Climate Change News collection

[Zzyzx_Road]

A common problem we have seen recently is that while the IPCC recently laid out a number of scenarios for future climate, the avid supporters grabbed only the worst possible scenario theorized, RCP 8.5, and went to town with that one. No nuance there. The problem is that this worst case isn’t settled science, it’s only a theory posited by the IPCC and parroted by most prominent supporters who want us to spend the money now, regardless of the viability of that scenario. Maybe not even a theory so much as a possibility. So far as the skeptics are concerned, that extremism isn’t justified due to the number of predictions made in the last two decades that have not been accurate. But we’re told we’re supposed to trust the scientists making these inaccurate predictions as you do.

By the way, our skepticism should be deep for scientists in many fields, especially when large amounts of money or politics or both are involved, climate science is no exception:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01307-2

 

[Theo520]

Yes, there are many levels of global warming theory, some very well understood, some not so much. It makes sense to be more skeptical about the more extreme and less supported claims, without discarding the part you mentioned that has experimental support, not only in the lab but in the field. I know you understand this. Now if I could just convince Guinness.

The problem is one of focus, exacerbated by how the media covers the issue.

The IPCC and AGW proponents have fixated on the certainty of IR warming, what is close to settled science. But they ignore the uncertainty associated with the feedbacks.

'Skeptics" in turn focus on the feedbacks, and come across as complete deniers of climate change science.

 

[Ender]

Should a person believe the science textbooks that say Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is true? Or should a person remain skeptical unless he can verify it personally?

A better example would be to ask that question about the period between when the theory of relativity was presented and when its predictions were verified. During that period there were scientists on both sides of the issue, and if there was a consensus I suspect it would not have sided with Einstein.

AGW is a theory and has made any number of predictions, and if Einstein’s theory had been as inaccurate in its predictions we would be reading about it in the same books that discussed phlogiston. To reject a theory that has not been verified is hardly unscientific.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Should a person believe the science textbooks that say Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is true? Or should a person remain skeptical unless he can verify it personally?

A better example would be to ask that question about the period between when the theory of relativity was presented and when its predictions were verified. During that period there were scientists on both sides of the issue, and if there was a consensus I suspect it would not have sided with Einstein.

AGW is a theory and has made any number of predictions, and if Einstein’s theory had been as inaccurate in its predictions we would be reading about it in the same books that discussed phlogiston. To reject a theory that has not been verified is hardly unscientific.

I was specifically referring to now, when there is a consensus on relativity. In my debate with Guinness, we had not even established that any scientific theory could be accepted based only the say-so of scientists, opting instead for “backyard” observations. We had not even gotten to the point of discussing whether or not there is a consensus because it appeared that Guinness was basing the skepticism of AGW not in the question of consensus but in the question of whether AGW could be personally verified by direct observation, because in another thread Guinness wrote this:

Guinness:

You don’t have to research the literature that much to reasonably reject the notion that increasing the atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

…where “uninhabitable” was subsequently explained as something very severe, not literally uninhabitable. So the first step is to establish the credibility of the consensus, and then, if we got that far, to discuss whether or not there is a consensus on this particular question.

 

[Guinness]

Yes, there are many levels of global warming theory, some very well understood, some not so much. It makes sense to be more skeptical about the more extreme and less supported claims,

Without the “more extreme and less supported claims” the case DOING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW is substantially weakened. Personally, I’d be very happy if the ones saying we need to completely change our economy and culture, even to the point of fundementally altering our diets, to solve this weren’t the ones driving the discussion, but they are.

…where “uninhabitable” was subsequently explained as something very severe, not literally uninhabitable.

Making the point that literally killing billions of people through drought, starvation, and weather events that our current scales are insufficient to adequately describe isn’t actually making the Earth “unihabitable” seems rather pedantic, especially when it’s the alarmists on your side that are guilty of using the word.

 

[Ender]

I was specifically referring to now , when there is a consensus on relativity.

The “consensus” on relativity exists because its predictions have been validated. The “consensus” on AGW exists solely as the fanciful claim by the AGW community itself. Whether or not Guinness made the best argument for the rejection of such a claim doesn’t change the fact that he is surely justified in rejecting it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I was specifically referring to now , when there is a consensus on relativity.

The “consensus” on relativity exists because its predictions have been validated. The “consensus” on AGW exists solely as the fanciful claim by the AGW community itself.

