"NOAAgate: how ‘ocean acidification’ could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick"

[grue 1]

I can't take claims seriously from anyone who appends -gate to something they consider scandalous.

Where is the NOAAgate building?

cavete terrae.

[winsor 236]

lawrocket

[Reply]If you could prove that the basics of climate change was incorrect

It's not the "basics" that I or most people have a problem with. I agree that all things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere means warmer earth temperature.

As the observations have shown this last couple of decades, all things are not equal. We have put way more CO2 into the atmosphere. In the last couple of decades. And it isn't way warmer. So something else is (or, millions of things are) going on.

Let's get away from the "basics" stuff. That's the low-hanging fruit that's been picked. "Why the hell isn't it as warm as the basics said it should be" is the next step. Indeed, theories abound over the last couple of years, right down to "the oceans are sequestering the heat in the deep water where it is so sequestered it isn't even detectable."

That's the deal. The basics are understood. We can isolate the effect in a lab by removing variables and prove the effect. As much as the computer models seek to find the signal through the noise, it looks like the noise may be louder than we thought. It may be.

Let's cut the shit and start talking about what we don't know and try to get some answers.

[billvon 3,112]

>It's not the "basics" that I or most people have a problem with. I agree that all things
>being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere means warmer earth temperature.

Right - and we are certainly increasing CO2 levels.

>Let's get away from the "basics" stuff. That's the low-hanging fruit that's been picked.

Not really. A lot of people think the "basics" are all a liberal Al Gore lie intended to destroy America and keep those rich cigar-smoking scientists rolling in dough. (Note that I don't think you believe that, but that's what most 'discussions' here over AGW devolve to.)

>Let's cut the shit and start talking about what we don't know and try to get
>some answers.

We are; that's where most of the funding for AGW research is going. How much warmer will it get? What will accelerate the process and what will slow it down? What will the effects be? What's the easiest way to mitigate those effects?

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

Not really. A lot of people think the "basics" are all a liberal Al Gore lie intended to destroy America and keep those rich cigar-smoking scientists rolling in dough. (Note that I don't think you believe that, but that's what most 'discussions' here over AGW devolve to.)

And a lot of liberals thought that Paul Ryan really wanted to throw old ladies off cliffs.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>It's not the "basics" that I or most people have a problem with. I agree that all things
>being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere means warmer earth temperature.

Right - and we are certainly increasing CO2 levels.

And there hasn't been the warming that was predicted. Observation shows that the basics don't explain it.

[Quote]A lot of people think the "basics" are all a liberal Al Gore lie intended to destroy America and keep those rich cigar-smoking scientists rolling in dough. (Note that I don't think you believe that, but that's what most 'discussions' here over AGW devolve to.)

Right. And the conversation is led there by both sides. You lead it to "basics" as a point to be made. Meanwhile, many out there who want a dialog find that we can't put the discussion to the other places where some good discussion can occur.

It closes the door to dialog and understanding.

[Quote]>Let's cut the shit and start talking about what we don't know and try to get
>some answers.

We are; that's where most of the funding for AGW research is going.

Right. Problem is that this isn't getting out there. What IS getting out there is still the focus on extreme scenarios. This is NOT to further science but to further political policy goals. Period.

[Quote]How much warmer will it get? What will accelerate the process and what will slow it down? What will the effects be?

Good sciency stuff. Utilizing projections in place of observations because observations are not available. Not discussing the difference between "projection" and "prediction." Putting out there the extreme but nearly impossible scenarios. Saying "the science is settled" while seeking and receiving more funding.

We'd like to know this. Instead hat we get it public outreach about how houses built on permafrost are buckling due to melting of permafrost caused by manmade climate change - despite the well-settled cause-and-effect that is "build on permafrost like it is normal ground and your building will melt the permafrost and collapse."

We have whole communities built on sandbars that are actually eroding away. Climate change, of course, is blamed. Rather than, "it's a sandbar in the ocean doing what sandbars in the ocean do."

Why does AGW get thrown into it? Because that is how to get noticed.

[Quote]What's the easiest way to mitigate those effects?

And there is the crux of the problem. Assumes firstly that we know the effects. Secondly, it assumes that the effects actually need mitigation. Maybe they just need adaptation. Or maybe they really don't require any action. Reasonable minds can differ.

Then it assumes there is an "easiest" way. For the last quarter of a century, the "easiest" way has been to mitigate carbon emissions. That's easiest for many but quite devastating for others.

This last part is political. There isn't a solution that is "easiest." For example, I've long argued that we could lower the temperature very quickly in a year or two for a couple billion dollar at the most by seeding sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. I'd say that's easy. But it can cause other problems, meaning others would argue the costs outweigh the benefits (which is an inherent statement that the threat of AGW is not that big),

I have a comparison. I think plate tectonics is a far more significant threat to people than global warming. In the last decade hundreds of thousands have been killed by earthquakes, volcanoes and the tsunamis they have caused.

We can look at, for example, San Francisco. We know that the San Andreas fault will rupture. We don't know wht. en, but we know it will. Building codes have been put n to mitigate the damage. These codes do not make it to survive and 8.5 because it's too expensive.

We know that the Cascadia Fault will rupture and cause an earthquake like the March, 2011 event in Japan. And accompanying tsunami. Do we attempt to stop it from happening? No. Do we try to mitigate damages by relocating millions from the West Coast?

No. We set up planss for it. Evacuations routes. Tsunami warnings. Tell people that when the big shaker occurs, get the hell to high ground.

Is that the "easiest" solution? That depends on the perspective. And really, isn't the policy goal what is ultimately being fought over? Hat is the best solution to a problem that we don't even know ho bad it is. Putting the cart before the horse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,112]

>And there hasn't been the warming that was predicted. Observation shows that the
>basics don't explain it.

I disagree. No one has ever predicted that the climate would increase in temperature monotonically. From 1940 to 1980, for example, there was zero warming; indeed, from 1940 to 1950 it cooled off rather dramatically. However when the trend is looked at in the long term we see the warming that was predicted by the IPCC.

2014 looks like it will be the warmest year on record, continuing the trend. 2015 might also be a record high year. It might only be the sixth warmest on record. That's because there's a lot of noise in the signal - but the signal is present, and obvious over longer timeframes.

>We'd like to know this. Instead hat we get it public outreach about how houses built on
>permafrost are buckling due to melting of permafrost caused by manmade climate
>change . .. .

Which is true.

> despite the well-settled cause-and-effect that is "build on permafrost like it is normal
>ground and your building will melt the permafrost and collapse."

Uh - right. And well constructed houses built on permafrost are also collapsing. Because the permafrost itself is melting as the climate warms.

Quote

I have a comparison. I think plate tectonics is a far more significant threat to people than global warming. In the last decade hundreds of thousands have been killed by earthquakes, volcanoes and the tsunamis they have caused.

We can look at, for example, San Francisco. We know that the San Andreas fault will rupture. We don't know wht. en, but we know it will. Building codes have been put n to mitigate the damage. These codes do not make it to survive and 8.5 because it's too expensive.

We know that the Cascadia Fault will rupture and cause an earthquake like the March, 2011 event in Japan. And accompanying tsunami. Do we attempt to stop it from happening? No. Do we try to mitigate damages by relocating millions from the West Coast?

No. We set up planss for it. Evacuations routes. Tsunami warnings. Tell people that when the big shaker occurs, get the hell to high ground.

Good analogy. Yes, one option is to simply budget for the risks we take by changing the climate. But that's impossible in the current political climate, because again, any attempt to do so is met with "oh so you want to steal my money to give it to Al Gore?"

And yes, it's a good idea to plan. And fortunately we are better at planning for earthquakes than we are for climate change. Can you imagine what would happen if the same people who denied the cigarette-lung cancer link or the CO2-warming link got a hold of "earthquake alarmism?"

"There's no such thing as earthquakes."
"That road fell down because it was poorly designed, and had nothing to do with the earthquake! It might have fallen down anyway - so seismic codes are a waste of money."
"Can you PROVE an earthquake will hit? No? Then evacuation routes are a waste of money; you can feel the power grab by the alarmists."
"Oh, look! The frequency of earthquakes went down this year near the San Andreas fault. All those earthquake alarmists look like complete idiots now eh! Clearly they can predict nothing."

So if we do want to plan, we have to be able to talk about the issue intelligently, without a fraction of the population feeling that they are being personally attacked when risk-mitigation options are discussed. And to make that happen we have to stop the disinformation campaigns launched by many climate change deniers.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>And there hasn't been the warming that was predicted. Observation shows that the
>basics don't explain it.

I disagree. No one has ever predicted that the climate would increase in temperature monotonically.

Indeed. Which is why I said that not all things are equal.

Quote

From 1940 to 1980, for example, there was zero warming; indeed, from 1940 to 1950 it cooled off rather dramatically. However when the trend is looked at in the long term we see the warming that was predicted by the IPCC.

We see warming. But not that predicted by the IPCC. IPCC didnt predict. It projected. Kinda tough to predict when there's a massive range of climate sensitivity to CO2.

Prediction vs. projection are important to separate.

Quote

2014 looks like it will be the warmest year on record, continuing the trend.

According to whom? What data set? They do not all agree. This is another matter that should ALWAYS be clarified.

Quote

2015 might also be a record high year. It might only be the sixth warmest on record. That's because there's a lot of noise in the signal - but the signal is present, and obvious over longer timeframes.

The signal is present if you are looking for a signal. I agree. But the signal is best seen over Siberia and Greenland and the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Not in an ocean.

Quote

Uh - right. And well constructed houses built on permafrost are also collapsing. Because the permafrost itself is melting as the climate warms.

Where is the proof, Bill? Permafrost melts due to human activities. No doubt in my mind. CO2 is, from my reading, not a top 20 cause.

Quote

Good analogy. Yes, one option is to simply budget for the risks we take by changing the climate. But that's impossible in the current political climate, because again, any attempt to do so is met with "oh so you want to steal my money to give it to Al Gore?"

Right. Suggest giving a few trillion to contractors to retrofit buildings. See what happens. Only it'll be those damned Koch brothers.

Quote

And yes, it's a good idea to plan. And fortunately we are better at planning for earthquakes than we are for climate change. Can you imagine what would happen if the same people who denied the cigarette-lung cancer link or the CO2-warming link got a hold of "earthquake alarmism?"

Right. Because earthquakes have happened and will happen. In our memories. I've noticed that earthquakes have gotten worse and more destructive the last decade. Earth's retribution?

Quote

"There's no such thing as earthquakes."
"That road fell down because it was poorly designed, and had nothing to do with the earthquake! It might have fallen down anyway - so seismic codes are a waste of money."
"Can you PROVE an earthquake will hit? No? Then evacuation routes are a waste of money; you can feel the power grab by the alarmists."
"Oh, look! The frequency of earthquakes went down this year near the San Andreas fault. All those earthquake alarmists look like complete idiots now eh! Clearly they can predict nothing."

Right. We know about earthquakes. Only now when it happens fracking will be blamed.

Quote

So if we do want to plan, we have to be able to talk about the issue intelligently, without a fraction of the population feeling that they are being personally attacked when risk-mitigation options are discussed. And to make that happen we have to stop the disinformation campaigns launched by many climate change deniers.

That starts with identifying what is at stake and that there will be losers. There is no "best." There will be suffering. When it stops being about how those who will suffer don't want change because their livelihoods depend on it. YES!!!! THEIR LIVELIHOODS DEPEND ON HYDROCARBONS!!! YES!!!!

Minimizing them breeds contempt.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***"So long as science anything is done by scientists humans it will be fallible."

That said, I'd rather have a surgeon holding the knife and a random nitwit with simply an "opinion" or salesman who'd rather sell snake oil.

I'd rather have a pilot sitting in the front of the plane than a guy who once saw "Top Gun" and whose only experience is flying Dumbo at Disneyland.

I'd rather have a lawyer defending me than my weird aunt Sally.

All that said
I would rather that surgeon uses ALL the data when preparing and then NOT have him argue if someone wants to check his work out

How about two surgeons arguing over whether the data is relevant while you bleed out on the table?

[billvon 3,112]

>How about two surgeons arguing over whether the data is relevant while you bleed
>out on the table?

As long as it's someone else bleeding out on the table, that's OK. (Remember, he works for a coal power company.)