CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

fits · 22-12-2019 7:40am

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
June 30, 1989[/quote]

In my opinion that’s pretty well borne out. All we can do now is limit it and we aren’t even coming close to that.

Pa ElGrande · 22-12-2019 8:08am

fits wrote: »

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
June 30, 1989

In my opinion that’s pretty well borne out. All we can do now is limit it and we aren’t even coming close to that.[/QUOTE]

Professor Stephen Schneider
21 Jul 2010

Professor Stephen Schneider, who died on Monday aged 65, made his name in the 1970s by predicting a "new ice age", but went on to become one of the best-known proponents of the idea of global warming caused by human activities.
<snip>
But his anger over the purposeful distortion of the environmental debate was equally directed at what he called the "almost religious fervour of the emotive enviros", which he regarded as nearly as damaging as the manipulations of the deniers. Interest groups of both extremes, he argued, "select information out of context to protect their interests while clear exposition and balanced assessment sinks even lower on the priority list of advocate-driven debates".

Ironically, perhaps, Schneider himself was credited with providing the sceptics with one of the best quotations in their armoury during a 1988 interview with Discover magazine in which he explained how scientists were having to think of vivid ways of getting their message across. As widely reproduced, the quotation read: "Scientists should consider stretching the truth to get some broad-base support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have."

In fact, the phrase "stretching the truth" was not in the original interview, but was added later by critics who invariably omitted Schneider's vital qualification: "This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

source

Here is that actual quote from 1988

"We have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

After several decades of telling half-truths and compromising honesty for the sake of “being effective" and with no empirical data to support the disaster predictions they originally made several decades ago then perhaps MTs original posting should not be dismissed out of hand and should be considered in light of the facts that the original hypothesis about global warming has not happened as predicted and this failure needs to be evaluated and revised.

M.T. Cranium · 22-12-2019 8:13am

A recent 15-20 year"flat line" exists as GL pointed out with his additional graph (for the Toronto data at least) but I think the main reason for it is that 1998 to 2002 were a particularly warm period spurred by strong El Nino activity while we were still in the dying phases of the 20th century high-solar episode.

The Toronto-CET comparison tends to show that El Nino events allow Toronto to warm up beyond the levels of the CET and at most other times they back off to about a degree colder (in recent decades). This is more than likely due to milder winters mainly. A weak El Nino can be accompanied by rather cold weather in eastern North America but a stronger one usually sets up a coast-to-coast Pacific warming. 1998 was one of the warmest years of the data set and records were set near the end of March which is the highest variability time of year in that climate.

So in my opinion the flat line at Toronto is probably almost inevitable given that there was that five-year warm spike and we then entered a lower solar activity phase. Stronger El Ninos continue to make it very warm even in the flat line situation. Both 2012 and 2016 have seen very warm averages too, but recent years have also included two polar vortex winters. This past year has also been relatively cool (November was close to being in the bottom 20% all-time which means it was exceptionally cold given the heat island vs most of the other years with very cold Novembers being pre-1900 other than 1917 and 1933).

I think the CET probably flat-lined to some extent for the same reason, it got exceptionally warm 2003-07 and then had some notable cold episodes like the two winters at either end of 2010 and March 2013.

Some people coming into the debate are using their "bash skeptics for their denial of warmth" reflex so that seems out of place after I made a point of saying that I see considerable warming and expect a lot more of it. The only subtle point that might need to be underscored is that if natural variability is more in control of trends than human activity, then it could conceivably turn considerably colder at some future point (not distant future which seems inevitably very cold unless we outwit the Milankovitch factors).

I would not advise any government to expect salvation through natural cooling but you if we mitigate according to what we can be confident is about to unfold, then if we get colder signals we can relax the planning for mitigation.

