Thread: Typhoons & Climate Change - Are humans to blame? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026577
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
The Phillipine's delegate to the UN says that the typhoon was the result of climate change.
Hard to disagree with him.
But who is to blame? Many (including yours truly) argue that climate change happens. And has always happened. Its written into the 'constitution' of the universe.
Others maintain it is the result of human activity loosing God knows what into the atmosphere.
If the latter then we can call a halt to it. If the former then trying to reverse its progress is akin to trying to do what King Canute tried ( and failed) to do.
So two questions. Are we to blame? Or how do we cope with the inevitable?
We can ( I hope ) all agree that God has nowt to do with it in the sense of direct causation..
Thoughts please.
[ 13. November 2013, 18:13: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I don't think it matters much. if you are in a canoe that is racing towards a waterfall, does it matter how much is due to your rowing and how much due to the current of the river.. wouldn't you be paddling backwards as fast as you can?
yes, some climate change has always happened. and the earth, as a whole, survived just fine. but individual species and even entire ecosystems did not. if you are taking the broad view that in the long run, it doesn't matter to the earth, you'd be right. but we are living here now, and while we are a very adaptable species, there are conditions which are more comfortable for us, and some which are less so.. and the process of change itself is not an easy one.
so do we adapt or try to stop? yes. we do both. why should it be one or the other. we should try to stop our own contribution, and we should adapt ourselves to the inevitability that, no matter what we do, there will be SOME change that we will just have to live with. we may lobe able to slow the increase, or keep it lower than it would otherwise be.. but I doubt we'd be able to stop it entirely.
I'm always puzzled by the argument that if we didn't cause it, then we don't need to do anything about it.
In the end, the cause is not the issue, really.. it's the response that matters.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Many (including yours truly) argue that climate change happens. And has always happened. Its written into the 'constitution' of the universe.
Things go in cycles but there's reason to think the current upswing is not in keeping with the prehistoric pattern of ups and downs. Consider this graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration. You can clearly see a cyclical pattern over the last 400k years, and you can clearly see we've broken out of it in a big way.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think it's the speed of change that's alarming. I can't remember the exact figures, but I think in a 100 years we will see a rise in temperature much faster than previous rises. Also we have many stress factors today, such as pollution and urbanization. The combination could be appalling, especially if we are heading to a rise of 5 degrees, which is possible.
I don't know if you can connect individual weather events to climate change, but certainly, by all accounts, the oceans are now absorbing colossal amounts of heat, and when that is released, intense storms are more likely.
It seems incontrovertible that the precautionary principle should dictate our actions. Anything else is lunacy.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's the speed of change that's alarming. I can't remember the exact figures, but I think in a 100 years we will see a rise in temperature much faster than previous rises. Also we have many stress factors today, such as pollution and urbanization. The combination could be appalling, especially if we are heading to a rise of 5 degrees, which is possible.
I don't know if you can connect individual weather events to climate change, but certainly, by all accounts, the oceans are now absorbing colossal amounts of heat, and when that is released, intense storms are more likely.
It seems incontrovertible that the precautionary principle should dictate our actions. Anything else is lunacy.
Unfortunately, the lunatics own the asylum....
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Speech by Filipino diplomat at the UN climate change conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7SSXLIZkM3E
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Speech by Filipino diplomat at the UN climate change conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7SSXLIZkM3E
And here is a similar speech delivered by the same Filipino diplomat about a year ago at the climate change conference in Doha. Hopefully someone will listen this time around.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Incidentally, on the oceans warming, some scientists compute this as the equivalent as four Hiroshima bombs every second, going into the oceans as energy.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/four-hiroshima-bombs-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change.html
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I agree with Anyuta. Regardless of the cause of global warming, the list of what we can do about the problem remains the same.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I agree with Anyuta. Regardless of the cause of global warming, the list of what we can do about the problem remains the same.
Not really. If CO2 isn't the major driver of climate change then cutting emissions isn't going to help. Given that it is, major cuts in emissions are vital.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
People may or may not be aware that we've had our own little spat here in Australia about whether climate change is causing bushfires in October.
It is and it isn't. Some people get themselves terribly worked up proving that any particular bushfire isn't, on its own, 'caused by climate change'. But in exactly the same way that increased temperature provides more energy for typhoons, increased temperature increases the chance of a bushfire. Otherwise they would occur in winter just as often as in summer.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The preponderance of evidence shows we're the problem. I do wonder if we can be the solution.
Not since the before-internet days do I recall hearing names, locations and contact info being broadcast on radio. Except this time it is also broadcast on the internet. The BBC for instance is doing extra hours of that old fashioned shortwave radio on 3 extra frequencies to the area.
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't think it matters much. if you are in a canoe that is racing towards a waterfall, does it matter how much is due to your rowing and how much due to the current of the river.. wouldn't you be paddling backwards as fast as you can?
I see your point but it's not a very useful parallel. If the flow of the river is much stronger than any force you can apply in response, or it's really a tide which will soon turn, then any action would be near futile. OTOH if you're paddling towards a hazard in gentle currents, changing your course will avert danger.
quote:
yes, some climate change has always happened. and the earth, as a whole, survived just fine. but individual species and even entire ecosystems did not. if you are taking the broad view that in the long run, it doesn't matter to the earth, you'd be right. but we are living here now, and while we are a very adaptable species, there are conditions which are more comfortable for us, and some which are less so.. and the process of change itself is not an easy one.
so do we adapt or try to stop? yes. we do both. why should it be one or the other. we should try to stop our own contribution, and we should adapt ourselves to the inevitability that, no matter what we do, there will be SOME change that we will just have to live with. we may lobe able to slow the increase, or keep it lower than it would otherwise be.. but I doubt we'd be able to stop it entirely.
I'm always puzzled by the argument that if we didn't cause it, then we don't need to do anything about it.
In the end, the cause is not the issue, really.. it's the response that matters.
The response does largely depend on the cause of the problem:
1) if it's a cycle it will soon turn
2) if it's natural and but huge, can we do anything?
*** PS Can we get the thread title changed to reflect the subject please? I suggest "Typhoons & Climate Change - Are humans to blame?"
