Climate change another name for Weather

[rederob]

So be more kind to those of use who use reason as well as empiricism, and do not denigrate those who question your science.

After all science depends on philosophy as much as it does on empiricism.

One would need to find reason or empericism in your contributions to give your position substance.
By all means question the science.
But don't proclaim to empericist principles lest you have some evidence that tells us that the earth is on a cooling trend for the foreseeable future.

 

[2020hindsight]

Wayne, I'm currently reading a Flannery book called The Weathermakers that is HIGHLY recommended by Intrepid Travel who are big supporters of GW dogmatists. Intrepid are leading the travel industry in carbon offsetting etc etc.

I've found some of his stuff has some foundation based on some seemingly facts but then at other times leaps to hard conclusions not based on anything other than his own preamble. Sometimes those conclusions are the most significant in a chapter. Troubling. However, overall, so far, seems to have some merit.

I'm a major skeptic of GW, probably because I find it my purpose to always take the opposing opinion of the masses. That's probably an ego thing, so I'm a bit lost trying to find the truth in regard to this issue.

So, opinion on Flannery?

Hair brained nutter?

Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?

When he thought filling the upper atmosphere with so2 was a good idea.

kennas,
I think it's fairly obvious that Wayne hasn't read Tim Flannery's book.

But, as you will know, here are the opinions of some others (of many rave reviews) about "The Weather Makers" :-

"It would be hard to imagine a better or more important book" Bill Bryson

"This is the story of global warming. And no one tells it better than Tim Flannery" David Suzuki

"An overwhelming account ... The Weather Makers shows clearly that decisive action is needed now" Chief Emaka Anyaoku, President, WWF International

imo, this entire thread is not equal to one paragraph of that book

 

[Calliope]

on the question of "optimists" vs "pessimists"
sure I'm optimistic.
Especially when I read reports like this (from a CSIRO publication by Paul Holper and Simon Torok)

This report mentions an English survey in 2006 of 750 11 to 17 year olds. It showed that while they were concerned about climate change, they were optimistic they could do something about it.

Having grandchildren in that age bracket I can assure you that a similar situation applies here. From their indoctrination in state schools children accept as a universal truth that global warming is here and is caused by us.

Are they prepared to something about it.
Yes.
What?
Switching off lights and stuff like that.

But they have an inbuilt much more powerful universal truth;

They were put on this earth to enjoy themselves

Two incompatible truths. Which one should they follow?

Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

Or as the kids would say "stop wasting time, let's party.'

I feel that this thread is an exercise in futility.

 

[rederob]

I feel that this thread is an exercise in futility.

It can seem that way.
There is a chance that those skeptical of climate change could substantiate why they believe what they do.
But evidence on this thread suggests they are happy to believe what they do because they are happy with what they know.
I don't see climate change having a more pressing claim to action than saving sharks, Tibet, or wetlands.
We can believe in them all, and act on each as we see fit at the time.
No doubt many believe in "saving" something else, and have good reason or cause.
In this thread I have raised the "science" as a key issue, and hoped that those that post a different view have a grasp of its basics, and/or can defend what they propose.
In separately alluding to the CFC science, I was attempting to show how vested interests attempted to obfuscate what had the potential to become a serious climatic issue. The science tells us that holes in the ozone layer may last for many decades to come, despite total bans already in place on CFC.
CO2 has a more immediate impact on climate than CFCs, and possibly a less lasting one.
The problem we have is that CO2 emissions continue to rise, along with many other greenhouse gases, and we are at levels which represent "bluesky" for climatologists.
Although we understand the science of "forcing", the pace of climate change in the Arctic shows that global models may be severely underestimating regional impacts.
Townsville weather update are not instructive to this thread's theme, and nor are hyped-up pro or anti warming media reports.
And a reasoned debate here is not likely.

 

[Smurf1976]

But they have an inbuilt much more powerful universal truth;

They were put on this earth to enjoy themselves

Two incompatible truths. Which one should they follow?

What do you think is going to happen when they start driving?

Economical four cylinder used only when necessary, preferring to catch the bus when practical?

Or an import performance car constantly tweaked to boost not economy, but performance and fuel consumption?

That will answer the question as to whether or not the concern is genuine.

