Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Co2 is infact good for plants and therefore people. Rice has an increased yeald of 28% when grown in a hothouse with 700 ppm co2, and sugar cane seems to really like it as well to the tune of 125% increase in yeald . Then there are other food legumes and vegies that like it as well
Time to praise CO2 — the miracle gas!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Cp2 is intact good for plants and thereby people. Rice has an increased yeald of 28% when grown in a hothouse with 700 ppm co2, and sugar cane seems to really like it as well to t tune of 125% increase in yeald . Then there are other food legumes and vegies that like it as well
Time to praise CO2 — the miracle gas!

Great - let's dome all arable land and turn it into greenhouses.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The role of consensus in science

Quote:
Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. Kuhn's contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines, but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it closer to the history of science. His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions.
Quote:
In the postscript to the second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn says of paradigms in this sense that they are “the most novel and least understood aspect of this book” (1962/1970a, 187). The claim that the consensus of a disciplinary matrix is primarily agreement on paradigms-as-exemplars is intended to explain the nature of normal science and the process of crisis, revolution, and renewal of normal science. It also explains the birth of a mature science. Kuhn describes an immature science, in what he sometimes calls its ‘pre-paradigm’ period, as lacking consensus. Competing schools of thought possess differing procedures, theories, even metaphysical presuppositions. Consequently there is little opportunity for collective progress. Even localized progress by a particular school is made difficult, since much intellectual energy is put into arguing over the fundamentals with other schools instead of developing a research tradition. However, progress is not impossible, and one school may make a breakthrough whereby the shared problems of the competing schools are solved in a particularly impressive fashion. This success draws away adherents from the other schools, and a widespread consensus is formed around the new puzzle-solutions.

This widespread consensus now permits agreement on fundamentals. For a problem-solution will embody particular theories, procedures and instrumentation, scientific language, metaphysics, and so forth. Consensus on the puzzle-solution will thus bring consensus on these other aspects of a disciplinary matrix also. The successful puzzle-solution, now a paradigm puzzle-solution, will not solve all problems. Indeed, it will probably raise new puzzles. For example, the theories it employs may involve a constant whose value is not known with precision; the paradigm puzzle-solution may employ approximations that could be improved; it may suggest other puzzles of the same kind; it may suggest new areas for investigation. Generating new puzzles is one thing that the paradigm puzzle-solution does; helping solve them is another. In the most favourable scenario, the new puzzles raised by the paradigm puzzle-solution can be addressed and answered using precisely the techniques that the paradigm puzzle-solution employs. And since the paradigm puzzle-solution is accepted as a great achievement, these very similar puzzle-solutions will be accepted as successful solutions also. This is why Kuhn uses the terms ‘exemplar’ and ‘paradigm’. For the novel puzzle-solution which crystallizes consensus is regarded and used as a model of exemplary science. In the research tradition it inaugurates, a paradigm-as-exemplar fulfils three functions: (i) it suggests new puzzles; (ii) it suggests approaches to solving those puzzles; (iii) it is the standard by which the quality of a proposed puzzle-solution can be measured (1962/1970a, 38–9). In each case it is similarity to the exemplar that is the scientists’ guide.

Hi Jack,

I generally respect your posts a lot, but I am not sure you should have attempted to employ Kuhn in this particular connection. Kuhn's purpose in describing the role consensus in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions was very far from defending it in a bland sense as being beneficial to science. In Kuhn's view it is just as easy to see consensus as one of the primary obstacles to the progress of science as it is to see it as a benefit, as consensus concretises paradigms which are always flawed, making them into orthodoxies which become defended without question, and thereby obstructing the progress towards better understanding of nature. Science, according to Kuhn, advances not by the concretisation of paradigms by consensus, but rather the opposite: science advances by the abandonment of prior consensus, and the collapse of paradigm. For this reason Kuhn has been far more typically used to attack the solidity and trustworthiness of scientific consensus than he has been the opposite.

It is for similar reasons that Max Planck famously suggested that science advances not by the consensus of orthodoxy, but by its opposite, since the intransigent orthodoxies of consensus are so grimly held that "science advances one funeral at a time."

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Great - let's dome all arable land and turn it into greenhouses.

Might have to....

Effects of food for fuel

One systemic cause for the food price rise is held to be the diversion of food crops, maize in particular, for making first-generation biofuels. An estimated 100 million tonnes of grain per year are being redirected from food to fuel, while total worldwide grain production for 2007 was just over 2000 million tonnes. As farmers devoted larger parts of their crops to fuel production than in previous years, land and resources available for food production were reduced correspondingly. This has resulted in less food available for human consumption, especially in developing and least developed countries, where a family's daily allowances for food purchases are extremely limited. The food crisis can be seen, in a sense, to dichotomize rich and poor nations, since, for example, filling a tank of an average car with biofuel, amounts to as much maize, which is Africa's principal food staple, as an African person consumes in an entire year.

