Climate Change: We're Doomed

Alleviating worldly suffering along the way.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:40 am

Zhen Li wrote:Lots of things are being referred to. The main issue is temperature. A measure which is not limited to any closed system, and which historically hasn't risen as a result of atmospheric CO2. :stirthepot:

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the key issue here, restricting the escape of heat back into Space.

I see that you now acknowledge that you are stirring the pot. :smile:
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:47 am

Yeah, not happening. Tropospheric warming is too low.

CO2 output rises after temperature. Temperature rises after increases in solar activity.

It's not that not enough heat isn't escaping, its that too much energy is coming in.
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Wayfarer » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:56 am

Isn't it all a green left plot to destroy business and the American way of life? Propagated by the United Nations who everyone knows wants to form a world government.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:00 am

Zhen Li wrote:Yeah, not happening. Tropospheric warming is too low.

CO2 output rises after temperature. Temperature rises after increases in solar activity.

It's not that not enough heat isn't escaping, its that too much energy is coming in.

*Yawns*

Have a quote:
The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watt/square-meter—less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade Earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/7_ways_ ... r_partner/
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:03 am

jeeprs wrote:Isn't it all a green left plot to destroy business and the American way of life? Propagated by the United Nations who everyone knows wants to form a world government.

Sounds good to me. Where do I join?
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:56 am

Okay, guys, we can either make fun of Zhen Li, which might be mildly entertaining but is not really in accordance with the TOS or Right Speech, or we can try to help him/her to come to a better understanding of what's actually going on. That may take a lot of patience but I'm willing to give it a go.
What do you reckon?

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Wayfarer » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:08 am

Apologies for being mischievous - it wasn't directed at any particular poster, but the general view of climate change denial, which is quite widespread. For instance, last week there was an opinion piece in the Australian press which said more or less what I quoted.

(Australian Prime Minister) Tony Abbott's top business adviser has again caused controversy with comments about the ''delusion'' of global warming and an assertion that climate change policy has destroyed Australia's manufacturing sector and competitiveness.

In an opinion piece in The Australian newspaper, Maurice Newman, the Prime Minister's pick as head of his Business Advisory Council, claimed high energy costs caused by the carbon tax and the renewable energy target, introduced by the Howard government, had eroded Australia's competitiveness. Under Labor and the Greens, Australia had been taken ''hostage'' by ''climate change madness'', Mr Newman wrote.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2pbxsUKJj

There is a lot of controversy, but I do take the IPCC and the Australian CSIRO's findings on the matter as definitive. The IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - is pretty unequivocal on its findings about human contributions to climate change. Likewise the CSIRO - large Australian research organisation.

I personally don't think there is really any room for doubt on the basic facts of the matter, but I am sceptical that governments will succeed in taking the required action, because it is a very hard problem, and because there are many influential people working in the background to disseminate fear, uncertainty and doubt about it. And they're very effective. The recently-elected Conservative government here in Australia destroyed the consensus on it, and made it a partisan political issue, which makes it enormously more difficult to counter. Prior to that there was a bi-partisan position on it. Now they're dismantling carbon pricing. They're the only government in the world doing that at this time.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby treehuggingoctopus » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:29 am

I must say that I'm also becoming increasingly skeptical about the chance of our governments actually doing anything that would put us on the right road to address the (undoubtably real, goes without saying) climate crisis. It is hard to remain even most cautiously optimistic after the Warsaw debacle: it was a farce of epic proportions, way too large to be true. I hadn't expected much, but would have never thought it could be that grotesque.

That said, we've still got two years. I do have something like a bit of a modest hope for the Lima conference in 2014. If Lima ends up another Warsaw, though (very unlikely, even if it may well fail to bring about any necessary agreements), I don't believe Paris will be going to make any real difference.
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:29 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:Okay, guys, we can either make fun of Zhen Li, which might be mildly entertaining but is not really in accordance with the TOS or Right Speech, or we can try to help him/her to come to a better understanding of what's actually going on. That may take a lot of patience but I'm willing to give it a go.
What do you reckon?

I promise to behave.

