[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2014-September-10, 21:36, said:

ok then you strongly disagree with Bill.

You call expert consensus =evidence. Bill does not..I do not.

I point out examples where expert opinion, consensus opinion was very wrong in medicine. You know math, are there examples where consensus in math was wrong?

Smoking, trans fat. The expert opinion was wrong, very wrong. There are many other examples...see baseball.


Given all of that when I go to the ER, at that moment, I do rely on expert opinion, I do tend to rely on the voice of authority in the ER. But when a close loved one had Cancer I did not rely on experts. I challenged them when it came to evidence and treatments. I found that cancer experts know little very little when it comes to cancer and treatments. The unknown was much greater than the known evidence. I found that experimental evidence was in very short supply due to costs and time.


Time is the most important factor when we discuss evidence. People seem to want to disagree with this.

But climate change has not reached the stage of ER?

To say that 97% or whatever accept climate warming as evidence for specific policy changes is wrong, in error. Too claim that global warming is settled science is too not know science, the method of science.

To put it in math terms, to say 97% of math phd's say a math theory is evidence to accept it as truth is a terrible argument. This sort of thing makes me want to hear from the 3% and their counter evidence. No all theory is not equal, but please put it in terms of evidence not because one is an accepted expert.

This is simply a word game. It does not get at the heart of the matter and that is that those who are in the best position to interpret the data have looked at that data and 97% reached the same conclusion.

We don't have to call their consensus conclusion evidence but it is stupid to ignore their conclusion and equally stupid to ignore that their consensus is nearly unanimous.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2014-September-10, 22:21, said:

This is simply a word game. It does not get at the heart of the matter and that is that those who are in the best position to interpret the data have looked at that data and 97% reached the same conclusion.

We don't have to call their consensus conclusion evidence but it is stupid to ignore their conclusion and equally stupid to ignore that their consensus is nearly unanimous.

thank you Winston for taking the time to reply.

clearly on the main point we disagree and to post it is ok..

I point AS EVIDENCE to such issues as:

smoking
baseball
trans fat \
but you can find many others.

CLEARLY YOU DENY SCIENCE

if AT SOME point you agree to discuss issues on the basis of science, then we are in AGREEMENT


97 votes discussions are non science.
3% votes discussions are non science

BUT NON ROYAL SCIENCE IS A DISCUSSION.


THE POINT IS METHODS BUT GRANTED NO ONE I MEAN NO ONE DISCUSS THAT FAT

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, on 2014-September-10, 22:21, said:

This is simply a word game. It does not get at the heart of the matter and that is that those who are in the best position to interpret the data have looked at that data and 97% reached the same conclusion.

We don't have to call their consensus conclusion evidence but it is stupid to ignore their conclusion and equally stupid to ignore that their consensus is nearly unanimous.

While a vast majority (consensus) of scientists agree that the global has warmed, the cause(s) of that warming are still being debated. There are "experts" in astrophysics who claim that the majority of this rise is due to solar activity. There are "experts" in oceanography claiming that the majority of the rise was due to ocean currents. There are "experts" in climate modeling that claim that the atmospheric rise in CO2 is to blame. There are "experts" in other areas of meteorology and atmospheric sciences that say it is a combination of all these factors.

One must be careful when invoking the term "consensus" when referring to climate change, as the only "consensus" is that the globe has warmed. Even the original Doran / Zimmerman study did reach a conclusion as to the dominant cause (only half the climatologists listed increases in carbon dioxide levels).

[Al_U_Card]

When the proposed mitigation of the problem amounts to the economically-costly reduction of our carbon footprint for a "net" global temperature change beneath the limits of detection, it makes no sense to invest in that solution. Especially if the cost and methods will cripple the developing nations and restrict their access to abundant energy.

Every scientific study of the "effects" of global warming shows that weather extremes (and attendant suffering) are not related to global warming. Every analysis of the addition of several hundred ppm of CO2 shows beneficial aspects. Just look into it a little and the man behind the curtain is revealed.

