Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

BINGO...you just more politely said exactly what I mockingly say when I refer to MMGW Cultists. I wish I had your patience, but the world is ending and we are running out of time to save the planet....

I bet there have been many times when Jack, L-E and probably others wouldn't agree that I've been polite or patient! Oh well, hopefully they don't take it (too) personally. I know I don't, especially since I credit Jack with getting me properly schooled up on the Colregs, along with other navigational & seamanship complexities. No doubt he knows his sailing stuff.

But it's funny, my views are not always in sync with yours, but I still often find them valuable and always humorous! Heck, I might still buy a watermaker from you one of these days. What's the world coming to when we're still inclined to do business with someone we have political disagreements with?? But tell me, will I need to check in with the AG's office first? Will there be a "penalty" imposed for such nonconforming societal malfeasance, or will it merely be a "tax?"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's see you more recent data.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Classic. Newhaul asserts no new CC science has come out in awhile. Jack responds with info that's 7 years old & older, but then demands Newhaul refute his own assertion.

Somewhere in these colloquies I keep losing track of the logic.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Classic. Newhaul asserts no new CC science has come out in awhile. Jack responds with info that's 7 years old & older, but then demands Newhaul refute his own assertion.

Somewhere in these colloquies I keep losing track of the logic.

New science comes out on a weekly basis -- almost a daily basis.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Classic. Newhaul asserts no new CC science has come out in awhile. Jack responds with info that's 7 years old & older, but then demands Newhaul refute his own assertion.

Newhaul made an unsubstantiated assertion. I found evidence to counter his assertion. Is it too much to ask him for evidence? I guess it it.


Drought conditions continue to exist

Sahel: Drought, displacement and conflict leave 20 million food insecure - Humanosphere

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Quote:
We found a rich array of changes in ice seasonality of two inland waters from geographically distant regions: namely a shift towards later ice formation for Suwa and earlier spring melt for Torne, increasing frequencies of years with warm extremes, changing inter-annual variability, waning of dominant inter-decadal quasi-periodic dynamics, and stronger correlations of ice seasonality with atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature after the start of the Industrial Revolution.



Certainly worth pondering, but as evidence that supports the theory of a correlation btwn. increased concentrations of CO2 and further warming. Not necessarily even a probability, and certainly not settled.

There are obvious problems with general and specific causation with the science at this time. So the question becomes whether the evidence we have now justifies further remedial actions and, if so, to what extent do such actions outweigh the societal costs. Given the current level of technological feasibility, that is.

The rest of the debate can be educational (if presented honestly) but often academic. But presenting evidence as proof of settled science is only for the simple-minded and politically predisposed, and only serves to undercut the advocate's credibility when inquiring minds choose to delve deeper.

Hate to tell ya, but most people could care little for the politics left or right, and are simply tired of all the relentless and obvious whining, moralizing, & propaganda being foisted upon them. Uncouple the politics, acknowledge and attempt to reconcile the contrary science, and you actually may win a few more converts.

Correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship.

To establish a correlation as causal within physics, it is normally understood that the cause and the effect must connect through a local mechanism (cf. for instance the concept of impact) or a nonlocal mechanism (cf. the concept of field), in accordance with known laws of nature.

Both have been established.

And CO2 is NOT the only factor. This is a case of multiple causation, a concept that I learned in historiography.

BTW - I have never said that the science is settled. I have been it clear that some factors, such as clouds, are not well understood. But our understanding is improving.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, MMGW or AGW or whatever has not been disproved.

Certainly not.

In fact many deniers have retreated to the skeptic "well ok it's happening, but we just don't know how much" position.

No L-E, I think the "deniers", by definition, deny that it's happening actually. The "we just don't know how much" position reflects an appropriately objective, non-partisan view of the current state of the science. Many of the "skeptics" probably share much of the "we just don't know how much" position but are therefore dubious of the myopically one-sided position you and your like-minded compatriots share. Not hard to figure really, and maybe even more credible than all those "expert studies" that produced the "consensus." But hey, Cook & other "experts" have to make a living too, right?

Everybody and their dog knows that this is an ongoing field of study. Well, at least one group is studying...

Fortunately for all of us who care about the environment (and our descendants), many groups are studying, which is the best way at getting at the truth. I long ago decided that my dog knows a lot more than I do actually, including a healthy amount of skepticism when people in high office announce that the science behind CC is "closed." Does this sound in sync with your acknowledgment that CC is an "ongoing field of study?"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Newhaul made an unsubstantiated assertion. I found evidence to counter his assertion. Is it too much to ask him for evidence? I guess it it.


Drought conditions continue to exist

Sahel: Drought, displacement and conflict leave 20 million food insecure - Humanosphere

I couldn't find where your more recent article blames the ongoing drought conditions on CC, only El Nino. That, and as a region lying just below the Sahara, as one subject to frequent dry periods. If Newhaul's assertion is unsubstantiated, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find meaningful evidence to counter it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Fortunately for all of us who care about the environment (and our descendants), many groups are studying, which is the best way at getting at the truth. I long ago decided that my dog knows a lot more than I do actually, including a healthy amount of skepticism when people in high office announce that the science behind CC is "closed." Does this sound in sync with your acknowledgment that CC is an "ongoing field of study?"

