Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

El Niño forecasters must not repeat mistakes of 1997

08 May 2014

The effects of the huge El Niño of the 1990s were all the worse because cautious forecasts didn’t allow people to prepare. It shouldn’t happen again

IN JANUARY, climate researchers warned that extreme El Niño events are likely to become more common as the planet warms. It now seems that the world will have a chance to rehearse for the future as early as the end of this year. A major El Niño is massing in the Pacific Ocean and is likely to cause cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and sea level changes across the world (see "World is unprepared for major El Niño later this year").

Many leading scientists say the approaching El Niño looks similar in magnitude to the huge one that started in 1997 and went on to kill tens of thousands of people and cause tens of billions of dollars of damage. But you won't hear that sort of warning from official forecasters. They agree that an El Niño is likely, but are saying little about its potential strength.

Why is that? One of the key reasons for the devastation of 1997 was excess caution among forecasters. A major UN study published in 2000 revealed that for forecasters, an incorrect prediction is more embarrassing than no prediction at all. We may be seeing the same failings today.

There is still a chance that the threat will dissipate. But we won't know for sure until it is too late to prepare properly. If governments and emergency services are to be given enough time, they need full and frank forecasts now.

more
http://www.newscientist.com/article...not-repeat-mistakes-of-1997.html#.U2vO9V5mv3w

 

[a_unique_person]

Previous generations were living with low technology and medicine. Too busy trying to feed and water themselves, while staying alive to 50.

You are assuming a false dichotomy, that it's either fossil fuels or poverty and no technology.

 

[ABC10]

You are assuming a false dichotomy, that it's either fossil fuels or poverty and no technology.

Past is prologue. It is that way in 3rd world countries, I think. Using poop paddies for heat, walking miles for water, cooking over an open fire and no light at night except the stars. It's a tragedy that they don't have more for their health and safety as we do in the modern world.

 

[a_unique_person]

Past is prologue. It is that way in 3rd world countries, I think. Using poop paddies for heat, walking miles for water, cooking over an open fire and no light at night except the stars. It's a tragedy that they don't have more for their health and safety as we do in the modern world.

Yes, it is, but giving the conventional energy is not necessarily the answer. Technology is advancing, and most of the energy we use we waste anyway. There is not only one way to advance their quality of life, there is an assumption that they have to imitate us.

 

[Corsair 115]

Nope, not trolling. Just an everyday citizen with a different opinion.

Harlan Ellison seems appropriate here:

Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.

You appear to be lacking in the bolded part. I suggest listening to what the many well-informed posters in this thread have offered.

 

[Mikemcc]

Previous generations were living with low technology and medicine. Too busy trying to feed and water themselves, while staying alive to 50.

Which makes it even more odious for the First World to turn their backs on them with an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude. We can and do help those countries by promoting systems for clean water, adequate food, contraceptive advice, vaccination, child care, and education. In many remote communities technologies for renewable energy are allowing remote communities run educational programs, operate refrigerators to preserve vaccines and antibiotics, run water pumps and filter systems, etc. It turns out research into renewables have remarkable spin-offs.

 

[ABC10]

Harlan Ellison seems appropriate here:




You appear to be lacking in the bolded part. I suggest listening to what the many well-informed posters in this thread have offered.

That's offensive. As informed as any poster, just disagree with warmer conclusions. Throwing charts, graphs around and pictures of polar bears does not make it so. Check out the lack of warming for almost 17 years while trying to "hide the decline".

 

[Trakar]

Looks like Hansen failed to predict the coming oil and gas booms (Non fossil replacement - OUCH!!) and the miracle of fracking. Ah, them models didn't either so can't rely on them. Actually, within a relatively short period of time, none of us will be remembered. Just names on a stone.

Gas is a fossil fuel, it just has less of a carbon burden per Watt of generated power. Hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking") is a technology development that has been known about since I was a young child in the late '40s. The underestimation of the impacts of Hansen's projection does not support your assertions that the impacts of increased CO2 are not as bad as climate science suggests. What they do support is that the actual, realized harms are more likely to be much worse than current climate science projections indicate.

