Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Ktowntslafan]

This is alarming...#COP21

 

[Raffy.Roma]

150 millions of environmental refugees within 2050 because of raising sea levels.

Rising Sea Levels

 

[ggies07]

Glad to see articles like this out there letting others know the climate talks are not over due to the violence that just occured.

Why a Climate Deal Is the Best Hope for Peace - The New Yorker

We cannot afford to allow this story to be repeated, this time with terror changing the subject.

 

[S'toon]

Old Man Mike,

As I was the one who posted this piece here, I'd like to add to your discussion. Thanks for posting. I certainly hope you can approach Anthony Watts' analysis with the same dose of skepticism you apply to all science. Note that Watts is a meteorologist, and not a climatologist. As an engineer, I'm sure you know there's a pretty big difference between those. Regardless, that doesn't prove that his analysis is wrong or misinformed, just that we cannot assume he's approaching this more expertly than the GISS.

What is true about Watts is that he has a clear agenda. I'm not suggesting it's nefarious, but it's clear that he doesn't believe the science behind global warming and he long ago stopped approaching the science skeptically. Spend any amount of time reading his blog, and it'll be clear that he only digs his heels in. This is not a scientific stance, it's a dogmatic stance. It's important to remember that as well.

On to the analysis he provides. His main concern is that the GHG chart doesn't show actual CO2 accumulation, it shows modeled temperature change due to CO2 accumulation. I definitely think that would have been useful to include the CO2 measurements in the presentation in case someone like Watts got confused. The downside to that is that it doesn't control for confounding variables, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the graphs. But on to his main complaint.

Watts has a huge issue with modeling, which I find fascinating coming from a meteorologist. His "first" and "second" points both complain about how modeling works. There's a great quote attributable to George E. P Box, one of the great statisticians of all time: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." This is sort of the reality check of how we approach viewing models. They will never be correct all of the time, but they're intended to provide value in the face of large, complicated data sets. Pointing out that they use random number generators (they all do) and that there's "moldy Fortran code" is just trying to very unscientifically bolster an unscientific argument.

His final complaint is about the 95% confidence intervals. I don't see how he could misunderstand this, except intentionally to bolster his stance. The confidence intervals are on the simulations. Since meteorologists work directly in the world of statistics, I have to think he knows what a confidence interval means. 95% confidence interval means that 95% of the time, the true sample mean (or sample statistic) will fall within the interval. Since it's based on the simulation, that interval shouldn't change.

I would love to hear what parts of his analysis you found compelling scientifically, because it's possible I'm overlooking something (or a lot of things). Like you, I try to avoid my own biases and constantly challenge my beliefs in the name of learning something.

Thanks again for adding to the conversation.

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Full article at:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

- - - Updated - - -

I'll try. Modeling is fine but trying to prove a model is valid by using other models is not. And there should be no reason for using a model instead of measurements since the attempted area of proof was all in the past. I'm also OK with using analysis tools such as a Fourier transform to show underlying periodic events that are masked when looking at time domain data. Actually, after writing that sentence I did a quick search for Fourier analysis in climate change research and found this:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/fo...l-cycles-no-man-made-effect-predicts-cooling/

Regardless of the title, I'm not convinced that it predicts cooling. But I do believe that nature events are seldom linear and most often a compounding of cyclic events. It makes sense to use Fourier analysis to separate the cycles in an attempt to understand and then develop models for future predictions.




Agree that the random number and "moldy Fortran code" has no place in the argument. Random number generators have application in modeling and it doesn't matter what language is used for modeling as long at the math is correct and applicable to the prediction.




Also agree.




I was compelled by his information that a second model rather than historical data was used to argue the validity of the primary model. I will note that the Watt's presentation was far inferior.

Thanks for your rational response.

- - - Updated - - -




Opps, It appears I was not clear enough. It was not about the theory but rather about the drama created by the media and advocates that took up the cause. Of course history never repeats.....

Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology.[SUP][1][/SUP] Nova is based in Perth, Western Australia.

Nova runs the Australian company Science Speak,[SUP][2][/SUP] the main aim of which is to promote AGW denialism.
For four years, Nova worked for the Shell Questacon Science Circus, based in Canberra, Australia. The Science Circus is an outreach program run by Questacon, the Australian National Science and Technology Centre. The program is sponsored by Shell Oil, with additional support from Australian National University. She has also worked for Foxtel, a cable television company part owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

<snip>

Full article at:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova

http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova

Climate Skeptics Handbook - errors and inaccuracies:
http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook

https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/ScientificGuideSkepticsA5.pdf

https://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=joanne+nova&x=0&y=0

 

[ZsoZso]

Some good news from Alberta:
Alberta climate change plan calls for economy-wide tax | Calgary Herald
New Alberta climate-change plan includes carbon tax for individual Albertans, cap on oilsands emissions | Edmonton Journal
Canadian oil capital, Alberta, unveils carbon tax, coal phase-out : Renew Economy

It’s expected a $30-a-tonne carbon tax will cost consumers seven cents more per litre at the pumps and $1.68 per gigajoule for natural gas.
A portion of the tax will be invested into measures to reduce pollution, including clean energy research, public transit and programs to help Albertans reduce their energy use.

