Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Joey McGee]

He was 'skeptical' on The Drum in late 2010. It is an Australian news discussion show he was on just before TAM Australia. I do not have a quote. But he was saying that he was not an expert (he repeated that a few times) but that he is incredulous that humans could have such an effect.

Ok, thank you. Ahhh, the "hubris of man" fallacy, a fan favorite. "Woe the hubris of man to think he could have an effect on the greatness of the planet!" etc. It's ok, it kind of makes sense. At least it's a reason to doubt instead of an incorrect assertion

 

[Wavicle]

So one of the reasons you don't buy what almost 100% of scientists accept is that activist websites sometimes make mistakes or are unclear? That makes no sense.

First, almost 100% of scientists accept AGW which I also accept. I said this right there in my post. It isn't clear that almost 100% of scientists accept the doomsday scenarios. This is not a case of "sometimes make mistakes." I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the really bad doomsday claims are going to lead back to reasonable science re-made into junk science based on the fact that all of those that I actually looked at on the site had such a problem. That makes perfect sense.

Second, you didn't give us any references to where you found this on the website so it took me a few minutes to find the sites in question with Google. So much for your belief in good references.

I said

I went to the "Positives and Negatives" of global warming on that site

I'm sorry if it took you a few minutes to type

site:skepticalscience.com positives and negatives of global warming

into Google. It really did seem fairly trivial to me.

Third, unless you're going to buy people air conditioners, or think that people can afford these things, or think that the people most at risk for death are the people who might have the money for that, think again.

You are aware that the models that these conclusions rely on take several decades to be realized, right? Given the timescale, it is inevitable. We don't have to buy all of these air conditioners in the next 5 years. How many people in Phoenix AZ get by without air conditioning? Again, reading the actual science: places where it gets really hot were not the places where lots of deaths occurred - because those people were prepared and had AC. It was the places where it doesn't normally get hot and people were not prepared.

Fourth, it seems clear to me that Solomon study gives the context and the other 8 studies are easily locatable.

That isn't the point. Solomon does no science on those subjects. Easily locatable or not, claiming that his paper supports that position is ridiculous. Go ahead, find support in his referenced paper for increased wildfires (not findings which you think might support, actual science linking global warming to increased wildfires).

If this is the best criticism you've got, well... I suggest you email the admin of the site and see what they have to say about your criticism.

Yeah, I imagine it will sound something like when you tell your criticism of Intelligent Design to Ken Ham.

 

[Wavicle]

ftfy

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Annual_electricity_net_generation_in_the_world.svg/1000px-Annual_electricity_net_generation_in_the_world.svg.png[/qimg]

You seriously think that fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, are going to be significant energy sources circa 2060? Seriously? Where are we going to find these vast untapped reserves of oil and gas? Did you notice that the contribution of nuclear in that graph quadrupled in that time period?

 

[Joey McGee]

First, almost 100% of scientists accept AGW which I also accept. I said this right there in my post.

I know. My point was that it is nonsensical to base your conclusions on what happens on activist websites, instead of on the science.

It isn't clear that almost 100% of scientists accept the doomsday scenarios.

Of course, there is a range of speculation, we know it's really bad. Bad enough to worry about the suffering of hundreds of millions of people.

This is not a case of "sometimes make mistakes." I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the really bad doomsday claims are going to lead back to reasonable science re-made into junk science based on the fact that all of those that I actually looked at on the site had such a problem. That makes perfect sense.

I think I have identified the reason we are having this discussion.

I'm sorry if it took you a few minutes to type

site:skepticalscience.com positives and negatives of global warming

into Google. It really did seem fairly trivial to me.

So what, you should have left us a link, you complained about searching for info on this site?? Small matter, moving on.

You are aware that the models that these conclusions rely on take several decades to be realized, right? Given the timescale, it is inevitable. We don't have to buy all of these air conditioners in the next 5 years. How many people in Phoenix AZ get by without air conditioning? Again, reading the actual science: places where it gets really hot were not the places where lots of deaths occurred - because those people were prepared and had AC. It was the places where it doesn't normally get hot and people were not prepared.