Since late 2007, "Agflation," caused by the increased diversion of maize harvests to biofuels, the tying of maize to rising oil prices by commodity traders, and a resulting price rise, has caused market substitution, with price rises cascading through other commodities: first wheat and soy prices, then later rice, soy oil, and a variety of cooking oils.

Brazil, the world's second largest producer of ethanol after the U.S., is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy and its government claims Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol industry has not contributed to the 2008 food crisis. A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008 concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices", and also stated that "Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher". A economic assessment report also published in July 2008 by the OECD agrees with the World Bank report regarding the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices is much smaller.

World Food Crisis - USA Ethanol ProductionA report released by Oxfam in June 2008 criticized biofuel policies of rich countries and concluded that from all biofuels available in the market, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is "far from perfect" but it is the most favorable biofuel in the world in term of cost and GHG balance. The report discusses some existing problems and potential risks, and asks the Brazilian government for caution to avoid jeopardizing its environmental and social sustainability. The report also says that: “Rich countries spent up to $15 billion last year supporting biofuels while blocking cheaper Brazilian ethanol, which is far less damaging for global food security."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the rise in food prices is due to poor agricultural policies and changing eating habits in developing nations, not biofuels as some critics claim. On April 29, 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush declared during a press conference that "85 percent of the world's food prices are caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices", and recognized that "15 percent has been caused by ethanol". On July 4, 2008, The Guardian reported that a leaked World Bank report estimated the rise in food prices caused by biofuels to be 75%.

Second- and third-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol and algae fuel, respectively may someday ease the competition with food crops, as non food energy crops can grow on marginal lands unsuited for food crops, but these advanced biofuels require further development of farming practices and refining technology; in contrast, ethanol from maize uses mature technology and the maize crop can be shifted between food and fuel use quickly.

World Food Crisis, Global Food Crisis website

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Great - let's dome all arable land and turn it into greenhouses.

How about arid arable lands near seawater sources no rain required.
Seawater Greenhouse | Process

[Exile]

Ah yes, the now seemingly intractable ethanol remedy. An odd but convenient marriage of the environmental & farm lobbies. Food prices went up, more land put under cultivation, internal combustion engines suffered, marine outboard fuel tanks & lines corroded and dumped fuel in our waters. Now that oil, grain, and other commodity prices have plummeted, even more land has been put under cultivation to grow corn & soybeans, with higher crop yields forcing prices ever further down & govt subsidies up. And of course questionable whether it took more fossil fuel to transport the grain to the refineries and run the boilers than it saved in gasoline consumption & fossil fuel emissions. What to do? Well, last I heard the govt is under a previously enacted mandate to increase the ethanol percentage from 10 to 15%.

The middle class gets to pay the additional costs, and the poor suffer the most with higher food prices. The rich stay that way or get wealthier, and the politicians get re-elected. And the law of unintended consequences strikes again.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, the now seemingly intractable ethanol remedy. An odd but convenient marriage of the environmental & farm lobbies. Food prices went up, more land put under cultivation, internal combustion engines suffered, marine outboard fuel tanks & lines corroded and dumped fuel in our waters. Now that oil, grain, and other commodity prices have plummeted, even more land has been put under cultivation to grow corn & soybeans, with higher crop yields forcing prices ever further down & govt subsidies up. And of course questionable whether it took more fossil fuel to transport the grain to the refineries and run the boilers than it saved in gasoline consumption & fossil fuel emissions. What to do? Well, last I heard the govt is under a previously enacted mandate to increase the ethanol percentage from 10 to 15%.

The middle class gets to pay the additional costs, and the poor suffer the most with higher food prices. The rich stay that way or get wealthier, and the politicians get re-elected. And the law of unintended consequences strikes again.

There was an old woman, who swallowed a fly…

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You are again confusing challenges to the science (models, processes, estimates, raw data, conclusions, etc.), as opposed to attacks on individual scientists themselves. Claims of institutional bias towards what some deem an overly politicized process are very different from thus far unsubstantiated allegations that a particular scientist is personally corrupt because he or she is "on the take."

Don't be coy. The little "challenges" from very FEW of the actual people in the field, or the many more "discrepancies" shared and enlarged by all you armchair scientists, accusations of bias... all the way up to a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory ("the cult of MMGW") - they all require us to accept that the VAST MAJORITY of the subject matter experts have not done a good job, are weak, greedy, malleable and unscientific, that the very FEW qualified skeptics are better practitioners than everyone else in the field...