[kenberg]

Daniel1960, on 2014-September-11, 05:36, said:

While a vast majority (consensus) of scientists agree that the global has warmed, the cause(s) of that warming are still being debated. There are "experts" in astrophysics who claim that the majority of this rise is due to solar activity. There are "experts" in oceanography claiming that the majority of the rise was due to ocean currents. There are "experts" in climate modeling that claim that the atmospheric rise in CO2 is to blame. There are "experts" in other areas of meteorology and atmospheric sciences that say it is a combination of all these factors.

One must be careful when invoking the term "consensus" when referring to climate change, as the only "consensus" is that the globe has warmed. Even the original Doran / Zimmerman study did reach a conclusion as to the dominant cause (only half the climatologists listed increases in carbon dioxide levels).

Let's see where this leads us.

Example: "the majority of this rise is due to solar activity." Well, we cannot control the sun. But saying that the majority of the rise is due to solar activity, if that is correct, is not saying that all of the rise is due to solar activity. It seems to me that if there are threats that we cannot control then this, if anything, gives added importance to dealing with threats that we can control.

I'm fine with vigorous debate, I am all for it. But if there is broad consensus that there is warming, and broad consensus that it will cause major disruption, really unpredictable disruption, then it would seem we should be working on lessening the problem as best we can. We control what it is within our power to control, and we have to hope that this will suffice. If not, then we are all screwed no matter what. The dinosaurs might well have had this same conversation sometime back.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2014-September-11, 07:18, said:

Let's see where this leads us.

It seems to me that if there are threats that we cannot control then this, if anything, gives added importance to dealing with threats that we can control.

I'm fine with vigorous debate, I am all for it. But if there is broad consensus that there is warming, and broad consensus that it will cause major disruption, really unpredictable disruption, then it would seem we should be working on lessening the problem as best we can. We control what it is within our power to control, and we have to hope that this will suffice. If not, then we are all screwed no matter what. The dinosaurs might well have had this same conversation sometime back.

The threat that we can control, makes no sensible difference so then all those efforts are wasted ones. Has the planet warmed? In the context of normal variation, barely but yes. Will this (or future further warming) cause major disruption? Not based on anything scientifically accurate nor actually measured to date.

The greater threat is wasting our resources rather than investing them wisely in projects that can benefit humanity and not the agenda of a bureaucratic boondoggle.

[blackshoe]

Daniel1960, on 2014-September-10, 09:18, said:

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The death of the dollar has been greaty exaggerated." The dollar's demise, and economic collapse have been predicted almost as many times as the end of the world. In 2008, Peter Schiff predicted that the dollar would lose half its value by 2010, and be worthless today. These predictions are always popular among the doomsayers. Doug Casey has been predicted a crash of the US markets since 1980. Remember how bad the bird flu was going to be? The Y2K scare? California falling into the ocean? My personal favorite is that planet X will crash into the Earth in {2004, 2006, 2008, 2012, insert date here}.

Interestingly, I read a while ago that in terms of 1913 dollars, a 2014 dollar is worth about five cents, which seems pretty close to "worthless" to me. <shrug>

"When the Big One hits, everything East of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic Ocean". Heard that one when I lived in California in the 1980s.

In The Last Centurions, John Ringo predicted three simultaneous disasters in 2019: a bird flu epidemic that kills off about half the world's population, the beginning in earnest of the next ice age, and Hillary Clinton in the White House. Well, he called her "President Warrick," but the analogy was pretty clear. I suppose we'll find out if he was right in five years.

[Daniel1960]

kenberg, on 2014-September-11, 07:18, said:

Let's see where this leads us.

Example: "the majority of this rise is due to solar activity." Well, we cannot control the sun. But saying that the majority of the rise is due to solar activity, if that is correct, is not saying that all of the rise is due to solar activity. It seems to me that if there are threats that we cannot control then this, if anything, gives added importance to dealing with threats that we can control.

