In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post, 09/20/2017, Stephen Stromberg states:
"New research out Monday seems at first glance to give climate doubters new ammunition in their war against climate science. In fact, it undercuts one of their essential criticisms.
"The peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience released a surprising new paper finding that the world may have a little more room than previously thought to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A group of European scientists — foreigners, no less! — recalculated the Earth’s “carbon budget,” which is the amount of carbon dioxide humans can add to the atmosphere before risking dangerous temperature thresholds. They found that humanity’s remaining emissions allowance may be significantly larger than previous calculations."
Stromberg's entire column may be read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po ... 8257daf4d1
The abstract for the paper he is citing may be seen here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o3031.html
Another brief summary from Nature Geoscience is given here: https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/12178/
I have not read the complete paper,and probably would have trouble understanding all of it without help.
I'd love to hear opinions from those with the ability to understand the science and discuss the merits of the case being put forward.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- DocLightning
- Posts: 22843
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
There are none so blind as them who will not see. But I will leave it to EinsteinBoricua and those who have actually studied meteorology and climate science.
If anyone wants to vaccine-bash, I will happily make a fool of you publicly.
If anyone wants to vaccine-bash, I will happily make a fool of you publicly.
-
- BobPatterson
- Posts: 3414
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
DocLightning wrote:There are none so blind as them who will not see. But I will leave it to EinsteinBoricua and those who have actually studied meteorology and climate science.
If anyone wants to vaccine-bash, I will happily make a fool of you publicly.
Well, the topic has nothing to do with vaccines. I don't know why you introduce it.
As for "none so blind", I fail to understand what on earth you are referring to. Are you calling the authors of the peer-reviewed paper "blind"?
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
BobPatterson wrote:I'd love to hear opinions from those with the ability to understand the science and discuss the merits of the case being put forward.
No effect whatsoever. Quite the opposite in fact. Where it seemed impossible to stay below 1.5° raise in temperatures before and 2° seemed a tough target, it now seems possible. Since 0.5° does make a noticeable difference in see levels, and protection against that gets more expansive basically geometrically with required hight, all the study means that the RoI on reducing greenhouse gas emissions gets even better and spending much, much more money on achieving that goal is not just the right thing to do, it also makes long term financial sense.
If those results are confirmed, all the more reason to scramble.
best regards
Thomas
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
BobPatterson wrote:DocLightning wrote:There are none so blind as them who will not see. But I will leave it to EinsteinBoricua and those who have actually studied meteorology and climate science.
If anyone wants to vaccine-bash, I will happily make a fool of you publicly.
Well, the topic has nothing to do with vaccines. I don't know why you introduce it.
As for "none so blind", I fail to understand what on earth you are referring to. Are you calling the authors of the peer-reviewed paper "blind"?
No, that's what he's calling climate-change-deniers.
The relevance of vaccines here is that like climate change, it's another topic about which a large chunk of our population is vocally ig'nant. Unlike meteorology, vaccines are a topic he can offer expertise on, see, being a medical doctor and all.
Is what he was saying.
(See.)
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
Not sure what you want to know, Bob. Sciences progress and new data will alter the models a bit and thus will alter the most likely scenario, or in this case the carbon budget. It doesn't alter what needs to be done, one bit.
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
Dutchy wrote:Not sure what you want to know, Bob. Sciences progress and new data will alter the models a bit and thus will alter the most likely scenario, or in this case the carbon budget. It doesn't alter what needs to be done, one bit.
It's like a cancer patient being told that they have 12 months to live rather than 6 and them then claiming that the cancer was a hoax and that everything is fine.
-
- DocLightning
- Posts: 22843
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
Airstud wrote:The relevance of vaccines here is that like climate change, it's another topic about which a large chunk of our population is vocally ig'nant. Unlike meteorology, vaccines are a topic he can offer expertise on, see, being a medical doctor and all.
Exactly. Whether it's climate change, vaccines, GMOs (another topic on which I will happily wipe the floor with someone), 9/11, Sandy Hook, or anything else, denialists cannot be convinced.
