Global Climate Disruption.

[Beskar]

I do like the articles on Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. But the reason I raise him is because he has an old article on Climate Change, here: Copenhagen Climate Change Blah Blah

Then obviously, there is http://www.realclimate.org/ another good source.

[Husar]

If anyone still doubts that this is a man-made problem, maybe the communist-agenda-friends over at the pinko-liberal climate-hoax centre called NASA can help you:

[Furunculus]

If anyone still doubts that this is a man-made problem, maybe the communist-agenda-friends over at the pinko-liberal climate-hoax centre called NASA can help you:

How much of it:
All of it?
Most of it?
Some of it?

I don't know anyone who claims we have no impact, and believe that would be absurd?

Following on from the previous question - we have the inverse:
How much was natural variability?

Once we think we have a decent grasp on that immensely trick question, we can then ask ourselves how catastrophic this combined climate variation will prove to be to human civilisation, i.e. how great the change in how limited a timeframe, thus minimizing the ability of flora and fauna to adjust without mass extinction.

At that point we have the science and economics sorted out, we can then approach the politics of the matter; how much do we spend, and where to spend it, to achieve an outcome the minimises the catastrophic impact of climate change without catastrophically impacting the economic growth which has saved billions from disease, starvation, and exposure in the last half century?

The cost benefit analysis at the end of the process isn't too tricky, understanding the complex system that underpins it is.

[Husar]

Once we think we have a decent grasp on that immensely trick question, we can then ask ourselves how catastrophic this combined climate variation will prove to be to human civilisation, i.e. how great the change in how limited a timeframe, thus minimizing the ability of flora and fauna to adjust without mass extinction.

So basically we just wait until we have maybe figured some things out based on the word of the two scientists who say the other thousands are wrong.

At that point we have the science and economics sorted out, we can then approach the politics of the matter; how much do we spend, and where to spend it, to achieve an outcome the minimises the catastrophic impact of climate change without catastrophically impacting the economic growth which has saved billions from disease, starvation, and exposure in the last half century?

You mean then we get to the point where we are now, where some countries think it does not matter to them that some islanders will drown and short-term competitiveness wins the day. Although we may only get there by the time the islanders have drowned and all of Africa is a desert. But I'm sure Britain will happily let them all immigrate when their home countries become uninhabitable.
And where do you get those billions from? Did you adjust them by the billions who died from cancer and other diseases caused by the pollution and other side effects of industrialization that kill people even if we do not count global warming?

The cost benefit analysis at the end of the process isn't too tricky, understanding the complex system that underpins it is.

What would be costs and what would be benefits? Are we measuring in human lives, dollars or both?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Depending on which alarmist to whom you choose to listen, we need to cut emissions in half either a) yesterday or b) don't bother cause we're _______ed already.

Reducing emissions by 50% in less than a decade would likely necessitate global economic depression and a fair degree of famine.


The USA, despite a significant minority of persons who doubt the anthropogenic character of the global warming trend, has REDUCED greenhouse gas emissions to levels equivalent to that experienced 20 years ago. Note, we had a population of roughly 264 millions then, and 313 millions now. This number will continue to be reduced, and should be, but do you expect a first world nation to beggar itself overnight? The result of that would be revolution and MORE greenhouse emissions.

[Furunculus]

So basically we just wait until we have maybe figured some things out based on the word of the two scientists who say the other thousands are wrong.

You mean then we get to the point where we are now, where some countries think it does not matter to them that some islanders will drown and short-term competitiveness wins the day. Although we may only get there by the time the islanders have drowned and all of Africa is a desert. But I'm sure Britain will happily let them all immigrate when their home countries become uninhabitable.
And where do you get those billions from? Did you adjust them by the billions who died from cancer and other diseases caused by the pollution and other side effects of industrialization that kill people even if we do not count global warming?

What would be costs and what would be benefits? Are we measuring in human lives, dollars or both?

Is that an argument for the precautionary principle, i'm not quite sure where you're going with that?

No, i mean the policy response to the conclusion of catastrophic climate change has until now been woeful, quite like to kill as many through disease, poverty, and exposure, as it saves from a more clement climate. Who knows, it might continue to be woeful, but i'm quietly hopeful that the combination of better understanding and less hysteria this decade will better than the noughties.

Both, why would you think otherwise?

[Husar]

I'm not saying we should blow up our industry, but quite a few people seem to advocate doing nothing. At the same time we laugh at China for their heavily polluted cities. It's not like the restrictions we placed here in the past to reduce such pollution ruined us.

What I'm saying is that:

a) waiting 20-50 years until we are 100% sure how the climate works and can predict everything before we do anything is stupid if our current predictions are even remotely correct.

b) reducing pollution is never a bad idea, there are enough bad side effects if even the climate change should turn out to be wrong

c) the video clearly shows that the industrial parts of the world regularly emit loads of pollution which then spreads all over the place

d) I live next to a big road, it would be a much nicer and healthier place to live in without combustion engines everywhere, filters just aren't enough. I do intend to move next year but that only means someone else gets the exposure and I get it from a bit farther away, it's not like it doesn't spread...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not saying we should blow up our industry, but quite a few people seem to advocate doing nothing. At the same time we laugh at China for their heavily polluted cities. It's not like the restrictions we placed here in the past to reduce such pollution ruined us.