Then why do you insist on coupling politics and science?

Originally Posted by Exile

Quote:
We found a rich array of changes in ice seasonality of two inland waters from geographically distant regions: namely a shift towards later ice formation for Suwa and earlier spring melt for Torne, increasing frequencies of years with warm extremes, changing inter-annual variability, waning of dominant inter-decadal quasi-periodic dynamics, and stronger correlations of ice seasonality with atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature after the start of the Industrial Revolution.



Certainly worth pondering, but as evidence that supports the theory of a correlation btwn. increased concentrations of CO2 and further warming. Not necessarily even a probability, and certainly not settled.

There are obvious problems with general and specific causation with the science at this time. So the question becomes whether the evidence we have now justifies further remedial actions and, if so, to what extent do such actions outweigh the societal costs. Given the current level of technological feasibility, that is.

The rest of the debate can be educational (if presented honestly) but often academic. But presenting evidence as proof of settled science is only for the simple-minded and politically predisposed, and only serves to undercut the advocate's credibility when inquiring minds choose to delve deeper.

Hate to tell ya, but most people could care little for the politics left or right, and are simply tired of all the relentless and obvious whining, moralizing, & propaganda being foisted upon them. Uncouple the politics, acknowledge and attempt to reconcile the contrary science, and you actually may win a few more converts.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I couldn't find where your more recent article blames the ongoing drought conditions on CC, only El Nino. That, and as a region lying just below the Sahara, as one subject to frequent dry periods. If Newhaul's assertion is unsubstantiated, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find meaningful evidence to counter it.

Newhaul claimed that the Sahel was greening; I showed that it is in a drought condition.

The article I posted was written BEFORE the start of the El Nino.

Conflict and drought are working in tandem to leave more than 23 million people food insecure in West Africa. Yet again, there are concerns that the region is on the brink of crisis. And predictions of an El Niño year could make matters worse.

Problems could persist longer or get worse if 2015 turns out to be an El Niño year.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship.

To establish a correlation as causal within physics, it is normally understood that the cause and the effect must connect through a local mechanism (cf. for instance the concept of impact) or a nonlocal mechanism (cf. the concept of field), in accordance with known laws of nature.

Both have been established.

And CO2 is NOT the only factor. This is a case of multiple causation, a concept that I learned in historiography.

BTW - I have never said that the science is settled. I have been it clear that some factors, such as clouds, are not well understood. But our understanding is improving.

I wouldn't disagree with any of this, except you left out intervening causes. Can't remember which class in school I may have learned or not learned this, only that it's an obvious factor in most analyses that aren't purely simplistic.

I wouldn't doubt that you never actually said the science is settled, just like you never said many things that could have more accurately informed the discussion. You acknowledge that clouds are not well understood, but then won't acknowledge more fundamental scientific debate over ocean subduction/carbon sinking, disparities btwn. levels of CO2 & warming, and controversy over the correct way to take the earth's temperature. Is this because, unlike clouds, these issues go to the core of the argument for MMGW?

L-E may be blissfully unaware, but I'm pretty sure you know better.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

El Nino.

Ah...the Famous weather hype of El Nino...I'm glad you brought that up.
El Nino fizzled and fell far short of all the expert prediction and models.
So if they can't predict the rain 6 months from now...these models are to be believed 10, 20, and 50yrs from now?

This is what is so funny to watch.
They can't predict tomorrow...but can predict 25yrs out.
It's hilarious to watch...well...it's kinda sad at the same time to see how people will let their political beliefs cloud the fact that the experts predicted rain and it didn't.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I couldn't find where your more recent article blames the ongoing drought conditions on CC, only El Nino. That, and as a region lying just below the Sahara, as one subject to frequent dry periods. If Newhaul's assertion is unsubstantiated, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find meaningful evidence to counter it.

I now make the unsubstantiated assertion that there is a chocolate cake in orbit about Pluto. You should not find is hard to find meaningful evidence to counter it.

[jackdale]

Some new science dated yesterday.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0427150902.htm

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2959.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You acknowledge that clouds are not well understood, but then won't acknowledge more fundamental scientific debate over ocean subduction/carbon sinking, disparities btwn. levels of CO2 & warming, and controversy over the correct way to take the earth's temperature.

I have actually acknowledged all of that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I wouldn't doubt that you never actually said the science is settled, just like you never said many things that could have more accurately informed the discussion. You acknowledge that clouds are not well understood, but then won't acknowledge more fundamental scientific debate over ocean subduction/carbon sinking, disparities btwn. levels of CO2 & warming, and controversy over the correct way to take the earth's temperature. Is this because, unlike clouds, these issues go to the core of the argument for MMGW?

L-E may be blissfully unaware, but I'm pretty sure you know better.

I'm aware of how much of a troll you've become. I got that much.