Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?

No, checking the pulse of Simpson sitting on his donkey.

Statues have no effect on the climate in my very humble view.

 

[Whiskers]

Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?

No... what do the say?

 

[Whiskers]

What I am not sure is clear though is that the important element for myself is not that we disagree, it is how we disagree.

That's true Some Dude, and I agree... at this point I'll take you back a bit to your post 4472 where you said:

“I don't recall seeing you acknowledge that I have a genuine interest, as opposed to attempting to rattle and troll, but if that is what you are saying then that is a good starting point. Thank you.”​

Yes, it's important that you understand that I know you have a genuine interest here.

I think it's unfortunate that we didn't share that understanding earlier.

Do you know why it didn't get a higher priority in your memory?

We are making progress, but I'll leave it there for today and come back to you tomorrow or monday.

 

[Ves]

No... what do the say?

I don't remember exactly. I was just curious as all - I didn't think there was that many people in SEQ interested in flouride.

 

[Whiskers]

I don't remember exactly. I was just curious as all - I didn't think there was that many people in SEQ interested in flouride.

Oh Yeah, there is... you wanna get me started on fluoridation.

Actually, I probably need to get back to that thread again soon.

 

[Some Dude]

Yes, it's important that you understand that I know you have a genuine interest here.

I think it's unfortunate that we didn't share that understanding earlier.

Do you know why it didn't get a higher priority in your memory?

I wouldn't say that I know but I have an opinion about it.

My reading is that we essentially started talking past each other with posts 4398 and 4400 whereby I was seeking specifics about what was informing you comments so that I could assess veracity, and you were seeking alternative explanations from myself. I read as rhetorical questions because I could not relate them to a position or comment that I had made.

Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.

So the part where you said:

...

Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to? Was there anything in that study that asserts any kind of contradiction or doubt about of global warming? i.e. The seemingly confounding point can't sustain anybody categorising climate change science as hysteria?

As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.


Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?

What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?

Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?

Miles of charts here: <snip>

Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.

Once we were unable to establish a common framework from which we could then conduct the discussion, it is an easy mindset to adopt that the other person is inconsistent or rattle and trolling.

So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.

...

Choose a point for discussion, cite the source and research, and we will discuss.

Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying.

I acknowledge and accept that we will likely have different perspectives about this and that is okay. I also believe that it is not a your fault or my fault issue and feel free to disagree as there are comments that I made which I believe were not helpful. But the fundamental root cause of the issue for me is not what comments we made about the other, it is the inability to establish a common framework for discussion. I think that is a common human interaction issue that can sometimes be amplified by the nature of online communication where interactivity can be stilted but it is certainly not confined to online discussions.

 

[Whiskers]

I wouldn't say that I know but I have an opinion about it.
...
But the fundamental root cause of the issue for me is not what comments we made about the other, it is the inability to establish a common framework for discussion.

I would agree there.

For me the theory and science is all very important, but what is most important is the application of that theory and science in the real world. Theory is all in our mind and on paper... it has no material effect on the world.

To explain where I'm coming from I refer to Post 4421: "The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start."

I'd like to clarify the meaning of hysteria at this point.

hysteria; behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic in anticipation of some specific danger.​

For me, it's important that even if we conclude there is man induced climate change, that any action we and or the gov take in the name of climate change, is totally consistent with our belief and stated policies.

What I'm trying to establish is whether the gov's application of new projects, laws and taxes etc in practice is totally consistent with their stated beliefs and policies.

 

[Some Dude]

For me the theory and science is all very important, but what is most important is the application of that theory and science in the real world. Theory is all in our mind and on paper... it has no material effect on the world.

Do you mind if we deal with this issue before moving on to any potential or contested implications etc. ?

Gravity is a theory, it's an old theory, we know that it is wrong and incomplete in a range of real world circumstances. But at the time, it was the best theory, or mathematical model, that provided enlightenment regarding why objects appear to fall downwards. It advanced our understanding of the material world and the effects that can happen, it was a major step forward because it enabled us to assert casual explanations and make predictions that while not perfect, were vastly better than the previous explanations.

