Consensus of Scientists and Proof

Frescomexico wrote:

Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.

Frescomexico wrote:
Thank ex-tutor, I've graduated. If you think flowers coming early is a problem, so be it. I remember years when they didn't come at all.

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Thank ex-tutor, I've graduated. If you think flowers coming early is a problem, so be it. I remember years when they didn't come at all.

That's not the problem, its evidence of an effect you deny.

spot wrote:
The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else.

spot wrote:
Many species have gone extinct in the historical period,

spot wrote:
we are effectively living through a mass extinction event,

spot wrote:
You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels

spot wrote:
because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.

"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: Thank ex-tutor.... I am..... asking where that post is.

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.

Some people say that? Other people say other things. The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else. Many species have gone extinct in the historical period, we are effectively living through a mass extinction event, mostly if not exclusively due to pressures bought about by Man. People say the Sahara was a Jungle? I think you will find informed people say it was a savanna. I think you are misinformed.

You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.

Some people say that? Other people say other things. The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else. Many species have gone extinct in the historical period, we are effectively living through a mass extinction event, mostly if not exclusively due to pressures bought about by Man. People say the Sahara was a Jungle? I think you will find informed people say it was a savanna. I think you are misinformed.

You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.

spot wrote:
Profound was my own word and an assertion, however I stand by it. The climate is changing noticeably I could link even more stuff or tell you about what I have noticed in my shortish life. If you are so well informed on this subject you think people should be taking your advice you should know about the facts backing up my argument.

Of course whether the Sahara was a jungle or a savanna in the past seems a trivial thing but if you want to influence policy and be thought of as credible I think you should take the time to inform yourself.

I don't think you know how climate sensitivity is calculated I think that your information comes from blogs to be honest. You say nobody knows but I think although we don't perfectly know what be the reaction to putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere I think we have a better idea then you think, Also saying we don't know is not really reassuring how can you be sure that errors will be on the less extreme side?

I am touched by your concern for the poor, I'm sure substance farmers in marginal land for example are grateful for your concern but I am disappointing in the fact that I have been offered no explanation of how exactly transitioning away from fossil fuels to technology already available and being used now will bring about economic doom. I am confused as to how exactly this will happen. All I have is a restatement your belief that it will.

It is you that is making a proposal, that we should do nothing, it is up to you to back it up. I think what you advise is unwise and the future will curse you and people like you who have already and continue to retard progress in this field for petty political reasons that override scientific evidence.

Sorry to be blunt.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
Profound was my own word and an assertion, however I stand by it. The climate is changing noticeably I could link even more stuff or tell you about what I have noticed in my shortish life. If you are so well informed on this subject you think people should be taking your advice you should know about the facts backing up my argument.

Of course whether the Sahara was a jungle or a savanna in the past seems a trivial thing but if you want to influence policy and be thought of as credible I think you should take the time to inform yourself.

I don't think you know how climate sensitivity is calculated I think that your information comes from blogs to be honest. You say nobody knows but I think although we don't perfectly know what be the reaction to putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere I think we have a better idea then you think, Also saying we don't know is not really reassuring how can you be sure that errors will be on the less extreme side?

I am touched by your concern for the poor, I'm sure substance farmers in marginal land for example are grateful for your concern but I am disappointing in the fact that I have been offered no explanation of how exactly transitioning away from fossil fuels to technology already available and being used now will bring about economic doom. I am confused as to how exactly this will happen. All I have is a restatement your belief that it will.

It is you that is making a proposal, that we should do nothing, it is up to you to back it up. I think what you advise is unwise and the future will curse you and people like you who have already and continue to retard progress in this field for petty political reasons that override scientific evidence.

Sorry to be blunt.

1, Actually it is up to you to justify action not the other way around. It is you who has the burden of proof.

2, The people who live in India making cloaths that you wear need cheap transportation to allow them to do this in return for food exported by America. Simplistically.

The huge productivity of the American paries is due to the use of science in producing high yeald crops that are then supplied with fertilisers. If they cannot be grown and then distributed by efficient transport networks to farmers who's customers are all over the world the sysyem will not work in the massively productive way it does today.

We are able to do the stuff like having very very specialist scientists producing better crops and an education system that takes vertually all young farmers to colledge and makes them better farmers due to our wealth. This wealth is the ability to choose to be an artist or a farmer or a scientist specialising in high level physics. Without that we don't get to do those things.

How do you run a 45 tonne truck without fossil fuel?

One day soon we will have a good answer to this. Solar power and cracking CO2 out of the air to get liquid hydrocarbons are technologies which are very close to being ecconomic. Next couple of decades. This is why we should never talk about what happens in a 1000 years. Things will change.

