What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

Concerning the Vatican workshop on climate change: if this is the promulgation as dictated by the Magisterium for all Catholics, I will and do comply. I have not been able to find who exactly were the undersigned in that declaration, but will take it at its word.

The church has no competence to rule on matters of science. Whatever opinions they express on the matter are just that: opinion. They are not doctrines and do not oblige our assent. This is a scientific question, not a moral one.

Whether or not global warming stemming from human activities is occurring is developing into the great scientific debate of our time. If it’s true, the larger questions are what the climate consequences will be and whether or not there is anything anyone can do about it. (Chemical & Engineering News)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

C&EN Senior Correspondent Stephen K. Ritter notes in the article that global warming believers and skeptics agree on a cluster of core points. These points include the following: That the Earth’s atmospheric load of carbon dioxide has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s; that this increase largely results from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels; and that the average global temperatures have been rising since 1850, with most of the warming occurring since 1970.

This is on the order of saying there was agreement that the rooster crowed and the sun came up. What happened is not debated; it is why they happened that is contentious, a question that has yet to be resolved.

The point is there is a striking correlation between recent CO2 rise and temperature rise. And although correlation is not proof of causation, it is strongly suggestive of causation. And it’s not like the rooster crowing where we have no idea how one thing causes the other. We do have a theory with solid laboratory support on the mechanism for this causation. It is not a wild guess. It is a very well substantiated guess.

A similar thing happened with smoking and various diseases. It was first noticed as a correlation. Even before the actual mechanisms for the causation were discovered (and we still have not discovered them all) we took action in discouraging smoking.

It is almost impossible to deny that man’s activity in burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of the warming climate.

 

[Ender]

We do have a theory with solid laboratory support on the mechanism for this causation. It is not a wild guess. It is a very well substantiated guess.

I don’t think I would consider mathematical models comparable to laboratory experiments. As @Theo520 has been persistently pointing out, it is the value of the climate sensitivity that is significant. Our understanding of the chemistry of CO2 tells us nothing about how the climate system will react if the concentration of that trace gas is increased. I will admit that AGW is a popular guess. “Well substantiated” is a title it has yet to earn.

It is almost impossible to deny that man’s activity in burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of the warming climate.

And yet even after thirty years of research into the “great scientific debate of our time” zero progress has been made in narrowing the range in the calculation of climate sensitivity. One explanation for that is the actual number is quite low, the hypothesis is wrong, and its adherents won’t move on.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We do have a theory with solid laboratory support on the mechanism for this causation. It is not a wild guess. It is a very well substantiated guess.

I don’t think I would consider mathematical models comparable to laboratory experiments.

I was speaking of laboratory experiments, not mathematical models.

As @Theo520 has been persistently pointing out, it is the value of the climate sensitivity that is significant. Our understanding of the chemistry of CO2 tells us nothing about how the climate system will react if the concentration of that trace gas is increased.

Calling it a “trace” gas calls attention to its relative volume and mass (an irrelevant detail) and avoids its relative opacity to infrared radiation (a relevant detail). I don’t know as that should rightly be called a “chemical property” instead of a “physical property” because it does not involve any chemical reactions. Anyway, knowing that property does indeed tell us something about how to climate system might react, and we have recent historical data to support that understanding somewhat quantitatively too.

It is almost impossible to deny that man’s activity in burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of the warming climate.

And yet even after thirty years of research into the “great scientific debate of our time” zero progress has been made in narrowing the range in the calculation of climate sensitivity.

That is not the sole measure of progress in understanding. You are cherry-picking one parameter.

One explanation for that is the actual number is quite low, the hypothesis is wrong, and its adherents won’t move on.

Not a scientific explanation. Just a wild speculation on the motives of the researches.

 

[Ender]

…knowing that property does indeed tell us something about how to climate system might react, and we have recent historical data to support that understanding somewhat quantitatively too.

Yes, we know “something” about how the climate “might” react which gives us “somewhat” of an understanding. I think this explains why so little progress has been made in calculating the climate sensitivity.

That is not the sole measure of progress in understanding. You are cherry-picking one parameter.

You use that particular insult so frequently one would expect you to have a better grasp of its meaning. Climate sensitivity is not the sole measure of progress, just perhaps the most important measure.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

…knowing that property does indeed tell us something about how to climate system might react, and we have recent historical data to support that understanding somewhat quantitatively too.

Yes, we know “something” about how the climate “might” react which gives us “somewhat” of an understanding. I think this explains why so little progress has been made in calculating the climate sensitivity.

But it doesn’t explain people calling climate change a hoax.
Ender":

LeafByNiggle:

That is not the sole measure of progress in understanding. You are cherry-picking one parameter.

Climate sensitivity is not the sole measure of progress, just perhaps the most important measure.

Sure, it is important. To the extent necessary, we already know enough to make some decisions. Even near the low end of the range of climate sensitivity we know that some response is necessary if we hope to avoid the worst effects of climate change. At the high end of that range, we are already lost, but there is no sense in assuming that scenario.