[ 13. November 2013, 10:46: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
Typhoons happen. They just do, regardless of climate change. Was this one particular powerful as a result of man-made climate change? It's debatable. That debate needs to be informed by the best available scientific evidence.
But now, I think, is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to help those in need. Whether you wish to name your motivation as a christian ethic or basic humanitarianism, we are behoved to do what we can to help our fellow humans in a time of need. That can be done in a variety of ways, whether it be by volunteering time or sacrificing money.
Let's not squabble over causes when the consequences are staring us in the face.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see it as either/or. Sure, all aid should be rushed to the Philippines; but at the same time, climate scientists may well be feeding this into their models. Well, they wouldn't be scientists if they didn't.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sorry, trapped by that blasted guillotine.
There is also the argument that if we simply look at consequences, and ignore causes, we guarantee more consequences.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
But now, I think, is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to help those in need.
Well, when IS the time? Once everyone's forgotten and the media cycle has moved on?
I see this kind of similar notion with any kind of bad occurrence that is not a one-off. Whether it's recurring natural disasters, or recurring gun massacres, for some reason when it's front and centre in the news 'is not the time' to actually try and discuss how we might stop it being in the news again and again and again.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's also an absurd false dichotomy, because it's events like this that make the layman wonder about climate change. Granted, you can't match single events with climate change predictions, but if it brings it more into popular consciousness, that's a good thing. There is enough trouble with denialists spreading their ignorance and do-nothing attitudes.
My wife campaigns on climate change, and sometimes she despairs at all the indifference and science-denial, but my view is that many people will not be persuaded by arguments in the first place, but by catastrophes, which may make them turn to the arguments and the science.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
But now, I think, is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to help those in need.
Well, when IS the time? Once everyone's forgotten and the media cycle has moved on?
I see this kind of similar notion with any kind of bad occurrence that is not a one-off. Whether it's recurring natural disasters, or recurring gun massacres, for some reason when it's front and centre in the news 'is not the time' to actually try and discuss how we might stop it being in the news again and again and again.
It's similar to arguing with your spouse about whether to spend your savings on a nice vacation or on fixing that hole in the roof. We can understand why the person arguing in favor of the vacation would prefer to only have these discussions on sunny days, but there's no real reason why this preference should be indulged by the pro-roof spouse.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Normal courtesy applies to the title of this thread. Happy to change it if shamwari concurs. Might be clearer if climate change got a mention in the title, but it's not a big deal.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Barnabas
I concur.
Title I put up was an attention grabber ( hopefully) rather than descriptive of theme.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Title changed then since I happened to be passing by.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Did ocean warming cause the most powerful landfall storm ever recorded ? Depends how long we've been recording the power of storms, but if you put this one next to others happening around the globe in recent times, then it is beginning to look a little suspicious .
Is fossil fuel burning to blame for it ? Yes it looks highly likely . Are we going to stop burning fossil fuels in the near future ? No we are not .
Is ocean warming going to accelerate this Century in a triple stage rise, culminating with catastrophic release of methane from the sea-bed ? Some say this will happen . At present they are classed as the same doomsayers who predicted the melting of the Ice-caps .
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny
Unfortunately, the lunatics own the asylum.... [/QB]
You say that liek its a bad thing
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Is this a dead horse topic? Seems like I have seen similar topics there.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny
Unfortunately, the lunatics own the asylum....
You say that liek its a bad thing
Obviously in the context of a real asylum, concerned with the care and healing of real lunatics, it would not be a bad thing.
In the case of the metaphor, in which the "lunatics" are those who put personal opinion above scientific evidence, and are in position to make decisions which either worsen, or at least prevent the alleviation of climate change, what isn't bad about it?
I strongly resent those who will not have to face the worst effects of the addition of more energy to the atmosphere/ocean systems because they live in places at the moment relatively immune, and/or will be dead before the very worst becomes generally effective, talking up a view held by a tiny minority and rubbishing the processes suggested by those with a deeper understanding of where things are heading to protect those who will be most harmed. And these are the people with power.
Such solipsist behaviour is not good.
[fixed code]
[ 15. November 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Is this a dead horse topic? Seems like I have seen similar topics there.
No, it isn't. The DH topics are circumscribed and you can find the list by looking at the DH guidelines.
A number of topics recur frequently and climate change is one of them. There have been previous discussions in the Styx about extending the range of DH topics and you could start another if you want to explore this further.
Barnabas62, Purg Host
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I have been greatly impressed with Lester Brown, chair of Earth Policy Institute, with his book, World On the Edge 2011. It is the scariest story I have ever read. Covering not just Climate Change but also, water resources, deforestration, desertification and over population.
If you don't know about his work try this link for a short interview with Brown.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I strongly resent those who will not have to face the worst effects of the addition of more energy to the atmosphere/ocean systems because they live in places at the moment relatively immune, and/or will be dead before the very worst becomes generally effective, talking up a view held by a tiny minority and rubbishing the processes suggested by those with a deeper understanding of where things are heading to protect those who will be most harmed. And these are the people with power.
perhaps a personal problem? more energy than what? 'very worst'?
majorities are inherently 'correct'? maybe they truly appreciate 'science', not profiteering paranoia
ah, the white man's burden - sucks to be us
and if you think the wrong people have power now just wait until Al Gore (not really the skeptical type) can do as he wants, particularly if you're in a third world area where you don't currently have the blessings of the internal combustion engine (not that mules are bad...
)
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
and if you think the wrong people have power now just wait until Al Gore (not really the skeptical type) can do as he wants, particularly if you're in a third world area where you don't currently have the blessings of the internal combustion engine (not that mules are bad...
)
I live in a "third world country" in which one of the main "blessings of the internal combustion engine" is to be able to move people out of the way of an approaching typhoon, such as Tropical Cyclone Evan which swept over the western islands of Fiji last cyclone season (i.e. ~11 months ago). It was the strongest to hit Fiji for a decade or two, and destroyed most buildings in the Yasawa group of islands, but thanks to good warning systems and evacuation centres, no lives were lost. That Fiji has a much smaller population than the Philipines helps too!
Speaking in my personal capacity as a climate scientist, I can confirm the point made by previous posters that typhoons arise when the ocean is warmer than about 28 deg C, and that the hotter the ocean becomes the more water evaporates from it, and the hence the greater the strength of the resulting typhoon.