Once we have better ways of doing things we will change. Untill then we should carry on using the best availible because that will not be wanted in the future.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

Surface Detail wrote:
In general, science cannot prove anything 100%.

Surface Detail wrote:
Science deals in probabilities,

Surface Detail wrote:
not certainties.

Surface Detail wrote:
There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.

I do not demand proof but decent evidence with a decent mechanism that stands up to decent scrutiny.

It is upon those who want others to change to provide such.

So far I have not even been presented with weak evidence of a slightly convincing mechanism that has stood up to even 10 minutes scrutiny.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.

I do not demand proof but decent evidence with a decent mechanism that stands up to decent scrutiny.

It is upon those who want others to change to provide such.

So far I have not even been presented with weak evidence of a slightly convincing mechanism that has stood up to even 10 minutes scrutiny.

That mechanism would be the well-known greenhouse effect that results from the absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases. Given that it has stood up to over 100 years of scrutiny by the scientific community since its proposal by Svante Arrhenius, I suspect that your lack of conviction is due not to any lack of evidence but rather to your failure to understand the evidence.

spot wrote:
Tim;

Answering your first question is what the whole field of climatology is about, for a sensible answer I see what a climatologist has said on the matter, and see if it fits with what little physics I know, It does, and you should read up on it, it's a fascinating subject.

About the effects on Greenland's ice, there is a field called Glaciology, with a little bit of research you can find out the methods they use to model the effect on Glaciers, from memory your conclusions are radically different from theirs. Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate? Why should we think yours will turn out more accurate?

As for the ease or difficulty of protecting against flooding I would ask someone in a profession called; "Civil engineering" If its so easy why aren't you a civil engineer? (my brother is) Why take your council over qualified civil engineers?

Why should your side get to ask all the questions and answer none?

Spot wrote
Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spot wrote
Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate?

I could be more accurate sticking my finger in the wind as no warming model has ever been close to right. No prediction has been true. Funny, they were all on the doom and gloom side, pointing to scare tactics driven by gov funded studies.

I don't listen to local weathermen who love the big story. You know, the guy that's always predicting 10-12" inches of snow and usually verifies at 40-50% of forecast. And I won't listen to "scientists" that are always wrong either.

Surface Detail wrote:
Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on

No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?

spot wrote:
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spot wrote
Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate?

I could be more accurate sticking my finger in the wind as no warming model has ever been close to right. No prediction has been true. Funny, they were all on the doom and gloom side, pointing to scare tactics driven by gov funded studies.

I don't listen to local weathermen who love the big story. You know, the guy that's always predicting 10-12" inches of snow and usually verifies at 40-50% of forecast. And I won't listen to "scientists" that are always wrong either.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're completely wrong. Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on, as have later predictions of enhanced Arctic warming, rising sea level and melting ice. No prediction can be perfect, but the trend is certainly in line with expectations.

Predicting future climate is a bit like earthquake prediction in California. No-one can say exactly where and when a quake will strike or how big it will be, but the underlying science shows that quakes will happen. No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on

Not too difficult to predict after seeing the temps do this for the previous 80 years.

No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?

2 reasons..

1. Quakes kill hundreds of thousands and do massive damage...neither of which has 1 degree done..and one more degree will not do. Like Tim said, build a sea wall and I think we're good. (if you actually think we'll need it.)

2. Some money studying climate isn't so bad. We should understand what we live in. Spent money in an effort to change the climate is ludicrous.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?

What has been observed that contradicts my statements?

I note that you will not go down the road of looking at the nuimbers with me.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?

What has been observed that contradicts my statements?

I note that you will not go down the road of looking at the nuimbers with me.

I'm on my phone so linking things is difficult, but Google "greenland glacier mass".

I've been down the road of looking at numbers as far as I could tell you pulled the numbers out of your arse.

I am reminded of the bumblebee, apparently it's impossible for it to fly according to some peoples understanding of the laws of aerodynamics.

It does fly, some peoples understanding of the laws of aerodynamics is wrong.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on

Not too difficult to predict after seeing the temps do this for the previous 80 years.

No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?

2 reasons..

1. Quakes kill hundreds of thousands and do massive damage...neither of which has 1 degree done..and one more degree will not do. Like Tim said, build a sea wall and I think we're good. (if you actually think we'll need it.)

2. Some money studying climate isn't so bad. We should understand what we live in. Spent money in an effort to change the climate is ludicrous.

all the polar ice is gone and the sea level is about 65 metres higher than now.

GasGuzzler wrote:

all the polar ice is gone and the sea level is about 65 metres higher than now.

Get a good look now and pick out your new fishing spots for later.

Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,

GasGuzzler wrote:

The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,

So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.

GasGuzzler wrote:

The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,

So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.