In this context, I fundamentally disagree with your statement that they have no material effect on the world. Not because the equation e = mc^2 has a direct material effect on the world but that it enabled us to understand our universe better and the effect that we can and do have. Whether that effect is potentially very destructive as atomic weapons were, or beneficial as GPS has been, both emerging from e = mc ^2, is up to us.

 

[Whiskers]

Do you mind if we deal with this issue before moving on to any potential or contested implications etc. ?

Ok... I generally agree with your gravity analogy, but doesn't [my highlight]

Whether that effect is potentially very destructive as atomic weapons were, or beneficial as GPS has been, both emerging from e = mc ^2, is up to us.

depend on someone taking action based on that science and theory?

That is, that an atomic weapon or GPS was created, is the effect, the stated 'objective'... whether it is perceived as destructive or benificial is an individual 'subjective' opinion one can have about the theory and science whether the weapon or GPS was actually created (effect) or not.

Take the earlier and simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation... it was sufficient to calculate the rotational behaviour of the solar system accurately enough to effect a number of purposes including orbital satellites and space travel successfully, while Einsteins more encompassing theory was still being fully understood. The fact that they effected orbital satellites and space travel is their stated objective, whether it is good or bad is our subjective opinion.

They didn't and still don't fully understand the nature of gravity, but they were able to demonstrate they knew enough to achieve certain theorised 'effects' using gravity such as the first orbiting satelite and space travel. Basically, the whole process from theory to application and resultant effect was consistent with their stated science and policy.

If the best recognised theory was e = mc ^2, and they claimed to be using e = mc ^2 in their 'application', but they actually used e ≈ mc ^2, the resultant effect could be radically different couldn't it?

We are in a similar situation with climate change, we don't fully understand it, but if we are going to use the science and theory to achieve something based on climate change, shouldn't the application and result be consistent with the stated goal and not a mistaken formula or in the guise for something else?

 

[Some Dude]

Ok... I generally agree with your gravity analogy, but doesn't [my highlight]

...

depend on someone taking action based on that science and theory?

Indeed, hence I used the word effect to correlate to your original statement about theories having no material effect on the world. While I accept the literal interpretation of that, the effects are vicariously manifest by how we inform ourselves about them and how we apply our values regarding what we do with them.

That is, that an atomic weapon or GPS was created, is the effect, the stated 'objective'... whether it is perceived as destructive or benificial is an individual 'subjective' opinion one can have about the theory and science whether the weapon or GPS was actually created (effect) or not.

Take the earlier and simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation... it was sufficient to calculate the rotational behaviour of the solar system accurately enough to effect a number of purposes including orbital satellites and space travel successfully, while Einsteins more encompassing theory was still being fully understood. The fact that they effected orbital satellites and space travel is their stated objective, whether it is good or bad is our subjective opinion.

They didn't and still don't fully understand the nature of gravity, but they were able to demonstrate they knew enough to achieve certain theorised 'effects' using gravity such as the first orbiting satelite and space travel. Basically, the whole process from theory to application and resultant effect was consistent with their stated science and policy.

If the best recognised theory was e = mc ^2, and they claimed to be using e = mc ^2 in their 'application', but they actually used e ≈ mc ^2, the resultant effect could be radically different couldn't it?

Indeed, or it could be insignificant, depends on the relevance and the specifics.

We are in a similar situation with climate change, we don't fully understand it, but if we are going to use the science and theory to achieve something based on climate change, shouldn't the application and result be consistent with the stated goal and not a mistaken formula or in the guise for something else?

This doesn't make sense to me and I suspect it may be because of a combined application or objective, with science e.g. atomic weapons were not the stated objective of relativity (take your pick), it was an emergent technology. With this in mind, can you re-word or rephrase the part I bolded because I am having difficulty understanding your point here.

Further, for context, we don't fully understand gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics but we apply the scientific knowledge all the time.

 

[Whiskers]

Ok... staying with the "atomic" analogy, the chernobyl disaster is an example of a mistaken formula. The Russians objective was to use their current knowledge to build a safe nuclear power plant. They made mistakes in the ' application' of the theory and science in building it, hence it overheated and blew up contaminating the community it was meant to help.