 

[Ender]

But it doesn’t explain people calling climate change a hoax.

I am responsible only for my own comments, not for what “people” may say.

Sure, it is important. To the extent necessary, we already know enough to make some decisions. Even near the low end of the range of climate sensitivity we know that some response is necessary if we hope to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The low end value cannot lead to the worst effects. It is in fact not clear that it will lead to any harmful effects at all. The claims of harmful effects today are not supported by actual data, and predictions of harmful effects in the future are more like palm reading than real science.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The low end value cannot lead to the worst effects. It is in fact not clear that it will lead to any harmful effects at all. The claims of harmful effects today are not supported by actual data, and predictions of harmful effects in the future are more like palm reading than real science.

I guess these are all palm readers then.

Effects - NASA Science

Climate Impacts | Union of Concerned Scientists

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-change

Wait, Why Is Climate Change a Bad Thing? | The Climate Reality Project

How climate change plunders the planet

Global Warming 101 - Definition, Facts, Causes and Effects of Global Warming

How Climate Change Affects Poverty | Mercy Corps

https://health2016.globalchange.gov/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Climate Change - Amnesty International

https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/how-climate-change-affects-fishing

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5019

 

[PetraG]

The low end value cannot lead to the worst effects. It is in fact not clear that it will lead to any harmful effects at all. The claims of harmful effects today are not supported by actual data, and predictions of harmful effects in the future are more like palm reading than real science.

The temperature rises and lowering ocean pH we have already seen have already lead to bad effects!! What would it take to prove to you that this is real?!? How many environmental collapses does it take before you won’t write them off as unrelated coincidences or as acts of God that cannot be related to anything have to do with the billions of tons of exhaust fumes that people put into the air every year?

I acknowledge your right to take as long as you have to in order to accept all this, but I’m done with getting dragged back by the neck to a single graph put out 10 years ago as if it were the sum total of the evidence for the damaging effects of excessive fossil fuel exhaust production. It is pointless and way too frustrating.

Let us think, too, what the world would be like if the environmentalists had not succeeded in lowering emissions of lead and of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Were they fought back then? Yes. Was there a chorus of complaints that the changes would be economically devastating? Yes. Were the impacts those emissions were causing minimized? Yes. Were the naysayers right about the awful impacts of the changes? No. What about the effects of DDT? Have we been able to bring the eagle population back? Yes. Would that have happened if we had listened to the deniers and the naysayer? No. If anything, it is about time we realized that those who speak out against the costs and benefits environmental protection have been wrong far more often than they have been right. They have usually been the ones massaging the data and denying studies and putting out misleading information that they do not correct and misdirecting in general, when all was said and done. They have done far more to earn our skepticism than the environmentalists, if we’re all honest about our scientific history.

Do I miss having trisodium phosphate for cleaning? Sure I do! It worked great!! That doesn’t mean I don’t accept that the effects of excessive phosphates in the water weren’t too great a cost to pay to stay with the cleaning agent I liked. There were other alternatives, and although they don’t work quite as well, they do work well enough without so many unintended side effects. I can live with the replacements.

 

[Ender]

I guess these are all palm readers then.

NASA: this article simply cited the IPCC, and yes, I put them with the palm readers.
Union of Concerned Scientists: They don’t rise to the level of palm readers
World Wildlife Fund: Same here
…
Amnesty International: Are you kidding?

The temperature rises and lowering ocean pH we have already seen have already lead to bad effects!!

Here is one of the effects the NASA article cited: “Frost-free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen” Oh gee. Why don’t you pick your top three harmful effects and let’s look at them? “Bad effects” is too broad to reasonably discuss.

Let us think, too, what the world would be like if the environmentalists had not succeeded in lowering emissions of lead and of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.

The issue is climate change; stay focused here.

What about the effects of DDT? Have we been able to bring the eagle population back?

Stay. Focused. We’re discussing climate change (besides this really isn’t an example you want to use).

 

[Ender]

In rummaging around looking at citations provided by others and trying to find relevant ones of my own I encountered these claims. They appear to directly contradict one another, so how are we supposed to know who to believe, and what does this say about whichever source is wrong?

The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. (Current)

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.” (2013)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I guess these are all palm readers then.

NASA: this article simply cited the IPCC, and yes, I put them with the palm readers.
Union of Concerned Scientists: They don’t rise to the level of palm readers
World Wildlife Fund: Same here
…
Amnesty International: Are you kidding?

So…you questioned whether climate change would lead to any harmful effects at all. I gave you 12 (count 'em) separate citations of harmful effects, and you simply ad hominem them all away!

Well, at least there may be others reading this thread who do not automatically dismiss anything from NASA, the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, Climate Reality, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, Mercy Corps, globalchange.gov, Amnesty International, Climate Central, and worldwatch.org. I guess to win you over I will have to wait until Anthony Watts comes around.

