Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

there's a big anti-capitalist and obviously anti-Big Oil component. Those interests are in turn trying to counter the attacks. That's part of the messy democratic process.

What Big Oil says

BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action

Conoco Philips

We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.

Suncor (oil sands developer) accepts the scientific consensus, publically stating that "climate change is happening and we need to take action." Energy development has an impact on the environment and we must do our part to manage and minimize our carbon footprint.

The bid denies are coal companies like Peabody.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Thank El Nino for that.

And yet last year they said we were in an el nino year and didn't get hardly any snow. They claimed it was due to El Nino. Now 6 plus feet in last two weeks is due to it. I just call it weather.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

All science is based on probablities.

BTW - Smoking does not cause cancer. Lots of folks who smoke do not get cancer. </sarcasm>

My grand dad smoked for over 80 years (died at 97). No cancer in his body .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And yet last year they said we were in an el nino year and didn't get hardly any snow. They claimed it was due to El Nino. Now 6 plus feet in last two weeks is due to it. I just call it weather.

Weather forecasting has improved but is yet another inexact science, especially with large-scale events such as periodic and natural cyclical changes in ocean temps. Whether global warming is slowly increasing those temps overall, creating harmful acidity, etc., is a different debate.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Like the Arctic ice pack has not in fact disappeared as he (Al Gore) predicted would happen in 2013. Or was it 2011?

Nobody said the Arctic ice pack would disappear by 2013/2011.

In 2007*, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
➥ Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

*The summer of 2007 saw a dramatic meltdown that opened up the Northwest Passage.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not blowing it off L-E, just cynically skeptical given how so many have simply lined up with their respective political party lines. The Guardian, Greenpeace, & other articles Jack has sourced from are not exactly unbiased players, but neither are National Review and the Heartland Institute. Both sides are using similar and familiar means to try and convince, and there's a big anti-capitalist and obviously anti-Big Oil component. Those interests are in turn trying to counter the attacks. That's part of the messy democratic process.

the "Both sides are using similar and familiar means" you refer to are advocates. The scientists THEMSELVES... are doing the science and have provided, and continue to provide their best appraisals.

Scientific conclusions aren't something for the non-scientist to "vote" on. You don't get to vote on reality. Gravity works, it wasn't elected. No campaign is required for e = mc squared. If the theory of evolution was put to a vote, i shudder to think what our poor kids would be force-fed as science.

What people do vote on, is whether to act on what's been discovered. But today's opponents of AGW have very successfully created the false impression that there isn't good science behind the findings. And it's working.

I bet even the 99.9%, if that's the number, would acknowledge that climatology is an inexact science.

Of course. Who would know this better than they? And yet, they're speaking with confidence, and just about in unison. They think the findings are solid enough to draw these conclusions, and their conclusion that AGW is threatening the climate has remained unchanged since they first presented it.

What does that tell you?

The recent Paris climate conference suggests that the efforts of the detractors may not be all that effective.

As "optimistic" as the conference appeared, with more nations seeming to agree about this... everything is still voluntary, non-binding, and much of the "action" is simply a restatement of things in the Kyoto accord, that received little followup. So it's still mostly cheerleading and little commitment.

And of course, despite what leaders may promise at the conference, they have to bring it home and get any actions through their legislative bodies. What chance is there to get stuff passed in the US, when intelligent people like you have bought into the false notion that it's not good science? (with some greenie soshulist conspiracy on the side, for some)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

the "Both sides are using similar and familiar means" you refer to are advocates. The scientists THEMSELVES... are doing the science and have provided, and continue to provide their best appraisals.

Scientific conclusions aren't something for the non-scientist to "vote" on. You don't get to vote on reality. Gravity works, it wasn't elected. No campaign is required for e = mc squared. If the theory of evolution was put to a vote, i shudder to think what our poor kids would be force-fed as science.

What people do vote on, is whether to act on what's been discovered. But today's opponents of AGW have very successfully created the false impression that there isn't good science behind the findings. And it's working.


Of course. Who would know this better than they? And yet, they're speaking with confidence, and just about in unison. They think the findings are solid enough to draw these conclusions, and their conclusion that AGW is threatening the climate has remained unchanged since they first presented it.

What does that tell you?

As "optimistic" as the conference appeared, with more nations seeming to agree about this... everything is still voluntary, non-binding, and much of the "action" is simply a restatement of things in the Kyoto accord, that received little followup. So it's still mostly cheerleading and little commitment.

And of course, despite what leaders may promise at the conference, they have to bring it home and get any actions through their legislative bodies. What chance is there to get stuff passed in the US, when intelligent people like you have bought into the false notion that it's not good science? (with some greenie soshulist conspiracy on the side, for some)

It was the scientists who established & ultimately settled the link between smoking and a higher incidence of lung cancer and other diseases. But it was the advocates who took this settled science and influenced policy decisions such as smoking bans in public places, etc. Both sides hired their lobbyists & created their nonprofits to influence their respective right to influence public opinion & legislators. Ultimately a firm consensus was reached by the people and their elected representatives.