If the stated objective was to apply our current scientific knowledge to build a nuclear powerhouse (say like the conflict with Iran) but they were actually designing and building a nuclear weapon, then they are using the theory and science in the guise for something else.

Similarly, if the gov stated policy and goal was to protect the enviornment and reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming by switching to lower emission energy sources like natural gas, but they didn't apply at least the same standard of knowledge and theory of the science about enviornmental impacts that they normally apply to oil, gas and mining in the developmental approval process, is this not open to question whether they made a mistaken formula or deliberately portrayed the project in the guise for something else (greenhouse/climate change policy) but actually intending the project for say more tax/royalty revenue from industry and short term jobs growth?

 

[Some Dude]

Ok... staying with the "atomic" analogy, the chernobyl disaster is an example of a mistaken formula. The Russians objective was to use their current knowledge to build a safe nuclear power plant. They made mistakes in the ' application' of the theory and science in building it, hence it overheated and blew up contaminating the community it was meant to help.

If the stated objective was to apply our current scientific knowledge to build a nuclear powerhouse (say like the conflict with Iran) but they were actually designing and building a nuclear weapon, then they are using the theory and science in the guise for something else.

Similarly, if the gov stated policy and goal was to protect the enviornment and reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming by switching to lower emission energy sources like natural gas, but they didn't apply at least the same standard of knowledge and theory of the science about enviornmental impacts that they normally apply to oil, gas and mining in the developmental approval process, is this not open to question whether they made a mistaken formula or deliberately portrayed the project in the guise for something else (greenhouse/climate change policy) but actually intending the project for say more tax/royalty revenue from industry and short term jobs growth?

For the sake of the rhetorical landscape, let's grant your premise that the government is not being consistent in it's application. How is that relevant to what the science indicates is a problem? In other words, you can disagree with how a government is applying the knowledge, but that doesn't change what the science says. Using your Chernobyl example, the science says that mismanaging nuclear power can lead to various consequences, for which the results were amply demonstrated. If the science is indicating that mismanaging the climate, emissions, etc. will lead to consequences (even approximated ones), that the government may (rhetorical) be mismanaging the application has no bearing on veracity of the science that indicates a problem requiring addressing exists.

 

[Whiskers]

For the sake of the rhetorical landscape, let's grant your premise that the government is not being consistent in it's application. How is that relevant to what the science indicates is a problem? In other words, you can disagree with how a government is applying the knowledge, but that doesn't change what the science says. Using your Chernobyl example, the science says that mismanaging nuclear power can lead to various consequences, for which the results were amply demonstrated. If the science is indicating that mismanaging the climate, emissions, etc. will lead to consequences (even approximated ones), that the government may (rhetorical) be mismanaging the application has no bearing on veracity of the science that indicates a problem requiring addressing exists.

Firstly, do you accept the Kyoto Protocol is the international gauge of the acceptance of climate science policy at the governmental level?

Climate science as the Kyoto Protocol standard is not unamiously accepted by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because Aus is one of a few (including part of Europe), that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Many major countries have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol with binding targets or have withdrawn.

If governments such as Aus adopt the Kyoto Protocol as policy, but don't act in strict accordance with that protocol doesn't it not only bring their integrity into question, but reflect badly on the Kyoto Protocol, the science and theory as best we know it claimed by a minority of gov's and whether the gov action is a guise for something else?

 

[Some Dude]

Firstly, do you accept the Kyoto Protocol is the international gauge of the acceptance of climate science policy at the governmental level?

Climate science as the Kyoto Protocol standard is not unamiously accepted by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because Aus is one of a few (including part of Europe), that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Many major countries have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol with binding targets or have withdrawn.

If governments such as Aus adopt the Kyoto Protocol as policy, but don't act in strict accordance with that protocol doesn't it not only bring their integrity into question, but reflect badly on the Kyoto Protocol, the science and theory as best we know it claimed by a minority of gov's and whether the gov action is a guise for something else?

Short version: If we, generally speaking, not just you or I, can't even agree on the science, what hope is there when you add politics to the equation?

