Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Did you even bother to read the very short article?

SCTY lost 2 points, 6%
NVE gained 29 points, 2%
all about the same news.
it'd be interesting to check the stocks of that Governor but than again, it's Nevada and i don't really want to know stuff that might kill me.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i don't think it works for glaciers like that.
and i also don't see much of a difference between human influenced warming and "natural" as the consequences are the same: flooding in England and drought in Spain, Hurricanes in January and at some point Greenland loosing a shitton of ice.

though it all may happen totaly different, the last catastrophic event in northern Europe was some continental shelf collapsing off the coast of Norway and that could happen again any time.

also we are supposedly late for a polar reverse?

Not even sure what that is, but it doesn't sound good. Now which side is apocalyptic again?

The whole gist behind the MMGW scenario is that if humans have influenced it then humans can correct it. A dubious proposition as people on both sides have pointed out. So I see your larger point. But the recent article about the cavemen (not really, just 6-7K yr. old humans) setting off GW because of slash & burn agriculture kind of tells you that humans have always been influencing the planet's environment. If the alarmists are right, then the bottom line is that we've finally tapped out the planet's resources and we're screwed. I'm more inclined to think that, whatever may be causing the warming, we'll adapt.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

The whole gist behind the MMGW scenario is that if humans have influenced it then humans can correct it.

Hmmm, can't really agree with that. IMHO there's science saying "this is what we've found out and how we found it out". After that it's more in the realm of politics and the media.
Maybe that's one reason why people who will quite happily accept science in every other area without batting an eyelid get so hot under the collar about it all, they just see the politics and the media and form an opinion on that.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not even sure what that is, but it doesn't sound good. Now which side is apocalyptic again?

got the wrong translation, i meant geomagnetic reversal. rapid polar shift is the science fiction adapation.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by conachair

Hmmm, can't really agree with that. IMHO there's science saying "this is what we've found out and how we found it out". After that it's more in the realm of politics and the media.
Maybe that's one reason why people who will quite happily accept science in every other area without batting an eyelid get so hot under the collar about it all, they just see the politics and the media and form an opinion on that.

Maybe more like the lines have gotten blurred btwn. the science and its socio-economic implications. Kinda why I was curious and asked Mike if he would still want the societal changes he advocates for if, hypothetically, MMGW is ultimately proven false. On the one hand there's Jim Hansen who tells Obama about devastating sea level rise in as little as 4 years, and Spencer/Christy on the other warning about the negative impact of abandoning fossil fuels. Scientists have weighed in well beyond just the science on both sides it seems.

[newhaul]

This just in. The sea ice is not disapearing as fast as they keep saying as of January one 2016 they report it is now disappearing at a rate of .66% ie less than one percent per decade .
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201512

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

My very rudimentary understanding is that this is a continuem from the last little ice age, but it's also commonly used as evidence of significant MMGW beyond natural forces. Many of the "skeptics" don't reject that the planet is warming, but don't see nearly as much human influence. So it seems to be more about the warming rate than the mere fact of warming. I guess you'd want to see if there's been a corresponding rate of acceleration in glacial retreat globally?

Fixed it for you

Just to get it straight.

We are in an "Ice Age" (the Pliocene/Quaternary Glaciation) and have been for the last 2.5 million years.

We are in an "interglacial" period of this current Ice Age.

During this interglacial, glaciers have retreated and advanced several times.

The last time glaciers advanced was from the end of the period known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum which was around 800 - 1400CE (during this period glaciers retreated much as they do today) through thecold period know as the Little Ice Age from around 1400-1750 CE.

Glaciers have been melting ever since warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Here's a prime example of how long they have been retreating. compare the amount of retreat pre and post 1900.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe more like the lines have gotten blurred btwn. the science and its socio-economic implications. Kinda why I was curious and asked Mike if he would still want the societal changes he advocates for if, hypothetically, MMGW is ultimately proven false. On the one hand there's Jim Hansen who tells Obama about devastating sea level rise in as little as 4 years, and Spencer/Christy on the other warning about the negative impact of abandoning fossil fuels. Scientists have weighed in well beyond just the science on both sides it seems.

If we're talking science- politics here, can you link to the paper where hansen et al predicted devastating sea level rise in as little as 4 years for clarity? Google came up with nothing in a brief search.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

The last time glaciers advanced was from the end of the period known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum which was around 800 - 1400CE (during this period glaciers retreated much as they do today) through thecold period know as the Little Ice Age from around 1400-1750 CE.

Was that global?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Heartland is a nonprofit under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. As a result, they have to file and publicly disclose their tax returns every year. There are other disclosure requirements from financials to board members to funding sources.

... but not as rigorous as those which government-supported institutions must follow.

The reason nonprofits are so popular as a vehicle for political spending is that they don't have to disclose their donors.

E-mails & files are a different matter due to privacy, privilege, & other justifiable legal concerns.

...yet CC scientist emails are fair game?