In just about any field, when 95+% of the experts are in accord with something... it's a done deal. 50% + 1 - you've chosen a President. When 66% of Congress says yes, armies are sent to Iraq (account balance $2T spend, 180,000+ killed). Except climate science, apparently.

With few exceptions, AGW denial/doubt from nonspecialists is a political stance, not a scientific one, and the "research" activity is confined to finding points however tenuous to justify the position. If advancing the denial position requires slagging the whole scientific field, so be it. Killing the messenger has so far proven very effective.

Be honest - your opposition to the finding of AGW is entirely because you find the anticipated solutions to be politically objectionable.

[undercutter]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Great - let's dome all arable land and turn it into greenhouses.

that's what they are doing in Leamington County, Ontario. Produce veggies all year round now. Whole farms under glass 100 acres or more. bring in the dozers and level everything. Amazing stuff.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, the now seemingly intractable ethanol remedy. An odd but convenient marriage of the environmental & farm lobbies.

To me, ethanol only made sense if it's generated from waste, not food. And yes it's been lousy for marine and other small-engine applications

Yes there was environmental group support initially behind ethanol, but I don't know of one real environmental group (not a front for a lobby) who approves of the current arrangement.

At present...

There was a time when speaking out against federal ethanol subsidies – especially for presidential candidates – was considered political suicide. Ethanol, made from corn, is produced by Midwestern states like Iowa and converted into a biofuel.
Indeed, every Republican who has won the Iowa caucuses dating back to the 1980s has pledged allegiance to ethanol, including former Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, who was dubbed “Senator Ethanol” during his 1996 campaign.


...


Despite his 10-point lead over Trump, Cruz is taking a calculated risk in denouncing the long-standing government support of corn-based ethanol in a state where GOP voters overwhelming favor the subsidy.


For one thing,the powerful, well-funded ethanol industry is mounting a sophisticated campaign to make RFS a top issue heading into the caucuses. According to The Post, Eric Branstad, the son of the popular Republican governor Terry Branstad, is leading the campaign dubbed “America’s Renewable Future.” With 17 field staffers and a radio ad and direct mail strategy, the group already has collected pledges from more than 50,000 people to make the issue a priority at the caucuses.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by undercutter

that's what they are doing in Leamington County, Ontario. Produce veggies all year round now. Whole farms under glass 100 acres or more. bring in the dozers and level everything. Amazing stuff.

Thanks for posting this. I looked at pictures of the project...perfect symbiosis of a hundred acres of plastic carbon product and solar energy.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Don't be coy. The little "challenges" from very FEW of the actual people in the field, or the many more "discrepancies" shared and enlarged by all you armchair scientists, accusations of bias... all the way up to a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory ("the cult of MMGW") - they all require us to accept that the VAST MAJORITY of the subject matter experts have not done a good job, are weak, greedy, malleable and unscientific, that the very FEW qualified skeptics are better practitioners than everyone else in the field...

In just about any field, when 95+% of the experts are in accord with something... it's a done deal. 50% + 1 - you've chosen a President. When 66% of Congress says yes, armies are sent to Iraq (account balance $2T spend, 180,000+ killed). Except climate science, apparently.

With few exceptions, AGW denial/doubt from nonspecialists is a political stance, not a scientific one, and the "research" activity is confined to finding points however tenuous to justify the position. If advancing the denial position requires slagging the whole scientific field, so be it. Killing the messenger has so far proven very effective.

Be honest - your opposition to the finding of AGW is entirely because you find the anticipated solutions to be politically objectionable.

You sound personally frustrated with people who can't be neatly categorized, L-E. Amongst the doubters here, there seems to be a spectrum of different positions. Maddening, I'm sure, for some like you who have such certainty about such complex and technical societal issues. But would you really expect absolute conformity from a group of sailors?? Heck, I even keep my voter registration as a small "i" independent. Lord only knows what positions the large "I" Independent party hold in my state. And I don't know about others, but calling me an "armchair scientist" is actually giving me too much credit.

If it makes you feel any better, there's no denying the strong consensus within the scientific community that there is an overall warming trend, and that it is human caused. There are obviously those within & without the scientific community who question the underlying data, the methodology, and the conclusions, but there's no doubting that this consensus exists. The bigger problem is that at least half of the US and the rest of the world (on avg.) don't believe it, in part because most are not scientists, don't have the time nor inclination to study it, and therefore have to rely on what they strongly believe are untrustworthy leaders. So in that sense, you are correct that much of it is "political," but that only makes the dissension more critical, not less.