Longer version:

Sure but it I think it is irrelevant to the most important part of the situation. Unless there is a genuine understanding and acceptance, note not compliance or submission i.e. not blind faith, of the science then any policy protocol is never going to represent actual requirements. Again by example, it would be like believing that high enough walls around a power planet by the ocean in a major earth quake zone was gold plating or panicking when the science (and history) indicated not only was it a possibility but that it happens with a measured frequency. If the science is not accepted as reasonable and relevant then it's not a question about the veracity of the science.

My opinion (which we can still haggle about) is that the science is independent to political i.e. decision making and this is where I believe the problem is. If we (generally speaking, not just you or I) can't even agree on the science of the issue, and instead we use metrics such as popularity, perceived short term cost, vested commercial interests (they are on both sides), then adding politics to the mix is never (my opinion, haggle away) going to clarify the issue albeit that is needed to achieve an outcome. It's like that joke about the swing being designed by a community in that the science says "hey this is what you need" but by the time it gets to being built after numerous interfering stages, it becomes almost something else entirely.

As for integrity, I do not think that what the current government is doing is the best thing. But I also think that people who believe the science is "crap", and say something else in public (integrity?), will present an even larger problem.

 

[Whiskers]

Short version: If we, generally speaking, not just you or I, can't even agree on the science, what hope is there when you add politics to the equation?

I wouldn't say we totally dissagree on the science. We both agree the planet is in a warming phase. I'm just not convinced it's gaining momentum as a result of industrialisation to a point where it's out of control. I believe to a large extent as someone mentioned earlier, nature has an extraordinary ability to balance itself with or without our participation.

The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.

As for integrity, I do not think that what the current government is doing is the best thing.

We agree there in principle. I suppose it's just to what degree.

But I also think that people who believe the science is "crap", and say something else in public (integrity?), will present an even larger problem.

Yes, that's always difficult to deal with when people aren't honest.

Which brings me back to my point... given that Aus Labor says it believes in the climate science of 'human induced out of control climate change', and is a very enthusiastic supporter of and has declared how it will deal with it via the Kyoto Protocol, if the gov doesn't practice what they preach, to reduce carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), isn't that a major blow to the integrity of the climate science that argues 'human induced out of control climate change.'

In other words, if the governments who claim to believe and support the climate scientists who advocate 'human induced out of control climate change' don't do what they say in public and treat new projects (behind closed doors) with less enviornmental oversight than normal, isn't this the biggest problem of all?

I know you are trying to draw a line between the pure science and government, but at the end of the day, gov controlls the outcome of science to a large extent, particularly when it comes to the global scale and enviornmental policies and practice, so they are inextricably connected as far as what anyone can do about it.

 

[Some Dude]

I wouldn't say we totally dissagree on the science. We both agree the planet is in a warming phase. I'm just not convinced it's gaining momentum as a result of industrialisation to a point where it's out of control. I believe to a large extent as someone mentioned earlier, nature has an extraordinary ability to balance itself with or without our participation.

Indeed, we don't totally disagree but my understanding of the scientific consensus at this point is that warming is happening, and that it is being substantially influenced by humans, and that it will have a range of effects known and unknown. Further, it is my understanding that proactive preventative action now will be cheaper than reactive remedial action later.

The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.

The rise is due to [UTL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise"]thermal expansion and land based ice melt[/URL]. For some islands it would appear to be far more than a purely commercial priority.

Which brings me back to my point... given that Aus Labor says it believes in the climate science of 'human induced out of control climate change', and is a very enthusiastic supporter of and has declared how it will deal with it via the Kyoto Protocol, if the gov doesn't practice what they preach, to reduce carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), isn't that a major blow to the integrity of the climate science that argues 'human induced out of control climate change.'

How is the ALP, or any other party for that matter, responsible for any part of the integrity of the world wide consensus in climate science?

In other words, if the governments who claim to believe and support the climate scientists who advocate 'human induced out of control climate change' don't do what they say in public and treat new projects (behind closed doors) with less enviornmental oversight than normal, isn't this the biggest problem of all?

I agree, which is why people should also be even more suspicious of the coalition.