[fixed code]
[ 16. November 2013, 06:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
maybe they truly appreciate 'science', not profiteering paranoia
Bullshit. It's the crackpots who are alleging some sort of global conspiracy of climate scientists intent on destroying capitalism that's paranoid. And I've seen little evidence that they've any more interest in science than the moon landing hoaxers or the Kennedy conspiracy nuts.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
moron
So this illustrates profiteering paranoia? Maybe you could explain how - say by reference to the Summary Report, or if you like the bona fides of the many many scientists from all over the world who have co-operated in its production.
Historically, there have been some justifiable criticisms of these reports and the IPCC has always responded, shown willingness to re-examine and adjust. If they are just some kind of mad global conspiracy propagators, who is winding them up?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Typhoons & Climate Change - Are Humans to Blame?
Its far too soon to tell - ask again in about 200 years and it may be possible to give a definite answer.
Until then, its possible that human activity over the past 500 or so years is having some effect now, but we can't be sure.
What we can say is that the world's burgeoning population has a direct effect on climate through the clearance of large tracts of rain forest: and replacing that will take at least 150 years even if we start right now, which isn't likely or feasible since the population isn't shrinking, its growing.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Typhoons & Climate Change - Are Humans to Blame?
That seems to be a very strange way to phrase the question.
The climate changes naturally, it's recently (in geological terms) been fluctuating between phases with, and without, widespread glaciation without any humans around to have any impact. Typhoons, and other storm events, happen due to perfectly natural processes involving heating of tropical oceans and interactions with ocean and atmospheric circulation patters and land masses. They happened long before human beings came on the scene - and, indeed, very similar storms happen on other planets (the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, for example) where we cannot possibly be to blame.
The question is: Is the climate as it currently is different from what it would be if human beings hadn't developed the technology to burn fossil fuels and clear forests? And, related to that, is the frequency and intensity distribution of storms different from what it would be without humans? Of course, to answer that with absolute confidence you'd need a replica earth, identical in everyway except for the presence of human beings. The best we can do are some very sophisticated computer models. This allows us to repeat the experiments, using different models. Though there are variations in the outputs of different models, there are some substantial common features. And, those include changes to the frequency and intensity distributions of storm events with the frequency of larger storms increasing due to human activity. It's not possible to say any given storm is due to human activity, but it's possible to say conclusively that observed increases in the frequency of larger storms is due to human activity (though, we probably need to wait a few more years until we get enough data on storm frequency and intensity to say just how big any increase in storminess is).
It's a bit like smoking and lung disease. We know that non-smokers sometimes contract lung diseases, and that some smokers live to old age without any lung disease. But, the evidence is conclusive that smoking significantly increases the chances of contracting lung diseases - evidence from both statistics of incidence rates among smokers vs non-smokers, but also evidence from credible mechanisms by which smoke damages lungs.
In climate science we have credible mechanisms whereby human activity affects the climate - principally changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, with some landscape effects as well. We also have the evidence of changes in the climate. We don't have a real control group to see how our current climate fits into the distribution of natural climates. We have reconstructed historic climates and computer models. But, the evidence that human activity has resulted in a climate that has changed in a manner different from how it would have otherwise changed is compelling.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Just reinforcing Alan's point with a quote from the IPCC Summary Report (which you can get from the link I provided in my previous post.)
quote:
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
{para D.3, P15 of the Summary Report)
For convenience here is a link to the pdf.
The evidence is cumulative and impressive.
[ 17. November 2013, 08:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Alan Cresswell
Nothing strange about it - that's the title of the thread in Purgatory - read it for yourself, nothing to do with me.
As for my linking population size to climate change - well, if human activity is having the effect (personally I think the science is probably right) then part of the equation has to be the sheer number of people on the planet. Inconvenient but true.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:But, the evidence that human activity has resulted in a climate that has changed in a manner different from how it would have otherwise changed is compelling.
Dude.
If I understand things correctly you might be a willing victim next year or so when I hope to paddle Loch Ness, and then paddle on to Findhorn or to other points erm.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Eh?
I'm trying to follow your point. Are you suggesting that acceptance of very strong scientific evidence that human activity has affected the global climate is in anyway comparable to belief in the existance of Nessie?
I'm not getting the Findhorn reference at all.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm puzzled, too.
What's wrong with the cumulative evidence presented by the latest IPCC Report?
I put it that way to avoid the detour down the road that the IPCC cannot be trusted. If you don't trust people, that justifies looking more critically at any evidence they provide. Fine, do that.
But if you can't do that, or can't be bothered to do that, or don't see the point of it, that's OK. It just means you have nothing seriously critical to add to the discussion.
[ 20. November 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It just means you have nothing seriously critical to add to the discussion.
You realize you're saying that to someone who self-identifies as a moron?
Seriously, though:
Once upon a time there was someone who thought minutely changing a trace element in the atmosphere could affect the climate and they told others.
Others thought the idea plausible and through a long, intricate series of events the idea gained substantial traction: it became a 'cause'. (I think Crichton said it best - go ahead and demonize him but at least admit here was a fairly sharp guy who had both the means and the leisure to do his homework)
And it took on unwarranted momentum, given the innumerable variables in the equation, and many careers and psyches became both financially and emotionally invested in promoting it, and somewhere along the line the point of nearly no return was passed - it might have been when someone first said 'deniers'.
So now it's barely humanly possible (how much crow can anyone digest?) for people like Gore to acknowledge they might *koff* have overstated their case.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for playing along!
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
And I should have said, again:
I recognize it's possible the warmers are correct but the jury is still sequestered.
Findhorn is a spiritual type place where Mike Scott once went; so did Van Morrison, hence my attraction.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That's old hat, moron. The science has been progressively refined and the report publishers have responded to properly based criticisms from scientifically literate folks - whether they are sceptics or not is of no importance if their criticisms have been of method or evidence and have been objectively justified.
The summary report's "extremely likely" which I have quoted above is simply short hand for "very high probability, based on the evidence". Which juries are still out and why are they still out?
If it was a two horse race, the bookies would be no longer accepting bets on the IPCC horse being right.
