individuals when there aren't cost effective and equitable alternative power solutions just translates to a tax hike.  A key revenue source for Tesla is selling emissions credits to other car manufacturers so they can continue to build gas guzzlers without the penalties.  Our government is using tax payer money to fund Tesla because they are developing eco friendly cars but Tesla doesn't really care about the environment given they are in turn selling emissions credits to those who are producing less efficient, less eco friendly cars, it's hypocritical.