 

[Smurf1976]

And a reasoned debate here is not likely.

I'd love a reasoned debate but emotion seems to dominate this subject to an incredible extent and both sides rely almost exclusively on it in the mainstream public debate.

Polar bears drowning etc - that's an emotional argument unless there's a real prospect of extinction and we're also addressing the non-climate related causes of their demise.

Job losses etc - also an emotional argument as long as we maintain an economic system where having a "job" is a social and economic must.

It's been this way ever since we started having mainstream environmental debates. It was known and understood very well back then by environmentalists that no matter what the maths and engineering of the other side said, a simple photograph could sway public opinion in the opposite direction. That works even with a generic nature photograph unrelated to the subject of the debate (this was actually done during one high profile environmental debate).

That point was not at all understood by developers at the time, convinced that their calculations were right and that the public would vote accordingly. The public did grasp the numbers but as is generally the case the heart wins over the head when its decision time.

And so emotion has become the standard tactic. Engineering, science and hard facts are no match for photos and all sorts of other emotional things. Emotion almost always wins.

The trouble with this debate from a political perspective is that the situation is now reversed. It's largely environmentalists armed with calculators proposing massive engineering works to fix the CO2 problem whilst the other side is essentially an emotional argument about economic wellbeing. That's a reversal of the traditional position of environmentalists and one they apparently struggle with in much the same way as developers once struggled with "fuzzy" concepts about scenery and wilderness. They may be close, but they don't quite get it and that makes life rather difficult.

As the history of environmental debates has shown, it's rather hard to win when your argument relies on numbers and even moreso when it relies upon some sort of forecast. The climate change debate relies absolutely on both for its very existence and that's the problem.

...


Back to the rational debate, I note that once again Russia has managed to find a gas dispute amidst cold weather and consequent gas demand. Funny how these things never seem to happen when demand is lower - a cynical person could be lead to believe that the Russians simply can't ramp production up high enough to meet demand and that disputes are simply a cover.

I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn.

So, how about a rational debate where the reasonable limits to emissions growth due to fuel availability are included? Even Garnaut glossed over that one, choosing to accept an unverified political claim as a key fact which forms a substantial part of the basis of this rather lengthy report. That ain't good science, but it does speak volumes about the problem of even attempting a truly objective debate on this issue.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove the science has no merit.

I think the expectation of evidence that man is directly, or not, linked to GW or CC is absurd.

Mandelbrot and Taleb present the paradigm worth pursuing to start new studies on the topic.

I may lack talent and epistemic arrogance to discuss this topic.

Peace

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

The problem we have is that CO2 emissions continue to rise, along with many other greenhouse gases, and we are at levels which represent "bluesky" for climatologists.
Although we understand the science of "forcing", the pace of climate change in the Arctic shows that global models may be severely underestimating regional impacts.

Regarding the role of the oceans in the process what do you see as the main difference between the artic and the antarctic and how they are different with the effects of GW, CC from man?

 

[rederob]

I think the expectation of evidence that man is directly, or not, linked to GW or CC is absurd.

Mandelbrot and Taleb present the paradigm worth pursuing to start new studies on the topic.

I may lack talent and epistemic arrogance to discuss this topic.

Peace

Thus, you would logically conclude that "evidence" proves nothing?
Then there is no debate worth having.

 

[rederob]

Regarding the role of the oceans in the process what do you see as the main difference between the artic and the antarctic and how they are different with the effects of GW, CC from man?

In simple terms the difference is self evident when looking at a globe of the earth: Antarctica is totally surrounded by three great oceans. The Artic is almost landlocked - surrounded by Europe, Asia and North America.
Antarctica is a land mass covered with massive ice sheets. The Arctic is just water and ice - you plant a flag on the ocean floor when you reach the north pole!
The Arctic tends to act as a barometer of change as its geography and climatology "amplifies" weather events. However, unless a similar trend (albeit latent) is shown to correspondingly affect Antarctica we can hardly talk about "global climate change".
The issue on manmade climate change is incidental to the above. How we measure it is clearly debatable.