The best you can do is publicly humiliate them so that fence-sitters don't join them.
-
- casinterest
- Posts: 16972
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
BobPatterson wrote:In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post, 09/20/2017, Stephen Stromberg states:
"New research out Monday seems at first glance to give climate doubters new ammunition in their war against climate science. In fact, it undercuts one of their essential criticisms.
"The peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience released a surprising new paper finding that the world may have a little more room than previously thought to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A group of European scientists — foreigners, no less! — recalculated the Earth’s “carbon budget,” which is the amount of carbon dioxide humans can add to the atmosphere before risking dangerous temperature thresholds. They found that humanity’s remaining emissions allowance may be significantly larger than previous calculations."
Stromberg's entire column may be read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po ... 8257daf4d1
The abstract for the paper he is citing may be seen here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o3031.html
Another brief summary from Nature Geoscience is given here: https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/12178/
I have not read the complete paper,and probably would have trouble understanding all of it without help.
I'd love to hear opinions from those with the ability to understand the science and discuss the merits of the case being put forward.
Here is the quote that needs to be scruitinized in the article Emphasis mine
". That means that the world may have a better chance of keeping warming to relatively benign levels IF governments act with ambition now — or that they may have more time to dawdle before the problem gets bad."
This research still has to be explored and verified ( just like all good science), and it makes assumptions about countries following the current assumed reductions of carbon assumed from recent treaties and accords. Like the Paris one that Trump bailed out on.
If people think that it means Global Warming is a Hoax, then they have misread this document. This document is asserting that warming is real. We just may have a bit more of a buffer if reductions in emissions are continued.
-
- MaverickM11
- Posts: 19258
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
vrbarreto wrote:Dutchy wrote:Not sure what you want to know, Bob. Sciences progress and new data will alter the models a bit and thus will alter the most likely scenario, or in this case the carbon budget. It doesn't alter what needs to be done, one bit.
It's like a cancer patient being told that they have 12 months to live rather than 6 and them then claiming that the cancer was a hoax and that everything is fine.
Republicans--who at this point are pretty much the lone science deniers at this point--can say whatever they want about climate change, but they're still building higher and higher seawalls around their beach houses and paying higher insurance. The Arctic is still melting and opening up potential trade lanes and more importantly, potential conflicts. The DOD is still studying climate change's effects on national security--and that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg in terms of visible, verifiable everyday effects of climate change. The GOP can continue to stick their head in the sand, but reality, will continue to unfold.-
- stratosphere
- Posts: 2184
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
MaverickM11 wrote:vrbarreto wrote:Dutchy wrote:Not sure what you want to know, Bob. Sciences progress and new data will alter the models a bit and thus will alter the most likely scenario, or in this case the carbon budget. It doesn't alter what needs to be done, one bit.
It's like a cancer patient being told that they have 12 months to live rather than 6 and them then claiming that the cancer was a hoax and that everything is fine.
Please spare me. There has been horrific natural disasters since time began. Now I am not saying we shouldn't do our part to help. But to me it doesn't do much good for us to curb our bad habits when the rest of world especially China India and Mexico for starters are going to pollute and won't give a damn what we want. Ill give you an example. I am a lifetime Asthmatic and I and a lot of other relied on Primetine Mist which was a cheap (20 dollars) over the counter epinephrine rescue inhaler. They pulled it of the market leaving millions who relied on it desperate for something else. The reason it was yanked was the propellant in the inhaler was a CFC which they said hurts the ozone layer even though this inhaler is going in your lungs and even if it did make it into the atmosphere is a very small amount. So there is a company that has come up with a HFC epinephrine inhaler but the FDA won't approve it because big pharma wants everyone to go to the doctor and buy these expensive inhalers which a lot of people with no insurance cannot afford even with good insurance I pay 100 bucks for an inhaler and most of them don't work for a lot of Asthmatics. There is NO rescue inhaler out there even prescription that works like Primetine Mist did there are actually people who have died because they were in a rural area and could not get to a hospital in time where that inhaler would have saved them. It was never about pollution it was about big pharma and money. Just like that hypocrite Al Gore pushing his climate control agenda just a coincidence that he has a lot of money tied to alternative energy and solar not to mention he tools around in a big SUV and his private jets as do the Hollywood hypocrites. Sorry I am not buying the whole climate change argument too many people pushing it have their own agenda.