That doesn't dispute my point. They made a decent projection for heatwave deaths and your big debunking was "People can buy air conditioners!" Pretty insensitive and weak, but it's again, your opinion, so no matter, moving on...

That isn't the point. Solomon does no science on those subjects. Easily locatable or not, claiming that his paper supports that position is ridiculous. Go ahead, find support in his referenced paper for increased wildfires (not findings which you think might support, actual science linking global warming to increased wildfires

You're splitting hairs, the data is there. Why don't you grab the urls for all 8 studies and send it to them and demand they put in place of the general reference.

Yeah, I imagine it will sound something like when you tell your criticism of Intelligent Design to Ken Ham.

The other way around, but yeah I can imagine they won't be too happy to hear your kind of criticism.

 

[macdoc]

Most of that is coal - and there is both a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas around. The US has 400 years or more of coal reserves, China does as well as Australia and Germany......there is lots about.

Very little oil is used for electricity production.
Urban transport will need more electricity to replace fossil fuel based transport.
Analysis shows the need for a 1 GW nuke built every day for 20 years.

Nuclear needs to replace goal.
Natural gas is less of a threat.

As for doomsday.....general acceptance is the climate is now altered irretrievably for 1,000 years or so and the next ice age delayed or cancelled.
80% of the urban centres are subject to sea level issues but sea level issues are a while out for most.

So the remaining question is how much temp rise and how quickly.
IF we burn the fossil reserves....not gonna be a very nice place to live.

 

[Wavicle]

I know. My point was that it is nonsensical to base your conclusions on what happens on activist websites, instead of on the science.

You linked the site as "All of the information and debunking material you'll ever need is located at the greatest AGW site." How on earth is one to conclude from an endorsement like that it is "nonsenical to base your conclusions on what happens on activist websites." You held up the activist website as the pinnacle of debunking resources.

Of course, there is a range of speculation, we know it's really bad. Bad enough to worry about the suffering of hundreds of millions of people.

NO - we don't know that. You can only claim that if you define any change as "really bad." That is my whole point - researching the claims of "really bad" stuff turns out science that is considerably more restrained and uncertain.

I think I have identified the reason we are having this discussion.

I have no interest in teaching statistics here. If a random sampling of the worst predictions leads to junk science it is perfectly reasonable to conclude with reasonably high confidence that the others do as well. This doesn't mean the others definitely do, but you have to learn the methods of statistical sampling and estimation. They're used all over the place in those papers used as references.

That doesn't dispute my point. They made a decent projection for heatwave deaths and your big debunking was "People can buy air conditioners!" Pretty insensitive and weak, but it's again, your opinion, so no matter, moving on...

The choice is buy air conditioners or die. The choice is not buy air conditioners, die or cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Read the papers provided.

You're splitting hairs, the data is there. Why don't you grab the urls for all 8 studies and send it to them and demand they put in place of the general reference.

Because if they lacked the honesty to actually read the references in the first place, I don't see the point.

The other way around, but yeah I can imagine they won't be too happy to hear your kind of criticism.

No, it's the right way. They are making claims divergent from the underlying science - as Ham does. So no, I don't think they'd be too happy to hear me say that they need to change sources and even eliminate some of their claims.

 

[PixyMisa]

Some of the claims made regarding global warming are nonsense, but some of the claims made regarding anything are nonsense.

Some of the research into global warming has not been sufficiently open or rigorous in my opinion given the significance of the issue.

Regardless of which, the weight of evidence strongly indicates that it's real.

 

[Joey McGee]

You linked the site as "All of the information and debunking material you'll ever need is located at the greatest AGW site." How on earth is one to conclude from an endorsement like that it is "nonsenical to base your conclusions on what happens on activist websites." You held up the activist website as the pinnacle of debunking resources.

The only thing that's good about it is the research, and since you were seemingly complaining about the website and not the research, I made this criticism. You already believe in AGW, perhaps it is not the best at splitting hairs for people who want to nitpick details about severity? That's not the point of the website or the point of my endorsement is it? Can we end this now?

NO - we don't know that. You can only claim that if you define any change as "really bad." That is my whole point - researching the claims of "really bad" stuff turns out science that is considerably more restrained and uncertain.