As for the real objection being focused on the "anticipated solutions," it's good to see you finally recognizing that the claimed "problem" is part & parcel of any such "solution," especially since this is where the scientific consensus seems to start unraveling. The "consensus" seems to agree on a slow, incremental warming over the coming decades, and there's a lot of talk about melting ice and coastal flooding. Plenty of debate as we've just read about the effect of increased CO2 on food production, but then there are others who talk about a "greening" of the Sahara & other desert regions. But many of the Al Gore-induced alarmist predictions have failed to materialize and probably won't, and nobody seems to fully understand the relationship b'twn. this supposed warming trend and localized weather events.

So what are the "anticipated solutions" that are supposed to fix whatever these "problems" may be? It seems like the US, Canada, and much of the developed world have done a good job cleaning up their act and will continue to do so. The recent Paris conference made it pretty clear that there's not much we can do about the refusal of China and most of the developing world to follow suit. There are lots of good reasons for us to reduce fossil fuel consumption & emissions regardless, and most will continue to do so if for no other reason than basic economics. And we all hope for and anticipate new energy technologies.

So what is it exactly that you find so upsetting about people who don't fall in line with the rest of the herd?? The only thing that makes any sense to me is that you are one of these consensus scientists trained to comprehend & analyze the data, or you actually fit the "armchair scientist" label rather well.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So what is it exactly that you find so upsetting about people who don't fall in line with the rest of the herd?? The only thing that makes any sense to me is that you are one of these consensus scientists trained to comprehend & analyze the data, or you actually fit the "armchair scientist" label rather well.

I find it frustrating that the subject matter experts have come under relentless attack, and the whole scientific process as well, because the findings and their implications (imagined or otherwise) don't agree with somebody's politics. Attacking science like this is like poking our own eyes out. It's medieval ignorance retooled for today's times.

The best way to move forward is through being honest - working with the best information we've got, acknowledging our biases, fears, expectations, and then determining the risks/rewards of possible solutions.

The "hurf-durf I can find 2 experts to disagree so it's all crap", "consensus is bogus/group-think/conspiracy" stance makes us laugh at anti-vaxxers, and it's not flattering on AGW deniers/doubters either.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I find it frustrating that the subject matter experts have come under relentless attack, and the whole scientific process as well, because the findings and their implications (imagined or otherwise) don't agree with somebody's politics. Attacking science like this is like poking our own eyes out. It's medieval ignorance retooled for today's times.

The best way to move forward is through being honest - working with the best information we've got, acknowledging our biases, fears, expectations, and then determining the risks/rewards of possible solutions.

The "hurf-durf I can find 2 experts to disagree so it's all crap", "consensus is bogus/group-think/conspiracy" stance makes us laugh at anti-vaxxers, and it's not flattering on AGW deniers/doubters either.

The honest answer? Climate has warmed 1 degree Celsius in * pick your years duration * on a planet that has global minima and maxima value ranges regularly exceeding 100 degrees Celsius and whether this warming is on balance good or bad there is sfa we can do to stop it, let alone reverse it at this juncture.

You need to remember too that the IPCC has placed on record that climate change has a 95% probability of being caused by anthropogenic sources. To use this number in another context, if only 95% of an airline's flights made it to their destination without crashing - would you fly with them?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I find it frustrating that the subject matter experts have come under relentless attack, and the whole scientific process as well, because the findings and their implications (imagined or otherwise) don't agree with somebody's politics. Attacking science like this is like poking our own eyes out. It's medieval ignorance retooled for today's times.

The best way to move forward is through being honest - working with the best information we've got, acknowledging our biases, fears, expectations, and then determining the risks/rewards of possible solutions.

The "hurf-durf I can find 2 experts to disagree so it's all crap", "consensus is bogus/group-think/conspiracy" stance makes us laugh at anti-vaxxers, and it's not flattering on AGW deniers/doubters either.

You find it frustrating that the "subject matter experts have come under relentless attack", when trillions of dollars of human activity is at stake and the timesacale for general concern (in terms of assessment period) is less than two decades? You find it strange when all other human activities which could be targeted and modified in terms of our impact upon the biosphere are sidlelined? Really?

You do realise that there have been similarly powerful moments in scientific orthodoxy which have become infamous in history, during which speaking out against would have been similarly vilified for similar reasons of "consensus".

Should we still be pursuing the policies of the 1920s and 1930s regarding the treatment of the "feebleminded"? How would a skeptic of those policies have been treated, then?

There are nuances here and you are not regarding them. The situation is NOT as clear as you suggest it is by this post. You perhaps think it is as clear as, for example, the absurdity of the creationists' holding on to the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old. But it is not anything like so clear cut.

No doubt those who ridiculed plate tectonic theory, or quantum mechanics (No Hidden Variables version), or indeed evolution itself or other similar would have been similarly outraged. Your outrage has no currency.

In any case, my honest and sincere friend, (truly meant)

Happy New Year.And likewise to all.