A political rather than scientific point that I would advise is that even if the IPCC have things exactly right it seems unlikely to me that we can reverse the human-driven warming (if they are correct) so my strategy would be right even if my scientific reasoning is wrong. If the plan is to keep proposing impossible, unpopular and unenforceable policies that also wreak economic havoc, and then gather in one place (presumably well above sea level) to say "told you so," then that is not good planning -- it might be therapeutic for an exasperated scientific lobby group, but I think we should have some more realistic planning that accepts that for whatever reason, these effects may occur, and even according to them, surely we have passed the tipping point by now.

It was always a big weakness in the approach to try to load all the developed countries with 100% of the burden while giving some others (who are actually quite developed anyway) more or less a free pass, when maybe those free pass countries are actually a bigger part of the problem than is often admitted. But here I am maybe taking on the wrong role as devil's advocate for the IPCC-government conversation, when in fact all I should really be doing is to work on convincing people that natural variability rules the atmosphere (even now) and so the real question is, what are the probabilities of various outcomes based on that, and what should be done?

A limited sea level rise, while troublesome, is not going to cripple entire nations or threaten extinction. Those paradigms are over-reactions whipped up by opportunistic politicians who don't care about the consequences of their actions in their rush to create a chaos which only they can rule. We have seen this abuse of science before and we will see it again, but that doesn't mean we should all stay silent in case some professional scolds give us the treatment. I've had that a lot so have developed relative immunity. As a good friend now departed used to say, "if you're getting flak, you're over the target."

Coles · 22-12-2019 8:38am

You are using two geographical points? Toronto and Central England Temperature (CET)?

Also, you seem to think that the major impact is from sea level rise. What about ocean acidification? What about actual Climate Change? Crop failure? Drought? Famine? Resource Conflict?

I've read arguments similar to yours for years.

"It's not happening, even if it is it's natural, there will be high tech fixes, there will be benefits for some of us, it'll impact the economy, communists!, oh dear it's too late."

Your entire proposal contains ALL of these arguments. Everyone recognises this as denier bullsh!t bingo.

ZX7R · 22-12-2019 9:22am

Coles wrote: »

You are using two geographical points? Toronto and Central England Temperature (CET)?

Also, you seem to think that the major impact is from sea level rise. What about ocean acidification? What about actual Climate Change? Crop failure? Drought? Famine? Resource Conflict?

I've read arguments similar to yours for years.

"It's not happening, even if it is it's natural, there will be high tech fixes, there will be benefits for some of us, it'll impact the economy, communists!, oh dear it's too late."

Your entire proposal contains ALL of these arguments. Everyone recognises this as denier bullsh!t bingo.

What's with all the communist quotes you keep stating, what has that got to do with anything.

Coles · 22-12-2019 9:30am

ZX7R wrote: »

What's with all the communist quotes you keep stating, what has that got to do with anything.

This is the far-right/alt-right conspiracy theory that Climate Change is a hoax to usher in "one world government" and communism. MT raised the "communists!" bogeyman in his opening post. The veil slipped.

ZX7R · 22-12-2019 9:41am

Coles wrote: »

This is the far-right/alt-right conspiracy theory that Climate Change is a hoax to usher in "one world government" and communism. MT raised the "communists!" bogeyman in his opening post. The veil slipped.

Sorry but your putting your spin on what he wrote.

Gaoth Laidir · 22-12-2019 10:09am

fits wrote: »

Why on earth would anyone post credentials here that could identify them almost immediately.

How would it identify someone? That very person was asking for MT's credentials, which were given. Coles obviously has none, which is fine too.

ZX7R · 22-12-2019 10:10am

This tread could have been so good but sadly it's descended in a I'm right your wrong debate.
There was a golden chance for both sides to interact with a common base.
For or against the stats and science don't add up to 100%
There is growing numbers from both sides leaning towards MTs thinking.
Human and nature both influencing our climate now and in the future.
Funny and sad thing is there is going to be no winners alive to see who's correct.

Gaoth Laidir · 22-12-2019 10:12am

Akrasia wrote: »

IPCC use a rolling average. I wanted to avoid cherry-picking so I showed the entire series

I used a rolling average in my sea ice charts yet I was still accused of cherrypicking when I highlighted the flatline in the most recent quarter of the dataset. Strange.

