Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

An insightful video (h/t Mark Boslough):

 

[rclab]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

An insightful video (h/t Mark Boslough):

 

And what remains will be our eulogy. As always .....

[donsutherland1]

Another climate scientist who is no longer giving perceived legitimacy to climate change deniers via debates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1228197739760013317

[etudiant]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Another climate scientist who is no longer giving perceived legitimacy to climate change deniers via debates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1228197739760013317

Not a stance that I agree with. Pension money is inherently long term oriented, they are seriously interested in this issue.

I think that a frank discussion in front of a bunch of no BS money managers would be enlightening and I'm sorry the  field was left to the skeptics.

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Not a stance that I agree with. Pension money is inherently long term oriented, they are seriously interested in this issue.

I think that a frank discussion in front of a bunch of no BS money managers would be enlightening and I'm sorry the  field was left to the skeptics.

On this I disagree. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The papers are available. The skeptics have no credible alternative to explain ongoing warming.

Any serious money manager with a long-term horizon would already be working to mitigate risks and pursue opportunities in areas exposed to climate change based on the science. They would not be giving consideration to things that, quite frankly, have not much more scientific credibility than astrology.

[donsutherland1]

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg.

Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20

Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics.

Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

[rclab]

28 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg.

Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20

Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics.

Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

If adults acted as such, whether yea or nay, perhaps the children would have no need to step up early to fill the void. Sadly denial lasts only until the king finds a mirror that reflects the truth. As always .........

[rclab]

7 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg.

Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20

Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics.

Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Don I just received notice of a book called Cranky Uncle vs Climate Change by John Cook, “it uses humor and Science to help stop the flow of misinformation at the dinner table and beyond”. It may help us, I before we, who would profit from a more pedestrian read. As always .....

[donsutherland1]

26 minutes ago, rclab said:

Don I just received notice of a book called Cranky Uncle vs Climate Change by John Cook, “it uses humor and Science to help stop the flow of misinformation at the dinner table and beyond”. It may help us, I before we, who would profit from a more pedestrian read. As always .....

Thanks for sharing this information. Cook has done a lot of good work in trying to combat climate change denial. Hopefully, this book will do well in helping address what remains a real problem.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

On 2/25/2020 at 9:15 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg.

Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20

Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics.

Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Misogynistic. Lol. That's rich. It's as if you have never seen a political opponent shown in an unflattering picture before. When it happens to be a female that makes it misogynistic? Just stop.

 

By the way. Deniers = unbelievers correct? Let me know when the stonings begin so that i can prepare. many thanks!

[donsutherland1]

5 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Misogynistic. Lol. That's rich. It's as if you have never seen a political opponent shown in an unflattering picture before. When it happens to be a female that makes it misogynistic? Just stop.

 

By the way. Deniers = unbelievers correct? Let me know when the stonings begin so that i can prepare. many thanks!

Two quick things:

1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question.

2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Two quick things:

1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question.

2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 

2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine. 

[Bhs1975]

1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 
2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine. 

You got another explanation for the sudden warming? I’m all ears bro. If not I’d let the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS do their work and STFU.


.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

25 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

 

You got another explanation for the sudden warming? I’m all ears bro. If not I’d let the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS do their work and STFU.


.

 

It's not that sudden. Relax. Parts of the world have warmed and cooled throughout human history. That shouldn't surprise you. The attempts that we are currently making to rewrite climatic history nothwithstanding of course. The idea of one global temperature is laughable. The idea that we are even now measuring the temperature of the entire earth in an accurate way is, again, laughable. The idea that a trace gas, that has shown to be a lagging indicator and not a leading one, can cause global temperatures to react in the way that you seem to believe, is what it is I suppose. CO2 has been higher during our planet's history, and at times when temperatures were lower. The climate is more complex than today's scientists can possibly understand. Good for them for trying. It is what they should do. But they should not pretend that they know the answer with certainty. They do not.

Oh, and the vitriol and attempt to squash debate is unnecessary and pretty much aligns with my previous thoughts regarding something else besides science looking to silence critique.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 

2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine. 

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance.

Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth.

It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review.

Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. It is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt.

 Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with).

This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

It's not that sudden. Relax. Parts of the world have warmed and cooled throughout human history. That shouldn't surprise you. The attempts that we are currently making to rewrite climatic history nothwithstanding of course. The idea of one global temperature is laughable. The idea that we are even now measuring the temperature of the entire earth in an accurate way is, again, laughable. The idea that a trace gas, that has shown to be a lagging indicator and not a leading one, can cause global temperatures to react in the way that you seem to believe, is what it is I suppose. CO2 has been higher during our planet's history, and at times when temperatures were lower. The climate is more complex than today's scientists can possibly understand. Good for them for trying. It is what they should do. But they should not pretend that they know the answer with certainty. They do not.

Oh, and the vitriol and attempt to squash debate is unnecessary and pretty much aligns with my previous thoughts regarding something else besides science looking to silence critique.

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance.

Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth.

It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review.

Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. it is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt.

 Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with).

This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

 

That is certainly very ageist of you. Where does that rank on the victimhood hierarchy? I'm guessing it's below misogyny so thus is ok for you to say without fear of retribution. "Denialists" as you call them, seem to be uninterested in engaging in scientific curiosity. I could say the same for many millions on your side of the debate. They hear what they want to hear. Are told over and over by the media what the media wants them to hear. And they spew things that are scientifically garbage but remain popular tropes that are spilled over and over which I suppose somehow makes them true in their minds. Polar bear population being one of the biggies. Go to an event and uninformed people believe the polar bear population is plunging due to global warming. It's not. But what can you do? Can I say that the young and uninformed are too impressionable by people who purport themselves to be experts in a field but are actually activists uninterested in scientific rigor? Or would that be ageist as well? I'm confused.

"Imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo". That's an interesting take. I would love to hear you expound on that one. What exactly is "unsustainable" and exactly which "backward policy goals" need to be "suffered through"? I'm quite curious to learn.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

No it's not. That's an inaccurate interpretation of ENSO climate pattern. The rate of warming is not linear. But you do you.

[donsutherland1]

11 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

That is certainly very ageist of you. Where does that rank on the victimhood hierarchy? I'm guessing it's below misogyny so thus is ok for you to say without fear of retribution. "Denialists" as you call them, seem to be uninterested in engaging in scientific curiosity. I could say the same for many millions on your side of the debate. They hear what they want to hear. Are told over and over by the media what the media wants them to hear. And they spew things that are scientifically garbage but remain popular tropes that are spilled over and over which I suppose somehow makes them true in their minds. Polar bear population being one of the biggies. Go to an event and uninformed people believe the polar bear population is plunging due to global warming. It's not. But what can you do? Can I say that the young and uninformed are too impressionable by people who purport themselves to be experts in a field but are actually activists uninterested in scientific rigor? Or would that be ageist as well? I'm confused.

"Imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo". That's an interesting take. I would love to hear you expound on that one. What exactly is "unsustainable" and exactly which "backward policy goals" need to be "suffered through"? I'm quite curious to learn.

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/

"Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

[donsutherland1]

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

No it's not. That's an inaccurate interpretation of ENSO climate pattern. The rate of warming is not linear. But you do you.

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

You said that the "rate of warming is virtually without precedent". This is inaccurate and misleading. The rate of warming is not linear. 

 

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/

"Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

You're citing it in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be a dinosaur who knows nothing about the subject. That's pretty much the very definition of ageism, but again, you do you. 

And the only way that these future "costs" ever come to bare is if all of the doomsday projections come to pass. Even the IPCC does not believe that. 

What's your view on nuclear power?

China?

India?

[LibertyBell]

On 2/5/2020 at 4:16 PM, 87storms said:

it's fascinating to me how many people are so desperate to refute man made climate change and its impacts.  i have an idea...why don't we just pretend it exists just to be on the safe side?

there is no safe side- I guess people dont care that it's ruining their health too.  Darwinism always wins....

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

but high end ninos do seem to be occurring more often since the 80s.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/

"Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

I was driving on I-80 near the Delaware Water Gap on Monday and I saw a forest fire just ahead of me and above me, first time I've ever seen that- let alone in February!  It was named the Rock Face Fire and it was burning 70 acres last I heard, and it was on Mt Tammany on the Jersey side.

[LibertyBell]

On 2/2/2020 at 8:54 AM, chubbs said:

You are right. The earth's climate varies.  When CO2 is high - hothouse; when CO2 is low - ice age. The change we are causing now is no big deal to the planet as a whole. It will shrug it off and keep on ticking. It may be problematic to us and other species though due to the speed at which it is occurring. When we came out of the last ice age the earth warmed at a rate of roughly 1C per 1000 years, currently we are warming at 1C per 50 years. During the last ice age - 2 million hunter gatherers were able to adapt - they could move as ecosystems changed. Different situation today.

I love how some like to bend backwards to make excuses for the fossil fuel cartel, which is one of the most corrupt cartels on the planet, right up there with big pharma.

at least some are seeing the light- Goldman Sachs just pulled all its funding for fossil fuel drilling and put $500 million into renewable fuels, and Delta just put $10 billion over 10 years into achieving carbon neutral by 2030.  Amazon just put $10 billion into renewables also.  Now we need to go after Chase and Wells Fargo, who have problems of their own.

 

 

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

there is no safe side- I guess people dont care that it's ruining their health too.  Darwinism always wins....

Perhaps because those who want to "be on the safe side" want to bring the economies of the western world to a screeching halt? They want to put an end to the single economic system that has done more to bring the world out of poverty than any other? In doing so, they seem to want to lower the population of the earth and recreate it into a utopia that never has existed, and never will exist to their satisfaction?

I mean...that could be it. You know?

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I was driving on I-80 near the Delaware Water Gap on Monday and I saw a forest fire just ahead of me and above me, first time I've ever seen that- let alone in February!  It was named the Rock Face Fire and it was burning 70 acres last I heard, and it was on Mt Tammany on the Jersey side.

This has to do with what exactly?

[LibertyBell]

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Perhaps because those who want to "be on the safe side" want to bring the economies of the western world to a screeching halt? They want to put an end to the single economic system that has done more to bring the world out of poverty than any other? In doing so, they seem to want to lower the population of the earth and recreate it into a utopia that never has existed, and never will exist to their satisfaction?

I mean...that could be it. You know?

that makes no sense when renewable fuels represent the fastest growing economies and sectors of the job market.  At some point you have to move on from the old.

 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

This has to do with what exactly?

it has to do with the unprecedented type of weather that has been occurring on a large scale.  Looks like Russia loves it because they're about to open Siberia for farming and will be feeding the world since America's bread basket will become unviable for farming.

 

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

but high end ninos do seem to be occurring more often since the 80s.

Incorrect

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01779