The Reef Ain't Dead

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Agree. But the chances of that happening are...

In other words, we have to make the changes that make it possible to stop screwing around so much with the forests, etc.

What.. Like Palm Oil being the New Carbon Nuetral Wonder Bio Fuel that benefits the planet. .???

After years of controversy and delay, the European Commission yesterday made a definitive verdict on biofuel from palm oil – and it was not the verdict producers of the fuel wanted to hear.

The Commission concluded that the cultivation of palm oil, mostly undertaken in Indonesia and Malaysia, results in excessive deforestation. It should therefor not be eligible to count toward EU renewable transport targets for national governments.

But hey.. Never mind, we might just get it right next time..

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Huh. I didn't take you for a "there's no global warming; it was chilly last week" sort of guy.

Have one of your infant grandkids explain how an increase in weather extremes can give higher highs and lower lows while at the same time the average temperature can also be increasing.

IF the root cause of global warming was increased solar heat, I could almost buy this.

But the "consensus" is increased co2 is causing the atmosphere to retain more heat.

This would have the effect of reducing temperature extremes.

But hey, lets ignore basic science in lieu of a computer model that runs on statistics.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

IF the root cause of global warming was increased solar heat, I could almost buy this.

The Sun does provide the Earth with the vast majority of its energy.

Solar activity varies about 0.1% which is why it called a solar constant. It has also been in decline while the Earth warms.

This is observed data - no models involved.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps you can provide the cliff notes related to climate change, keeping in mind pollution and resource abuse/depletion isn't climate change.

Here you go: An overview from the Royal Society of the UK and the US National Academy of Sciences

Climate Change Evidence & Causes

or - even shorter

A SHORT GUIDE TO climate science

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps you can provide the cliff notes related to climate change, keeping in mind pollution and resource abuse/depletion isn't climate change.

Jackdale to the rescue.

Anyway, problems are problems. If several problems share a common cause, why not address that cause? You don't have to do something for climate change; any of the other good reasons will suffice. We won't judge.

Solar panels, wind turbines, natural gas, EV's, fuel efficient cars, planes, ships etcetera. What else do you want?

• More incentives towards developing and refining the things you list, and others
• More disincentives against the still-rising consumption of fossil fuels, where reasonable alternatives exist. But with flexibility, such as carbon cap and trade, which harnesses the power of the free market to find the most efficient ways to reduce total emissions.
• A greater awareness of the function and importance of ecosystems (like ... reefs!)
• for the right wing (everywhere) to stop whipping up and milking anti-science sentiment for votes.
• For the 1st world to develop and provide advanced clean energy technology and assistance to developing nations so that they don't need to follow the same wasteful path as we did. (eg so they actually have better choices than Chinese coal-fired power generation)
• A shorter work-week
• a Lagoon 440
• a pony.

Ok... getting silly now. I really don't care all that much for Lagoons.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

increased co2 is causing the atmosphere to retain more heat.

This would have the effect of reducing temperature extremes.

... can you prove that? Who's really ignoring basic science here?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here you go: An overview from the Royal Society of the UK and the US National Academy of Sciences

Climate Change Evidence & Causes

or - even shorter

A SHORT GUIDE TO climate science

Geez, thanks for pointing out climate change is a thing. Now show us all the bad things it's done that's curtailed the advancement of the human race.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

This is like magic, or more like three card monte, because the goal is to con. Digress, distract divert. As soon as you are pinned in a fallacy you just change the subject. You asserted that there is no debate about AGW being unsettled. Utter nonsense - and so you change the subject.
How is it that you just take pot shots and never clearly and concisely lay out your answers to StuM in 803 or the IPCC conclusions in 920? Can you do that? Do you have coherent assessments of these questions or not? Please provide one sentence endorsements or denials of all 9 of these statements for us please.