I know you are trying to draw a line between the pure science and government, but at the end of the day, gov controlls the outcome of science to a large extent, particularly when it comes to the global scale and enviornmental policies and practice, so they are inextricably connected as far as what anyone can do about it.

I don't agree that government's control the outcome of science but I do agree that they attempt to interfere. For example, the field of evolutionary science has likewise had to struggle with interference from governing bodies due to religious motivations in much the same way that climate change science has had to contend with interference from those for whom the message threatens their commercial and political interests.

 

[sydboy007]

The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.

I thought it was pretty well agreed that through history sea levels have been much higher and lower than present.

The geological data is pretty easy to see and interpret.

It's pretty much agreed that one of the reasons humans made it to Australia 40 odd thousand years ago was due to the previous ice age and much lower sea levels - think up to 120M lower than present.

So to say that rising sea levels is not a major issue from global warming - whether it is caused by man or nature is not important - is leaving us to make some very painful adjustments in the future.

It's reasonably agree by scientists that the flooding in NYC from Cyclone Sandy due to the storm surges was so bad because sea levels are around 30cm higher than in 1870. This is not controversial, it's been an easily measured increase, and the rate of increase has accelerated if you compare the period from 1950 to 2009 which was increasing at around 1.7mm a year, to the period 1993 to 2009 which was increasing at 3.3 a year, you can see that the issue of rising sea levels is probably something we will need to start facing up to within a few decades.

Considering that most of the worlds population lives on coastal areas, the amount of infrastructure that could be damaged is immense. We're talking trillions of dollars.

personally I think we've gone past the point where we can get global consensus on tackling the issue, and we need to start doing what we can NOW to adapt to a world where sea levels are 30-50cm higher in the second half of this century and storm surges are flooding much larger areas of the coast.

 

[basilio]

Came across a paper from a amateur Meteorologist who in 1938 linked global warming to the burning of fossil fuel.
Fascinating

How the burning of fossil fuels was linked to a warming world in 1938

This month marks the 75th anniversary of Guy Callendar's landmark scientific paper on anthropogenic climate change

Seventy-five years ago this month an amateur weather-watcher from West Sussex published a landmark paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society directly linking the burning of fossil fuels to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

Guy Callendar was a successful steam engineer by trade, but in his spare time he was a keen meteorologist. In April 1938, his paper, "The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature" (pdf), which built on the earlier work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, was published with little fanfare or impact. It was only in the proceeding decades that the true significance of his conclusions would be heralded.

To mark the anniversary, two modern-day climatologists have published a co-authored paper (pdf) in the same journal celebrating not just his legacy, but also illustrating with modern techniques and data just how accurate Callendar's calculations proved to be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/22/guy-callendar-climate-fossil-fuels

 

[basilio]

Australia is still getting hotter - and without any influence from El Nina effects. You just have to look at the figures.

Summer of record heat extends into May

Date
May 1, 2013 - 10:02AM

1741 reading now



Australia's run of exceptionally warm weather has extended into May, giving the country its second-hottest start to the year on record.

Big dry threatens crops
Perth posts record April heat

The first four months of 2013 have seen average national daily maximum temperatures reach about 1.33 degrees above the average for 1961-1990, shy only of the blisteringly hot start to 2005, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

Compounding the warmer-than-usual conditions, much of the grain belts of NSW, Victoria and Western Australia posted below or very-much-below-average rainfall last month.

“The failure of the autumn [rain] break – this is what really worries the cereal croppers,” Karl Braganza, manager of climate modelling at the bureau, said.

Australia posted its hottest summer in more than a century of records over the December-February period, even without a dominant El Niño weather pattern over the Pacific – the conditions which typically produce exceptionally warm temperatures over much of the country.

In fact, a slew of other records have tumbled in 2013, including the hottest day and hottest month. The 11 months from June to the end of April were also the country's hottest for maximum temperatures, underscoring the persistence of unusually high mercury readings.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ds-into-may-20130501-2irue.html#ixzz2RzyT25On

 

[Knobby22]

Probably should put that in the weather thread Baz.
Hopefully the rain comes late.