Here, by contrast, you have one of the two major US political parties who reject the theory of AWG, and/or the question whether its existence is harmful to the environment, and/or the best way to address it assuming it does exist. That political party presumably represents about half of the entire adult voting population of the US. I know you disagree with their position and question the motivations of the interest groups that support them, but concluding it's simply a matter of intelligent people buying into a falsely created notion that it's bad science is pure hubris.

[transmitterdan]

The point of the article linked in the OP is getting missed by most of us in this thread. The point is that there is a huge variable that almost no climate model is taking into account. Human ingenuity is a pretty awesome thing. And to date no one has been able to predict what technology would be like in 20 or 100 years. It is naive to think that the next 20-100 years will not produce technology that seems inconceivable today. There is absolutely no reason, based on past history, to predict that the world will devolve into a "Water-World" or "Mad Max" scenario. To the contrary, human history has a many thousands year track record of improving living conditions through innovation and most importantly education. It takes a very warped view of humanity to think that will not continue whatever the climate does (or does not do).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The point of the article linked in the OP is getting missed by most of us in this thread. The point is that there is a huge variable that almost no climate model is taking into account. Human ingenuity is a pretty awesome thing. And to date no one has been able to predict what technology would be like in 20 or 100 years. It is naive to think that the next 20-100 years will not produce technology that seems inconceivable today. There is absolutely no reason, based on past history, to predict that the world will devolve into a "Water-World" or "Mad Max" scenario. To the contrary, human history has a many thousands year track record of improving living conditions through innovation and most importantly education. It takes a very warped view of humanity to think that will not continue whatever the climate does (or does not do).

And a big component of the "Denier" faction is less concerned about whether climatic warming exists and whether it's caused by fossil fuel consumption, and more concerned about the solutions being proposed in Paris to address the problem.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

My grand dad smoked for over 80 years (died at 97). No cancer in his body .

My father smoked for over 50 years, and is still going strong at 90. But that just goes to probabilities as Jack has already pointed out. But interestingly with regard to the big tobacco debate, my father says that not only did they know smoking had to be bad when he started in his teens, but that's exactly why he and his friends started (this was the 1930's, mind you). As a rebellious teen, he probably never would have started if everyone believed it was good for you! That's one reason why I'm also skeptical that the "Joe Camel" motif was designed to or actually did induce kids to start smoking as the anti-tobacco lobby alleged. But given that the relationship b'twn lung cancer, heart disease, and other serious health issues is now in fact settled science as opposed to still debatable, I'm glad there's been an overall reduction in tobacco usage. Still seems quite popular in France and other parts of Europe, however. There's also a libertarian component to it that many of the zealots miss.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

My grand dad smoked for over 80 years (died at 97). No cancer in his body .

My Ukrainian uncle has smoked 3-4 packs a day for over 70 years and worked in a steel yard with asbestos, usually a cigarette in one hand, welding or cutting torch in the other. He's now 86 and still smoking and cancer free.

Cancer is caused by the inability of each individual's immune system to rid the body of deformed cancerous cells. When the immune system breaks down or is too weak to deal with an out of control outbreak of deformed cells... we call it cancer. He must have an epic immune system.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2.


Oh, my friend...

Normally I want to be factual and concise when i rebut someone here, but to say in the same paragraph "I am an engineer" and then "Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2.". That was special. Do share the source.

If nothing else, please consider this: the carbon we exhale as CO2 came from what we eat, and what we ate got it's carbon from what it ate, and if you follow along far enough, you'll find some plant that got its carbon from... the CO2 in the air.

Closed-cycle. No net CO2 increase. Now, if we happened to eat coal or oil, you'd have a (small) point. Not adding up to a third of the world's CO2 emissions tho'.

Sometimes I read these Global Warming threads for a chuckle as a break from my work. The old "climate has always changed" argument is just about as stupid as "last month, it was cold where I live."

Ya know, if the world's climatologists were so evilly intelligent that they could almost all conspire to pull the wool over our eyes in order to become wealthy and powerful, you think that they'd be smart enough to realize that the climate has always changed. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh knows that. Stupid climatologists.

But, oh my, "humans exhaling CO2" takes the cake! Sadly, I have heard other engineers use that argument. I've also heard Sean Hannity use it. I guess what I'm saying is that some engineers are as thoughtful as Sean Hannity. I know because I are a enginner.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

Zee,
The fact is that the climate change that we are experiencing is being caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that are a direct result of industrialization and the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
The Earth is not burning fossil fuels. Humans are.
Not being able to see and acknowledge this fact is denial of the highest order.
The amount of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere is simply too much to be assimilated naturally by the ecosystem.
If you run a hose from the exhaust pipe of your car into the cabin and close the windows bad things happen. In very simple terms we are doing the same thing with this planet on a grand scale.

