What do you think of climate change?

[PetraG]

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.

You don’t have to be in biology for very long to realize that ecosystems that aren’t disturbed toddle along better than ecosystems that are. It is foolhardy to say, “oh, just start mucking with things; it’s as likely to be good for life as not.” No, it’s not.

The issue is climate change; stay focused here.

I am focused on who I think is more likely to be pushing a bias. There is no reason to believe that it is only the environmentalists. Sometimes, it has been they who were right and those who don’t want to change the industrial-person status quo who were very mistaken about what side our collective bread is buttered on.

Anyway–probably best I go back to focusing on real life instead of having a “discussion” in which the statistical likelihood of changing anyone’s perspective is about nil. After 500 posts or so, the nag is probably dead, you know, lol?

 

[Ender]

I am focused on who I think is more likely to be pushing a bias.

I am presenting arguments that are either valid or invalid. Even if I was “pushing a bias”, even if I was directly benefiting from my position it wouldn’t matter. I am either right or wrong, and why I make the arguments I do it utterly irrelevant in determining which.

 

[PetraG]

I am presenting arguments that are either valid or invalid. Even if I was “pushing a bias”, even if I was directly benefiting from my position it wouldn’t matter. I am either right or wrong, and why I make the arguments I do it utterly irrelevant in determining which.

If you think that knowing your own bias is irrelevant, you’re in some trouble. I have no real inkling that you have any interest in admitting that you’re not right, so…have fun!

 

[Ender]

I have no real inkling that you have any interest in admitting that you’re not right,

It is up to others to show that I am not right, that is, to contradict my arguments with their own. Why would I admit I am not right if that cannot be demonstrated? Personally attacking me does nothing to rebut my arguments.

 

[PetraG]

It is up to others to show that I am not right, that is, to contradict my arguments with their own. Why would I admit I am not right if that cannot be demonstrated? Personally attacking me does nothing to rebut my arguments.

No, it really isn’t. If I know what I believe, I really can opt out of trying to get you to believe it. You’ve convinced me that you don’t have much interest in changing your mind, and I don’t mean that as a personal attack. I mean that we’ve both looked at this in our own way and come to our own strongly-held conclusions and I think we’ll learn more from each other on another thread treating a different topic. I think you’re wrong, but it’s not like you’re on a Catholic website spreading heresy. This isn’t a science site, so it is time for me to wave bye to the conversation.

You and those who keep posting here are free to feel differently. I feel I’ve spent more time here than is profitable use of the limited time I have on this earth, you know? On to other things…

 

[Ender]

“Costly and growing health impacts” in the Union of Concerned Scientists article.

Climate change has significant implications for our health. Rising temperatures will likely lead to[increased air pollution, a longer and more intense allergy season, the spread of insect-borne diseases, more frequent and dangerous heat waves, and heavier rainstorms and flooding. All of these changes pose serious, and costly, risks to public health.

I asked you to select three specific harmful effects, not point to lists of them, so since you didn’t do that I will select one from that list and address it: heavier rainstorms and flooding. This seems to have a nice balance to the NASA concern about droughts. I guess if all the bases are covered then whatever happens someone can claim to have been right. So, let’s see if this claim is any more justified than the one about droughts.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Uh oh, this one looks busted too. I am shocked. If you would like to go the the Mercy Corp article and select one particular harmful effect, go ahead, otherwise I will make that selection myself.

 

[edwest211]

The very wealthy don’t want to die or lose their beachfront property, so it’s all being dealt with right now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

“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.
That’s funny. When I go to the US Drought Monitor and request a time series graph covering that same period, here is what I get:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The color codes (except for yellow) represent different levels of drought. (Yellow just means exceptionally dry.) It is hard to see a downward trend in this data, especially in the D4 level, but actually all levels too. So I wonder what criteria was used in your graph to be in “no drought”? Cherry-picking one moment in time to have a record 90% not in drought is just that.

 

[Ender]

It is hard to see a downward trend in this data,

The question is whether there is a statistically significant increase in droughts. Do you see that either? If not then I think we can consider droughts an urban myth.

 

[Mike1w]

I think that climate changes. The situation is far too complex for any single cause to be in the majority.
Politics only muddies the proverbial water.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is hard to see a downward trend in this data,

The question is whether there is a statistically significant increase in droughts. Do you see that either? If not then I think we can consider droughts an urban myth.

Changing the goal posts. Your reference claimed droughts were decreasing. I cited NASA as saying they are increasing, and your own reference (US Drought Monitor) does not contradict it, despite Mr. Pielke’s claim to the contrary.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

“Costly and growing health impacts” in the Union of Concerned Scientists article.

Climate change has significant implications for our health. Rising temperatures will likely lead to[increased air pollution, a longer and more intense allergy season, the spread of insect-borne diseases, more frequent and dangerous heat waves, and heavier rainstorms and flooding. All of these changes pose serious, and costly, risks to public health. I asked you to select three specific harmful effects, not point to lists of them, so since you didn’t do that I will select one from that list and address it: heavier rainstorms and flooding.

This seems to have a nice balance to the NASA concern about droughts. I guess if all the bases are covered then whatever happens someone can claim to have been right. So, let’s see if this claim is any more justified than the one about droughts.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Uh oh, this one looks busted too. I am shocked.

You stopped at 2010. There are 9 more years of data you are ignoring. And the UCS article talked about the future. Just because you don’t see Noah’s flood in data up to 2010 does not mean it is not going to happen. Not busted, just dismissed.