The vast majority of climatologists say that if we do nothing, hundreds of millions of people are going to suffer severely. That's really bad. You want to split hair for some reason. Well, fantastic that's going on all the time in another forum called "Real World Climatology"

I have no interest in teaching statistics here. If a random sampling of the worst predictions leads to junk science it is perfectly reasonable to conclude with reasonably high confidence that the others do as well. This doesn't mean the others definitely do, but you have to learn the methods of statistical sampling and estimation. They're used all over the place in those papers used as references.

So you're trying to use rational optimism to debunk global warming alarmism. Yeah wow that's the first time we've heard that one.

The choice is buy air conditioners or die. The choice is not buy air conditioners, die or cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Read the papers provided.

What if they can't afford them? What if they are poor or vulnerable or sick or old and they just don't take care of themselves very well? Does the study say people in condos are going to die too? Probably not.

Because if they lacked the honesty to actually read the references in the first place, I don't see the point.

I see their point, I think I see why they used that as a reference, I'm fine with it. You should have emailed them directly about this, this conversation here solves nothing. It means nothing, it's pointless nitpicking imo.

No, it's the right way. They are making claims divergent from the underlying science - as Ham does. So no, I don't think they'd be too happy to hear me say that they need to change sources and even eliminate some of their claims.

If you decide to do this, please return and post your exchange, your entire argument is "I don't think it's gonna be that bad cause I just don't! Sorry no data I poke holes for a living"

 

[Wavicle]

So the remaining question is how much temp rise and how quickly.

According to the IPCC 4th assessment, there is high confidence in the near-term models showing that it's 0.1-0.2C per decade for at least the next few decades.

(And once again, I have little doubt that at least 50% of that rise is due to effects attributable to humans)

 

[DC]

You seriously think that fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, are going to be significant energy sources circa 2060? Seriously? Where are we going to find these vast untapped reserves of oil and gas? Did you notice that the contribution of nuclear in that graph quadrupled in that time period?

coal and gas, yes. sad enough yes. for the poorer countries Nuclear or new renewable energy is not an option do to the price. coal and gas is cheaper atm.

 

[macdoc]

It's an unknowable number as the rise in C02 emissions is unknowable.

MIT best expresses it with a risk range. click on the link to see the risk range

The IPCC is notoriously conservative and has continuously erred on the low side - in particular with regard to the warming in the Arctic.

Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2009/05/090519134843.jpg

ScienceDaily (May 20, 2009) — The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

snip

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees

Given that the Holocene optimum was reached some 7,000 +/- years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
and there was a slow drift downwards towards the then scheduled ice age due to the Milankovich positioning.
..I certainly like to here where the other 50% not attributable to man comes from

 

[Wavicle]

The vast majority of climatologists say that if we do nothing, hundreds of millions of people are going to suffer severely. That's really bad. You want to split hair for some reason. Well, fantastic that's going on all the time in another forum called "Real World Climatology"

That right there is, once again, my problem. It is not clear at all to me that climatologists are experts in human anthropology. When climate scientists stand up and say "the climate is warming" I listen. When they say "and it is going to disrupt the security of many societies" I don't. Not to mention the number and severity of suffering is, once again, considerably restrained and uncertain in the actual journal articles.

So you're trying to use rational optimism to debunk global warming alarmism. Yeah wow that's the first time we've heard that one.

In science, it is the job of the person making a positive claim to prove their point. I am saying the alarmists have not proved theirs. I'm using rational skepticism to debunk global warming alarmism.

What if they can't afford them? What if they are poor or vulnerable or sick or old and they just don't take care of themselves very well? Does the study say people in condos are going to die too? Probably not.

I don't know. In the 60's none of the poor had microwave ovens. Today, most of them do. People don't need to buy the AC unit tomorrow. They have 50 years or more to either get AC, move to a new place with AC or move to a new region that doesn't need AC.