Actually, I wasn't making fun of Zhen Li, just making fun. I hope Zhen Li understands that.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Wayfarer » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:47 am

actually I see above that aspersions have been cast on IPCC already. That's the problem - there are thousands of sites, articles, lobbyists, all saying different things, which is one of the reasons that action is becoming paralysed. As if it isn't hard enough in the first place. So I have made a policy decision to treat the IPCC and the CSIRO as authoritative on the grounds that I will never be in a position to study all the science, or even to survey all the news about the topic. You have to trust somebody, and they get my vote. Over and out.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:22 pm

RE: the salon quote.

That's because radiative forcing is only a minor factor.

The sun does a hell of a lot of things other than emit radiation, you'd be surprised.

RE: anything IPCC

There's no membership procedure, hundreds of scientists have been added without their consent merely because they may have replied to an email by IPCC. And for die hard members, many include those who have been publicly found to manipulate and falsify data. Others like Mann have been publicly found attempting to get materials published by him in the past deleted.

The IPCC argument is, like the opponent's argument, a synthesis of hundreds of papers. That synthesis proports to be knowledge, i.e. a coherent, correct, and systematic assertions about how the climate works. Whether you deny that argument or not, depends on 2 factors: that the data is still uncertain, or that the data is wrong.

Since choosing not to consider denial is a specific policy stance, and that is wilful blindness, you are wilfully blind if you accept the IPCC for its word. The same goes for the opposition. Wilful blindness is not logical. If you resolve that you don't have the inclination or time to investigate, that's a very reasonable stance. I understand and take the same stance on thousands of other issues. But the only logical way to proceed in that stance is agnosticism.
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:34 pm

jeeprs wrote:actually I see above that aspersions have been cast on IPCC already. That's the problem - there are thousands of sites, articles, lobbyists, all saying different things, which is one of the reasons that action is becoming paralysed. As if it isn't hard enough in the first place. So I have made a policy decision to treat the IPCC and the CSIRO as authoritative on the grounds that I will never be in a position to study all the science, or even to survey all the news about the topic. You have to trust somebody, and they get my vote. Over and out.

My view is similar.
I accept the consensus represented by the IPCC, CSIRO, NOAA, etc as being correct in all essentials although acknowledging that the scientists are still improving their knowledge (as indeed they should be) - and I generally trust people that they trust. I treat RealClimate and ThinkProgress as reliable sources regarding new science and policy initiatives - and again I generally trust people that they trust.
In trusting and accepting those people and those organisations I am doing exactly what I do in any other area of science and politics: putting my faith in the majority of the best-informed people in the field.

Where I differ from you, perhaps, is my opinion of :spy: the other lot :spy:
It seems to me that the opposition to the IPCC consensus comes (1) from a small group of professional denialists funded largely by the fossil fuel industry (2) from a small group of right-wing politicians who may genuinely believe in an unregulated market economy but happen to be in debt to the fossil fuel industry and (3) ill-informed ordinary citizens who have been misled and baffled by the Merchants of Doubt for so long that they have (mostly) given up and decided it's all too hard. (Some of (3) are people like Zhen Li who are virulently opposed to any recognition of AGW but they are a tiny minority.)
Accordingly, I think it is worth hammering groups (1) and (2) constantly to expose (1) for what they are and convince (2) thatthey are going to lose majority support unless they change their positions. Most of (3), I think, will drift happily in the right direction if the truth is not constantly being sabotaged.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:13 pm

And then there are scientists who see flaws in data analysis, even scientists registered in the IPCC have pointed this out and deny AGW. This is because IPCC prides itself on being able to refer to a high number of scientists in press releases, even if those scientists had opposing viewpoints. This has to occur - it's the way science always works, you'll always find issues with data analysis. There are many other groups, to deny this is essentialism.

There are also people who use logic and reasoning, and thus evaluate sources for bias. "Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view." - Wiki.

The fact that I am willing to be convinced of AGW if I see a correct argument, is an indication that I am not biased. The fact that everyone else here is admittedly unwilling to consider alternative points of view, indicates that you are all biased. It's just the truth.

