Global Warning/Climate Change

[Bootstrap]

And how much of that has been caused by the recent uptick in volcanic co2 emissions?

It's so easy to come up with lists of questions like that, and answering each takes significant time. But asking a question like that does not prove that the underlying assumption is true. It plants that impression, asking anyone who disagrees to invest a lot of time. And in my experience, if I do put the time in, the other person often just skips over the answer and keeps going.

More importantly: scientists have already looked at all of these questions in depth, their answers reflect that.

Let's try the first:

Emissions from volcanoes since 1750 are thought to be at least 100 times smaller than those from fossil fuel burning.

Before moving on to the other questions, can we seriously engage with this one?

I think we've seen these other questions before, but more to the point: a debate like this on a forum is not useful for trying to understand what the scientific consensus is or what the level of certainty is. No scientist would accept our discussions as proof of anything.

There is so much we do not know. Some how the earth went into 2 snowball events with co2 at 20% of the atmosphere levels. Right now we are way under 1%.

Can you summarize the IPCC answers to the questions you have posed? If not, perhaps scientists know more than we do, and it's not terribly difficult to spend a few hours getting a feel for what we actually do know on each of these questions. When you see a claim on the Internet, that's a good place to start.

If you start with unreliable sources - like politicized sources or an Internet forum - you can spend your whole life trying to dispute fishy claims. If you start with reliable scientific sources, you can save yourself a lot of time and effort.

We need to be responsible, but there is no crisis.

I agree that we need to be responsible - and it's probably a lot more productive to discuss what being responsible looks like.

Al Gore is an alarmist and enjoys making fame and money from it. Most of what he presented in his first movie has been disproved. I doubt the 2nd movie would be much better.

Al Gore is not driving the science. His first movie focused on worst case scenarios - especially in the images shown. But climate denial is often so biased they have to start by discrediting almost all scientific associations and peer reviewed journals. If you are looking for truth on this kind of question, it's best to stay away from such sources.

[Wayne in Maine]

Al Gore is not driving the science. His first movie focused on worst case scenarios - especially in the images shown. But climate denial is often so biased they have to start by discrediting almost all scientific associations and peer reviewed journals. If you are looking for truth on this kind of question, it's best to stay away from such sources.

That's harsh. Very harsh. Even to refer to scientists whose research argues against "Anthropogenic, Catastrophic Climate Change" (or lesser subjects) shows an extreme political bias on your part. You obviously only pay attention to publications that confirm your bias, including your biased attitude against legitimate scientists who draw conclusions contradicting your political perspective.

[Robert]

It's so easy to come up with lists of questions like that, and answering each takes significant time.

They were rhetorical questions. No need to answer them.

More importantly: scientists have already looked at all of these questions in depth, their answers reflect that.

Let's try the first:

Emissions from volcanoes since 1750 are thought to be at least 100 times smaller than those from fossil fuel burning.

I have just posted two researchers who shed new light on all this. You seem to not be paying attention to their findings.

I also showed experts who removed any doubt that current hurricanes are from any global warming. I was humored by everyone's silence instead of a few honest people saying "You know, that part is right. I can accept that."

Yes, that last comment was just a fun poke. I couldn't resist.

BTW, I am an IPCC denier. Please use other sources for your evidence since they have been found to be dishonest and manipulate data. Just like you ask me not to use Heritage Foundation data. Yea, another fun poke. I am IN the mood today.

[Bootstrap]

Al Gore is not driving the science. His first movie focused on worst case scenarios - especially in the images shown. But climate denial is often so biased they have to start by discrediting almost all scientific associations and peer reviewed journals. If you are looking for truth on this kind of question, it's best to stay away from such sources.

That's harsh. Very harsh. Even to refer to scientists whose research argues against "Anthropogenic, Catastrophic Climate Change" (or lesser subjects) shows an extreme political bias on your part. You obviously only pay attention to publications that confirm your bias, including your biased attitude against legitimate scientists who draw conclusions contradicting your political perspective.

I really don't, Wayne, and neither does the IPCC, which includes all published papers in the field, and has a transparent and fair process for weighing the evidence of each against the other. This should be treated as a scientific question, not a political one.

But I do rely on scientists to digest this mountain of information. Which scientific associations do you think I should rely on, if I am looking for an unbiased outlook?

[Bootstrap]

BTW, I am an IPCC denier. Please use other sources for your evidence since they have been found to be dishonest and manipulate data. Just like you ask me not to use Heritage Foundation data. Yea, another fun poke. I am IN the mood today.

But I think that's at the root of the problem. If you start by saying you don't believe what scientific associations have to say, and you don't trust the outcome of extensive literature reviews done with a transparent process and transparent funding, and equate the IPCC with the Heritage Foundation (a political lobbying group) ... where do we go from there?

Are there scientific associations you think I can trust? If so, which one? Are there other sources that most scientists would consider reliable that I can turn to? Which ones?

The first step for answering most questions is to try to find the most reliable sources of information on that question.

More importantly: scientists have already looked at all of these questions in depth, their answers reflect that.

Let's try the first:

Emissions from volcanoes since 1750 are thought to be at least 100 times smaller than those from fossil fuel burning.

