BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

Some entertainment about climate change

https://www.youtube....h?v=_Nr630Qbdz0

http://www.hbo.com/r...-warming.html#/

http://www.hbo.com/r...g-stupid.html#/

https://www.youtube....h?v=0OwFSLm4pII

https://www.youtube....h?v=Mma_PJqYe24

http://www.dailymoti...m/video/x2m73yb

https://www.youtube....h?v=bNINYPrRcDc

https://www.youtube....h?v=Rqcpv7xFwyQ

Al_U_Card, on 2015-May-20, 11:01, said:

Yawn. Al is cherry picking data again.

Please describe the geographic area for which your claim holds true.
Please compare this to the global temperature trend for the same time period.

I have a friend who has a T-shirt hrothgar might like. It says "I did not intend to offend you. That was just a bonus."

I watched the first of the links Mr. Ace posted. It was interesting and I may well watch more.

A few observations.


Bill Maher begins by referring to the large number of tornadoes in the past year. Maybe some rules could be set. Either we get to refer to the large number of tornadoes, and then the other side gets to refer to the cooler than average temperatures for a couple of months and the modest number of severe hurricanes in the past year, or we all accept that there will be variations and we examine long term patterns.

And Bill Maher is the host, meaning that no one with whom he disagrees is allowed to finish a sentence without sarcastic interruption.

Responsibility:
Climate scientists are not responsible for the obnoxious personality traits of Bill Maher.
Obnoxious tv personalities aside, I think we have to do something about the issue. Those concerned with the affects on the climate of our human activity seem to me to have the far stronger argument. I'll be dead either way, but I have kids and I have grandkids, and I even have at least some concern for future generations who are not directly related to me. We have a responsibility here.


Here is a fact about how to persuade me, and I suspect it applies to many others. If an advocate won't let someone of opposing views finish a sentence, I consider the possibility that the interrupter is greatly in fear of the argument his opponent is making. Let people finish their thoughts and there is a far greater chance that you will be listened to.

Al_U_Card, on 2015-May-20, 11:01, said:

No they are not EU commitments, the EU in fact supports nuclear power. That's why France, Poland, Czech Republic, Great Britain, etc. are building new NPP.
As for Germany:

* Electricity costs have increased by about 25%
* CO2 production due to electricity generation is also up by about 10% (since the ground load from nuclear must be compensated by coal)
* The most modern gas powered plant in the world is obsolete since it can only be used when there is not enough "green" energy
* Many square km of land are used for solar power, even fields because they are subsidized by the government so that they are cheaper than farming.
* Many wind parks destroy the landscape and annoy the trekking birds on their yearly voyage.
* All this for the cheap price for 1 trillion euros.

And there is the small problem of storing green energy:
* Energiewende without storage is physically impossible
* Energiewende with storage is economically impossible

hrothgar, on 2015-May-21, 05:15, said:

Yes, we instead had the hottest Jan - Mar since... we don't know when, last time was before someone was measuring. But instead people remember the crappy summer we had, which was in August. In fact of the last 16 months, only last August was below the 30-year average. 15 were above average. Selective memory rules

kenberg, on 2015-May-22, 07:27, said:

I did not mean to show Bill Maher as an authority on the subject. I was just trying to add some humor to this topic. The way he manages his own talk show/debate is % 100 about ratings. People he chose to defend other side are picked carefully as well. So I % 100 agree with you. But during all the obnoxious style as you said he still have some points that we need to think about.

MrAce, on 2015-May-22, 18:31, said:

So far I have only watched the first one, but in fact I would like to hear more about what might be called "bird knowledge". The presentation from Tyson spoke of adaptations of plant and animal life and of course I have heard some about this before. I don't want to base all of my conclusions on a canary in a coal mine, bur if the canary and the scientist agree, we ignore this at our peril.

Anyway, I will probably look at more of them. I find Maher really annoying and I solve that problem by not watching him. But I can make exceptions.

Gerben42, on 2015-May-22, 13:51, said:

Good to know. Nuclear appears to be the only "green" energy generation system that is feasible and economical. As for CO2 production, even the IPCC figures show such a miniscule effect on temperature that this is hardly a criterion for going one way or the other. Economics and well-being are far more germane to the issue of energy sufficiency and efficiency.

Gerben42, on 2015-May-22, 13:55, said:

Just shows that the models are unable to replicate current global and/or regional temperature trends with any accuracy and that natural variability is the key to understanding global temperature trends. The greater and greater divergence between reality and the models is the key to seeing just how far-fetched this entire IPCC gambit is.