Those rational and logical few, can tell that when a website has a name like "RealClimate" or "ThinkProgress," then that website is biased.
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:01 pm

Zhen Li wrote:it's the way science always works, you'll always find issues with data analysis.
.



You can disagree where a hurricane is going to land, but the hurricane is definitely going to land in this case.

Then of course there is the Pascal's wager approach to all of this: there is no downside to being wrong about climate change (saving rainforests, changing from fossil fuels to renewables, etc.), in fact there are positive upsides. But there are severe consequences to being right about climate change and then doing nothing (or too little too late, the present scenario).

As for you my friend, well, "Contrarians gonna contradict..."
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby IdleChater » Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:22 pm

All the talk about who is causing what is utterly pointless. We are way past anything useful coming from that discussion.

The planet is warming.

We're already seeing changes in weather patterns as a result.

The ice caps continue melting. Nothing can stop it now. THIS is what we should be concerned with.

The results of the ice caps melting will affect the oceans in lowered salinity, changing currents and rising sea levels. This will have a profound affect on humans everywhere. There will be billions of acres of cropland under water. People will starve. Sourses of potable water will decline. People will start moving away from rising oceans with nowhere near enough infrastructure to accommodate that demographic shift.

Lack of food, water and infrastructure mixed with global changes in demographics will lead to war on a global scale.

THAT, my friends is the real problem facing us - how to avoid a global human catastrophe.
IdleChater
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:08 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby treehuggingoctopus » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:51 pm

IdleChater wrote:All the talk about who is causing what is utterly pointless. We are way past anything useful coming from that discussion.


Agreed - provided that what you are trying to say is that the present-climate change is to a significant extent man-made, hence no need to 'talk about who is causing what' anymore. In order to prevent what you call 'a global human catastrophe', we have to wean ourselves off the non-renewable resources first and foremost - and work from there.
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:01 pm

IdleChater wrote:THAT, my friends is the real problem facing us - how to avoid a global human catastrophe.

Charlton puts aside his gun for a moment of reverie:

May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:40 pm

http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:48 pm

As the Arctic rapidly heats up, however, there's less of a temperature difference between the equator and the poles, and the downhill slope in the atmosphere is accordingly less steep. This creates a weaker jet stream, a jet stream that meanders more or, if you prefer the new analogy, staggers around drunkenly. "As the Arctic continues to warm, we expect the jet stream to take these wild swings northward and southward more often," says Francis. "And when it does, that's when we get these particularly wild temperature and precipitation patterns, and they tend to stay in place a long time."

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/did-global-warming-get-arctic-drunk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/21/researcher-defends-work-linking-arctic-warming-and-extreme-weather/
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:27 pm

Malcolm wrote:You can disagree where a hurricane is going to land, but the hurricane is definitely going to land in this case.

People who question AGW aren't questioning Climate Change. They are questioning the cause.

The problem is the models used to argue the AGW case - they don't match observed data from Satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.
(And no, you won't find any of these reports filed under the "Climate Denial" search on google scholar)

CO2 increased more than the models predicted, and yet there was no significant effect on temperatures, which have remained flat.

In fact, even according to the predictions of where temperature will be when CO2 was cut according to IPCC and Kyoto recommendations, the observed temperatures are drastically less.

Atmospheric hotspots predicted by the models have not been observed by weather balloon data. There was not even a small one.

Radiation emitted from the earth should decrease with increases in surface sea temperature according to the models, but according to ERBE satellite data, they have increased.

In reality, observations show that the earth gives off more heat when it is warmer - which contradicts the basic premise of the climate model.

The models aren't accurate because they get the feedbacks of atmospheric CO2 wrong. CO2 creates a thicker layer of greenhouse gas which traps more heat - not denied. But where they get it wrong is that their models assume that all industrial age warming is directly due to CO2, thus their model suggests that the increased atmospheric water vapour amplifies the 1.1C increase for each doubling of the CO2 level, making their prediction 3.3C. The skpetic's view holds that the 1.1C increase for each doubling of the CO2 level will be dampened by about 0.5, meaning the increase will only be about 0.6C. This claim matches observations because it questions the possibility that temperature increases are due entirely to CO2, and instead uses scientific data about what we know of cloud coverage - that an increase in cloud coverage reflects sunlight back into space, reducing global warming, a prediction consistent with satellite data.