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
I think we could all do more to help improve the environment, but I think people will start taking climate change more seriously when they see its most outspoken proponents acting as if they actually believe what they're shouting. (i.e. - no more private jet trips, no more vacations on their yachts, no more multiple mansions, etc).
When whatever the new doomsday or doom-carbon-budget comes and goes without any dire consequences, I'm sure their "science" will be adjusted again to create new deadlines for us.
Regardless, I found this statement astounding - "A big driver for updating the world’s ships is the war on pollution. In fact, just 16 of the largest vessels produce the same emissions as all the planet’s cars put together." (http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/the ... s-forever/)
I've seen similar statements a few times recently. If it's true, then it tells me that our focus is on the wrong areas. While it's great to pursue cleaner cars, lets focus on the "low hanging fruit" - instead of millions of cars, how about we start with a handful of ships?
When whatever the new doomsday or doom-carbon-budget comes and goes without any dire consequences, I'm sure their "science" will be adjusted again to create new deadlines for us.
Regardless, I found this statement astounding - "A big driver for updating the world’s ships is the war on pollution. In fact, just 16 of the largest vessels produce the same emissions as all the planet’s cars put together." (http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/the ... s-forever/)
I've seen similar statements a few times recently. If it's true, then it tells me that our focus is on the wrong areas. While it's great to pursue cleaner cars, lets focus on the "low hanging fruit" - instead of millions of cars, how about we start with a handful of ships?
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
My understanding is that greenhouse gases are probably bad and temperatures are almost definitely rising.
There is constructive, but not historical evidence that storms might be stronger because of global warming. What is the confidence of this? Maybe 60% confidence. People who dwell on it often let the discussion degenerate into superstition and foolish ignorance. Actual scientists do not endorse this knee-jerk political assignment of blame for hurricanes. It is mostly fact-free squealing tantrums. That is my 2c. To those crying, relax-- you will die long before global warming becomes a real issue for you. And when it does, technology will fix it.
The primary cause for massive damage to property in hurricane/flood areas is the failure to plan for hurricanes and floods. It is not really a climate problem, it is an honesty/integrity problem. The solution may be to build character in schools to make people strong enough for life. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, it is your personal responsibility to prepare for hurricanes and insure yourself for the damages. That's part of adult life on this planet. Always has been.
There is constructive, but not historical evidence that storms might be stronger because of global warming. What is the confidence of this? Maybe 60% confidence. People who dwell on it often let the discussion degenerate into superstition and foolish ignorance. Actual scientists do not endorse this knee-jerk political assignment of blame for hurricanes. It is mostly fact-free squealing tantrums. That is my 2c. To those crying, relax-- you will die long before global warming becomes a real issue for you. And when it does, technology will fix it.
The primary cause for massive damage to property in hurricane/flood areas is the failure to plan for hurricanes and floods. It is not really a climate problem, it is an honesty/integrity problem. The solution may be to build character in schools to make people strong enough for life. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, it is your personal responsibility to prepare for hurricanes and insure yourself for the damages. That's part of adult life on this planet. Always has been.
-
- MaverickM11
- Posts: 19258
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
stratosphere wrote:Please spare me. There has been horrific natural disasters since time began.
Who said anything about natural disasters? This is just the slow boiling of the proverbial frog we see day in and day out.
stratosphere wrote:Just like that hypocrite Al Gore pushing his climate control agenda just a coincidence that he has a lot of money tied to alternative energy and solar not to mention he tools around in a big SUV and his private jets as do the Hollywood hypocrites. Sorry I am not buying the whole climate change argument too many people pushing it have their own agenda.