The plan for the first time puts a 100-megatonne cap on emissions from the oilsands — it’s currently 70 megatonnes — to provide room for the industry to grow and time for it to reduce the level of emissions per barrel of produced oil.

phase out coal pollution and plants by 2030

 

[Ktowntslafan]

Some good news from Alberta:
Alberta climate change plan calls for economy-wide tax | Calgary Herald
New Alberta climate-change plan includes carbon tax for individual Albertans, cap on oilsands emissions | Edmonton Journal
Canadian oil capital, Alberta, unveils carbon tax, coal phase-out : Renew Economy

It’s expected a $30-a-tonne carbon tax will cost consumers seven cents more per litre at the pumps and $1.68 per gigajoule for natural gas.
A portion of the tax will be invested into measures to reduce pollution, including clean energy research, public transit and programs to help Albertans reduce their energy use.

The plan for the first time puts a 100-megatonne cap on emissions from the oilsands — it’s currently 70 megatonnes — to provide room for the industry to grow and time for it to reduce the level of emissions per barrel of produced oil.

phase out coal pollution and plants by 2030

 

[beeeerock]

Hot off the presses....:

Most of Britain's major cities pledge to run on green energy by 2050

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...energy-pledge-2050-climate-change-paris-talks

 

[Ktowntslafan]

BRAVO WEST VANCOUVER:

Climate warning labels coming to North Vancouver gas pumps | CTV Vancouver News

- - - Updated - - -

BRAVO ROB SHIRKEY (TED TALK);

Climate Change Warning Labels on Gas Pumps: Rob Shirkey at TEDxHavergalCollege - YouTube

 

[ZsoZso]

Upto 30% of species ? That's an extremely optimistic view, IMHO. The 5 major extinction events in the history of the planet all wiped out over 90% of the species and they were all much slower in progression of climate change than what we are causing now (our predicted 100-year global temperature change was happening over thousands of years), allowing more time for evolution to adapt to the changes. If we continue business as usual and trigger the methane to be released from permafrost, then the devastation will be far worse than any historical precedence.

 

[beeeerock]

Up to 30% of species ? That's an extremely optimistic view, IMHO.

Absolutely agree. But it's better than the current non-existent warning. If nothing else, it gives ICE drivers something to ponder as they stand idly beside their car in an extreme weather event, filling their tank.

 

[In2oil]

Extinction is more correlatable with humans encroaching on habitats where animals live. Instead we should have population control.
there are way too many people in the world.
If you really want to save the world, stop buying crap from China.

 

[JRP3]

Previous mass extinction events had nothing to do with people, since there weren't any. But yeah, population control would be a step in the right direction. Good luck with that though...

 

[nwdiver]

Extinction is more correlatable with humans encroaching on habitats where animals live. Instead we should have population control.

Hmmm... that's catagorically untrue for 1 simple reason... we can't support ~1B people if we're dependent on fossil fuels but we should be able to support ~10x that if we give up that absurd addiction.

In short claiming that population is the larger issue is disingenuous at best...

 

[jerry33]

Hmmm... that's catagorically untrue for 1 simple reason... we can't support ~1B people if we're dependent on fossil fuels but we should be able to support ~10x that if we give up that absurd addiction.

In short claiming that population is the larger issue disingenuous at best...

Sure, as long as you don't mind making every other species extinct.

 

[ohmman]

I agree that we are sustaining an awful lot of humans, especially in a pre-industrial-era historical context. That said, there are some misconceptions about the population explosion. This visualization clears up some of it. Pay attention to the growth rate, vs the actual population numbers.

World Population Growth — Our World in Data

 

[nwdiver]

Sure, as long as you don't mind making every other species extinct.

There's no reason we can't support ~10B people while leaving eco systems intact. The link I supplied was assuming current farming techniques with arable land. Shifting to more of a closed systems such as aquaponics would increase food production significantly since you're no longer limited by geography. The technical challenges of supporting 10B people on Earth are childs play compared to a self sustaining colony on Mars... the point is that neither is possible with an addiction to fossil fuels.

I'm not trying to make an argument against population control... I agree it's necessary. The point is that it's not a solution to fossil fuels. We can't keep our addiction if we do a better job controlling population.

 

[jerry33]

The point is that it's not a solution to fossil fuels. We can't keep our addiction if we do a better job controlling population.

Agreed.

 

[In2oil]

Not only Humans are destroying animal habitats, we hunt animals to extinction. Don;t give me the excuse we are not part of the problem.

 

[Canuck]

I find it ironic that despite the environmentalist using their best efforts to stop, or at least cut back on, tar sands extraction and fracking, it took the price of oil to cause a significant halt to production of those environmentally destructive ways of extraction. And boy did it do it fast! No movement or legislation could have brought quicker results. It even played a big role in killing pipelines. There's further irony in the fact that the lower price of oil makes EV's less appealing, based solely on economics. Oh what a strange world we humans have created. The all-mighty dollar, and not us, determines our fate. Everything we do is based on short term results. We are one myopic species. And it's not going to change any time soon. My grandfather told me many years ago he was glad he was leaving this world, rather than coming into it. That's becoming even more true as each day passes.

 

[jerry33]

Oh what a strange world we humans have created. The all-mighty dollar, and not us, determines our fate. Everything we do is based on short term results. We are one myopic species. And it's not going to change any time soon. My grandfather told me many years ago he was glad he was leaving this world, rather than coming into it. That's becoming even more true as each day passes.

Agreed. It's sad but true.