As for your hope to be forgotten in anonymity, we still remember the infamy of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Khan hordes, the Jonestown massacres and the branch Davidians. The deniers will have their names spat upon for thousands of years, primarily because the impacts of their actions will continue on for many millennia.

 

[ABC10]

Gas is a fossil fuel, it just has less of a carbon burden per Watt of generated power. Hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking") is a technology development that has been known about since I was a young child in the late '40s. The underestimation of the impacts of Hansen's projection does not support your assertions that the impacts of increased CO2 are not as bad as climate science suggests. What they do support is that the actual, realized harms are more likely to be much worse than current climate science projections indicate.

As for your hope to be forgotten in anonymity, we still remember the infamy of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Khan hordes, the Jonestown massacres and the branch Davidians. The deniers will have their names spat upon for thousands of years, primarily because the impacts of their actions will continue on for many millennia.

Key words "more likely". Well, where is Hansen's projections in the real world?
All of us everyday, ordinary shmoos will be forgotten . We're anonymous nobodies in a world of anonymous nobodies. Future generations will be laughing at this scam, particularly in light of the failed "predictions". Even Jim Jones and the Davidians will be a footnote.
No doubt everyone would love enough food, running water, heat, electricity, transportation instead of just their feet and toilets and why not?

 

[Trakar]

Nope, not trolling. Just an everyday citizen with a different opinion.

There is no sign that this is your opinion, merely one that you have adopted to keep from actually studying and researching the issue and coming to a reasoned and informed personal understanding. Spouting such, without the concern or ability to compellingly support and defend that position,...in a science forum, ...is trolling.

If you wish to discuss the science, or considered positions regarding AGW there is room for that discussion. If all you are going to do is promote demonstrably flawed and failed speculations and assert unsupported contentions, then I see no reason to dignify your trolling with responses.

 

[Trakar]

Opinions are like nipples : almost everybody has them, often more than one, and half the time they're superfluous.

My life would be much less enjoyable if the only purpose of nipples was life-support for a newborn.

 

[macdoc]

Key words "more likely". Well, where is Hansen's projections in the real world?

You were already supplied Hansen's projection against the real world. He underestimated actual global temperature rise for many of the reasons I gave you ...that it is impossible to know CO2 emissions and at the time climate sensitivity had a wider latitude.

Originally Posted by ABC10 View Post
Nope, not trolling. Just an everyday citizen with a different opinion.

No, a citizen with an ill-informed opionion shaped by a disinformation campaign funded by Koch et al.
Science is about evidence not opinion...especially ill -informed ones.
Since you admittedly don't understand the science and apparently have an "opinion" carved in stone...why are you here?

Exxon chief thinks climate change is a serious risk.....is he wrong or are you?

You are drawing a false parallel between being carbon neutral and poor quality of life.

I daresay the Swedes would severely disagree with you....and seem to be doing better than your fossil fuel polluted nation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Key words "more likely". Well, where is Hansen's projections in the real world?
All of us everyday, ordinary shmoos will be forgotten . We're anonymous nobodies in a world of anonymous nobodies. Future generations will be laughing at this scam, particularly in light of the failed "predictions". Even Jim Jones and the Davidians will be a footnote.
No doubt everyone would love enough food, running water, heat, electricity, transportation instead of just their feet and toilets and why not?

The AGW researchers are just that.

As for your bucketlist of wants, I also want an environment with a stable climate, as do most lifeforms on this planet. You are putting your cart before your horse.

As for your list there is no reason why people cannot have a stable climte (in the sense that we are not destabilising it), and have all of the above as well. For some bizarre reason, we are repeatedly told we can only have one or the other.

 

[Trakar]

To be fair that's ony because they had the opportunity. I'm sure previous generations would have done the same if they'd been able.