 

[Theo520]

The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s . (Current)

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.” (2013)

Both can be true.
The first cherry picked by comparing with a single decade
The second compared with a century of data.

Since there was nothing magical about the 80’s, the second is far more scientific IMHO

 

[Ender]

So…you questioned whether climate change would lead to any harmful effects at all. I gave you 12 (count 'em) separate citations of harmful effects, and you simply ad hominem them all away!

No, actually you didn’t. You gave me citations to articles and left it up to me to sift through them. In fact I did look at the one from NASA. That’s where I came up with the “harmful effect” of an extended growing season. I asked you to pick out your top three harmful effects so we can discuss them; are you willing to do that?

 

[Ender]

Both can be true.
The first cherry picked by comparing with a single decade
The second compared with a century of data.

Since there was nothing magical about the 80’s, the second is far more scientific IMHO

I think you misread the citation. It wasn’t a comment on hurricanes in the 80’s but on their frequency since the 80’s, which seems reasonable given that’s when CO2 was trending upward. As I understand those citations, the first one was saying North Atlantic hurricanes have increased in frequency since the 80’s while the second one said that no trend in North Atlantic hurricanes has been observed in the last 100 years. I don’t see how they can both be true.

 

[Theo520]

So now we just have 18 months?
That’s per BBC and Prince Charles.

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong? – Issues & Insights

Prince Charles’ recent pronouncement that we have only 18 months to save the planet from man-made global warming was followed up by a BBC report telling an identical tale. (Is there something in the Thames?)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Theo520:

Both can be true.
The first cherry picked by comparing with a single decade
The second compared with a century of data.

Since there was nothing magical about the 80’s, the second is far more scientific IMHO

I think you misread the citation. It wasn’t a comment on hurricanes in the 80’s but on their frequency since the 80’s, which seems reasonable given that’s when CO2 was trending upward. As I understand those citations, the first one was saying North Atlantic hurricanes have increased in frequency since the 80’s while the second one said that no trend in North Atlantic hurricanes has been observed in the last 100 years. I don’t see how they can both be true.

First of all, it wasn’t “no trend in North Atlantic hurricanes”. It was "No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.” What do they mean by “robust?” does it mean statistically significant? Or does it mean “obvious to anyone looking at the graph?” I don’t know. Also that data was from 2013. The other citation was presumably more recent, in which case it might contain data after 2013. It’s been 6 years, after all.

So this “difference” may not really be a difference, but rather two different ways of looking at slightly different analyses.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t see how they can both be true.

I think I read it correctly.

They didn’t claim the increase since the 80’s was statistically significant, just that it had increased.

However when you examine a full century of data, natural variation becomes evident. Likely it will show multiple lows and highs but per your quote, there was no increasing trend line with the larger data set.

The first was meant to deceive while the second illuminates.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So…you questioned whether climate change would lead to any harmful effects at all. I gave you 12 (count 'em) separate citations of harmful effects, and you simply ad hominem them all away!

No, actually you didn’t. You gave me citations to articles and left it up to me to sift through them. In fact I did look at the one from NASA. That’s where I came up with the “harmful effect” of an extended growing season.

The NASA article contained many harmful effects, but the subject of the article was “Effects of Climate Change.” As such, it was not intended to list only harmful effects. So it is not surprising that they would list a nominal positive effect in that list - another example that NASA is not dominated by ideologs try to push one specific narrative.

I asked you to pick out your top three harmful effects so we can discuss them; are you willing to do that?

OK.

1. “More Droughts and Heat Waves” in the NASA article.
2. “Costly and growing health impacts” in the Union of Concerned Scientists article.
3. “What are the biggest effects of climate change?” in the Mercy Corp article.

 

[Ender]

“More Droughts and Heat Waves” in the NASA article.

Posted on May 16, 2019 by rogerpielkejr

A New US Areal No Drought Record

The graph above shows data for the entire period covered by the US Drought Monitor. This week marks the first time in the record that >90% of the US has experienced conditions of NO drought. Some further info:

• Since 2000, the linear trend in the data indicates that the overall proportion of the US experiencing no drought conditions increased from about 50% to about 60%.
• According to the Drought Monitor, more than 283 million people currently live in regions experiencing no drought. This is the most people in the history of the US to experience no drought conditions at once.

IPCC 5th Assessment Report:

• “Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought: low confidence on a global scale’
• “Assessment that changes occurred (typically since 1950 unless otherwise indicated): low confidence.
• “Assessment of a human contribution to observed changes: low confidence.
• “Likelihood of further changes in the early 21st century: low confidence.”

Congressional Research Service

In 2014, the IPCC released its most recent climate assessment, which stated that for North America,decreases in snowpack already are influencing seasonal stream flows. However, the report had medium-to-high confidence that recent droughts (and floods, and changes in mean streamflow conditions) cannot yet be attributed to climate change. Further, the report stated that it is not yet possible to attribute changes in drought frequency in North America to anthropogenic climate change. The report noted that changes in these events, however, may be indicative of future conditions.