This is the kind of simple minded propaganda that Al Gore and others keep spewing.

The fact is, solar output is the strongest factor affecting global temperatures. They follow a roughly 11 yr cycle. With no heat from the sun, we'd be a dead planet. If you plot global temperatures for the last 2,000 yrs, they closely follow solar output, not CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gasses do contribute slightly to how much heat is retained by our atmosphere, but it's not the major factor that it's overblown to be.

Methane is 20x more effective as a greenhouse gas. Think about that every time you think about the hundreds of millions of cattle (and other animals worldwide) producing millions of tons of methane, naturally. Now add in natural sources from lakes and swamps, plus landfills... you start to get the picture that maybe methane might be more of a problem than CO2.

Now think about the millions of tons of ash and gasses ejected from the 1500 active volcanoes around the world. That stays in the upper atmosphere for years - we saw evidence of dust still in the upper atmosphere 3 or 4 yrs after Mt Pinatubo erupted.


Why does Al Gore make such a big deal about CO2? So he can make billions selling carbon credits, while his house consumes 10x more electricity than an average american home (which is double what most homes worldwide use) and he flies around in a chartered jet. Talk about a huge carbon footprint!

In a couple of years when the Midwest is in the grips of one of the coldest winters on record, people are going to be wondering what happened to "global warming." They changed it to "climate change" so when the temps don't continue to rise at the alarming rate they originally predicted, they don't look quite so foolish. Remember "The Day After Tomorrow"? What an overblown piece of fiction.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

It was the scientists who established & ultimately settled the link between smoking and a higher incidence of lung cancer and other diseases. But it was the advocates who took this settled science and influenced policy decisions such as smoking bans in public places, etc. Both sides hired their lobbyists & created their nonprofits to influence their respective right to influence public opinion & legislators. Ultimately a firm consensus was reached by the people and their elected representatives.

The science behind the link between tobacco and cancer was solid, quite early on. By denying and lobbying and fomenting dissent, the tobacco lobby successfully delayed serious consideration of this solid link... for decades, and caused many preventable deaths.

"The People" don't reach a consensus. Science reaches a consensus and presents it, and the battle is to have people accept or reject the scientific consensus. Science itself is not something you vote on, science is doing the research and hypothesizing and testing (lather rinse repeat) and being influenced only by the results.

Here, by contrast, you have one of the two major US political parties who reject the theory of AWG, and/or the question whether its existence is harmful to the environment, and/or the best way to address it assuming it does exist. That political party presumably represents about half of the entire adult voting population of the US. I know you disagree with their position and question the motivations of the interest groups that support them, but concluding it's simply a matter of intelligent people buying into a falsely created notion that it's bad science is pure hubris.

It's totally the case that deniers are flying in the face of the current scientific consensus around AGW. The layperson who thinks the science is not good, or isn't settled enough to be credible... is the one labouring under a false premise.

If you have doubts about what to do, whether we can do anything, how much we should commit to addressing the issue... these are entirely valid concerns, and should be the subjects of ongoing discussion.

Indulge me in a hypothetical, please:
- your sister is a climate scientist of note, and a researcher at a prominent US university, or NOAA, say
- she and several of her scientist colleagues sit down one afternoon and patiently explain how the scientific consensus around AGW was reached, and why they think it's something we should deal with
- you trust your sister, and you are now genuinely convinced that AGW is real and requires attention.

Here comes the question: President X (who you voted for, to remove party bias here) asks her oops his advisors to present an action plan for AGW, the scientists of different disciplines meet to produce a course of action to address the threat. The costs are significant, but economically bearable and won't ruin the country.

Would you vote for or against it? Yes or No, based just on the above. (anyone can play, only rules are Yes or No)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What Big Oil says



Conoco Philips






The bid denies are coal companies like Peabody.

It sounds like the "Deniers" take positions across a wide spectrum. There's every position from the Earth is not warming; to the Earth is warming but it's due to natural forces; to the Earth is warming, it's anthropogenic, but not harmful to humans or their environment; to the Earth is experiencing AGW, it may or may not be harmful to humans, but is definitely not catastrophic as many on the other side predict.

Not exactly sure where Big Oil falls on this spectrum, but it doesn't surprise me that their shareholders would want to advocate, at a minimum, against some of the additional taxes & regulations threatening to be imposed on them by the more zealous advocates on the other side. Whether those efforts are ultimately successful or not will depend on public policy.