Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hint....
NADA....

You are correct. There is system delay and systemic feedbacks, temperatures would continue to rise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The 97%, etc. = the purported consensus on the existence of AGW. We're now discussing the strength of that consensus on impacts, i.e. ice packs, weather, economies, coral reefs. I know it involves reading a lot of posts, but try and keep up.

sorry. It was just that "appeal to authority" was usually levelled at anyone spouting the "97%" too.

We need to study more, to get more and better data, to work towards a consensus on the risks.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

You left off this paragraph, which is germane.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority



Courts of law rely on expert opinion. For example pathologists testify as to time and cause of death. Yes, they can be wrong.

Recognized experts are used in academia all the time. Every thesis and dissertation starts with a review of the literature. referenced expert opinion is accepted as evidence.

The CRAPP test ask questions about authority.

Authority: the source of the information

Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
-Are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given?
-What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given?
-What are the author's qualifications to write on the topic?
-Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
-Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?
examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)

The CRAAP test - Evaluating Web Resources - LibGuides at North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

sorry. It was just that "appeal to authority" was usually levelled at anyone spouting the "97%" too.

Not sure we've heard that one, but maybe. More like suggestions of an over-reliance on the 97%, especially when it starts to wither after the core conclusion that AGW exists, but you then start considering impacts. There is nowhere near such a strong scientific consensus when it comes to weather, polar ice, coral reefs, economics, sea level rise, etc., etc.

We need to study more, to get more and better data, to work towards a consensus on the risks.

Agreed. Not sure I buy into the "because it's man-made & not natural," it's therefore bad, especially given all the other "natural" influences on such things as weather & polar ice, to name just a couple of examples. Then again, if there's a decades long build up time as Gord's sources suggest, and the harm is real but not knowable until well down the road, it could mean an impetus to act sooner. But of course the developed world has been acting, whether motivated by CC or the broader acceptance that reductions in fossil fuel consumption & emissions is generally a positive for other good reasons.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Then again, if there's a decades long build up time as Gord's sources suggest, and the harm is real but not knowable until well down the road, it could mean an impetus to act sooner. But of course the developed world has been acting, whether motivated by CC or the broader acceptance that reductions in fossil fuel consumption & emissions is generally a positive for other good reasons.

That is why I, and others, support the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete, such as the risks of nano technology, genetically modified organisms and systemic insecticides.

The Precautionary Principle is defined as follows:
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is

-threatening to human life or health, or
-serious and effectively irreversible, or
-inequitable to present or future generations, or
-imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.

The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis.
Analysis should be ongoing so that chosen actions are subject to review.
Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the bounds of the possible harm.

Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm. Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process.

The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle

Most of us employ this in our daily lives. We buy fire insurance on our homes, even though less than 5% of homes have a fire. Many folks with small children child-proof their homes.

In sailing, I insist on pfd's with strobe lights, tethers, jacklines, EPIRBS and liferafts when offshore. I have never put any of them to the test in over 40,000 miles.

I wear a seat belt while driving although the only times I have seriously needed one was while co-driving rally cars. That did save my life in a few hard crashes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No one denies that natural forces are a factor in climate change.

Yes, obviously climate change has always been with us due to natural forces. A better way of putting it might be whether MMCC is having an impact on those natural forces.

The dynamics of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are very different. One is an ocean surrounded by continents, the other is a continent surrounded by oceans.

Which I suppose could mean that Arctic sea ice is more variable given that land masses have more varied temps, along with other factors associated with the Arctic being more landlocked and closer to sources of fresh water that Curry and I'm sure many other experts have identified.

The artci is better understood that the Antarctic. One theory about Antarctic SEA ice is that melting ice sheet fresh water at 0C is freezing when it hits Antarctic saline sea water at -1.8C.

Wind as also been identified as a significant factor in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions.

The current Arctic sea ice levels are below the record 2012-2013 levels. That seems to contradict Curry's forecast.

Apparently so. Fwiw, and I don't profess any thorough understanding of it, but Curry pointed out a relationship b'twn. declining sea ice and increased snowfall which replenishes it. Another "natural" cycle. The article Newhaul cited also made this connection to explain the increasing ice pack in Antarctica.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

There is nowhere near such a strong scientific consensus when it comes to weather, polar ice, coral reefs, economics, sea level rise, etc., etc.

Yes, agreed. (hope this doesn't come as a surprise)

... if there's a decades long build up time as Gord's sources suggest, and the harm is real but not knowable until well down the road, it could mean an impetus to act sooner.