Reaching back to another of your scepticisms, Nate Silver was right, wasn't he? And bookies did stop taking bets on Obama when the probability of Obama winning, according to Silver's model, went over 90%. The odds in favour of the IPCC position are better than those which favoured Obama in 2012. And they are getting stronger as time progresses.
You're whistling in the dark.
[ 21. November 2013, 00:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
We can ( I hope ) all agree that God has nowt to do with it in the sense of direct causation.
I'm surprised that this has been taken as a given, and not been challenged so far. Is God omnipotent and omnipresent or not? If He is, then He has a causal hand in everything, surely?
[ 21. November 2013, 00:47: Message edited by: kankucho ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The idea of secondary causation was developed by medieval philosophers in reply to that, and still holds, I think. For example:
"In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass."
Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis.
This, of course, led to methodological naturalism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
maybe they truly appreciate 'science', not profiteering paranoia
Follow the money, that is a sensible approach.
Al Gore - $200 Million $46 Million from Apple stock and $100 Million from selling Current TV.
Koch Bros - $36 Billion Each. Built around greenhouse gas producing industries.
Hmmmm...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Once upon a time there was someone who thought minutely changing a trace element in the atmosphere could affect the climate
Well, it's been known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for a century or so. It's one of those things that are as close to undeniable fact as you can get in science, something you can demonstrate in a test tube (well, almost ... a tube which you can contain air with variable concentration of CO2).
It wasn't until the 1970s that people began to realise that the assorted feedback mechanisms in the environment (eg: plant growth increasing with CO2 concentration) were not responding to maintain an equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration.
quote:
and they told others.
Translation: Scientists published their findings in peer reviewed journals and presented them at scientific meetings, bringing their observations to the scientific community and by means of normal scientific process convincing their peers that the data supported the hypothesis they were presenting.
quote:
Others thought the idea plausible and through a long, intricate series of events the idea gained substantial traction
Translation: The scientific process at work. Hypotheses stated, tested, modified, pulled to pieces by others intent on publishing (especially when one effect of publishing is to show your ideas are so much better than other ideas by showing how wrong the other guy is), refined, improved, tested again ... Eventually convincing the most skeptical audience there is, the scientific community, that the idea is not only plausible but well nigh certain.
quote:
it became a 'cause'.
WHich is an effect seperate from the science, though certainly dependent upon the science. And, like any cause there are advocates who seriously overstate their case. It's often an embarrasement to the scientists to find their work becomes a cause, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the science.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, moron's view of science is downright peculiar. It reminds me of the creationists' view of evolution science - rather paranoid, I suppose.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
Alan Cresswell - well put. I was just about to respond in kind but you saved me all that time.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Alan, thank you. I bowed out of this thinking that the argument was beyond me. Can't think what he thinks he's playing at.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
We can ( I hope ) all agree that God has nowt to do with it in the sense of direct causation.
I'm surprised that this has been taken as a given, and not been challenged so far. Is God omnipotent and omnipresent or not? If He is, then He has a causal hand in everything, surely?
That's a bit handwavey and fatalistic as far as an explanation goes.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Meh, all we need to do to cool the planet is light up a large nuke in Yellowstone to set of the caldera.
The planet would cool in no time flat.
On a less amusing note, I do accept there has been a rise in global temperatures. I'm enough of a scientist to see the trends, even if I do also believe that the "fixes" that have been postulated about for the last twenty years or so have been absolutely based on left-wing polices - the so call watermelon policies (green on the outside, red underneath)
I believe that the only way to fix it is with scientists and engineers working to get new technologies out into the free market. This will happen over the next twenty, fifty and a hundred years. Not tomorrow.
Tax breaks for the petro-chemical giants and car engine manufacturers to introduce hydrogen power into cars. We are not giving them up, so we might as well fix them properly.
Tax breaks for energy companies to invest in getting fusion power-stations up and running over the next fifty years. Again, we don't want to stop using electricity so let produce it properly.
We need to invest in superconductivity, quantum computing, nano-technology, graphene-technology and all manner of other good stuff that is proper science and proper engineering, and that gives the hanky-wringing, scientifically-illiterate greens the heebie-jeebies because they don't understand it.
There is a case for saying that scientists, engineers and capitalists got us into this mess, but I am convinced that they are also the only ones who can get us out of it.
Neatly sorting your rubbish into little piles, or only boiling the kettle with enough for one cup will not lower global temperatures. Sorry.
We need to massively increase the number of scientists and engineers to get real technological fixes off the lab bench and into the real world and that's where capitalism enters the fray, to provide the massive funds and investment needed. Governments can help by giving them the proper tax cuts to incentivise them to invest in these technologies.
If we said to the petro-chemical giants that all of their R&D costs and any profits generated from hydrogen fuel would be tax free for thirty years, they would definitely increase their investment in that area. They just need a plan to migrate from fossil to hydrogen that leaves their profit margins intact. Fine by me.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I believe that the only way to fix it is with scientists and engineers working to get new technologies out into the free market.
The fix being suggested by most scientists and engineers is "put less carbon in the atmosphere", occasionally backstopped with a " . . . and implement carbon sequestration measures".
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Tax breaks for the petro-chemical giants and car engine manufacturers to introduce hydrogen power into cars. We are not giving them up, so we might as well fix them properly.
I'm not sure how this helps. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage mechanism. You've still got to find a less carbon-intensive way to produce it. It should be noted that the most popular current method of hydrogen production also produces carbon dioxide.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Tax breaks for energy companies to invest in getting fusion power-stations up and running over the next fifty years.
Gee, wonder why no one else thought of this? Of course, ITER is a multi-government research project, not something being done by for-profit companies. The main reason for this is that "energy companies", like most companies, don't like investing in research projects that take fifty years (your estimate) to start returning a profit.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Again, we don't want to stop using electricity so let produce it properly.
We need to invest in superconductivity, quantum computing, nano-technology, graphene-technology and all manner of other good stuff that is proper science and proper engineering, and that gives the hanky-wringing, scientifically-illiterate greens the heebie-jeebies because they don't understand it.