 

[rederob]

One would need to find reason or empericism in your contributions to give your position substance.
By all means question the science.
But don't proclaim to empericist principles lest you have some evidence that tells us that the earth is on a cooling trend for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, I regard the majority of your contributions to this thread as having little value, to the point of being meaningless.
I have no difficulty with the daily "weather" that we experience, wherever we may be.
However, in opening this thread you remarked on Gore's knowledge of climate, somewhat disparagingly.
Climate is simply an "average" of weather events at particular locations.
Gore contends that the science is pointing to a probable significant change in climate - which clearly means weather patterns will change.
Apart from your Townsville weather reports, what meaningful contributions do you propose making in this thread that support your views.

 

[rederob]

I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn.

So, how about a rational debate where the reasonable limits to emissions growth due to fuel availability are included? Even Garnaut glossed over that one, choosing to accept an unverified political claim as a key fact which forms a substantial part of the basis of this rather lengthy report. That ain't good science, but it does speak volumes about the problem of even attempting a truly objective debate on this issue.

Smurf
I tend to agree that in the long run, increased levels of carbon-fuel based emissions have a generational life span or two, but will naturally curb toward century's end.
Peak oil should see transport alternatives well in place by 2050. But it does not imply that oil will not be consumed at all; just that there will be less available and it will probably be too expensive to burn.
Coal powered electricity generation is a different matter. We have global reserves of coal for centuries ahead, and China has shown that it's the cheapest and fastest form of electricity generation to put in place for developing nations. I wish the scientist luck with "clean coal" technology: My suspicion is that funding would be better placed in renewable alternatives.
Your argument then has three points: First, when (what year) will see emissions plateau? Will subsequent emissions reductions stem the impact of "forcing"? And finally, when will emissions reductions return us to levels where "forcings" are less of a concern than they are today?

 

[2020hindsight]

I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn. ..

Well if that's what we're relying on to save us, heaven help us.

Remember Sarah Palin's only contribution to this debate? "Drill Baby Drill?

 

[Smurf1976]

Well if that's what we're relying on to save us, heaven help us.

Remember Sarah Palin's only contribution to this debate? "Drill Baby Drill?

This is what I just can't agree with as far as those calling for action are concerned.

If I am right about an inability to increase the fossil fuel extraction rate, and there is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case, then that is a 100% effective solution to the CO2 problem and one that those calling for emission cuts ought to be incredibly happy about.

So why the negativity when someone suggests that maybe it's "mission accomplished" on the emisions issue and that nothing further may need to be done?

Is it perhaps something to do with the huge financial losses that would cause for all those employed or otherwise profiting from the issue? If not then what is the problem?

Environmentalists fight nuclear. They fight hydro. They fight wind. They claim there's no water, thus laying the groundwork to oppose the geothermal industry in the future. The only things they do support are those, such as PV, that don't seriously threaten to reduce CO2 emissions by a meaningful amount. All up, it looks like a classic case of becoming so involved in the issue as to not want it solved.

It's a bit like how various medical companies would likely go broke if anyone did find an easy cure for cancer etc. So involved in the problem that a solution would have a devastating impact since limited "solutions" involving treatment, not cure, are far more profitable due to the ongoing demand they generate. A situation where what started out as the aim and intention must now be avoided for financial reasons.

 

[2020hindsight]

If I am right about an inability to increase the fossil fuel extraction rate, and there is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case, then that is a 100% effective solution to the CO2 problem ...

smurf if you're saying that we will not have a problem purely because we can't extract coal etc fast enough, then I would say you're smoking something pretty damned strong.

We need to reduce the rate of extraction of coal etc, not accelerate it to the fastest rate we are physically capable of ( as you imply)

Here's what Flannery would say :-

Researchers at Hadley Centre talk of a “physical commitment to climate change”
This refers to the fact that the full impact of the GHGs already in the atmosphere will not be felt until 2050 etc .

factors :-
a) the CO2 that has already been released
b) the positive feedback loops that amplify climate change
c) global dimming (whereby dust reduces the heat reaching the earth
d) and the speed at which human economies can decarbonise themselves.

Of these
a) is known and gives us our existing commitment
b) and
c) are being explored / analysed
d) the rate at which humans can change their emissions , is being argued over right now in parliaments and boardrooms around the world. It is also the only impact over which we have any control.

Scientists say a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by the middle of the century is required to stabilise Earth’s climate. This would result in CO2 at 450 ppm, and global climate stabilising at at least 1.1 degC higher than at present , with some regions warming by as much as 5 degC.