Not sure what you're reading into my posts, or what all the angst is about, but what I stated was not that the existence of "AGW" itself was unsettled, but that the severity of its IMPACTS and the suitability of the proposed REMEDIES for those debated impacts are unsettled. AGW itself, i.e. that it "exists" and is having some level of impact on the climate, does in fact appear to be rather "settled," at least within the climate science community. (not quite as settled amongst physicists and meteorologists). The reason I use the term "settled" when it comes to AGW itself is because some of the most well known and respected skeptics within the climate science community (Spencer, Christie, Curry) agree that AGW exists and is having some level of impact. The strength of this "consensus" breaks down when it comes to severity of IMPACTS and proposed REMEDIES. I'm not sure how I can express it any clearer, or why you think this is a con job or anything other than what I think is a common understanding of the overall state of the science. Within the debate amongst scientists over the severity of IMPACTS and suitability of REMEDIES is a whole host of differing opinions based on largely the same "mountain" of data (more or less). If your opinion happens to be more in line with scientists who believe the impacts will be severe and will require a dramatic cessation of fossil fuel emissions, you will find plenty of support. But you will also find valid and credible scientific opinions that don't conclude impacts will be severe or that dramatic remedies are warranted, and even opinions that warming and increased CO2 are beneficial. I'm not citing my opinion here Lester, nor denigrating yours, but pointing out that you are mistaken about the level of certainty within the science itself. Again, the controversy mainly centers around IMPACTS & REMEDIES, and not whether AGW exists! Can we at least agree on what exactly we're in disagreement about? Gheez, just go to Roy Spencer's website, read about Michael Shellenberger's latest book, or do a basic Google search like this recent one.

OK, next request. I don't understand why you want my opinion when you've repeatedly acknowledged (and I agree) that neither mine nor yours matter, so I'll try and respond as I did above, namely what I think is the current state of scientific opinion. I welcome any and all corrections.

First, here's your list and my responses in blue:

Originally Posted by lestersails

Here is a list of central assertions, pretty similar to that floated by GordMay a few days back:

The current scientific consensus is that:
1. Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.

Jackdale just posted a graph that shows 1ºC warming between 1880 & 2020, so 140 years. Does the scientific consensus deem that amount "significant" as you claim? I don't know, and I suppose you'd have to compare it to another 140 year period prior to the build up of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions in order to fairly judge. Unless, as some climate scientists believe (not sure how many or %) that Milankovitch cycles would have the climate cooling during this same period of time. In that case, then presumably all the recorded warming would arguably be "significant" since it otherwise would not have occurred, and none of it could be attributed to natural forces.

2. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.

Strong consensus that human caused GHG emissions are having "some" level of impact. As stated above, not sure how strong the consensus is beyond that.

3. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.

Plenty of support for this obviously, but also plenty of scientists who contest it. Can't cite you any breakdown.

4. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

Many yays and many nays amongst scientists I believe.

I accept all four.

Good for you. I respect your opinion and it has support from the science, but others do too. You're simply mistaken if you believe the science speaks with one voice on this, but if you think I'm conning you go check it out for yourself. You now have some leads which should be easy to follow up on. Next request . . .

Originally Posted by StuM

Let's be clear. You believe there is overwhelming evidence of what exactly? Which of the following?

1. Climate change.
2. Anthropogenic Climate chang
3. Climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
4. A severely negative effect of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
5. An existential threat resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Originally Posted by lestersails

Hi Stu
Great clarifying questions.
1. is a given - can't believe anyone could disagree with that. The climate changes over long periods of time. E.g., ice age.

The science agrees.

2. Yes. It has oft been said "everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it" - but that is wrong. We are changing the climate.

The widest consensus from climate scientists is that we are having an impact. The severity and level of impact remains controversial. See above.

3. Yes. While CO2 is not the sole cause of AGW, my understanding is that it is the largest.

I believe the science agrees as to human influences, but there are also scientists who believe natural forces are more dominant.

4. Yes.

A yes in your opinion and some number of scientists, but hotly disputed by others.

5. Probably not. I looked up the definition of 'existential' - the relevant one I think is 'Concerning the very existence of, especially with regard to extinction.' So if by that it is meant 'will AGW lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens?' Probably not. But I think it will be somewhere in between 'severe' and 'existential', which is a scenario that could be extraordinarily awful to live through. If instead by 'existential' you mean extinction of our current general level of civilization and way of life, then possibly yes.
You?
Les

Your opinion. Many scientists dispute this, along with many more laymen. Nothing close to "proof" that either you, or those who disagree with you, have it right or wrong.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

But hey, lets ignore basic science in lieu of a computer model that runs on statistics.

Apparently that can be problematic.

Canada is Warming at Only 1/2 the Rate of Climate Model Simulations

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

To the readership: are RM's comments skepticism or denial? Curious to see where it lands with folks.

I think he's a double-agent. A subversive attempting to infiltrate the hallowed halls of AGW-dom while avoiding being "unmasked" by desmogblog.com.

Shall we all be issued name tags next time?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently that can be problematic.
Canada is Warming at Only 1/2 the Rate of Climate Model Simulations

Canada is warming up twice as fast as the rest of the world and that warming is “effectively irreversible,” a scientific report [cccr] from Environment and Climate Change Canada says.
The Arctic is hit the hardest, with estimates that it is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world.