If you are saying that lack of insight, consideration of the impacts/consequences of our actions and self-centered greed are normal components of human behavior, I agree, but there are segments of the modern generation which actually glorify these traits as good and desirous attributes to strive for, rather than behavior which should be shameful and reprehensible.

 

[lomiller]

Past is prologue. It is that way in 3rd world countries, I think. Using poop paddies for heat, walking miles for water, cooking over an open fire and no light at night except the stars. It's a tragedy that they don't have more for their health and safety as we do in the modern world.

In the interest of stemming you Gish Gallop please clarify your argument. Are you in fact trying to tell us that you believe technology is impossible without fossil fuels?

If so you are wrong of course.

 

[Trakar]

Key words "more likely". Well, where is Hansen's projections in the real world?...

The real world results of increased atmospheric CO2, so far, are significantly worse than what Hansen and climate science in general, projected back in 1981.

Look at the graph again, Hansen's projection is in black and white, the reality of measured increases are overlaying the graph in red:

 

[macdoc]

walking miles for water, cooking over an open fire and no light at night except the stars. It's a tragedy that they don't have more for their health and safety as we do in the modern world.

They aren't the problem ....you are...they can have all the fossil fuel they need to get beyond their poverty level. There is no moral argument that they should not have the same opportunity.
China has done so yet is also committing hundreds of billions to clean up pollution of all sorts and in particular CO2 and SO2 emissions just as Europe did in the 70s and the US did with SO2 despite cries of woe from your ilk about the end of the USAian way of life if they couldn't use the atmosphere as a free sewer any more.

Your actions - or rather inaction on climate by failing to curb your apetite for fossil fuels ( where are the 50 mpg vehicles that are in Europe...is the US that technologically feeble that Europe can have TWICE the fleet mileage per gallon. ). Shameful that.
It's that inaction on putting regulation in place to curb emissions and close coal plants that is harming them.

There is no technical reason that major economies cannot be carbon neutral by 2050 and coal free within a decade.

We did it in Ontario - from 25% coal to zero in 10 years and we have, even larger than Sweden an advanced industrial economy.
The US IS making some progress switching to natural gas but it's failure to embrace nuclear despite being it's birthplace is a disgrace.

The US over consumes resources of all sorts, the very least it could do is curb it's use of finite fossil reserves leaving them in the ground or for poorer nations and transfer technology in a more meaningful way than "market forces" that would allow poor nations to avoid some of the pollution pitfalls that upward mobility seems to be fraught with.

The US is being bypassed technologically and has a frozen archiac political decision making system in thrall to Big Coal et al that would rather buy votes than flue cleaning gear.

Yet many American's are moving beyond the federal impasse and cleaning up and going green.
Take notes.

 

[CapelDodger]

My life would be much less enjoyable if the only purpose of nipples was life-support for a newborn.

It's enjoyment like that which leads to newborns in the first place. There's always a price to pay.

Damn, I've been living amongst Methodists too bloody long ...

Oddly enough there's a parallel with fossil fuels. Sure, they made industrial society possible and we've fueled some splendid World Wars on the back of them but now the bill is being presented.

 

[macdoc]

Are we quite sure the list of WWs is complete ?

 

[CapelDodger]

If you are saying that lack of insight, consideration of the impacts/consequences of our actions and self-centered greed are normal components of human behavior, I agree, but there are segments of the modern generation which actually glorify these traits as good and desirous attributes to strive for, rather than behavior which should be shameful and reprehensible.

And again I say it was ever thus. It varies in degree, though, and I agree that it's particularly bare-faced at the moment. The Ayn Rand fan-club, for instance - what kind of messed-up world spawns something like that? But then look at film of Mussolini and wonder what kind of messed-up situation put him in charge of anything.

It can't last, of course. Community always wins out over rampant individualism, often with great prejudice to the individualists.

When it comes to AGW, people like that aren't deniers. They're up-front about not caring. AGW deniers are those who don't want to do anything but seek justification. They don't care what the truth is, they just don't care to accept that they just don't care .

And I really don't care what happens to them.