On top of that, even the adjusted model doesn't allow us to predict climate change because there are thousands of other feedbacks which both reinforces and opposes the direct warming effect of CO2. If a system reacts to perturbation by amplifying it, then the system will become unstable - earth's climate, unlike that of Venus, has been stable for 4.54 billion years because it doesn't amplify perturbation, it is a perfect balance. Other factors besides feedback which haven't been considered are the ongoing effects of the pole shift, which has recently gradually been rendering our magnetic field useless, and soon will be gone for a period of time. The pole shift has already caused massive gaps in the magnetic field that not only cause chaotic and unpredictable weather, but will cause electronics to go haywire. Then there's the effects of sunspots and the sun's weakening magnetic field.

If the science were settled, then there would be only one model, and it would be in accordance with measurements. Which of the some 24 Climate Change models is the settled and consensus model?

If that model is settled, then why didn't it predict actual observations accurately? If a model were settled, then that model would have predicted actual observations accurately.
Malcolm wrote:Then of course there is the Pascal's wager approach to all of this: there is no downside to being wrong about climate change (saving rainforests, changing from fossil fuels to renewables, etc.), in fact there are positive upsides. But there are severe consequences to being right about climate change and then doing nothing (or too little too late, the present scenario).

Actually, the AGW case is often that there isn't an actual tipping point. There isn't a solution and we're going to suffer no matter what. So there's no wager to be had, Seabiscuit loses the race under every circumstance: because he's dead.

But this is actually nonsense and unscientific, all records have shown that there aren't tipping points in the climate. CO2 levels have been 8000ppm, and there was no point of no return - there was a return, welcome to it. :applause: This is because we're on the tail end of an ice age. Duh. :roll:

The CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials is 200ppm, and in interglacials is 300-400ppm -- lower than it has been for 300 million years.

Moreover, CO2 increases may not even be due to human activity. The present increase began before the steam engine was invented!

If you think something can be done about CO2 levels, you are assuming that the present CO2 without human input would be the pre-industrial average.

Why does CO2 rise after temperatures? Why is there a temporal lag? Obviously not because humans are significant contributors, but because the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with a rise in temperature, thus causing the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere due to temperature increases since the Little Ice Age. What causes temperatures to rise is a different question to one involving CO2, and to ignore that shows a lack of understanding in causality - indicating one's brain development is still infantile (just kidding).

When the world is warmer, agriculture prospers, it rains more. The higher CO2, as greenhouse studies show, the higher biodiversity. The higher CO2, the more trees grow. The higher average temperatures, the the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator which means fewer and less violent storms. And no, this doesn't mean that the ice caps (which are growing at record levels) are going to melt. Even in Antarctica ice melts above 0C - but even in periods with orders of magnitude higher CO2 levels or temperatures, the highest recorded temperature at the south pole is -12C.
Malcolm wrote:As for you my friend, well, "Contrarians gonna contradict..."

Likewise. :tongue:

Actually, I want people to see that the consensus view isn't maintainable.

I remember on another board I once did a similar thing with another consensus topic, and it took something like 20 pages, but in the end I convinced the person I was talking with.

Similarly, I make concessions all the time - otherwise I wouldn't have this opinion of AGW. Everyone who doubts AGW once believed in it. No one is told in school to question it, so belief in AGW is default. It's part of the state religion.

So no, I'm not just a contrarian. I am happy to say my views change very frequently when I encounter a better argument.

RE: Samenow:

Image
Meanwhile, Mainstream media is once again shown to be bludgeoning itself with a chair, after once again accepting the flawed models of AGW propagandists.
Image
Some people just don't understand the basic idea of cycles in nature.

It'll grow, and it'll shrink. It'll get hot, it'll get cold. Right now we're still recovering from an ice age, do you realise that?

Don't be surprised when a woman ovulates sometimes too. :jumping:
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Engaged Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

>