If you decide to do this, please return and post your exchange, your entire argument is "I don't think it's gonna be that bad cause I just don't! Sorry no data I poke holes for a living"

No my argument is "convince me using science." I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Those making the claims need to bring the evidence to the table. Those saying global warming is real and it's at least half the fault of humans have brought this evidence to the table. If anyone wants to deny AGW they cannot honestly say that the climatologists have not produced evidence. However, those saying "OMG! 5 times as many people will die in heat waves than will be saved by warmer winters!" have not brought science that supports that position to the table.

We should all approach this skeptically. If the data is unsound, we should poke holes in it.

 

[DC]

while people are fighting to have enough clean water we are debating if they should by an AC.........

 

[Joey McGee]

That right there is, once again, my problem. It is not clear at all to me that climatologists are experts in human anthropology. When climate scientists stand up and say "the climate is warming" I listen. When they say "and it is going to disrupt the security of many societies" I don't. Not to mention the number and severity of suffering is, once again, considerably restrained and uncertain in the actual journal articles.

Are you basing this difference in approval on a) empirical facts about reality or b) how it sounds to your intuition? Because, like mac has shown, they express the risk in a range. So if you're attacking them for making specific predictions about severity, that is a straw man.

Experts of all kinds are heavily involved in this kind of research too. The whole world of science is working on AGW at this point, no?

In science, it is the job of the person making a positive claim to prove their point. I am saying the alarmists have not proved theirs. I'm using rational skepticism to debunk global warming alarmism.

I suggest you prepare of a period of weeks or months and try again.

I don't know. In the 60's none of the poor had microwave ovens. Today, most of them do. People don't need to buy the AC unit tomorrow. They have 50 years or more to either get AC, move to a new place with AC or move to a new region that doesn't need AC.

You cannot be serious. You think that a lack of air-conditioning is what leads to all heat-related deaths? Maybe if people stayed inside and air quality had nothing to do with it. There are many other factors. This is ridiculous.

No my argument is "convince me using science." I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Those making the claims need to bring the evidence to the table. Those saying global warming is real and it's at least half the fault of humans have brought this evidence to the table. If anyone wants to deny AGW they cannot honestly say that the climatologists have not produced evidence. However, those saying "OMG! 5 times as many people will die in heat waves than will be saved by warmer winters!" have not brought science that supports that position to the table.
We should all approach this skeptically. If the data is unsound, we should poke holes in it.

I'm too lazy/uneducated/biased to research/understand/debate the issues to the level they require is not a valid criticism.

We both need to learn more about the current science and projections. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Wavicle]

Are you basing this difference in approval on a) empirical facts about reality or b) how it sounds to your intuition? Because, like mac has shown, they express the risk in a range. So if you're attacking them for making specific predictions about severity, that is a straw man.

empirical facts:

• Climate scientists are experts in some, or often many, aspects of climate.
• Climate scientists are not necessarily experts in human behavior.

If I'm wrong about these, please let me know how because my intuition tells me I should not take the word of a climate scientist when they make statements about human behavior until they establish their expertise in that subject.

Experts of all kinds are heavily involved in this kind of research too. The whole world of science is working on AGW at this point, no?

Sure... now we just need some of them to do the science, subject it to peer review, conferences and other accepted practices of modern science. What have you got?

I suggest you prepare of a period of weeks or months and try again.

Why, are they going to come back with research that supports their alarmism, performed and peer reviewed by experts in a relevant field sometime in the coming weeks or months?

You cannot be serious. You think that a lack of air-conditioning is what leads to all heat-related deaths? Maybe if people stayed inside and air quality had nothing to do with it. There are many other factors. This is ridiculous.

What I think is that the science behind the journal article was reasonable. The web site interprets the science in a patently ridiculous way. AC doesn't have to eliminate all deaths, it just has to reduce the increase in deaths to below those that are saved during winter and suddenly global warming is a net win in terms of human life on that front. The web site completely avoids all mention of the fact most of the increase in deaths was because people were not prepared for heat waves and the natural response by humans to more heat waves is to prepare for them. Either get AC or move somewhere else.

I'm too lazy/uneducated/biased to research/understand/debate the issues to the level they require is not a valid criticism.

We both need to learn more about the current science and projections. Let's leave it at that.