The European nations are talking of emission cuts to this scale, but given the intransigence of the coal industry and the policies of the current US administration, this may be unachievable as a global target. ... More realistic might be stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm - double the pre-industrial level.

In other words it's too late to avoid changing our world, but we still have time, if good policy is implemented, to avoid disaster.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Thus, you would logically conclude that "evidence" proves nothing?
Then there is no debate worth having.

Unfortunately with this one current science is lacking in creativity. It is good as a tool for wielding power though.

Do we have evidence that things are happening? Yes we do.

Do we have evidence that it is bad what is happening? No. Why? Because we don't know the boundaries of the universe.

And we surely do not know that man is causing GW, CC.

Red in the link video you provided me with even that guy stated there are lots of things we do not know. And what role the oceans play in the process of sea ice melting is still unknown. Sounds like a living planet to me.

 

[2020hindsight]

And we surely do not know that man is causing GW, CC.

some of these posts .. seriously ...
As Menzies used to say when the hecklers piped up in the back of the audience ...
"shame we didn't spend more on education"

 

[Calliope]

I'd love a reasoned debate but emotion seems to dominate this subject to an incredible extent and both sides rely almost exclusively on it in the mainstream public debate.

Polar bears drowning etc - that's an emotional argument unless there's a real prospect of extinction and we're also addressing the non-climate related causes of their demise.

Job losses etc - also an emotional argument as long as we maintain an economic system where having a "job" is a social and economic must.

It's been this way ever since we started having mainstream environmental debates. It was known and understood very well back then by environmentalists that no matter what the maths and engineering of the other side said, a simple photograph could sway public opinion in the opposite direction. That works even with a generic nature photograph unrelated to the subject of the debate (this was actually done during one high profile environmental debate).

That point was not at all understood by developers at the time, convinced that their calculations were right and that the public would vote accordingly. The public did grasp the numbers but as is generally the case the heart wins over the head when its decision time.

And so emotion has become the standard tactic. Engineering, science and hard facts are no match for photos and all sorts of other emotional things. Emotion almost always wins.

The trouble with this debate from a political perspective is that the situation is now reversed. It's largely environmentalists armed with calculators proposing massive engineering works to fix the CO2 problem whilst the other side is essentially an emotional argument about economic wellbeing. That's a reversal of the traditional position of environmentalists and one they apparently struggle with in much the same way as developers once struggled with "fuzzy" concepts about scenery and wilderness. They may be close, but they don't quite get it and that makes life rather difficult.

As the history of environmental debates has shown, it's rather hard to win when your argument relies on numbers and even moreso when it relies upon some sort of forecast. The climate change debate relies absolutely on both for its very existence and that's the problem.

I enjoy your commonsense posts on this thread and your command of the language. The debate now seems to have fallen on the shoulders of you and Rederob and I think you both enjoy the debate and acquit yourselves well. Sometimes you are not far apart.

I do not join the debate because I am no good at debating for it own sake, and where there can be no winners. From time to time I like to comment.

I think the majority pay lip service to the concept of GW, or at least they tell the pollsters that they do. But as for making real sacrifice. It probably won't happen. The idealists talk about leaving a better world for their children and grandchildren, but we can't help noticing that our children and grandchildren are often leading hedonistic lives, and having a lot more fun than we had. Who should sacrifice for whom?

The attitude is let tomorrow look after itself. I live for today. Or as Byron put it;

Did ye not hear it?--No; 'twas but the wind,
Or the car rattling o'er the stony street;
On with the dance! let joy be unconfin'd;
No sleep till morn, when Youth and Pleasure meet
To chase the glowing Hours with flying feet--
But hark!--that heavy sound breaks in once more,
As if the clouds its echo would repeat;
And nearer, clearer, deadlier than before!
Arm! Arm! it is--it is--the cannon's opening roar!

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

some of these posts .. seriously ...
As Menzies used to say when the hecklers piped up in the back of the audience ...
"shame we didn't spend more on education"

I am happy to see your proof.

Cheers..

 

[wayneL]

I've sworn off arguing in this thread and will just post interesting titbits and articles from time to time.

This, a poll from today's Sunday Mail FWIW