PokeHerKing · 22-12-2019 11:11am

fits wrote: »

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
June 30, 1989

In my opinion that’s pretty well borne out. All we can do now is limit it and we aren’t even coming close to that.[/QUOTE]

Literally nothing in that article has been borne out?? Even his most conservative estimate of global temp rises of 1 degree was wrong.

The rainforest bit is the only truth in it and its an unfortunate truth. Similar to our pollution of the oceans its more preventable imo than switching to completely renewable energies overnight.

Tuisceanch · 22-12-2019 12:17pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I should really be doing is to work on convincing people that natural variability rules the atmosphere (even now) and so the real question is, what are the probabilities of various outcomes based on that, and what should be done?

Yes I think you should and rather than just focus on numerology to support your case could you perhaps explain the physics and provide supporting scientific papers from the notable dissidents you mentioned in your OP.

Hooter23 · 22-12-2019 12:24pm

So we're not suppose to get extreme weather anymore and have to fix it...we have always had extreme weather its normal...We get hot summer then followed by a cold winter and both extremes of hot and cold cancel each other out and then we end up with an average temperature...

The weather was much more extreme in the past they even had "little ice ages" etc...im sure if that happened these days it would be called climate change even though its natural and happens every so often as with all extreme weather:rolleyes:

Naggdefy · 22-12-2019 12:24pm

ZX7R wrote: »

This tread could have been so good but sadly it's descended in a I'm right your wrong debate.
There was a golden chance for both sides to interact with a common base.
For or against the stats and science don't add up to 100%
There is growing numbers from both sides leaning towards MTs thinking.
Human and nature both influencing our climate now and in the future.
Funny and sad thing is there is going to be no winners alive to see who's correct.

And that was down to Coles first reply to MT when he said a 'climate change denier' changes his mind. Straight away Coles created a them and us scenario with a petty dig.

Surely people can be mature enough to discuss respectfully.

SeaFields · 22-12-2019 12:46pm

Naggdefy wrote: »

a 'climate change denier' .

I really hate that term. The only other discourse I believe it's used in is with regard the Holocaust. I do believe it is a tool with which to batter anyone going against the grain as such. MT put forward an idea, a theory and is slammed for it by some. He isn't some random poster either. His contribution to the forum is immense. I don't know of any other area of science that debate is slammed down so much.

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 12:48pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why indeed.

So what for you is a reasonable minimum timeframe to analyse a dataseries? 10 years? 20?

it depends entirely on what you're analysing.

When MT said that there had been a slow down in recent warming, the dataset to use is obviously the most recent data and his analysis may have been correct with the most recent data from 5 years ago, but it's wrong with the most recent data from today. (you can pick any length you like, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 40 years, they would all show accelerating warming.

The IPCC uses the entire industrialised period as it's baseline and measures current warming against the pre-industrial average (a 30 year average set based on the late 19th century global average temperature).
They also use often use rolling averages to plot the trends, the best studies will use the most recent and best available data to plot their graphs and analyse trends.

Scientists are free to set their own benchmark for analysis as long as they can justify their methodology. In the debate on their research, if their methodology is flawed, it will impact the credibility of their research

The likes of Anthony Watts slice up his data all the time and consistently chooses start and end points that conveniently match his pre-existing bias. For example , He often decides that El Nino's don't count so he'll exclude El Nino years from his data to try and conclude that there has been little or no warming.

There is absolutely zero justification for excluding El Nino years from analysis other than the fact that he doesn't like the results when they are included.

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 12:57pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I used a rolling average in my sea ice charts yet I was still accused of cherrypicking when I highlighted the flatline in the most recent quarter of the dataset. Strange.

I missed this graph, can you link to it or post it again please?

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 1:00pm

PokeHerKing wrote: »

In my opinion that’s pretty well borne out. All we can do now is limit it and we aren’t even coming close to that.