That seems like a contradiction. Most of the technologies you cite above are, from an energy-use standpoint, about increasing efficiency. In other words, stopping the use of a certain amount of electricity by doing the same task in a more energy-efficient manner. And yet you seem to scoff at doing this on an individual level ("only boiling the kettle with enough for one cup").
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Strawmen brook no denial, Crœsos.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
There is a case for saying that scientists, engineers and capitalists got us into this mess, but I am convinced that they are also the only ones who can get us out of it.
Just the capitalists, because they have the capital.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Neatly sorting your rubbish into little piles, or only boiling the kettle with enough for one cup will not lower global temperatures. Sorry.
Actually reduced consumption would reduce pollution, would help massively and is the very reason for increased emissions. Would buy time for more comprehensive solutions as well.
I would also note that those waving their hands most vigorously are the very scientists you would task with fixing the problem. Kinda think this means they are not quite the "scientist-illiterates" you call them. A better case could be made for calling the deniers scientifically illiterate.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I find the reference to watermelon policies bemusing. There is the assumption in it that red, presumably socialist, policies, are always wrong. But in the case of the watermelon, it's the red bit that people want, so as a metaphor it's not really a good one.
It is possible, of course, that left wing policies might occasionally be right, as it might also be possible that right wing policies might sometimes be wrong. Just labelling something by the political wing it may be identified with doesn't really explain what its qualities may be.
I wonder sometimes how the language would deal with political ideas if the wrong people had sat on the right side in the French Revolutionary assembly, if the ideas associated with the left had the word "right" attached to them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
ITER is a multi-government research project, not something being done by for-profit companies. The main reason for this is that "energy companies", like most companies, don't like investing in research projects that take fifty years (your estimate) to start returning a profit.
50 years is a quite common estimate. "We will have fusion power generation in 50 years" has been the refrain for 50 years.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I had to laugh at Deano's big idea - tax cuts!
This seems to neatly bypass the scientific stuff of course, and takes us straight to the fight against socialism! Don't let them regulate capitalism, at all costs.
Then when I stopped laughing, I kind of despair.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at Deano's big idea - tax cuts!
This seems to neatly bypass the scientific stuff of course, and takes us straight to the fight against socialism! Don't let them regulate capitalism, at all costs.
Then when I stopped laughing, I kind of despair.
No it doesn't bypass the science at all. It FUNDS the science. Socialism is incapable of doing that. It always gets the priorities wrong. It is never right.
Which is why any climate change fixes wont be solved by socialism. It has no track record of fixing anything.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually reduced consumption would reduce pollution, would help massively and is the very reason for increased emissions. Would buy time for more comprehensive solutions as well.
I would also note that those waving their hands most vigorously are the very scientists you would task with fixing the problem. Kinda think this means they are not quite the "scientist-illiterates" you call them. A better case could be made for calling the deniers scientifically illiterate. [/QB]
On your first point about reducing consumption reducing polution, it may well do, but only if everyone does it. And very few are. So keeping on with that dogma is doing nothing except WASTING time.
Humanity has never ever elected to go backwards, technologically or economically. We are not going to do so.
What humanity must do is find a way of enabling the economic and technological growth that has driven the world to continue, but at the same time to reduce the output of greenhouse gases, and to reduce the impact of those that are out there.
That can only be done by recognising that free-market capitalism, incentivised and regulated by mixed-economy, right-of-centre Governments, investing in new discoveries and technologies, will bring us out of the mess.
Never forget that climate change was brought about by hard-left socialism as much as by capitalism. The trade unions demanded big industries to fuel employment throughout the 20th Century. They were happy to see big new coal fired power station and steel works brought on stream. The old socialist countries were just as dirty and polluting as the western, capitalist ones. Dirtier in fact, because if you don't have a free press you can just ignore and complaints. Even in the 70's I remember reading complaints in my local newspaper about the polluted state of the river Rother. Nothing much was done about it, but at least the issue was aired.
But if persuading enough individuals to change has failed - and it has - and you cannot take away peoples right to vote to in a Government which will enable them to keep consuming and demanding more and more growth and products, then only one option is left really, to use science and engineering to discover new ways of doing things, to develop new products and materials, and the best way of doing that is the way it has always been done, by industry and capitalism.
Before anyone feels that these new processes and producst are pie in the sky, look at Science Daily's Matter and Energy pages. Have a good look around, and then come back to me to say that some of the research isn't interesting and useful.
It's this line that is overlooked. We have scientists who are monitoring climate change, but we have others - equally competant - who are looking at ways of bettering the situation. I believe we need both, but we equally need businesses large and small to invest in some of the primary research that's being done, and get it to the market.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at Deano's big idea - tax cuts!
This seems to neatly bypass the scientific stuff of course, and takes us straight to the fight against socialism! Don't let them regulate capitalism, at all costs.
Then when I stopped laughing, I kind of despair.
No it doesn't bypass the science at all. It FUNDS the science. Socialism is incapable of doing that. It always gets the priorities wrong. It is never right.
Which is why any climate change fixes wont be solved by socialism. It has no track record of fixing anything.
But you seem to be defining as socialism, any kind of measures taken to control emissions. It's a pretty bizarre definition.
But you do illustrate that a lot of opposition to such measures is political, rather than science-based.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Which is why any climate change fixes wont be solved by socialism. It has no track record of fixing anything.
That's a very sweeping statement. Socialism has quite a good track record of fixing things; health care and education, welfare and public housing are all successes for socialism IMO. Yes, there have been failures too ... but, there have been successes and failures for capitalism - and any other form of economic management.
In regard to climate change, I'm not sure I'd say socialism has been tried as a policy. At least, not in the UK. Much of the UK effort has gone into supporting private industry and individuals, forms of tax break as you have been suggesting. Guaranteed minimum pricing for low carbon electricity generation, including feed-back tariffs for individuals investing in renewable generation at home. Probably the closest to socialism has been grants for improving insulation, upgrading old boilers etc that are targeted towards lower income households.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Delano, like a lot of right-wingers, doesn't actually have any idea what socialism is, he just uses the word as a put-down. So there's no point arguing with him on it.
I mean, if I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a fucking Tory, and you replied that he hardly ever fucked at all, I probably wouldn't think you had contradicted the point I was trying to make.