Naturally I agree with that.

But of course the developed world has been acting, whether motivated by CC or the broader acceptance that reductions in fossil fuel consumption & emissions is generally a positive for other good reasons.

There is action, yes... is it fast enough, supported well enough, or cohesive enough, given the amount of 'anti-' sentiment as evidenced in the thread?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is why I, and others, support the Precautionary Principle.



The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle

Most of us employ this in our daily lives. We buy fire insurance on our homes, even though less than 5% of homes have a fire. Many folks with small children child-proof their homes.

In sailing, I insist on pfd's with strobe lights, tethers, jacklines, EPIRBS and liferafts when offshore. I have never put any of them to the test in over 40,000 miles.

I wear a seat belt while driving although the only times I have seriously needed one was while co-driving rally cars. That did save my life in a few hard crashes.

!!! Always wanted to try that! I live around a lot of both fast & technical dirt roads, and had a Subaru STI for awhile. Great fun, until I started driving it around town and kept being reminded by the local constabulary that the existence of my license was becoming increasily perilous. Of course I've always favored two wheels over four, and so my license has always been in peril.

Can't argue about the Precautionary Principle or your several examples of how you apply it. The problem is that it also applicable to the other side. If we unnecessarily take steps that will likely slow down economic growth, it will also likely slow technological advancement, along with having a disproportionate economic impact on those least able to endure it, especially in the developing world. As you know from rally racing, sometimes too little throttle will get you into just as much trouble as too much.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There is action, yes... is it fast enough, supported well enough, or cohesive enough, given the amount of 'anti-' sentiment as evidenced in the thread?

You are again assuming, without knowing, that there is enough of a scientific consensus to answer those questions. And while applying Jack's Precautionary Principle may in theory justify additional action, it doesn't seem to factor in the costs, i.e. the downsides. I don't see reaching the needed political consensus you're looking for until both sides of the issue are more honestly & thoroughly explored.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently so. Fwiw, and I don't profess any thorough understanding of it, but Curry pointed out a relationship b'twn. declining sea ice and increased snowfall which replenishes it. Another "natural" cycle. The article Newhaul cited also made this connection to explain the increasing ice pack in Antarctica.

Increased snowfall has been linked to AGW.

The largest changes in precipitation are expected at mid- to- high latitudes (Kattenberg et al., 1996). Climate models predict an increase in average precipitation in winter at high latitudes due to poleward transport of evaporated moisture from lower latitudes. There is also an increase in the expected frequency and areal extent of intense precipitation over the continents.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You are again assuming, without knowing, that there is enough of a scientific consensus to answer those questions.

I just AGREED with you that we lack enough information to have a consensus around the extent of harm...

And while applying Jack's Precautionary Principle may in theory justify additional action, it doesn't seem to factor in the costs, i.e. the downsides. I don't see reaching the needed political consensus you're looking for until both sides of the issue are more honestly & thoroughly explored.

As you've seen in the thread, the 'anti-AGW' sentiment often extends to (or in some cases originates with) a rejection or dismissal of anything 'green' . I am very seriously concerned that, for better or worse, the issue of AGW has become the proxy for just about all proactive initiatives, because any action - emissions standards, coal phaseout, public transit, etc - that's important for other reasons but can be portrayed as being "for AGW", will be voted down by the strong 'anti-' numbers.

How can this be resolved? Ideas for a compromise, or for decoupling other green initiatives from AGW?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You left off this paragraph, which is germane.

I left it off because it, necessarily, uses the term "informal"...which means, of course, that you can use appeals to authority in campfire discussions, or sailing forums, or anytime if you're L-E, believing that you have a persuasive "argument"...

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Increased snowfall has been linked to AGW.
...

Hell, what hasn't? Even earthquakes...

I guess they're caused by the subsidence from the melting of those billions of tons of ice...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I left it off because it, necessarily, uses the term "informal"...which means, of course, that you can use appeals to authority in campfire discussions, or sailing forums, or anytime if you're L-E, believing that you have a persuasive "argument"...

'informal" refers to the fallacy, not the appeal to authority.

I think I will stick to my doctor as an authority on my health and my mechanic as an authority on my car.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Hell, what hasn't? Even earthquakes...

I guess they're caused by the subsidence from the melting of those billions of tons of ice...

Nope - bounce back from removing the weight of the ice.



Rate of crustal bounce-back following the end of the last ice age, as modelled by Paulson et al. (2007). Source: NASA.

That had nothing to do with AGW. You will get bounce back after any glaciation ends.