Literally nothing in that article has been borne out?? Even his most conservative estimate of global temp rises of 1 degree was wrong. [/quote]
We are currently above 1c using the rolling 10 year average, and the most recent years have been closer to 1.2c above pre-industrial temperatures

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 1:03pm

Hooter23 wrote: »

So we not suppose to get extreme weather anymore and have to fix it...we have always had extreme weather its normal...We get hot summer then followed by a cold winter and both extremes of hot and cold cancel each other out and then we end up with an average temperature...

The weather was much more extreme in the past they even had "little ice ages" etc...im sure if that happened these days it would be called climate change even though its natural and happens every so often as with all extreme weather:rolleyes:

We've always had extreme weather but we're shifting the bell curve so that what used to be extreme is now normal, and the new extremes are events that were impossible before climate change kicked in

It's now a normal summer in the UK for temperatures to breach 30c in London This used to be a rare extreme event. It happens every year now.

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 1:09pm

SeaFields wrote: »

I really hate that term. The only other discourse I believe it's used in is with regard the Holocaust. I do believe it is a tool with which to batter anyone going against the grain as such. MT put forward an idea, a theory and is slammed for it by some. He isn't some random poster either. His contribution to the forum is immense. I don't know of any other area of science that debate is slammed down so much.

There are loads of areas in science where the term 'science denier' is thrown about. It's always where the science is so robust that it takes a special kind of mindset to believe otherwise

Evolution deniers (creationists) Aids deniers, flat earthers, Anti Vaxxers, those that deny the link between smoking and cancer etc etc

All of these beliefs fall into the category of science denialism

There's a paper about it here in Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0746-8

Thambo Mbeki, South Africa’s president between 1999 and 2008, became infamous for his denial of the link between HIV and AIDS. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS, he suggested instead that the causes of AIDS are poverty-related and due to poor nourishment and overall ill-health. He instituted policies that denied antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients. Instead, his appointed health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, recommended garlic, beetroot, and lemon juice as treatments for AIDS. In a country with the highest HIV prevalence worldwide in absolute numbers, these policies had disastrous consequences: they are estimated to have led to more than 330,000 preventable deaths.

Science denialism, the rejection of empirically supported propositions despite scientific consensus and the effort to create the appearance of debate when there is none, is not a new phenomenon—think of the Galileo affair in the 17th century. Surprisingly for most, flat-earth beliefs persist well into the 21st century. Although flat-earthers may pose little risk to humanity and the environment, the denial of anthropogenic climate change, the refusal to accept the link between smoking and lung cancer or HIV and AIDS, vaccine hesitancy, and other denialist claims have had and continue to have devastating consequences. How to effectively respond to science denialism, however, is an issue that scientists and science advocates are still grappling with.

An article in this issue of Nature Human Behaviour by Schmid and Betsch examines the effectiveness of different strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions on vaccination and climate change (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4). The results of this work are engagingly described and put into context in an accompanying News & Views by van der Linden (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0631-5). A key finding to emerge from this work is that not responding to denialism does more harm than good. The authors found that the negative effect of science denial on audiences was greater when there was no science advocate to rebut the claims. When a science advocate rebutted denialist arguments, either by presenting scientific facts or by exposing the logical flaws of the arguments, the effects of denialism were significantly reduced, even among audiences whose beliefs or ideologies are threatened by the science advocate.

Tuisceanch · 22-12-2019 1:39pm

SeaFields wrote: »

MT put forward an idea, a theory ...

What is the theory being proposed? To me the OP is an advertisement for some future work to be undertaken based on a belief. Mitigation and adaptation lie within the realm of political discourse and nothing novel was proposed in that regard. Whatever the case being made by the IPCC for the necessity to reduce emissions it is transparently obvious from COP25 that not much progress is being made in that regard.

From the OP

I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins.

I can't accept the IPCC arguments and I don't think they have a true "proven science."