I'm fine with vigorous debate, I am all for it. But if there is broad consensus that there is warming, and broad consensus that it will cause major disruption, really unpredictable disruption, then it would seem we should be working on lessening the problem as best we can. We control what it is within our power to control, and we have to hope that this will suffice. If not, then we are all screwed no matter what. The dinosaurs might well have had this same conversation sometime back.

Agreed that we should control what we can. However, the claim that the warming will be disruptive is contentious. Global warming theory predicts that the warming will lead to glacier melting and sea level rise - this is occurring, with a majority of the alpine glacier melting and sea level rising at 2-3 mm/yr. Greenland has experienced slight melting and Arctic sea ice has decline 44%, but Antarctica has increased. The theory also predicts increased rainfall based on Clausius-Clapeyron, which has been measured globally. As total rainfall increases, the likelihood of extreme rainfall episodes increases similarly. The claim that droughts increase is antithetical to this theory, and indeed, drought occurrances have decreased over the past 150 years. Flooding would be expected to increase. However, this data is conflated due to flood control measures. The biggest contention with global climate models is the treatment of evaporation. Clausius-Clapeyron predicts a 7% increase in evaporation with each 1C increasxe in temperature. GCMs use values between 1% and 3%; resulting in much less evaporation, and hence, much higher temperature increases. The other difference between C-C and GCMs is that C-C predicts increased convection and greater vertical heat loss through high cloud tops than GCMs, which predict less convection as the surface temperature of the oceans increase.

Global warming theory also predicts that temperature increases will be most prevalent during the coldest periods; nighttime, winter, and high latititudes. This has been measured as the tropics have seen the least temperature rise, and little rise has been observed in daytime highs. Claims of increased heat waves and cold spells is not supported. Claims of extreme weather, except for rainfall amounts, are also not supported. Increasing temperatures during the colder periods lessens the atmospheric pressure difference and reduces boundary calshes. This is supported by the decrease in extreme tornadic activity measured in the U.S. since 1950. One of the most glaring errors presented by some AGW advocates is worldwide famine due to crop failures. This is contradicted by both theory and evidence. Since most of the temperature increase has occurred during the coldest periods, the growing season has been increased by up to two weeks. The enhanced rainfall and atmospheric CO2 content has also contributed to higher yields over the past several decades (other human influences have contributed also).

Claims by some AGW activists that all the changes will be detrimental, and that we must return to some idyllic climate of the past seem unwarranted. History has shown that civilization has prospered turning the warmest periods and suffered during the coldest. Whether there is a maximum temperature to this prosperity is not known.

[kenberg]

Daniel, thank you for this. At the very least it gives a clear presentation of a view, and it presents specifics that could be evaluated. As you can probably surmise, my knowledge base is far too meager for me to be able to comment meaningfully on it.

Actually I can't imagine what got into me to post here. I know nothing about the whole subject.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2014-September-11, 09:16, said:

Agreed that we should control what we can. However, the claim that the warming will be disruptive is contentious. Global warming theory predicts that the warming will lead to glacier melting and sea level rise - this is occurring, with a majority of the alpine glacier melting and sea level rising at 2-3 mm/yr. Greenland has experienced slight melting and Arctic sea ice has decline 44%, but Antarctica has increased.

This last statement is wrong. The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is expanding as predicted by models, but that has no effect on the rise of sea levels. The mass of Antarctic ice, both in the sea and, most importantly, on land is decreasing at an accelerating rate. Here is a piece that addresses the difference: Antarctic Ice Melt

Quote

Antarctica is melting, not growing. In fact the ice mass is dropping at an accelerating rate due to multiple factors including accelerated glacial ice calving rates. The loss of sea based ice allows the Antarctic ice to move faster towards the ocean resulting in an increased rate of loss of the Antarctic ice.

Antarctica is losing ice mass while gaining ice extent. This is a confusing point to some.

As Ken said, we can't do anything about the sun. Mankind can, though, take action to rein in the spewing of greenhouse gases.