“Canada's Changing Climate Report” [CCCR] ~ Environment and Climate Change Canada [2019]
CCCR ➥ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...T-EN-FINAL.pdf
➥ https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/
About ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...inds-1.5079765

Headline Statements from the CCCR:
These headline statements tell a concise story about Canada’s changing climate based on the findings of this report. The statements are cross-referenced to specific sections in chapters of the main report, where supporting evidence is found. There is high confidence or more associated with these statements, which are consistent with, and draw on, the Chapter Key Messages.
➥ https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/...ne-statements/


A 2019 study evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found that 14, out of the 17, model projections were indistinguishable from what actually occurred.
“Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections” ~ by Zeke Hausfather et al
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GL085378
About ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/


Dr. Spenser might have better submitted his extraordinary findings to a scientific journal, rather than the Friends of Pseudoscience, an oil industry advocacy organization. In general, this is a human-influenced Climate Change denial organization, that rejects the consensus of science, and promotes “alternative” (& sometimes) conspiracy theories.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Jackdale to the rescue.

Anyway, problems are problems. If several problems share a common cause, why not address that cause? You don't have to do something for climate change; any of the other good reasons will suffice. We won't judge.

• More incentives towards developing and refining the things you list, and others
• More disincentives against the still-rising consumption of fossil fuels, where reasonable alternatives exist. But with flexibility, such as carbon cap and trade, which harnesses the power of the free market to find the most efficient ways to reduce total emissions.
• A greater awareness of the function and importance of ecosystems (like ... reefs!)
• for the right wing (everywhere) to stop whipping up and milking anti-science sentiment for votes.
• For the 1st world to develop and provide advanced clean energy technology and assistance to developing nations so that they don't need to follow the same wasteful path as we did. (eg so they actually have better choices than Chinese coal-fired power generation)
• A shorter work-week
• a Lagoon 440
• a pony.

Ok... getting silly now. I really don't care all that much for Lagoons.

But you really do want the pony?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

But you really do want the pony?

Considering LE's stance on climate change, I suggest the article linked below imperative reading for any prospective new pony owner...


Equine Contribution in Methane Emission and Its Mitigation Strategies

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Canada is warming up twice as fast as the rest of the world and that warming is “effectively irreversible,” a scientific report [cccr] from Environment and Climate Change Canada says.
The Arctic is hit the hardest, with estimates that it is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world.

“Canada's Changing Climate Report” [CCCR] ~ Environment and Climate Change Canada [2019]
CCCR ➥ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...T-EN-FINAL.pdf
➥ https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/
About ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...inds-1.5079765

Headline Statements from the CCCR:
These headline statements tell a concise story about Canada’s changing climate based on the findings of this report. The statements are cross-referenced to specific sections in chapters of the main report, where supporting evidence is found. There is high confidence or more associated with these statements, which are consistent with, and draw on, the Chapter Key Messages.
➥ https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/...ne-statements/


A 2019 study evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found that 14, out of the 17, model projections were indistinguishable from what actually occurred.
“Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections” ~ by Zeke Hausfather et al
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GL085378
About ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/


Dr. Spenser might have better submitted his extraordinary findings to a scientific journal, rather than the Friends of Pseudoscience, an oil industry advocacy organization. In general, this is a human-influenced Climate Change denial organization, that rejects the consensus of science, and promotes “alternative” (& sometimes) conspiracy theories.

Have you considered whether these "scientific journals" would even be open to accepting Spencer's findings and, if not, why not? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't noticed principals or advisors to Friends of Science having doctorate degrees in pseudoscience. As laymen, are we back to weighing the "legitimacy" of scientific opinion based on favored outcomes or based on the science itself? Spencer's analysis is using the same data as other scientists who reach conclusions more to your liking. How do we judge, objectively that is?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Geez, thanks for pointing out climate change is a thing. Now show us all the bad things it's done that's curtailed the advancement of the human race.

Why do I doubt that you bothered to read the links?

As to risks:

Climate Science and Climate Risk: A Primer
By Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

One paragraph.

Besides increasing temperature, which poses its own set
of risks, the main risks associated with climate change
include rising sea levels; increased volatility of rainfall, which
destabilizes food and water supplies; increasing incidence of
the strongest hurricanes; and acidification of seawater, which
poses significant threats to marine ecosystems and ultimately
to populations of fish.

https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/defaul...ate_Primer.pdf