I have just posted two researchers who shed new light on all this. You seem to not be paying attention to their findings.

Here's one of those two articles, which tells us that the volcanic activity is part of the baseline planetary C02, not something that is rising dramatically. The thing that is rising dramatically is the human contribution:

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.

There is a huge spike in C02 that does not look like the natural cycles we see in the rest of that graph, and it corresponds with the industrial revolution. There just isn't a similar spike in volcanic activity.

I also showed experts who removed any doubt that current hurricanes are from any global warming. I was humored by everyone's silence instead of a few honest people saying "You know, that part is right. I can accept that."

Hmmmm, "removed any doubt" is a bit strong there, don't you think? But here's what I wrote about this question on September 3rd:

Last I read, it's really not clear whether global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes, but there's growing evidence that it makes them stronger and more destructive. Not enough evidence to consider it conclusively proven, though.

That, of course, is my memory of what I read earlier, without referencing anything a scientist would take seriously. So do your own reading ;->

So I already agreed with you about frequency, there is not yet much evidence that global warming increases frequency of hurricanes. I think there is moderate evidence that global warming may increase intensity. But I don't have time or energy to track this down again now ...

[Robert]

Are there scientific associations you think I can trust? If so, which one? Are there other sources that most scientists would consider reliable that I can turn to? Which ones?

At the moment, the Copenhagen Consensus Center is one I would feel comfortable with.

BTW< I am aware of NO legitimate growing evidence that shows hurricanes are growing in strength because of warming.

[Wayne in Maine]

Boot, the fact that you use the term "denier", the pejorative for scientists whose research disagrees with a so-called "consensus" (a theory is not established by consensus, but by experiment and by data), clearly indicates that this is not a matter of science for you.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, the fact that you use the term "denier", the pejorative for scientists whose research disagrees with a so-called "consensus" (a theory is not established by consensus, but by experiment and by data), clearly indicates that this is not a matter of science for you.

A consensus is agreement about what experiments and data have shown. It's a term scientists and scientific associations are using to describe the level of agreement among scientists and scientific association.

Wayne, do you believe there is a consensus that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, a consensus that is based on what people think the experiments and data have established? Would you agree that while there are some scientists who disagree with that conclusion, the level of consensus is meaningful?

If we don't accept that level of consensus, how can anyone figure out for themselves whether smoking is risky without spending weeks wading through the evidence, if they happen to have the background to do that?

Would you agree that many scientific associations use the term consensus themselves to describe the level of agreement on climate change? Can you name me any reputable scientific association that disagrees substantially with the IPCC findings? Not think tanks or lobbyist organizations, but scientific associations? Which ones? Would you agree that experimental evidence is one of the things scientific associations are expert at?

If I am looking for reliable scientific answers to a question, where do you think I should turn? Is the answer different for climate change than for all other scientific questions?

[Bootstrap]

Are there scientific associations you think I can trust? If so, which one? Are there other sources that most scientists would consider reliable that I can turn to? Which ones?

At the moment, the Copenhagen Consensus Center is one I would feel comfortable with.

That's a very interesting think tank - I like the approach they take, asking economists to rank the risks of the world in priority order, and to determine which ones most need solving when. And they don't seem to dispute the consensus on global warming, they are simply trying to rank it against other problems that need solving and to look at the timelines in which it becomes most urgent.

But just to be clear: it is not a scientific association, it is a think tank. They seem to rely on scientific associations and on the IPCC report for the scientific basis. Which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Here is their statement on climate change. They seem to be saying that it has short term benefits, but it becomes costly somewhere around 2070.

Climate change

Climate change is real and man-made. It will come as a big surprise that climate change from 1900 to 2025 has mostly been a net benefit, rising to increase welfare about 1.5% of GDP per year. Why? Because global warming has mixed effects and for moderate warming, the benefits prevail. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer and makes up the biggest positive impact at 0.8% of GDP. Likewise, moderate warming avoids more cold deaths than it incurs extra heat deaths. It also reduces the demand for heating more than increases the costs of cooling, totaling about 0.4%. On the other hand, warming increases water stress at about 0.2% and negatively impact ecosystems like wetlands at about 0.1%. Storm impacts are very small, as the total storm damages (including naturally caused storms) are about 0.2%.

As temperatures rise, the costs will rise and the benefits decline, leading to a dramatic reduction in net benefits. After year 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action.

In their paper on global warming, they look at the cost/benefit ratio for three different approaches:

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 6.00.03 PM.png (100.28 KiB) Viewed 647 times

BTW< I am aware of NO legitimate growing evidence that shows hurricanes are growing in strength because of warming.

Here is a good starting point:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/

I don't think this is a proven fact, merely that there is increasing evidence it may be true, and it makes sense given the basic physics. On the other hand, it certainly has not been proven false, at least in the things I have read.

[Wayne in Maine]

I don't think this is a proven fact, merely that there is increasing evidence it may be true, and it makes sense given the basic physics. On the other hand, it certainly has not been proven false, at least in the things I have read.

Oh, it won't be a fact until there is a scientific consensus on it.

I see.

Consensus is a political concept, it is NOT a scientific concept.