I actually go and read the science and the science is generally tells a substantially different story than what the alarmists are saying. If it means I am lazy or uneducated because I actually take the time to read the underlying science, then so be it. I thought it meant the exact opposite, whatever.

"This position is not supported by science but I can reference scientific papers that sound like they could support my position" is not sufficiently convincing to me. I don't think it should be to anyone.

 

[Joey McGee]

empirical facts:

• Climate scientists are experts in some, or often many, aspects of climate.
• Climate scientists are not necessarily experts in human behavior.

If I'm wrong about these, please let me know how because my intuition tells me I should not take the word of a climate scientist when they make statements about human behavior until they establish their expertise in that subject.

What I'm saying is that climatologists do not work in isolation. The effort to create projections includes scientists from every relevant discipline. You'd know this is you took the time to research what you were complaining about. This is a giant straw man against climate change alarmists.

Sure... now we just need some of them to do the science, subject it to peer review, conferences and other accepted practices of modern science. What have you got?

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ddc/

Why, are they going to come back with research that supports their alarmism, performed and peer reviewed by experts in a relevant field sometime in the coming weeks or months?

I think you should spend time trying to answer your own questions and asking questons before you start poking holes. You lack of understanding of the nuance of the predictions suggests this to me. I'm passing on a hint. Feel free to ignore it.

What I think is that the science behind the journal article was reasonable. The web site interprets the science in a patently ridiculous way. AC doesn't have to eliminate all deaths, it just has to reduce the increase in deaths to below those that are saved during winter and suddenly global warming is a net win in terms of human life on that front. The web site completely avoids all mention of the fact most of the increase in deaths was because people were not prepared for heat waves and the natural response by humans to more heat waves is to prepare for them. Either get AC or move somewhere else.

a) this is insensitive b) you did not address my point that heat-related deaths have more to do with a lack of air-conditioning c) So we should deal with climate change by buying more air-conditioners instead of averting the energy crisis? Are you listening to yourself? Send this criticism to the site I want to see their response to you!

I actually go and read the science and the science is generally tells a substantially different story than what the alarmists are saying. If it means I am lazy or uneducated because I actually take the time to read the underlying science, then so be it. I thought it meant the exact opposite, whatever.

If this is your idea of criticism you could do a lot better. That's my point. You even tried to say that it's only the climatologists working on the predictions! Do you realize how incredibly naive that is?

 

[bit_pattern]

Which is a polite way of saying he isn't a fanatic.

You'll note that most of the "pro" AGW, "Yes it's real and it's happening" crowd around here are also so paranoid they monitor the level of ice in the Arctic on a daily basis.

OK, maybe only weekly

The more rational skeptical position is that burning fossil fuels has lead to a slight increase in global average temperature. To what extent and effect it's really hard to say, but it's probably not going to be the end of the world and it isn't a pressing concern unless you're a polar bear.

That's why it's both very true and bull flop all at the same time. Quite the enigma.

I love it when deniers try to project their qualities onto others!

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=a...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=sea+ice

 

[bit_pattern]

First, almost 100% of scientists accept AGW which I also accept. I said this right there in my post. It isn't clear that almost 100% of scientists accept the doomsday scenarios. This is not a case of "sometimes make mistakes." I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the really bad doomsday claims are going to lead back to reasonable science re-made into junk science based on the fact that all of those that I actually looked at on the site had such a problem. That makes perfect sense.

There are plenty of very realistic scenarios, backed up by peer-reviewed science, that are just as alarming as any sensationalist has ever predicted:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html

 

[AlBell]

Some of the claims made regarding global warming are nonsense, but some of the claims made regarding anything are nonsense.

Some of the research into global warming has not been sufficiently open or rigorous in my opinion given the significance of the issue.

Regardless of which, the weight of evidence strongly indicates that it's real.

Now all that's needed is quantification, huh?

 

[BenBurch]

You seriously think that fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, are going to be significant energy sources circa 2060? Seriously? Where are we going to find these vast untapped reserves of oil and gas? Did you notice that the contribution of nuclear in that graph quadrupled in that time period?

We have enough coal on the planet for 2-300 more years at present levels, and 120 more years at this growth rate. And coal is the worst possible fuel for greenhouse gasses.