To the conservative mind, the very fact that we don't know for certain the effects of meddling with the composition of the atmosphere means that we should not be doing it. The alarmists who predict serious economic harm from instituting a carbon tax lack faith in free enterprise, to the point of suggesting that a "government fiat" is the only solution. They are wrong.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-September-11, 11:21, said:

To the conservative mind, the very fact that we don't know for certain the effects of meddling with the composition of the atmosphere means that we should not be doing it.

This is what I come back to. A few people screwing around with the environment is apt to cause, at worst, some local trouble for them. On a global scale, I don't think a person has to be a committed pessimist to find it all worrisome. This is not the sort of thing where you want hear someone say "Oops".

I don't actually think the Earth can support 7 Billion people in a modern middle class lifestyle. This is worrisome.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2014-September-11, 11:21, said:

The mass of Antarctic ice, both in the sea and, most importantly, on land is decreasing at an accelerating rate.

Well, I've always kind of wondered what's under all that ice.

[shyams]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-11, 21:24, said:

Well, I've always kind of wondered what's under all that ice.

Megatron, and the rest of the Decepticons. Waiting for the thaw...

[Daniel1960]

kenberg, on 2014-September-11, 10:51, said:

Daniel, thank you for this. At the very least it gives a clear presentation of a view, and it presents specifics that could be evaluated. As you can probably surmise, my knowledge base is far too meager for me to be able to comment meaningfully on it.

Actually I can't imagine what got into me to post here. I know nothing about the whole subject.

Ken,
I thought it was a very worthwhile post. Trying to do something about what he cannot control wouild be futile. THerefore, we should concentrate on correcting what is within our control, and prepare (as best we can) for that which is not.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2014-September-11, 11:21, said:

This last statement is wrong. The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is expanding as predicted by models, but that has no effect on the rise of sea levels. The mass of Antarctic ice, both in the sea and, most importantly, on land is decreasing at an accelerating rate. Here is a piece that addresses the difference: Antarctic Ice Melt

The expanding Antarctic sea ice has baffled modelers, who forecast that the sea should decline similarly to the Arctic as ocean temperature rise.

http://journals.amet...LI-D-12-00068.1

Much of the research concluding the Antarctic glacial ice is melting focuses on the Antartic peninsula and, to a lesser extent, on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Research on the much larger East Antarctic Ice sheet is less available, but results show that the glaciers are increasing.

http://www.nature.co...ature12382.html

When considering the increase in mass balance of the East Antarctic glaciers compared to the loss in the West, the net mass balance is slightly positive, although this gain in statistically insignificant, given the large size of the Antarctic glacial fields.

http://www.the-cryos...-7-303-2013.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov...20120013495.pdf

Additionally, the predicitons of continued declines in West Antarctica are based on continued melting from warmer ocean waters. However, recent advances in Antarctic sea ice have stimied these forecasts.

[kenberg]

Daniel1960, on 2014-September-12, 05:04, said:

Ken,
I thought it was a very worthwhile post. Trying to do something about what he cannot control would be futile. Therefore, we should concentrate on correcting what is within our control, and prepare (as best we can) for that which is not.

Well, thanks. But I am not indulging ion false modesty when I say that I am often stunned by my own ignorance on this subject.

Even a non-student of the subject can recognize some worrisome trends. I bought a new car at the beginning of 2013. It nowhas about 23K miles on it. Not a lot by modern standards but I'm retired. And we have two cars. And the Chinese are riding bikes less and driving cars more. Certainly they have that right, no one thinks they get to bike, we get to drive, but it is worrisome, at least to me. I was hitchiking in the 1950s and got picked up by a guy who lived in Stillwater Minnesota and worked in Minneapolis. I was shocked by the idea of driving over 20 miles each way to work. My surprise at such a choice seems very quaint now. At least I drive a car (an Accord) that gets decent, albeit not fantastic, mileage.

We would like everyone to have a good life. We would like it here, in South America, in China, in Africa, wherever. Of course we would. And anyway, whether we want them to or not, they have an opinion on the matter. How do we intend to arrange this so that everyone can happily whip around on the open road?