If you would like to go the the Mercy Corp article and select one particular harmful effect, go ahead, otherwise I will make that selection myself.

This:
As climate events worsen, people are also threatened by more gradual changes, such as climbing temperatures and declining rainfall.

Droughts alone have affected more than 1 billion people in the last decade, and the damage hits the agriculture industry — the primary source of food and income for many people in developing countries — particularly hard. Between 2006 and 2016, more than 80 percent of drought damage was absorbed by agriculture, and 2017 data from the World Bank reported drought has wiped out enough produce to feed 81 million people every day for a year since 2001.

And just because you refuse to look at the other nine references to harmful effects does not mean they are not there - they are just dismissed.

 

[MichaelP3]

That is a good rule of thumb. But as I think more about it, I probably know how to play the piano. Actually I do not, no matter how much anyone will tell me to educate myself.

 

[MichaelP3]

So I am on my phone and its a lot of effort to do fancy replies. I will try and answer your posts in separate paragraphs.

On the people around the table. And really trust me here. They have been specialists with PhDs in their field. But it still doesn’t make it right just because of that. We always need something more. If I need to go to our Project Forum to get it approved, for a 100 thousand dollars (it does happen) then I need more then a PhD guy to motivate it. I need actual data. It’s just how it works out there

On me needing a new job. Well yes I probably do. Just imagine how I am scrutinised every day by informed people compared to here on CAF. But on the other hand it pays my bond and insurance and gives me the ability to eat.

And no I have not published anything yet. (But that any of you will accept it anyway. When I do one day I guess I should keep it secret and just be called Dr on my banking card)

I am however concerned that you did not realise the water cycle is greatly affected. I guess more water is not bad but you should realise this water is really nasty. Full of Phenols which again you should google. That’s things to be aware off.

On your last piont I meant accumulating substances. I see it every day. Incoming may be okay, but it adds up. That’s a differential in this case (or the rate for the guy in Mathematics).

 

[pnewton]

Global warming includes the globe, include the vast region known as not-America.

 

[MichaelP3]

I use to try and say this to many people.

You know I am in Africa. And many people fail to understand that’s a continent. And that South Africa is also a country and not just a geographical region.

 

[Ender]

You stopped at 2010. There are 9 more years of data you are ignoring. And the UCS article talked about the future. Just because you don’t see Noah’s flood in data up to 2010 does not mean it is not going to happen. Not busted, just dismissed.

The challenge was to present harmful effects we are experiencing today, not to present prognostications about future harm.

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.

And just because you refuse to look at the other nine references to harmful effects does not mean they are not there - they are just dismissed.

I challenged you to pick three harmful effects we are experiencing today, not point to lists of effects that readers of entrails are predicting for the future.

Droughts alone have affected more than 1 billion people in the last decade…

We’re already discussing droughts; pick another one. I offered to look at three.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You stopped at 2010. There are 9 more years of data you are ignoring. And the UCS article talked about the future. Just because you don’t see Noah’s flood in data up to 2010 does not mean it is not going to happen. Not busted, just dismissed.

The challenge was to present harmful effects we are experiencing today, not to present prognostications about future harm.

No, the claim was future harmful effects. Whatever harmful effects we have had so far are in the past. The only reason to talk about them would be as a way of projecting into the future. But past harms are not the only way to project future harms.

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.

“This thing is like that thing” is not an argument. It is a word-play.

And just because you refuse to look at the other nine references to harmful effects does not mean they are not there - they are just dismissed.

I challenged you to pick three harmful effects we are experiencing today, not point to lists of effects that readers of entrails are predicting for the future.

…apparently to give yourself an excuse to ignore all the evidence.

Droughts alone have affected more than 1 billion people in the last decade…

We’re already discussing droughts; pick another one. I offered to look at three.

We are still discussing droughts? Then I guess it is your turn. What have you got?

 

[Ender]

That’s funny. When I go to the US Drought Monitor and request a time series graph covering that same period, here is what I get: … So I wonder what criteria was used in your graph to be in “no drought”?

The graph Pielke provided is simply the inverse of the US Drought Monitor: his shows the area not in drought, the USDM shows the percentage in drought. His peaks are the others valleys.

Cherry-picking one moment in time to have a record 90% not in drought is just that.

Have you ever applied your cherry-picking epithet to those times we are breathlessly told some new high temperature record has been set, or is it only to those instances where the record is inconvenient? In fact, given we are told that droughts are a serious problem today, it is meaningful that right now is the first time this century that 90% of the US is out of drought conditions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That’s funny. When I go to the US Drought Monitor and request a time series graph covering that same period, here is what I get: … So I wonder what criteria was used in your graph to be in “no drought”?

The graph Pielke provided is simply the inverse of the US Drought Monitor: his shows the area not in drought, the USDM shows the percentage in drought. His peaks are the others valleys.

Then why does the USDM graph I cited show increasing drought?

Cherry-picking one moment in time to have a record 90% not in drought is just that.

Have you ever applied your cherry-picking epithet to those times we are breathlessly told some new high temperature record has been set, or is it only to those instances where the record is inconvenient?

I only cite cherry-picked examples to refute other cherry-picked examples, but not as a primary argument. I recognize that the global average itself is the most applicable statistic to determine the global average. (But I think you would enjoy the One Moment video by OK GO anyway.)