So you're suddenly now OK with FOIA, provided it's not used to get info from NASA, NOAA, and other govt agencies involved in climate research?

One eyeroll for you.

I've always said I'm ok with FOIA. But it is being abused in some cases.

The Shukla/Alongi affairs were brought up in response to you and others constantly insinuating, without evidence, that scientists in the opposing camp were corrupted by their research being funded by oil cos., etc.

I've never said that. In fact I have stated that I have no personal beef with an honest scientist who ends up working in industry or for industry. We all gotta work. The issue is the science itself, or lack thereof. If the institution's goal is to find anything at all that fits in with not-AGW, and downplay/disregard any info that supports AGW... it's not really engaged in scientific research. Also, I'm not aware of any of the industry-backed 'institutes' engaging in original research, gathering fresh unique data, and presenting their peer-reviewed findings in the usual fashion.

But the fact remains that the US govt. provides the vast majority of the funding generally, and most of it goes to the establishment side.

"the establishment side". Is this where you again suggest that universities and other genuine scientific institutions are engaging in 'pro-AGW' research? No, they're engaging in research, and the results, pro or con, will come from the data they collect, process, review, and publish.

Your suggestion that private oil cos. have more resources than the US govt. in this regard is laughable as my links to actual govt. data hopefully demonstrated. Similar types of financial info is available to you about Exxon/Mobil should you care to look.

I've never questioned relative amounts of resources. Just intent and processes. It's laughable and a bit tinfoil-hatty to keep implying that the government is out to buy a result re AGW, and the fossil-fuel industry is not. Frankly, I can't see any reason for the US government to want AGW to be a top-level concern... can you? That's like wanting diabetes or emphyzema...

But I am convinced that this notion of a 97%/98%/95%/overwhelming/majority/significant/prepoderance "consensus" is BS, and there are many highly respected and credentialed scientists on both sides.

...What do you think these two, Judith Curry, and many, many others have been doing with their time??

My impression is that the number of scientists who seriously doubt AGW or think it will be inconsequential is relatively quite small, but quite well heard thanks to the number of politically-motivated organizations and groups who want the public to think there's serious dissent within the ranks. Can you or anyone point to an independent scientific body that expresses serious doubt about the "consensus" findings? We only hear about these few individuals.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Fixed it for you

Just to get it straight.

We are in an "Ice Age" (the Pliocene/Quaternary Glaciation) and have been for the last 2.5 million years.

We are in an "interglacial" period of this current Ice Age.

During this interglacial, glaciers have retreated and advanced several times.

The last time glaciers advanced was from the end of the period known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum which was around 800 - 1400CE (during this period glaciers retreated much as they do today) through thecold period know as the Little Ice Age from around 1400-1750 CE.

Glaciers have been melting ever since warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Here's a prime example of how long they have been retreating. compare the amount of retreat pre and post 1900.

OK good. It's nice, for a change, to get some facts straightened out which do not appear disputed but are simply part of the historical record.

Now leaving MMGW aside for a moment, is there any scientific consensus on whether we are still in the warming period that followed the end of the Little Ice Age? The Medieval Warm lasted for around 600 years, and thus far we are only into the current one for about 266 years. Not sure that matters, but there are some who claim we are "supposed" to be in another cooling period right now. If so, then that would make any evidence of warming more easily attributable to human influence.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK good. It's nice, for a change, to get some facts straightened out which do not appear disputed but are simply part of the historical record.

Now leaving MMGW aside for a moment, is there any scientific consensus on whether we are still in the warming period that followed the end of the Little Ice Age?

Was that global?

The Medieval Warm lasted for around 600 years, and thus far we are only into the current one for about 266 years. Not sure that matters, but there are some who claim we are "supposed" to be in another cooling period right now. If so, then that would make any evidence of warming more easily attributable to human influence.

Some science just out ...

Human-made climate change may be suppressing the next ice age (Update)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Was that global?

Is global warming? Seems concentrated around North America and Europe to me.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Some science just out ...

Human-made climate change may be suppressing the next ice age (Update)

Thank fark for that if it's true.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by conachair

If we're talking science- politics here, can you link to the paper where hansen et al predicted devastating sea level rise in as little as 4 years for clarity? Google came up with nothing in a brief search.

I think it was a public statement, not a research paper. Most of the search results I got were from a 2015 published paper, not from 2008 when he warned Obama. This is all I've found thus far:

Hansen "was a critic of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations' stances on climate change. Addressing the potential effects of climate change, Hansen has stated in an interview in January, 2009, 'We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.'"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Hansen came out with another round of dire predictions about MMGW & sea level rise last year, and hired a PR firm to make the announcement.

What you need to know about the James Hansen sea-level rise controversy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lanets-future/

On the larger point about the confluence of politics & science, a couple of liberal publications had this to say:

After Hansen's arrest in 2009 in West Virginia, New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin wrote: "Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate."

In June 2009, New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert wrote that Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists." Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist.... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible, or what the best policies would be to deal with this problem."