A metaphor: On some tv show, I forget which, a woman was saying that she had joined a gym but still had not lost any weight. "Apparently you also have to go there" she observed. It seems to me that there are many things that could be done to get consumption at least somewhat under control. But apparently we also have to do it.

[Daniel1960]

kenberg, on 2014-September-12, 06:15, said:

Well, thanks. But I am not indulging ion false modesty when I say that I am often stunned by my own ignorance on this subject.

Even a non-student of the subject can recognize some worrisome trends. I bought a new car at the beginning of 2013. It nowhas about 23K miles on it. Not a lot by modern standards but I'm retired. And we have two cars. And the Chinese are riding bikes less and driving cars more. Certainly they have that right, no one thinks they get to bike, we get to drive, but it is worrisome, at least to me. I was hitchiking in the 1950s and got picked up by a guy who lived in Stillwater Minnesota and worked in Minneapolis. I was shocked by the idea of driving over 20 miles each way to work. My surprise at such a choice seems very quaint now. At least I drive a car (an Accord) that gets decent, albeit not fantastic, mileage.

We would like everyone to have a good life. We would like it here, in South America, in China, in Africa, wherever. Of course we would. And anyway, whether we want them to or not, they have an opinion on the matter. How do we intend to arrange this so that everyone can happily whip around on the open road?

A metaphor: On some tv show, I forget which, a woman was saying that she had joined a gym but still had not lost any weight. "Apparently you also have to go there" she observed. It seems to me that there are many things that could be done to get consumption at least somewhat under control. But apparently we also have to do it.

In order to reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, we must acknowledge the sources of this rise. Deforestation has been estimated to contributed between 25 and 50% of the total increase since the mid 19th century. Hence, reforestation would go a long ways in reducing the atmospheric buildup. This may be the easiest issue to remedy. Of the remaining sources, most are due to the buring of carbon-based fuels (there is some component due to respiration, but killing off people to reduce this source is not palatable). The major source is fuel for heating and electricity, which comprising almost half of CO2 generation, of which coal is the largest contributor. Transportation is next at about 25%, which includes cars, trucks, ships and planes. Next is industrial production at another 20%.

To put all this in perspective, I have listed how some individual activities roughly contribute to the annual total CO2 emissions: air travel - 2%, home heating - 5%, all gasoline-powered passenger cars - 8%, clear-cutting forests - 20%, coal power plants - 33%.

[mike777]

Daniel1960, on 2014-September-12, 09:20, said:

In order to reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, we must acknowledge the sources of this rise. Deforestation has been estimated to contributed between 25 and 50% of the total increase since the mid 19th century. Hence, reforestation would go a long ways in reducing the atmospheric buildup. This may be the easiest issue to remedy. Of the remaining sources, most are due to the buring of carbon-based fuels (there is some component due to respiration, but killing off people to reduce this source is not palatable). The major source is fuel for heating and electricity, which comprising almost half of CO2 generation, of which coal is the largest contributor. Transportation is next at about 25%, which includes cars, trucks, ships and planes. Next is industrial production at another 20%.

To put all this in perspective, I have listed how some individual activities roughly contribute to the annual total CO2 emissions: air travel - 2%, home heating - 5%, all gasoline-powered passenger cars - 8%, clear-cutting forests - 20%, coal power plants - 33%.

you seem to suggest that global warming science is not settled science. In fact your posts over time suggest new evidence and new science that reject old conclusions. At times they seem to go against the consensus of old. The consensus of experts

-----
Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem.

As I have stated for many years I don't know how urgent the problem is. If urgent then we have to look at radical, dangerous options.

If not urgent in 2014 we can look to innovation and the Entrepreneur

[mike777]

We can look to tinker with options.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2014-September-13, 01:16, said:

you seem to suggest that global warming science is not settled science. In fact your posts over time suggest new evidence and new science that reject old conclusions. At times they seem to go against the consensus of old. The consensus of experts

-----
Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem.

Hey Mike.
What evidence might that be? Lowest hurricane/tornadic activity in the last 50 years. Greening of the Sahel. Greening of the biosphere in general. Specifics that are not computer model projections would be appreciated. Thanks.