You won't buy the climate change "agenda" yet you'll swallow the false narrative pushed by the energy industry hook, line, and sinker. Hey, while you're at it, instead of using an inhaler, why don't you pick up smoking? After all it's totally safe according to the respective industry narrative, versus the scientific "agenda" to stop people from getting cancer. What do you think is more likely: solar panels and wind mills paying 97% of scientists to come to the same conclusion, or the petrochemical industry paying off 3% of scientists and illiterate republicans to protect their interests?
Flighty wrote:The primary cause for massive damage to property in hurricane/flood areas is the failure to plan for hurricanes and floods. It is not really a climate problem, it is an honesty/integrity problem. The solution may be to build character in schools to make people strong enough for life. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, it is your personal responsibility to prepare for hurricanes and insure yourself for the damages. That's part of adult life on this planet. Always has been.
Seeing as Trump has claimed millions in insurance for hurricane damage that never happened, and republicans have long been trying to help any company avoid every last shred of responsibility for anything, particularly safety plans in natural disasters, that ship has long sailed.
-
- BobPatterson
- Posts: 3414
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
Flighty wrote:My understanding is that greenhouse gases are probably bad and temperatures are almost definitely rising.
There is constructive, but not historical evidence that storms might be stronger because of global warming. What is the confidence of this? Maybe 60% confidence. People who dwell on it often let the discussion degenerate into superstition and foolish ignorance. Actual scientists do not endorse this knee-jerk political assignment of blame for hurricanes. It is mostly fact-free squealing tantrums. That is my 2c. To those crying, relax-- you will die long before global warming becomes a real issue for you. And when it does, technology will fix it.
The primary cause for massive damage to property in hurricane/flood areas is the failure to plan for hurricanes and floods. It is not really a climate problem, it is an honesty/integrity problem. The solution may be to build character in schools to make people strong enough for life. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, it is your personal responsibility to prepare for hurricanes and insure yourself for the damages. That's part of adult life on this planet. Always has been.
Have you considered the combination of melting ice caps, warming/expansion of oceans, and rising sea levels?
These are all climate change items that add fuel/power to storms.
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
stratosphere wrote:Please spare me. There has been horrific natural disasters since time began. Now I am not saying we shouldn't do our part to help. But to me it doesn't do much good for us to curb our bad habits when the rest of world especially China India and Mexico for starters are going to pollute and won't give a damn what we want. Ill give you an example..
Mmmm.. does that statement hold water? Nope.
China: supposed to peak on CO2 emissions in about 2020, has but appears to have reached that point in 2016. They invest ~2.5 times more money, about the same in per capita terms and 4 times as much on per GDP base than the EU and compared to the US it looks about the same to worse on per GDP bases.
Electromobility is also not driven by Tesla, European or Japanese, it is driven by Chinese manufacturers. They put more electric city buses on the streets than Tesla makes cars, and in terms of CO2 reduction, a Bus is probably worth 100 teslas.
India is on the way of doubling its installed wind-power and increasing installed solar-power by a factor of 15 by 2022 and had a higher share of renewable energy compared to the US already in 2014, same time renewable energy had almost twice the share than it had in the US in China.
Mexico is one of the Top countries in terms of renewable energy and leads the US by 10% points or 60% in terms of renewable energy share.
So, compared to the US they could rightfully say the US is "going to pollute and won't give a damn what we want."
Flighty wrote:My understanding is that greenhouse gases are probably bad and temperatures are almost definitely rising.
replace probably with highly likely in that statement and you got it right.
There is constructive, but not historical evidence that storms might be stronger because of global warming. What is the confidence of this? Maybe 60% confidence.