When Deano says that socialism cannot fund science what he really means is that he objects to science that is outside the control of corporations and governments. He thinks scientists should do as they are told. In this case he thinks scientists need to find out reasons why oil companies can do whatever they like, while inventing some new form of fusion generator so big business can continue to make profits out of electricity in a generation or so. Anything else is obviously "socialism". As a good conservative, he knows that the point of science is to supply technobabble to support whatever the bosses want to do next, not to bugger around with slimy liberal concepts like evidence, or academic freedom, or truth, or reality.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
50 years is a quite common estimate. "We will have fusion power generation in 50 years" has been the refrain for 50 years.
Problem is that some of the alarmist stuff we hear about says we haven't got 50 years . Once the oceans get warm enough to release massive reserves of methane , the hurricanes we're witnessing now will be like Autumn breezes in comparison .
I'm so glad capitalism is conceding some responsibility for the "mess" , cos one thing's for certain , blaming each other will do zilch to get us out of it .
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
50 years is a quite common estimate. "We will have fusion power generation in 50 years" has been the refrain for 50 years.
Problem is that some of the alarmist stuff we hear about says we haven't got 50 years .
We've had 20 odd years knowing pretty much for certain that we need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce deforestation (indeed, embark on large scale reforestation) and generally clean up our act. We've done very little, when the cst would have been small. Whether what we do now, at far greater cost, is going to be effective remains to be seen.
But, generally I would say that whatever we do needs to be based on what is currently available. Waiting for some very promising new technologies to become available - whether that's in fusion generation, superconducting power transmission or whatever - leaves us extremely vulnerable to the inevitable delays in those technologies getting out of the lab, and it's probably best to assume they won't make as big a difference as we're promised.
Which means we all need to seriously look at how we can reduce our energy use, how we light and heat/cool our homes, how we travel around, what we buy thinking of how far those products have travelled, etc. And, as societies, we need to think seriously about how we generate our power and organise ourselves: how are our cities and towns organised, do they lend themselves to efficient public transport? where do we grow our food, how much power is needed by our farms? do we invest in renewables that take up large areas of land, and do we consider wind turbines as elegant or ugly? do we invest in nuclear fission reactors that generate large quantities of low-carbon electricity, and if we do how do we make the non-renewable uranium resources last?
About the only option we don't have is procrastinating in the expectation that tomorrow will deliver us some wonderful new technology that will save our skins. It may happen, of course, but it seems foolish in the extreme to bet our future on it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It comes back to the climate change sceptics crying, "What if we built a low-cost, low-carbon, high-energy future based on renewable resources and we didn't have to?"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It comes back to the climate change sceptics crying, "What if we built a low-cost, low-carbon, high-energy future based on renewable resources and we didn't have to?"
It is difficult arguing with deniers. Facts do not change minds, unfortunately.
So I use a different tact. If we work to reduce pollution and consumption, and we are wrong, what is the result? A cleaner planet with more resources.
If we continue full-steam, damn the consequences and are wrong we are screwed even more.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It comes back to the climate change sceptics crying, "What if we built a low-cost, low-carbon, high-energy future based on renewable resources and we didn't have to?"
Which is on a level with saying "but Mum, what if I do my homework and the teacher's away tomorrow?"
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Seriously. How could living cleaner be anything but a good thing?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Well, sometimes dirty is is more fun.. oh wait, climate sorry, sorry
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Seriously. How could living cleaner be anything but a good thing?
Yeah, but it's left-wing socialism, Kelly. Next thing, is they'll be giving people free medicines, and nationalizing women.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So I use a different tact. If we work to reduce pollution and consumption, and we are wrong, what is the result? A cleaner planet with more resources.
How are you getting on with that tactic? How is it working?
Face facts, it is NOT working.
People are not reducing anything voluntarily. It isn't happening. People have listened to what you want to do and apart from the member of the choir being preached to, have said "No. Not unless you make us".
So laws have been introduced and people have, begrudgingly, unwillingly, unhappily been forced to accept half a dozen different bins outside their houses and spend time sorting out their crap. Unless they can get away with it.
Keep on going and more and more people will use their vote to turn away from what you want to achieve.
Then what do you do?
The only mantra I've heard from you lot is the old cobblers about reduce, re-use, recylcle (of which two are the same thing!). It hasn't worked and will continue to not work. What's the next thing then? What other ideas do you have to fix it?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The only mantra I've heard from you lot is the old cobblers about reduce, re-use, recylcle (of which two are the same thing!). It hasn't worked and will continue to not work. What's the next thing then? What other ideas do you have to fix it?
'Cobblers' maybe but rather a palatable that detonating nuke underneath Yellowstone .
The problem for politicians , since the threat of climate change has been known, has been that Green politics is tantamount to political suicide . And no doubt this will remain the case right up to the point of no return.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The only mantra I've heard from you lot is the old cobblers about reduce, re-use, recylcle (of which two are the same thing!). It hasn't worked and will continue to not work. What's the next thing then? What other ideas do you have to fix it?
So the fact that it's almost to the point where we don't have to mine aluminium any more (75% global recycling, and going up) isn't a pointer to a more hopeful, sustainable future, but a signpost to a failed policy?
Seriously, why should anyone pay any attention at all to anything you say?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think it's best to just ignore someone who can't tell the difference between reusing something and recycling it. A guide, for those who are a bit dense, in order of preference:
Reduce: use less in the first place - your apples don't need to come shrink wrapped to a polystyrene tray. This one is actually enormously popular.
Reuse: if you need to use it, use it more than once - obvious example is shopping bags.
Recycle: if the item cannot be reused or wears out after a number of uses, then break it down into its constituent materials and use them to make something new.
Each of these requires progressively more energy and resources to enact, so the more of the first we can do, the better.
I think deano's claim that we can't do what we need to do because people won't stand for it is spurious. Most people are strongly in favour of renewables, including wind turbines. Using the power of the state to facilitate these things working and remove the externalities associated with carbon-intensive technologies will go a long way to solving the problem. And, ultimately, governments can do a lot of unpopular things if they think they need to.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose Deano may be right, and many people will be indifferent or hostile to measures taken to reduce emissions. Also, perhaps governments will be reluctant to take measures, out of fear of being unpopular.