What I'm saying is that:

a) waiting 20-50 years until we are 100% sure how the climate works and can predict everything before we do anything is stupid if our current predictions are even remotely correct.

b) reducing pollution is never a bad idea, there are enough bad side effects if even the climate change should turn out to be wrong

c) the video clearly shows that the industrial parts of the world regularly emit loads of pollution which then spreads all over the place

d) I live next to a big road, it would be a much nicer and healthier place to live in without combustion engines everywhere, filters just aren't enough. I do intend to move next year but that only means someone else gets the exposure and I get it from a bit farther away, it's not like it doesn't spread...

And if THAT was the tenor of most of the climate change argument that I heard, I would be far less bothered.

A may or may not be true, but countermeasures to A are still a net gain even if A is not true = much more reasonable tone to start convincing your skeptics.


Hard to argue against reasonable measures to reduce pollution. In addition, I have often wondered why the "green" folks don't pick up the argument that burning fossil fuels is a colossal waste as it burns up our source of those long chain hydrocarbon molecules that are useful in so many other ways.

[HopAlongBunny]

The climate change marches on:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-a-millennium/

Probably only a problem for those of us who get our fresh veg from California (which turns out to be a lot of us) but still...

[HopAlongBunny]

God gets on board.
The Vatican convenes a meeting of climate scientists and clergy:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hange-meeting/

Over compensating for Galileo?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This Holy Father is convinced that the scientists are correct regarding mankind's impact on the global ecosystem. He also takes the "dominion over" clause from Genesis to mean good stewardship and not tyranny.

[HopAlongBunny]

A little ironic: if we stop subsidizing our self-destruction we might just have enough money to do all sorts of things:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sen-pollution/

[HopAlongBunny]

White House and Pentagon get on same page:

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...ional-security

[a completely inoffensive name]

Global climate change has already drained my states reservoirs. They should just start filming the next mad Max here

[Husar]

Global climate change has already drained my states reservoirs. They should just start filming the next mad Max here

What about desalination plants?
http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/05/...eplenish-water

You can probably power them with solar power even.

[HopAlongBunny]

All the water you need and less energy intensive than desalination:

http://http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/watch-bill-gates-drink-water-5-minutes-after-it-was-sewage

Get used to the "ick" factor as population continues to expand.

[Husar]

All the water you need and less energy intensive than desalination:

http://http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/watch-bill-gates-drink-water-5-minutes-after-it-was-sewage

Get used to the "ick" factor as population continues to expand.

Oh that, yes, well, you cannot tell people here that their water comes from that. I think there are also ways to get water from the air, or just settle in a place that is not a desert or at least not turned into a desert by your settling there and draining it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Recycling water from sewage is not novel. There are several such large scale facilities in California. It is a good idea however and really should be implemented everywhere from the rural to the urban.

[HopAlongBunny]

Recycling water from sewage is not novel.

Yes, the science is solid and the water is pure.
I await vitamin and nutrient additives for "designer water"... wait a minute...

[Greyblades]

California wont allow it because of complaints from homeopathy believers

[InsaneApache]

I see the temperature readings have been 'adjusted'. If I did that in business it would be called fraud.

[CBR]

I see the temperature readings have been 'adjusted'. If I did that in business it would be called fraud.

When new and more detailed data pops up, science always adjusts. Just like the age estimates of "mitochondrial Eve" and Y-chromosome Adam" changed because of better DNA analysis.

To continue with your business analogy: if you discover your accountant has written £ instead of €, I'm quite certain you would demand an adjustment somewhere. If a whole business deal somehow was left out, you would demand an adjustment.

Science now has a better understanding of the temperature rise in the polar regions and more details of how sea temperature was measured (buckets, water intake thermometers or buoys) Hardly a surprise someone "adjusted" something, somewhere. Link to the paper here: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Or maybe this article describes it better for us mere mortals: NOAA: No pause in the global surface temperature

[InsaneApache]

It's like the story of the Emperors new clothes.

[Papewaio]

I see the temperature readings have been 'adjusted'. If I did that in business it would be called fraud.

Not even remotely accurate. Closest science you can get to is economics (which uses seasonal adjustments for trade, employment and may other indices) or look at how companies include soft items like goodwill in their bottom line.

[Papewaio]

It's like the story of the Emperors new clothes.

For how many centuries have we been able to ship all around the north of Russia from UK to the U.S.?

[Fisherking]

For how many centuries have we been able to ship all around the north of Russia from UK to the U.S.?

Who would know? No one was keeping records.

[Beskar]

Who would know? No one was keeping records.

World Maps (however crude) were around in the 1000's, like this one -


Whilst no-one had travelled to America's and around the Horn of Africa either, so no one "knows" of those routes. We do, however, have an idea of when we could as records did exist of what we were doing.

Besides, that map is quite accurate given the time.

[Husar]

Given the topic I assumed that the answer was something like 2011 or so.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...g-trade-routes

[InsaneApache]

Has Mann sued Steyn yet? If not, why not?

Interesting.

[CBR]

Has Mann sued Steyn yet? If not, why not?

Interesting.

What does the Mann vs. deniers defamation lawsuit have to do with the new NOAA study?