May or may not be similar to the pattern that produced similar results for us in the thirties, but is it bad and is it caused by CO2?

I know nothing of this particular story but do note that that particular section of the ocean also holds another of the modern "man-made wonders" of the world. Are we sure that does not have anything to do with it?

Zelandakh, on 2015-May-24, 08:44, said:

No idea what you're talking about.

Al_U_Card, on 2015-May-23, 08:14, said:

No, that's not what it shows. Please distinguish between weather and climate.

It shows that:

* people have selective memory about weather
* climate change is so slow that people forget that what they are experiencing is not "normal"

However in Europe the climate is doing exactly that what people have been saying for decades.

In 50 years, the days with maximum above 30°C in Germany has tripled. Extreme weather has increased, and tiger moscitoes are observed. Among the few good things however, German wine has significantly improved :-) and my utilities bill decreased as mentioned above.

Also this cold period in the US shows exactly nothing. Or perhaps it does. One might be able to show that extreme weather patterns as we had over the Atlantic region this winter can endure longer than they used to. Three months of New England freezing and Old England enjoying spring temperatures Christmas to Easter.

Weather is what you get and climate is what you expect.

According to the science in AR5, no incidence (low confidence) of increases in extreme weather due to "climate change" (ie increase in [CO2])

The models cannot (by the admission of the modelers) predict climate and they are not designed to predict weather. They are just a means to generate scary scenarios to influence headline-writers, policy-makers and grant-givers.

Gerben42, on 2015-May-24, 11:40, said:

I think it shows that short-term climate models are not adept at making long-term predictions. Yes, the average temperature has been increasing - with most of the increase occurring during the coldest periods. However, there is no acceleration, as some have claimed. Using the higher rate of increase during the 90s, as opposed to longer trends, to predict future increases, have proved to be folly.

The colder North American temperatures over the past three years may or may not have future implications. The colder weather has certainly resulted in more extreme weather events, as some have predicted. Long term, it may just be natural variability - like the California drought.

Too many people see climate change in every weather event. As if these events never occurred in the past.

Daniel1960, on 2015-May-24, 22:23, said:

That is not surprising, as a decade is still way too short to measure climate. There is a reason why there is a 30-year reference period and not a 10-year reference period.

What is however more worrying is that temperatures are up despite solar inactivity and La Nina.

Quote

This is apparently a local effect. Sorry if we took all your heat. Of course it could indicate that this will be a more frequent weather pattern.

Quote

There are many fake experts who don't know statistics and they are always picked by the media to explain things. The real experts are almost never asked. No wonder that misconceptions thrive.

Of course extreme weather happened before. However its frequency is increasing. If there are five floods above a certain level between 1500 and 2000 and three between 2000 and 2015, that's significant.

Flood increases are the most likely occurrence, as rainfall increases with temperature. Concrete runoff tends to increase flooding also. Other extreme weather events are not expected, but that does not keep the nonexperts from claiming such. Overall, drought decreases in a warming world, but may increase locally. Severe storms (wind, hail tornadoes) are expected to decrease, as the frontal boundaries exhibit decreased gradients. Snowfall should decrease as more precipitation falls as rain. This is one of Hansen's original predictions, which held throughout the 90s. Today, you have people claiming every blizzard, tornado, drought, flood, and tropical cyclone is somehow the result of worldwide warming. It has become the scapegoat for every weather event. As you stated, we need to examine statistically whether any deviation is significant over the long term. Thirty years being a minimum, as some events fluctuate over longer time frames.

Daniel1960, on 2015-May-25, 08:47, said:

Yes. As your earlier references established indisputably, the rise in sea level has accelerated dramatically since 1880, and is now about 3 times as fast as it was then. Some folks try to deny the acceleration by pointing to shorter term fluctuations but, as you point out, they are wrong to do so.

More and more, the multi-decadal and century time-frame is becoming important in the analysis of climatic trends in natural cycles. We see the rise out of the little ice age as a part of the general down-turn in temperatures since the Holocene optimum (maximum) that occurred several thousand years ago. Taking even a century slice is problematic. (For instance, Marcott et al used multi-century timescales and then claimed (erroneously) "unusual" modern warming when it is clear that similar past variations have not been unusual but could not be discerned by their methodology.)
The key is to look at the predictive power of any theory. How well it "models" reality shows its usefulness and veracity. GCMs?