I suppose then either there will be some scientific discovery which revolutionizes energy production, or we will have to suffer the consequences of temperatures rising, which seem to range from mild to severe, depending on the prediction.
It's not exactly a beatific prospect, is it?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
People do change their behaviour if you make it easy for them. Kerbside recycling works, for example.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No it doesn't bypass the science at all. It FUNDS the science. Socialism is incapable of doing that. It always gets the priorities wrong. It is never right.
Which is why any climate change fixes wont be solved by socialism. It has no track record of fixing anything.
Always amusing to read that government investment never does anything right in a posting on the INTERNET. You know, that government funded academic project that got it all wrong.
As for the rest of his nonsense, it's just a right winger being unable to deny the reality of Global Warming any longer so rather than point out that the right has been dead wrong and opposed to action, and that doing something about it would hurt profits of the oil companies he complains that the people who were right about it did it all wrong. You know.. those socialists were prematurely against global warming because they pointed it out before Deano would concede that it is happening.
[code fixes I can do. Climate change fixes, not so sure]
[ 24. November 2013, 20:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I do love it when you all shoot the messenger...
Wind Farms Developers drop plans because of Environmentalists
Is there any of you that agree with each other?
Do any of you know what you really want, or is it best that you remain "protest parties" and let us Conservatives fix things whilst you lot just moan from the sidelines like you prefer?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I expect there are plenty of conservatives who would flinch when they see you use the word "us" just like liberals/lefties/commies aren't a monolithic bunch. I doubt you could identify any political group that has a single co-ordinated set of views outside a dictatorship. But you know all that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I'm fairly safe in saying I don't think the intent was honest debate. The title of his link shows he didn't even read the article.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It's worth drawing a distinction (which the BBC fails to do) between conservationists and environmentalists. The former tend to be concerned with the small scale and with aesthetics, the latter with the large scale and with practicalities. The former include among their ranks the likes of climate change denier David Bellamy, so it's pretty absurd to conflate the two, though obviously there are some people who are both. Round here a lot of people discovered a sudden passion for protecting the mating sites of basking sharks once someone proposed an offshore wind farm.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Like the rest of us, environmentalists and conservationists have a range of different conflicting concerns. Each individual will prioritise those concerns differently. Most people would put reducing the amount of energy we use very high on that list of priorities, it saves everyone money that can then be used for other things and reduces the rate at which we use resources. But, given that we can't drop to zero energy use, there is then the question of how we obtain the energy we need. At that point we start to say renewable and low-carbon energy sources are preferable to fossil fuels.
At present we have a small range of options for low carbon power generation, each has it's own set of costs and benefits. Wind and solar are low density sources, so significant generation capacity would require large areas, they are also visually disruptive and there are environmental costs in construction and operation - in particular, concerns about birds getting killed by wind turbines. In the case of the Bristol Channel development the concerns included the impact of seabed disruption during construction, effect on sea birds who use the relatively shallow and shelters waters of the Channel as important sources of food, and the visual impact on tourism (the last, of course, not being an environmental issue per se, but important as an income source for conservation issues). At present onshore wind turbines are a mature technology - we know how to do that relatively inexpensively. Off shore wind turbines are developing technology - the turbines need to endure more severe conditions, with harder access for maintenance, and difficulties in construction. At present all such plans are really near-shore projects in more easily accessed shallow waters - these are also the same sites that are usually vitally important to wildlife and (often) tourism and commercial fishing. Deep water off-shore developments would be less disruptive of local environments, but needs the development of technology to make them feasible - we have oil rigs that work in deeper water, but at considerable cost that is only justified because of the large volumes of valuable oil & gas they produce, and we need means of getting power back to land. One of those things which deano wants tax breaks to encourage development, at a time when the Conservative government is cutting incentives to renewable energy generation.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
so it's pretty absurd to conflate the two
You mean to say that various leftie commies advocating state intervention can't be conflated?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Conflating various leftie commies is likely to result in conflagration. Would that count as a low-carbon energy source?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The stupidity of all the moaning about having to change our ways in order to avoid emitting so many greenhouse gases is that it wouldn't actually have cost very much, in the scheme of things. Multiple reports such as Stern's showed that the hit to the economy would have been small - and the sooner we started, the smaller it would be.
It would have been far less than the hit to the USA and Europe from the global financial crisis. In other words, if all that money had been invested in developing clean energy techniques instead of stupid speculative derivative swaps, we'd be doing just fine.
Things like that are sufficiently frustrating that I'm a hair's breadth away from creating a more Hellish version of this post so I can say what I really think of the priorities of our society.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Conflating various leftie commies is likely to result in conflagration. Would that count as a low-carbon energy source?
Unfortunately I suspect that the CO2 output would be substantial.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Conflating various leftie commies is likely to result in conflagration. Would that count as a low-carbon energy source?
Unfortunately I suspect that the CO2 output would be substantial.
But we're a renewable resource!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
so it's pretty absurd to conflate the two
You mean to say that various leftie commies advocating state intervention can't be conflated?
David Bellamy's a leftie commie now? Conservationism is found in all areas of the political spectrum. Environmentalism only trends left because the only viable solutions to climate change involve restricting the big businesses responsible for extracting fossil fuels. There is no market solution to climate change; the market doesn't deal with long term problems at the expense of short term profit.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is no market solution to climate change; the market doesn't deal with long term problems at the expense of short term profit.
Indeed, it is an absolutely classic case of externalising costs - dump the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for free and make the cleanup someone else's problem.
The whole point of something like a carbon trading scheme is to force the market to include the costs.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Conservationism is found in all areas of the political spectrum. Environmentalism only trends left because the only viable solutions to climate change involve restricting the big businesses responsible for extracting fossil fuels.
Points well made, sorry I was being sarcastic after deano's posts on the matter.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
(As an aside I admit no small amount of admiration for people who have devised a theory where ANY weather extreme supports their allegations.)
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's often an embarrasement to the scientists to find their work becomes a cause, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the science.
Agreed.
BTW: where are all the hurricanes?
I was in New Orleans last month and while you could hardly say parts of town have recovered there hasn't been all that much recent damage...
the longer this goes on I am increasingly feeling sympathy for Gore.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
(As an aside I admit no small amount of admiration for people who have devised a theory where ANY weather extreme supports their allegations.)