Things with a 60% confidence get pretty much ignored in science, since that is less than one sigma and to be taken seriously enough to justify further study you better demonstrate your findings to something with about three sigma, which is 99.73%. CERN announced that they most likely have found the Higgs when to separate experiments both yielded something about sigma 3 (iirc 2.9 and 3.0). Science considers something proven at about six sigma, that is data as good as we can reasonably expect to ever make it, and a discovery is considered true with confidence at 5 sigma, which is 99.99994% or one in over 3 million chance of having it wrong.
You can therefore expect the link between rising temperatures and, on average, stronger storms has a confidence in excess of 99%.
Actual scientists do not endorse this knee-jerk political assignment of blame for hurricanes. It is mostly fact-free squealing tantrums.
Well, they say that you can not blame any one storm on global warming, because that is weather and you can have arbitrarily strong storms by coincidence, but no "actual scientist", to use your real Scotsman, would deny the link between warming and stronger storms. That is a problem with many sciences, they use what sounds like normal language, because they don´t use all those fancy Latin words like for example the medical profession, to let you know that they are talking shop. When a scientist uses the word "theory" at work, he means "fact", in the sense of "as far as anyone on this planet can claim, this falsifiable claim is true".
The primary cause for massive damage to property in hurricane/flood areas is the failure to plan for hurricanes and floods. It is not really a climate problem, it is an honesty/integrity problem. The solution may be to build character in schools to make people strong enough for life. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, it is your personal responsibility to prepare for hurricanes and insure yourself for the damages. That's part of adult life on this planet. Always has been.
No, it has not always been like that. You can sensibly ignore 1 in a 1000 years weather events when you decide to build your house, if that risk, lets say you keep it 40 years, is lower than what you safe by moving there. Of course you get royally screwed if such weather extremes become a 1:100 years thing. Streets have also been build with the temperatures in mind that prevail in those areas, but global warmin has already reached a point where streets need a major overhaul after 17-18 years instead of the planned 20, because the temperatures have risen a bit and in this new environment the asphalt is the wrong type. This is already costing billions/year in extra needed repairs.
So, yeah.. lack of honesty is a problem, lack of honesty accepting that climate change is real and plan infrastructure according to it. We are lacking the honesty of saying "well, we have to pick this routing, despite being 50% more expensive to build, because the cheaper rooting has significant flood risks in the next decades. That is the kind of honesty that lacks.
best regards
Thomas
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
coolian2 wrote:
One picture says a thousand words. Let make the earth great again
-
- einsteinboricua
- Posts: 8832
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
BobPatterson wrote:I have not read the complete paper,and probably would have trouble understanding all of it without help.
I'd love to hear opinions from those with the ability to understand the science and discuss the merits of the case being put forward.
I'll read it over the weekend and see what the hullabaloo is all about. I will use the following analogy when looking at papers:
Suppose you have an eraser assembly line (from mixing to packaging). Every so often, from all batches, you'll find a couple of defective units. If the number of defective units is insignificant (e.g. 1/1,000,000), it doesn't mean the whole batch and assembly line is faulty and needs examining. However, if 1/1,000,000 starts growing and eventually turns into 1/10, then it's a cause for concern and examination.
So if one paper disproves overall consensus, it is acknowledged and debated (this is why there are annual conferences and symposiums). The scientific paradigm governing it will either accommodate its findings or reject them as being inconsistent or deceiving (cherry-picking data, manipulation, not a true independent experiment, etc.). However, if several papers come out and the paradigm has to keep accommodating all their findings because scientists agree that they're legit, then that's where you reach a turning point and where scientists adopt a new position.
stratosphere wrote:Are you about to tell me that the Ozone Hole is "fake news"? The problem is not the "very small amount" that gets released; it's that it lasts quite a while and compounds the already existing amount that was released before the findings.The reason it was yanked was the propellant in the inhaler was a CFC which they said hurts the ozone layer even though this inhaler is going in your lungs and even if it did make it into the atmosphere is a very small amount
stratosphere wrote:I fail to see how this is related to climate change.but the FDA won't approve it because big pharma wants everyone to go to the doctor and buy these expensive inhalers
stratosphere wrote:Don't worry. Repealing the ACA and bringing Trumpcare will take care of things for you.I pay 100 bucks for an inhaler and most of them don't work for a lot of Asthmatics.