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

Misconceptions about science

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

MISCONCEPTION: Science is a solitary pursuit.
CORRECTION: When scientists are portrayed in movies and television shows, they are often ensconced in silent laboratories, alone with their bubbling test-tubes. This can make science seem isolating. In fact, many scientists work in busy labs or field stations, surrounded by other scientists and students. Scientists often collaborate on studies with one another, mentor less experienced scientists, and just chat about their work over coffee. Even the rare scientist who works entirely alone depends on interactions with the rest of the scientific community to scrutinize his or her work and get ideas for new studies.

So, since this is a scientific forum, is there any possibility that somebody could articulate the scientific theory that is assumed to underlie this belief?

SeaBreezes · 22-12-2019 1:48pm

Well MT you certainly sparked a lively debate!!

If we have to take sides, I'm with Galileo :-)

Tuisceanch · 22-12-2019 1:53pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Well MT you certainly sparked a lively debate!!

If we have to take sides, I'm with Galileo :-)

Why not Aristarchus?

https://www.greeka.com/eastern-aegean/samos/history/aristarchus/

Hooter23 · 22-12-2019 4:27pm

Akrasia wrote: »

We've always had extreme weather but we're shifting the bell curve so that what used to be extreme is now normal, and the new extremes are events that were impossible before climate change kicked in

It's now a normal summer in the UK for temperatures to breach 30c in London This used to be a rare extreme event. It happens every year now.

Every part of the world goes through cooler and warmer cycles we dont just have continuous average temperatures year after year...

Oneiric 3 · 22-12-2019 5:08pm

London is an incredibly big city though, and one that is expanding by the year. which is bound to have an affect (or is that 'effect' -- who cares really) on average and absolute temperature readings in the region over time and especially during the summer months.

'Extreme heatwaves' for other parts of the UK do not seem to be following the same trend as London.

For example, in Scotland, the most recent warmest summer maxima was back in 2003. In Wales, 2006 and in Northern Ireland, 1995.

Data from here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-extremes

What is clear though is that a lot of high temperature records in all of these regions in other months of the year have been broken relatively recently, but using London alone as a general measure I am not sure is a best idea.

Oneiric 3 · 22-12-2019 5:24pm

Coles wrote: »

This is the far-right/alt-right conspiracy theory that Climate Change is a hoax to usher in "one world government" and communism. MT raised the "communists!" bogeyman in his opening post. The veil slipped.

Sigh...

Amazing how you mock others for claiming that climate change is a 'communist conspiracy', then come out with the exact same nonsense yourself.

I do not trust anyone, whether they be a 'scientist' or not, who aligns their views on climate with their politics and then attempt to project that trait onto others. When 'science' becomes a political statement, then it is no longer science.

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 5:50pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Sigh...

Amazing how you mock others for claiming that climate change is a 'communist conspiracy', then come out with the exact same nonsense yourself.

I do not trust anyone, whether they be a 'scientist' or not, who aligns their views on climate with their politics and then attempt to project that trait onto others. When 'science' becomes a political statement, then it is no longer science.

The science is the science, the decision to reject or accept the science is very much split down political and ideological lines. Not in every single case, but someone’s political and ideological belief system is a strong correlation with their likelihood to accept the consensus on climate change.

Conservatives and economic libertarians are much less likely to accept the the science on global warming because the implications require political action that they do not approve of

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 5:54pm

Hooter23 wrote: »

Every part of the world goes through cooler and warmer cycles we dont just have continuous average temperatures year after year...

Do you understand the graph in the post you were replying to?

gozunda · 22-12-2019 6:26pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The science is the science, the decision to reject or accept the science is very much split down political and ideological lines. Not in every single case, but someone’s political and ideological belief system is a strong correlation with their likelihood to accept the consensus on climate change.

Conservatives and economic libertarians are much less likely to accept the the science on global warming because the implications require political action that they do not approve of

Why is what you just wrote remind me of this?

https://www.marquette.edu/faith/prayers-nicene.php

Akrasia · 22-12-2019 7:08pm

gozunda wrote: »

Why is what you just wrote remind me of this?

https://www.marquette.edu/faith/prayers-nicene.php

Says more about the way you’re mind works than mine. Science is nothing like religion

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments