0
lawrocket

AGW - Evidence that will Convince me of the danger

By lawrocket, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
I started thinking about this question: what would it take for me to be worried about the AGW? Really - what would it take? I don't doubt AGW. I'm convinced it is happening. But I am nowhere near convinced it is a problem and disagree a lot with alarmist scenarios.

Unfortunately, too much of what is predicted is qualitative. "More storms, worse droughts, etc. Too many point to alarm after the event - like the California drought is due to climate change (despite the fact that it was predicted that rainfall in California would increase with a warmer world)

I looked around at the predicted effects. I took the them (food instability) and decided to think up some tests and list some targets that would convince me that global warming is a serious threat. I then put some stuff up there that I don't think is going to happen, but appears to be central to the arguments about AGW. And I anted something testable in ten years.

Note: I did not list "temperature." As I've written repeatedly over the years, I expect the temperature to increase and that human activity is part of it. I don't need convincing of that. I need convincing that the rate is going to cause global societal crises. Because it don't see evidence that it will. Just lots of argument.

Also: I did not list any events. Events are weather. A hurricane, no matter how destructive, is not climate.

Here's a quick list of what it would take to convince me:

(1) Sea level rising a six inches by 2025. Projections include a sea level rise of between one and three meters by 2100. IPCC thinks projects 52-98 cm by 2100, and those at realclimate think this is too conservative. I think a meter is something that stresses adaptive capabilities, and is would be greater than natural variability. Six inches in a decade would be indicative of pending disaster. Let's pick either satellite altimetry or a tide gauge: Monterey, CA. (Yes, I picked a tide gauge in an area not experiencing much post-glacial rebound.) 6 inches in ten years is well within predictions that will lead to disaster. That's a bit more than a meter by 2100. The real scientists at realclimate should have no trouble with this. Six inches by 2025. That would be some scaring.

(2) Polar sea ice: let's see a 50% drop in minimum sea ice extent betwee 2014 and 2025. Arctic is projected by many to be ice free before 2030. NSIDC director Mark Serreze reiterated in 2010 that the Arctic ice will not recover. Antarctic ice might have nowhere to go but down, So I'll go with 50% in global sea ice loss from 2014 to 2025.

(3) Food supply instability: famine in two or more western democracies by 2025. Logic - famine in command economies or dictatorships happens too easily/frequently. It'd take a real food shortage to affect a Westen Democracy. I'll even look at, "Drop in worldwide obesity rate" as indicative of problems with food supply.

(4) Decreased crop yields: let's pick corn. Shall we go with the US? Let's see if the corn crop yield in bushels/acre is decreased at all in 2025 from 2014. Or a decrease in world wheat production from 2014 to 2025. I'm just looking for a decrease.

(5) Tropical diseases moving north: show me 500 endemic malaria diagnoses north of the 37th parallel in North America before 2025. Logic: malaria was endemic to points north of the 37th parallel prior to its eradication in the early 50s. It's been predicted by alrmists that tropical diseases will move north in the US. 37th parallel is an easy enough line on the map where, if there is bad enough warming, malaria should have no trouble getting a mere 50 people per year (who didn't get it by traveling someplace and coming back).

(6) Growing patterns: commercial outdoor citrus production north of the 35th parallel in North America by 2025. Same logic as above.

(7) In a nod to James Hansen, the West Side Highway in NYC permanently closed due to ocean inundation by 2025. Hansen said that by 2028 the West Side Highway would be underwater. Tides should no doubt wash over daily by then.

These are seven things that would have me convinced. These are not individual disaster events (eventually a Category 5 hurricane with make landfall in the US - it's already at a record amount of time without one) that people will try to attribute to AGW. These are real things - objective measurements and societal shifts.

And these will be quick shifts BUT in line with alarmist projections. If they can't grow stonefruit in Georgia because it's too warm in winter to vernalize peach trees by 2100, there is time to adapt. If the sea level rises an 2 inches in ten years, I won't be worried. That's consistent with nature and within ability to adapt. If I don't see some of these things, then I will remain pretty much unworried.

Any input from anti-anti-science folks would be appreciated.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

billvon    3,132

billvon
>(1) Sea level rising a six inches by 2025.

I don't think that is either predicted or reasonable to predict. In that time you'd see perhaps an inch of rise.

>(2) Polar sea ice: let's see a 50% drop in minimum sea ice extent betwee 2014 and 2025.

Why would that convince you of danger? All the floating ice in the world (including around Antarctica) will not contribute to sea level rise if it melt. Indeed, less ice sounds like less danger to shipping.

>(3) Food supply instability: famine in two or more western democracies by 2025.

That's unlikely since by then we will have seen perhaps another half degree of rise, and that's insufficient to cause famine given our food diversity and gross oversupply.

To me, "evidence that climate change is dangerous" is somewhat beside the point. It is not that we know what dangerous things will happen; it is precisely because we do NOT know all the things that will happen that is the threat.

Food supply? Probably won't be affected for decades. West Side Highway? Probably safe for now. Virginia Beach? Will probably get pounded by more hurricanes, as it has in the past. Increase in disease? Probably not beyond our abilities to manage. Reduction in growing seasons? Can probably be mitigated by expanding northern farms and abandoning southwest farms (happening now.)

But the odds of us changing the climate significantly and having nothing bad happen anywhere? Very low.

I compare it to looking at a syringe sitting on the table. You don't know what's in it, but someone on a reality show will pay you some money to inject yourself with it if you do it in the next minute. Is it sodium pentathol? No. Does it contain Ebola? No. Does it contain lots of potassium? No.

How many of those assurances would you need before you inject yourself with it?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

quade    4

quade
So, basically what you're saying is you're like one of the council on Krypton who will only believe it's going to blow up after it actually does.

Mmmm...okay. I guess that's "a" strategy.

An alternative might be one where you look at the provable small scale changes that have already happened and understand there is a critical point beyond which it they will cascade into an irreversible issue.

The fact is, we're already beyond the point of no return on this. It simply hasn't fully manifested itself yet.

The catastrophic milestones you've asked to see as proof are inevitable. Forget about the exact dates, they are going to happen and we've crossed the point where we can go back to pre-inductrial revolution levels anywhere in the foreseeable future. This will be changing the world as we knew it.

The question is how far and how fast do you really want this to take place?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
billvon

>(1) Sea level rising a six inches by 2025.

I don't think that is either predicted or reasonable to predict. In that time you'd see perhaps an inch of rise.



I didn't just pull the 98 cm out of my ass. That was IPCC. And many of the influential people the climate science community said it's too conservative, unless realclimate doesn't count. Sea level has risen an inch in the last decade and a foot in the last century. To get to a meter of sea level rise by 2100 we'll need to see about 6 inches per decade. I'm looking for a waypoint toard that goal.

[Quote]>(2) Polar sea ice: let's see a 50% drop in minimum sea ice extent betwee 2014 and 2025.

Why would that convince you of danger? All the floating ice in the world (including around Antarctica) will not contribute to sea level rise if it melt. Indeed, less ice sounds like less danger to shipping.

I didn't mention anything about sea ice and sea level. But sea ice is a big deal as an indication of hat's going on. Is Arctic ice meaningless in climate discussion? It will affect weather patterns. It ould be a fine symptom of problems.

[Quote]>(3) Food supply instability: famine in two or more western democracies by 2025.

That's unlikely since by then we will have seen perhaps another half degree of rise, and that's insufficient to cause famine given our food diversity and gross oversupply.

I'm looking for waypoints, bill. Disaster won't just hit overnight. Alarmist predictions are that the food supply will suffer because global warming will decrease food supply. I ant to see something to indicate that in the future.

[Reply]To me, "evidence that climate change is dangerous" is somewhat beside the point. It is not that we know what dangerous things will happen; it is precisely because we do NOT know all the things that will happen that is the threat.



"The part we haven't thought of" - Astronaut Michael Collins, when asked what the riskiest part of spaceflight is.

So you are correct. We don't know. We can't know. But we've got plenty of people telling us that they know, and over the last couple of years questioning them means I am anti-science. They've talked about many things, so I actually pulled out some predictions of doom and figured out some progess points.


[Reply]Food supply? Probably won't be affected for decades.



Why not?

[Reply]West Side Highway? Probably safe for now.


Hansen said it would be under water by 2028. He stood by that claim a few years ago. Why do you disagree with him?

[Reply]Virginia Beach? Will probably get pounded by more hurricanes.



More? What do you mean? You have just made something so vague as to be untestable. Second, wind shear has been predicted to increase with global warming. Meteorologists know that wind shear to a hurricane is like icing conditions to an airplane - a mortal enemy. The hurricane business is where the alarmist rhetoric is anti-science.

[Replyt]Increase in disease? Probably not beyond our abilities to manage.



I didn't say we couldn't manage it. We can. But fear mongering tropical diseases is one of the more common threats that are stated.

[Quote]Reduction in growing seasons? Can probably be mitigated by expanding northern farms and abandoning southwest farms (happening now.)

So it's manageable. Why the hell is it mentioned?

[Quote]But the odds of us changing the climate significantly and having nothing bad happen? Very low.

The odds are zero of climate changing and nothing bad happening. Just like the odds are zero of the climate changing and nothing bad happening. I'm reading from you that the threats I've mentioned, even if they DO happen (which you suggest probably won't) will be manageable. Sure, it'd suck for Florida citrus farmers to lose their business to georgia. Just like Georgia citrus farmers would dislike the peach farms going up to Virginia.

[Quote]I compare it to looking at a syringe sitting on the table. You don't know what's in it, but someone on a reality show will pay you some money to inject yourself with it if you do it in the next minute. Is it sodium pentathol? No. Does it contain Ebola? No. Does it contain lots of potassium? No.

How many of those assurances would you need before you inject yourself with it?

I compare it more to going into a grocery store. You see the Prop 65 warning sign telling that you're going to be exposed to cancer causing agents if you walk in. You can reassure yourself that you'll be fine. But think about your kids. Would you be willing to expose your kids to carcinogens just to get something to eat? How many warnings do you face before you stop going to grocery stores?

Or even a CT. Let's say your son falls and hits his head. Does he get a CT or not? There's a 1:400 chance that the CT will give him cancer. Now he's vomiting, disoriented, and seizing. Do you allow the CT knowing the long-term risks that if the CT shows clean, you may have just given him a death sentence.

Long-term risk? Or short-term risk mitigation? A choice.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

billvon    3,132

billvon
>I didn't just pull the 98 cm out of my ass. That was IPCC.

?? IPCC 2013 prediction is about 6cm by 2025, which is about 2.3 inches.

> But sea ice is a big deal as an indication of hat's going on. Is Arctic ice
>meaningless in climate discussion?

No - but again you entitled this post "evidence that will convince me of the danger." How does a loss of sea ice endanger you?

>I'm looking for waypoints, bill. Disaster won't just hit overnight.

Right; that's sorta the whole point here It will take decades.

>So you are correct. We don't know. We can't know.

Those are not the same thing. You don't know if getting really drunk and trying to drive home will get you arrested or killed. But you do know that it's a bad idea to try, because you know what CAN happen. Can anyone prove you won't make it? No. But it would be foolish to say "since you DON'T know that I will be injured or arrested, you CAN'T say that it's a bad idea."

>I compare it more to going into a grocery store. You see the Prop 65 warning sign
>telling that you're going to be exposed to cancer causing agents if you walk in.
>You can reassure yourself that you'll be fine. But think about your kids. Would
>you be willing to expose your kids to carcinogens just to get something to eat?
>How many warnings do you face before you stop going to grocery stores?

See, I don't see that as similar at all. You have probably walked into grocery stores thousands of times and never been injured by prop-65 problems. We have never altered the climate to this degree. We have not "walked into this grocery store thousands of times before." We have only predictions, not experience, to guide us.

So to make this a slightly more relevant example, let's say you and your kids are walking through a tour of a lab that you haven't been to before. You get lost and end up behind a door that says "WARNING - Ionizing radiation hazard - class III protection required." Would you walk right through it, since you've never had radiation sickness before, and you don't know that you'll be injured? Or might you consider it worth the time to find an alternative route - because you might be injured?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
quade

So, basically what you're saying is you're like one of the council on Krypton who will only believe it's going to blow up after it actually does.

Mmmm...okay. I guess that's "a" strategy.



No, Paul. Inot talking about science fiction. This isn't a Hollywood script.

Bill indicates that he doesn't believe the planet is going to blow up. We are a long way from dangerous climate change, aren't we? I'm not saying I want to wait until disaster. I provided hat I view as waypoints that provide evidence that shit's about to get bad.

[Rely]An alternative might be one where you look at the provable small scale changes that have already happened and understand there is a critical point beyond which it they will cascade into an irreversible issue.



Two problems with that. First is that you didn't give an example. Second is that I was explicit in my distaste for post hoc attribution of events. I'm pointing to small scale changes I want to see. Texas gets too warm to grow wheat. Sea level rises significantly more than an inch per decade (which is well within natural variation). Let's see what the ocean rise rate does when we've drained all the aquifers. That sort of thing.

[Reply]The fact is, we're already beyond the point of no return on this. It simply hasn't fully manifested itself yet.



So if nothing can be done to change it, why try to change? You're saying nothing can be done. But do something, anyway?

Show me the science that says it is irreversible. She me the science that says what the damned end is.

[Reply]The catastrophic milestones you've asked to see as proof are inevitable.



The milestones asked for are no catastrophic. They are milestones that are very pre-catastrophe.

[Reply]Forget about the exact dates, they are going to happen



I agree. Inevitable. But if it happens in 100 years versus 1000 years is a big problem. How quickly are we getting there?

[Replt]and we've crossed the point where we can go back to pre-inductrial revolution levels anywhere in the foreseeable future.