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's often an embarrasement to the scientists to find their work becomes a cause, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the science.
Agreed.
BTW: where are all the hurricanes?
I was in New Orleans last month and while you could hardly say parts of town have recovered there hasn't been all that much recent damage...
the longer this goes on I am increasingly feeling sympathy for Gore.
Your post is devoid of argument, moron.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
BTW: where are all the hurricanes?
The obvious answer is in the Philippines. Fastest wind speeds ever recorded and all that. But maybe I am missing something?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Which is where we came in to this thread. The general point, that lack of effective international action (over the human activities which are extremely likely to be adding significantly to natural global climate change) is directly responsible for this particular hurricane or that particular typhoon, cannot of course be proved. Naderev Sano, a acientist and the head of the Philippines delegation to the UN Climate Change conference in Warsaw said as much himself in interview, yet it does not detract in any way from the passion and truth in his speech to that conference (which was linked earlier to this thread).
The argument is about long term risks and short term events. There has been a very generous response (certainly in the UK) to emergency fund raising efforts for the Philippines and that is a good thing. But the challenge to the international community remains.
I'm recalling Jim Wallis's parallel observations re human poverty, which gets directly at the issues of underlying causes. From memory, something like this.
quote:
We can be very good in emergencies at helping to pull drowning people out of the river. We're less good at asking the question "who or what threw them in the river upstream".
The long term and the short term produce two different issues, requiring a "both/and" response. Alligators and swamps.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm recalling Jim Wallis's parallel observations re human poverty, which gets directly at the issues of underlying causes. From memory, something like this.
quote:
We can be very good in emergencies at helping to pull drowning people out of the river. We're less good at asking the question "who or what threw them in the river upstream".
The long term and the short term produce two different issues, requiring a "both/and" response. Alligators and swamps.
Absolutely. It's like that South American RCC bishop (I think!) who said people praise him for working directly with deprived people but call him a communist if he starts asking why they're poor.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
where are all the hurricanes?
All those storms we were told/threatened were going to increase in frequency and severity.
If you scroll down to the bottom of this you'll see that recently (a time when many eyes were watching and green houses gases were higher than in the past) hurricane activity hasn't been in any significant statistical way higher than the recorded norms.
And more to the point in the period from 2010 to 2013 the numbers are significantly down.
Why is that?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
where are all the hurricanes?
All those storms we were told/threatened were going to increase in frequency and severity.
If you scroll down to the bottom of this you'll see that recently (a time when many eyes were watching and green houses gases were higher than in the past) hurricane activity hasn't been in any significant statistical way higher than the recorded norms.
And more to the point in the period from 2010 to 2013 the numbers are significantly down.
Why is that?
Because people don't understand the difference (or the links) between climate and weather.
Hurricanes are weather.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Because people don't understand the difference (or the links) between climate and weather.
Hurricanes are weather.
That doesn't really clear it up for some of us...
perhaps you could explain in some detail the distinction, for us laymen?
TIA.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Because people don't understand the difference (or the links) between climate and weather.
Hurricanes are weather.
That doesn't really clear it up for some of us...
perhaps you could explain in some detail the distinction, for us laymen?
TIA.
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
Climate is something measured over decades. Hurricanes may be more or less frequent, or more or less fierce, but to measure the change takes decades and will only highlight averages.
So we might say that the average number of hurricanes per year has increased over the last fifty years by two per year, but next year we may get 4 less than this year. That isn't climate, but weather, or the presence or absence of El Nino or La Nina.
If I remember correctly the IPCC give out ranges for global temperature changes and that their predictions are probabilities between 4 and 15 degrees centigrade higher average temperatures over the next 100 years. Something like that.
That is climate and is measured over decades. The presense of an extra hurricane during a season or whether one has higher wind speeds than another can't be attributed to climate change except by showing the averages have changed over the decades.
A better explanation can be found on NASA's site here...
What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
I gather then, for some climate 'scientists', weather is, unfortunately, not only not clearly causally connected but far from correlationally related to climate.
Sucks to be them.
So when do you suppose 'deniers' can become 'comparatively honest skeptics' again? Using of course the time honoured tradition of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And B62: in my mind there's not much less light where I am and the tune is no more doleful although almost certainly less in tune.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[It's like that South American RCC bishop (I think!) who said people praise him for working directly with deprived people but call him a communist if he starts asking why they're poor.
Maybe Archbishop Oscar Romero? He was killed for his work.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[It's like that South American RCC bishop (I think!) who said people praise him for working directly with deprived people but call him a communist if he starts asking why they're poor.
Maybe Archbishop Oscar Romero? He was killed for his work.
It's Dom Hélder Câmara from Brazil.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
I gather then, for some climate 'scientists', weather is, unfortunately, not only not clearly causally connected but far from correlationally related to climate.
Sucks to be them.
That's not what scientists are saying.
Weather is a series of specific events, local in time and space. Each weather event is, of course, causally related to previous weather events - as well as factors such as topography (hence higher winds on high ground, more rain on rising slopes), ocean currents and physical parameters (eg: temperature), even butterflies fluttering their wings on another continent.
Climate is the average of weather events, averaged over time and/or geography. You can say the British climate is wetter and colder than the Spanish climate, based on average rainfall and temperature measurements. You can say the global climate for 2001-2010 was warmer than the global climate for 1951-1960 based on temperature measurements.
Climate and weather are, of course, inter-related. But, any given weather event cannot be said to be caused by a change in climate, nor can it be held up as evidence that climate is changing.
To take an analogy from other areas of science. A gas in a flask has a set of properties (eg: temperature and pressure). It is also composed of a vast number of individual molecules zooming around inside. We know that if we raise the temperature the average speed of those molecules increases. But, if we just followed one of those molecules we wouldn't see that change - sometimes it would move quickly, at other times it would bounce off something and lose a lot of energy and slow down until smashed by another molecule and speeding up again. The molecule velocity is related to the gas temperature, but the relationship is complex involving a large number of causal events (collisions with other molecules/container wall). That doesn't mean we aren't correct in saying if you increase gas temperature the pressure increases for a fixed volume, nor that the average speed of molecules has increased.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0