stratosphere wrote:A lot of people seem to forget that Al Gore was vice-president, which means that he gets a pension for having served as president of the Senate. Not only that, if he's invested in green energy technology and is reaping the rewards, doesn't that mean he believes in the cause? If I wanted to profit in the short term, why don't I just invest in oil companies? Finally, not only do you sink your argument by engaging in attacks cherry-picking information to suit your talking point, you also come out to be ill informed about the issues (CFCs and climate change are not directly related; ozone depletion and effects on the ecosystem and overall health are).Just like that hypocrite Al Gore pushing his climate control agenda just a coincidence that he has a lot of money tied to alternative energy and solar not to mention he tools around in a big SUV and his private jets as do the Hollywood hypocrites.
NoTime wrote:Treaties like the Paris Accords could address this; however, when a particular superpower decides to make exceptions or pull out altogether, the low-hanging fruit remains in place.I've seen similar statements a few times recently. If it's true, then it tells me that our focus is on the wrong areas. While it's great to pursue cleaner cars, lets focus on the "low hanging fruit" - instead of millions of cars, how about we start with a handful of ships?
Flighty wrote:One thing I asked my coworkers is why are houses in hurricane and tornado-prone areas built out of wood instead of concrete (which stands a much better chance to remain standing). The answer: it's cheap. So it's not really a failure of planning: it's a risk people take. Some can live with it; others regret it. You'd think that after decades of storms, people would start demanding stronger structures even if it meant paying extra.The primary cause for massive damage to property in hurricane/flood areas is the failure to plan for hurricanes and floods. It is not really a climate problem,
tommy1808 wrote:And this is the point I want people to understand on BOTH sides of the argument.Well, they say that you can not blame any one storm on global warming, because that is weather and you can have arbitrarily strong storms by coincidence, but no "actual scientist", to use your real Scotsman, would deny the link between warming and stronger storms.
You had a brutally cold winter? That doesn't mean the world is cooling or that warming isn't happening. Look at long trends and see how many winters were warmer than normal and what the temperature readings are.
A category 5 storm? A normal season is expected to have major hurricanes. The question is how, over the long run, how powerful and how frequent are they becoming? How many seasons now feature 4-5 category 4 or 5 storms vs a few years ago when 1-3 would be the norm? The number of cyclones formed, however, is not a good indicator: if you had a 2005 season scenario where all storms remained as tropical storms, would you say this is climate change? Maybe...if the norm is that we start to have above average number of storms forming and they start becoming powerful (e.g. 25 storms, all of which become hurricanes, and about 13 become major hurricanes).
At work a coworker kept saying that this is due to climate change. I said that you have to look at long term. He insisted that it is. I then said that we can't cry "climate change" for every weather event that happens (if a raindrop falls on me, is that climate change?). He said "well, you shouldn't look at individual events, just group them together"...it was almost like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too..
Yeah, bottom line: any particular event can't immediately be linked to climate change. However, group past data to place a baseline and how much of the recent data is above that average. Stragglers will be everywhere (a cold winter vs a few normal winters and a lot of warmer winters); but facts don't lie.
-
- DiamondFlyer
- Posts: 3835
- Joined:
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
Dutchy wrote:coolian2 wrote:
One picture says a thousand words. Let make the earth great again
Fairly sure a war was started using mentality like that...
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
DiamondFlyer wrote:Dutchy wrote:coolian2 wrote:
One picture says a thousand words. Let make the earth great again
Fairly sure a war was started using mentality like that...
Well, very good, let's start a war on climate change. Will be for the better of our planet and our children.
Re: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
DiamondFlyer wrote:Dutchy wrote:coolian2 wrote:
One picture says a thousand words. Let make the earth great again
Fairly sure a war was started using mentality like that...
mentality lik what? What am I missing.