The only difference between these two is that you choose to call the validation by climate scientists “fanciful claims”. But there is a sense in which climate scientists claim to have verified much of AGW theory (again, we have to be careful about which aspects of AGW theory we are talking about). I could just as well say that the “consensus” on relativity exists solely as the fanciful claim of those same physicists, for I myself have never observed relativity directly.

 

[Ender]

The only difference between these two is that you choose to call the validation by climate scientists “fanciful claims”.

I have called the assertion that there is a 97% consensus on AGW a fanciful claim, as it assuredly is.

But there is a sense in which climate scientists claim to have verified much of AGW theory (again, we have to be careful about which aspects of AGW theory we are talking about).

I wouldn’t take that much comfort from the fact that some AGW predictions are accurate. Einstein didn’t seem to think being somewhat right was all that impressive.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

I could just as well say that the “consensus” on relativity exists solely as the fanciful claim of those same physicists, for I myself have never observed relativity directly.

I’m sure you could say a lot of things, but that would be a particularly silly comment. Unlike outrageous claims from the AGW crowd, your assertions are at least not harmful.

 

[Theo520]

This one is for the UK

The cost of this net zero madness? Even a trillion is an underestimate - The Conservative Woman

The cost of this net zero madness? Even a trillion is an underestimate

www.conservativewoman.co.uk

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The only difference between these two is that you choose to call the validation by climate scientists “fanciful claims”.

I have called the assertion that there is a 97% consensus on AGW a fanciful claim, as it assuredly is.

It is not fanciful when properly qualified.

But there is a sense in which climate scientists claim to have verified much of AGW theory (again, we have to be careful about which aspects of AGW theory we are talking about).

I wouldn’t take that much comfort from the fact that some AGW predictions are accurate. Einstein didn’t seem to think being somewhat right was all that impressive.

Different kinds of theories. I have no doubt that Einstein would appreciate the approximations to climate we have today as significant advances.

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

I could just as well say that the “consensus” on relativity exists solely as the fanciful claim of those same physicists, for I myself have never observed relativity directly.

I’m sure you could say a lot of things, but that would be a particularly silly comment.

The only reason it seems silly to you is that you accept relativity.

 

[DENNYINMI]

The NOAA reports 261 bottlenose dolphins have washed up on shore since February. The NOAA? Disturbing!~

 

[Theo520]

The NOAA reports 261 bottlenose dolphins have washed up on shore since February. The NOAA? Disturbing!~

Sounds like they’ve been doing illegal entries, into fresh water rivers

Some of the stranded dolphins have had visible skin lesions that are consistent with freshwater exposure

 

[DENNYINMI]

Sounds like they’ve been doing illegal entries, into fresh water rivers

Would you feel a stronger kinship to them perhaps knowing that they are utilized by the navy in bringing explosives and/or intelligence to one of our nuclear triads?

These aren’t just fish they’re mammals. I believe they deserve respect. I hope they never went through with whatever they were showing in a Trump meeting when someone set off a sound decibel that would send mammals into a deafening tail spin…no pun.

We have no respect/concern for our environment anymore, we don’t deserve creation.

 

[Theo520]

We have no respect/concern for our environment anymore, we don’t deserve creation.

It’s from the opening of the Bonnet Carrie Spillway. Too much freshwater in their home range. This causes lesions, which opens them up infection from bacteria, fungus, etc.

 

[Theo520]

Good discussion on problems with using ice cores as a thermometer record, for the globe.

https://www.astrobio.net/climate/ice-cores-may-not-be-accurate-thermometers/

 

[Theo520]

It’s all about China, USA, and India
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here’s the full article

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/

 

[Theo520]

Your nightmares can stop, the small Pacific Islands are growing more than they are sinking, eroding, or succumbing to sea level rise

Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

 

[Theo520]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...egated-to-footnote-at-eu-summit-idUSKCN1TL1M4

 

[Ender]

Your nightmares can stop, the small Pacific Islands are growing more than they are sinking, eroding, or succumbing to sea level rise

Yes, it appears that coral islands respond to rising sea levels by…growing, not disappearing.

…a new paper in Nature Scientific Reports … surveyed sandy beaches around the world using current and historic satellite photographs – the same approach used by Kench – and have found that, in contrast to what a simple ‘global warming equals sea level rise’ approach might predict, more are getting larger rather are shrinking.

 

[Theo520]

Good article.
Confess I was a little surprised given the cold in Norway and Sweden.
I think the Norway gas price of near $10/gal of gas must also help.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/18/electric-cars-why-little-norway-leads-the-world-in-ev-usage/#1c3175a713e3